Aspectual Substitution (Studies in Biblical Greek) 9781433173332, 9781433173349, 9781433173356, 9781433173363, 1433173336

Citation preview

20 Freney

Samuel J. Freney works in Sydney, Australia, in Christian ministry with university students and translation projects for Australian indigenous languages. He earned his PhD in theological studies from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois.

Aspectual Substitution

Aspectual Substitution: Verbal Change in New Testament Quotations of the Septuagint examines quotations where the New Testament author quotes the Septuagint but changes the tense-form of the verb, substituting one aspectual value for another, often in furtherance of a typological, prophetic, or theological connection. Taking into account various models of the verb in Koine Greek, including tenseless and aspect-prominent proposals, this study employs contrastive substitution to analyze the significance of aspectual substitution in quotations, concluding that the future tense-form encodes perfective aspect and is marked for future temporal reference.

Studies in Biblical Greek

Aspectual Substitution Verbal Change in New Testament Quotations of the Septuagint

Samuel J. Freney

PETER LANG

www.peterlang.com

9781433173332_cvr_eu.indd All Pages

PETER LANG

19-Nov-20 09:00:35

Aspectual Substitution

Studies in Biblical Greek D. A. Carson General Editor Vol. XX

The Studies in Biblical Greek series is part of the Peter Lang Humanities list. Every volume is peer reviewed and meets the highest quality standards for content and production.

PETER LANG New York • Bern • Berlin Brussels • Vienna • Oxford • Warsaw

Samuel J. Freney

Aspectual Substitution Verbal Change in New Testament Quotations of the Septuagint

PETER LANG New York • Bern • Berlin Brussels • Vienna • Oxford • Warsaw

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Freney, Samuel J., author. Title: Aspectual substitution: verbal change in New Testament quotations of the Septuagint / Samuel J. Freney. Description: New York: Peter Lang, 2020. Series: Studies in biblical Greek; vol. 20 | ISSN 0897-7828 Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2020010488 (print) | LCCN 2020010489 (ebook) ISBN 978-1-4331-7333-2 (hardback) | ISBN 978-1-4331-7334-9 (ebook pdf ) ISBN 978-1-4331-7335-6 (epub) | ISBN 978-1-4331-7336-3 (mobi) Subjects: LCSH: Bible. New Testament—Relation to the Old Testament. | Bible. Old Testament—Quotations in the New Testament. | Bible. Old Testament. Greek—Versions—Septuagint—Language, style. | Bible. Old Testament. Greek—Versions—Septuagint—Criticism, interpretation, etc. | Greek language—Aspect. Classification: LCC BS2387 .F74 2020 (print) | LCC BS2387 (ebook) | DDC 225.6/6—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020010488 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020010489 DOI 10.3726/b16051

Bibliographic information published by Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek. Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the “Deutsche Nationalbibliografie”; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de/.

© 2020 Peter Lang Publishing, Inc., New York 29 Broadway, 18th floor, New York, NY 10006 www.peterlang.com All rights reserved. Reprint or reproduction, even partially, in all forms such as microfilm, xerography, microfiche, microcard, and offset strictly prohibited.

For Kristy and Elissa It’s all Greek to them

Contents

List of Tables Acknowledgments List of Abbreviations and Conventions 1 Introduction Aspectual Substitution in New Testament Quotations Research Question Contribution of This Study Outline of Contents

xi xv xvii 1 1 4 5 6

2

Background Issues Interlocking Fields The Nature of the LXX The Old Testament in the New Verbal Aspect Summary of Background Issues

7 7 8 16 22 46

3

Linguistic Models and Methodology Systemic Functional Linguistics

49 50

viii | Contents

Selecting the Data Linguistic Justification 4

53 65

The Synoptic Gospels Matthew 4:15–16 Matthew 13:14 || Mark 4:12 || Luke 8:10 || Acts 28:26 Matthew 19:18–19 || Mark 10:19 || Luke 18:20 || James 2:11 Matthew 22:24 || Mark 12:19 || Luke 20:28 Matthew 24:29 || Mark 13:25 Matthew 24:30 || Mark 13:26 || Luke 21:27; Matthew 26:64 || Mark 14:62 Matthew 26:31 || Mark 14:27 Matthew 27:35 || Mark 15:24 || Luke 23:34 || John 19:24 Mark 9:48 Luke 23:46

77 79 85 96 104 108

5

Other Narrative: John, Acts John 1:51 John 2:17 John 15:25 Acts 2:27–31; 13:35–37 Acts 7:5 Acts 7:40

141 142 146 151 155 163 167

6

Epistolary Material Romans 3:4 Romans 9:33; 10:11 Romans 11:2 Romans 11:3–4 1 Corinthians 5:13 Hebrews 8:5 Hebrews 8:8–12; 10:16–17 James 2:11 Revelation 2:27

171 172 177 182 186 192 198 203 212 212

7 Synthesis Aspectual Substitution Quotation Technique The Future Tense-Form

115 121 127 133 137

217 218 226 235

Contents | ix 8. Conclusions Appendix Non-aspectual Changes A.1 Matthew 2:15 A.2 Matthew 2:18 A.3 Matthew 3:3 || Mark 1:3 || Luke 3:5 || John 1:23 A.4 Matthew 4:10 || Luke 4:8 A.5 Matthew 16:27 || Romans 2:6 A.6 Matthew 19:4–5 || Mark 10:6–8 A.7 Luke 4:19 A.8 Acts 1:20 A.9 Acts 4:24 A.10 Romans 2:6 A.11 Romans 9:9 A.12 Romans 9:27 A.13 Romans 12:20 A.14 1 Corinthians 1:19 A.15 1 Corinthians 15:27 A.16 1 Corinthians 15:54 A.17 Hebrews 2:12 A.18 Hebrews 13:5 A.19 1 Peter 2:3 A.20 1 Peter 3:10–12 A.21 Revelation 7:17 || Revelation 21:4 Bibliography Index

241 247 248 249 250 253 254 255 257 259 261 262 262 263 264 265 266 266 267 268 269 270 273 275 295

Tables

Table 4.1 Table 4.2 Table 4.3 Table 4.4

Isaiah 8:23–9:1; Matthew 4:14–16 Isaiah 6:9–10; Matthew 13:14; Mark 4:12 Isaiah 6:9–10; Luke 8:10; Acts 28:26 Exodus 20:12–16; Deuteronomy 5:16–20; Matthew 19:18–19; Mark 10:19; Luke 18:20; James 2:11 Table 4.5 Genesis 38:8; Matthew 22:24; Mark 12:19; Luke 20:28 Table 4.6 Isaiah 34:4; Matthew 24:29; Mark 13:24–25 Table 4.7 Daniel 7:13; Matthew 24:30; 26:64; Mark 13:26; 14:62 Luke 21:27 Table 4.8 Zechariah 13:7; Matthew 26:31; Mark 14:27 Table 4.9 Psalm 21:19; Matthew 27:35; Mark 15:24; Luke 23:34; John 19:24 Table 4.10 Isaiah 66:24; Mark 9:48 Table 4.11 Psalm 30:6; Luke 23:46 Table 5.1 Genesis 28:12; John 1:51 Table 5.2 Psalm 68:9–10; John 2:17 Table 5.3 Psalm 34:19–20; Psalm 68:4–5; John 15:25 Table 5.4 Psalm 15:8–10; Acts 2:25–28, 31 Table 5.5 Psalm 15:10; Acts 13:34–35, 36–37

79 87 88 98 105 109 116 122 128 134 138 142 146 152 157 158

xii | Tables

Table 5.6 Table 5.7 Table 6.1 Table 6.2 Table 6.3 Table 6.4 Table 6.5 Table 6.6 Table 6.7 Table 6.8 Table 6.9 Table 7.1 Table 7.2

Genesis 12:7; 13:15; 17:8; 48:4; Acts 7:5 Exodus 32:1; 32:23; Acts 7:40 Psalm 50:6; Romans 3:4 Isaiah 28:16; Romans 9:33; 10:11; 1 Peter 2:6 1 Kingdoms 12:22; Psalm 93:14; Romans 11:2 3 Kingdoms 19:10, 14, 18; Romans 11:2–4 Deuteronomy 17:7; 19:19; 21:21; 22:21; 22:24; 24:7; 1 Corinthians 5:13 Exodus 25:40; Hebrews 8:5 Jeremiah 38:31–34; Hebrews 8:8–12 Jeremiah 38:31–34; Hebrews 10:16–17 Psalm 2:9; Revelation 2:27 Psalm 93:9; Plant. 29 Zechariah 13:7; Matthew 26:31; Barnabas 5:12

164 167 173 178 183 187 194 198 206 207 213 231 233

Series Editor Preface

Studies in Biblical Greek is an occasional series of monographs designed to promote and publish the latest research into the Greek of both Testaments. The series does not assume that biblical Greek is a distinct dialect within the larger world of koine: on the contrary, the assumption is that biblical Greek is part and parcel of the Hellenistic Greek that dominated the Mediterranean world from about 300 B.C. to A.D. 300. If the series focuses on the corpora of the Old and New Testaments, it is because these writings generate major interest around the world, not only for religious but also for historical and academic reasons. Research into the broader evidence of the period, including epigraphical and inscriptional materials as well as literary works, is welcome in the series, provided the results are cast in terms of their bearing on biblical Greek. In the same way, the series is devoted to fresh philological, syntactical and linguistic study of the Greek of the biblical books, with the subsidiary aim of displaying the contribution of such study to accurate exegesis. Two of the foci of New Testament studies that have captured quite a bit of scholarly attention during the last few decades are (1) the study of the use of the Old Testament in the New, and (2) developments in aspect theory. In this remarkable book, Dr. Samuel J. Freney has brought these two foci together. He studies every instance in which the New Testament documents clearly quote the

xiv | Series

Editor Preface

Septuagint, and in which a tense form has been altered, thus changing the aspectual value of the form. This leads simultaneously to some interesting reflection on how the New Testament writers cite the Old, and to some arguable insight into aspect theory. The work is not only intrinsically interesting, but also thought-provoking, in that it will invariably stimulate some readers to test for alternative explanations. D. A. Carson Trinity Evangelical Divinity School

Acknowledgments

I wish to offer my thanks to those who have contributed significantly to getting me to this point. This book started out life as a doctoral dissertation, so first thanks go to my supervisor, Dr. Constantine Campbell: I have deeply appreciated his guidance in the direction of the project, his close reading and eye for detail along the way, his jazz recommendations, and our shared appreciation of fine coffee. So too for my other advisors, Dr. Dana Harris and Dr. Richard Averbeck: their insights and suggestions have helped shape this study to be far stronger than it otherwise would have been. The editorial team at Peter Lang have also provided great support in the transition stages of this project to its final form, especially Liam McLean and Meagan Simpson. I have also been helped by the communities of which I have been a part. My colleagues at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (TEDS) have been a great encouragement, especially those in my regular prayer group: Dan Cole, Sean Christensen, Derek Rishmawy, and Okode Enoch. My study/coffee/snorkelling group from Moore Theological College (dubbed “Team Zissou” for reasons that are lost to time) has also been a great support and useful source of discussion, insight, and proof-reading. Special thanks go to Chris Swann, Rebekah Earnshaw, and Mike Allen on this front.

xvi | Acknowledgments

My family have been invaluable support over the past few years. My daughter Elissa has weathered moving around the world, all manner of life changes, and still managed to muster enthusiasm for a “PhDone Party” on our return to Australia. (She also thinks that getting mentioned at the start of a book is pretty neat.) The years working on this project has cost my wife Kristy quite a lot, but she too has weathered it with characteristic grace and humor. I am very thankful to God for both of them.

List of Abbreviations and Conventions

Abbreviations in this book follow the conventions laid out in the Society of Biblical Literature Handbook of Style, second edition, with the following ­additions: ALH BAGL BCBC BICS EBC EGLBS FL IVPNTCS JL JTT MWSBL NSBT SBG SGBC SLP ZECNT

Acta Linguistica Hafniensia Biblical and Greek Linguistics Believers Church Bible Commentary Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies Expositor’s Bible Commentary Eastern Great Lakes Biblical Society Foundations of Language IVP New Testament Commentary Series Journal of Linguistics Journal of Translation and Textilinguistics Midwest Region Society of Biblical Literature New Studies in Biblical Theology Studies in Biblical Greek Story of God Bible Commentary Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament

xviii | List

of Abbreviations and Conventions

Conventions used in this work include the following:





1. Greek tense-forms are capitalized, for example, Aorist, Present, Future, etc. This distinguishes the morphological descriptor from temporal indicators or other functional descriptions, for example, the Future tense-form vs. future temporal reference; the Historical Present vs. a factor being present in a clause, etc. 2. In exegetical chapters, tables are provided for comparison of texts. (i) Words that have been removed in the NT context are marked with strikethrough text. (ii) Additions are not marked. (iii) Clauses that have been transposed from their original position are marked with this symbol: ∿. 3. Throughout the text, emphasis is marked by italic font-face. When considering Greek text in particular this should not be confused with the NA28 convention of indicating quotations with italics. 4. Versification of the LXX, MT, and English versions of the OT often differ. Unless indicated otherwise, references are to LXX versification, except for where secondary material using a different convention is directly cited.

1

Introduction

Aspectual Substitution in New Testament Quotations Seeing in advance, David spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, for his soul was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his body see decay. (Acts 2:31)

As Peter preached to the crowds at Pentecost, one of the portions of the Greek Scriptures he drew on was David’s prophecy about the Messiah in Psalm 15 LXX. Specifically, in order to make the case that Jesus of Nazareth is both Lord and Christ, he faithfully quoted Psalm 15:8–11:1 προορώμην τὸν κύριον ἐνώπιόν μου διὰ παντός, ὅτι ἐκ δεξιῶν μού ἐστιν ἵνα μὴ σαλευθῶ. διὰ τοῦτο ηὐφράνθη ἡ καρδία μου καὶ ἠγαλλιάσατο ἡ γλῶσσά μου, ἔτι δὲ καὶ ἡ σάρξ μου κατασκηνώσει ἐπ᾿ ἐλπίδι, ὅτι οὐκ ἐγκαταλείψεις τὴν ψυχήν μου εἰς ᾅδην οὐδὲ δώσεις τὸν ὅσιόν σου ἰδεῖν διαφθοράν.

1. The quotation across multiple verses cites the Greek found in the best Septuagint manuscripts exactly, aside from one minor spelling difference of προορώμην/προωρώμην. This does not alter the meaning at all.

2 | Aspectual

Substitution

ἐγνώρισάς μοι ὁδοὺς ζωῆς, πληρώσεις με εὐφροσύνης μετὰ τοῦ προσώπου σου. I saw the Lord always before me, because he is at my right hand, I will not be shaken. Therefore my heart was glad and my tongue rejoiced, and my flesh will dwell in hope, because you will not abandon my soul to Hades, nor give your holy one to see decay. You made known to me the paths of life: you will fill me with joy in your presence. (Acts 2:25–28)2

In his subsequent commentary on the significance of this passage, the apostle again referred to this same text of Psalm 15 LXX, but as he argued that David must have been speaking not about himself but of the resurrection of the Christ (τῆς ἀναστάσεως τοῦ Χριστοῦ), he changed original Future tense-forms to Aorist forms: ὅτι οὔτε ἐγκατελείφθη εἰς ᾅδην οὔτε ἡ σὰρξ αὐτοῦ εἶδεν διαφθοράν. For he was not abandoned in Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption. (Acts 2:31, compare 2:27)

Specifically, ἐγκαταλείψεις, δώσεις … ἰδεῖν of 2:27 (cf. Ps 15:10 LXX) were altered to ἐγκατελείφθη, εἶδεν (Acts 2:31). More detailed analysis of what exactly this change in verbal form contributes to the argument of Peter’s sermon will appear below. For now, this example serves to illustrate what happens in many places throughout the NT: citations of the Greek Scriptures frequently occur with altered verb forms. Rarely is the change made quite so explicitly as here, but it is by no means the only instance of verbal change in NT quotations of the OT. Similar changes to verbal forms in quotations occur across the NT corpus, with formal changes to aspect, mood, person, and lexeme.3

2. Translations throughout this work are my own unless otherwise specified. 3. Exactly what constitutes a “quotation” is not a straightforward question. This will be developed in a later chapter, but for now a simple definition will suffice: a scriptural quotation is a direct citation of a portion of the OT, clearly identifiable by parallelism in vocabulary and syntax.

Introduction | 3 Morphological changes like this are interesting data points regarding the conversation surrounding the Greek verbal system.4 Major recent scholarship has several focal points: the degree to which the Greek verb formally encodes temporal reference;⁠5 the nature of the Future tense-form;6 and how the Perfect form is to be understood.7 Analyzing the distribution of quotation changes holds promise for the first two debates. It will not allow us, however, to make any determination on the question of the Perfect, for the simple reason that in keeping with broader distribution of tense-forms there are precious few Perfect/Pluperfect verbs in the 4. We will assume for now the possibility of determining that such a change has been made by the author in question; that is, determining both the source text and the method of citation—two non-trivial methodological issues addressed below. 5. Proponents of the aspect-only view include Stanley E. Porter, Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament: With Reference to Tense and Mood, SBG 1 (New York: Lang, 1989); Constantine R. Campbell, Verbal Aspect, the Indicative Mood, and Narrative: Soundings in the Greek of the New Testament, SBG 13 (New York: Peter Lang, 2007); Rodney J. Decker, Temporal Deixis of the Greek Verb in the Gospel of Mark with Reference to Verbal Aspect, SBG 10 (New York: Lang, 2001); David Mathewson, Verbal Aspect in the Book of Revelation: The Function of Greek Verb Tenses in John’s Apocalypse (Boston: Brill, 2010); Wally V. Cirafesi, Verbal Aspect in Synoptic Parallels: On the Method and Meaning of Divergent Tense-Form Usage in the Synoptic Passion Narratives (Boston: Brill, 2013). Those who argue for aspect-prominence (that tense is semantically present, possibly in complex fashion, but not primary) or hybrid tense/aspect include Buist M. Fanning, Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990); Nicholas J. Ellis, Michael G. Aubrey and Mark Dubis, “The Greek Verbal System and Aspectual Prominence: Revising our Taxonomy and Nomenclature,” JETS 59 (2016): 33–62; Steven E. Runge and Christopher J. Fresch, eds., The Greek Verb Revisited: A Fresh Approach for Biblical Exegesis (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016). 6. Hybrid mood/aspect proponents include Fanning, Verbal Aspect; Mathewson, Verbal Aspect in the Book of Revelation; Stanley E. Porter, Linguistic Analysis of the Greek New Testament: Studies in Tools, Methods, and Practice (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2015). Perfective aspect with true tense is held by Campbell, Indicative Mood. 7. Cf. the forthcoming Peter Lang “Perfect Storm” volume, by Campbell, Fanning, and Porter; cf. also Kenneth L. McKay, A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek: An Aspectual Approach, SBG 5 (New York: Peter Lang, 1994); Robert Crellin, “The Greek Perfect Active System: 200 BC–AD 150” (PhD diss., University of Cambridge, 2013); Michael G. Aubrey, “The Greek Perfect and the Categorization of Tense and Aspect: Toward a Descriptive Apparatus for Operators in Role and Reference Grammar” (MA diss., Trinity Western University, 2014).

4 | Aspectual

Substitution

set of altered quotations. There are, however, a great number of Future tenseforms, especially in opposition to Present and Aorist tense-forms. Furthermore, these changes often take place in contexts charged with biblical-theological import. These factors suggest that these changes, if considered through the lens of a suitable linguistic framework, may shed light on the nature of the Future form and the (a)temporal nature of the verb. What constitutes such a “suitable linguistic framework”? I will adopt the overall framework of (Hallidayan) Systemic Functional Linguistics, following the lead of others in the field such as Porter and Campbell.8 Functional approaches focus on paradigmatic choice, interpreting language not as a set of formal or generative structures but as “a network of interrelated meaningful choices.”9 This approach not only has utility in analysis of a fixed corpus of a “dead” language, but is especially applicable to the particular binary choice made in textual citations and their alteration. Examination of a choice between two particular instantiations of verbal forms implies a choice on behalf of the author as to how to convey a particular meaning to the recipient.10 We are interested here in paradigmatic opposition of verbal forms—albeit the particular function of two instantiated possibilities rather than a theoretical analysis of all possible substitutions—and the implications for the subsequent construal of the verbal network.

Research Question This study’s research question has two parts. First, we will investigate what contribution the examination of aspectual substitution provides to the general 8. Porter, Verbal Aspect; Campbell, Indicative Mood; Constantine R. Campbell, Verbal Aspect and Non-Indicative Verbs: Further Soundings in the Greek of the New Testament, SBG 15 (New York: Peter Lang, 2008). Cf. Decker, Temporal Deixis; Mathewson, Verbal Aspect in the Book of Revelation; Cirafesi, Synoptic Parallels. 9. M. A. K. Halliday, An Introduction to Functional Grammar, 4th ed. (London: Arnold, 2014), 49. 10. Steven E. Runge, Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament: A Practical Introduction for Teaching and Exegesis (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2010), 3; Halliday, Introduction, 22–24; cf. Ferdinand de Saussure, Cours de Linguistique Générale, 3rd ed. (Leipzig: Harrassowitz, 1967), 166–67; David Crystal, A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics, 6th ed. (Oxford: Blackwell, 2008), 54. “Choice” here refers to a path along a decision tree within a language system network, not necessarily a conscious decision to opt for one form over another: Halliday, Introduction, 24.

Introduction | 5 understanding of the Koine verbal system. Given the direct opposition of tenseforms in these contexts, which model(s) of the verb (if any) best account for these changes? In this sense, this project is a test case for portions of various verbal theories. This will constitute the bulk of the study. Second, in parallel to the first part, we will examine the quotation technique of NT authors given the changes evident in the quotations under investigation. What contribution does the aspectual substitution made in these verses bring to the interpretation of their NT contexts, and the author’s treatment of the original verse and its context? If the quotation is changed does this alter the meaning of the original, or change the level of authority accorded to the original as Scripture? That is, the first part of the research question is linguistic—what model best fits the data? The second part is literary and theological—does understanding the aspectual change contribute to interpreting the NT author’s appropriation of Scripture?

Contribution of This Study This study contributes in two ways to current scholarship, in parallel to the two parts of the research question outlined above. First, it contributes to the field of Koine Greek linguistics in demonstrating some clarity on the Future tense-form in opposition to other tense-forms. The restricted set of verses chosen for consideration limits the generality of the observations made, but on the basis of the aspectual substitution observed in this study the Future tense-form is consistent with perfective aspect. It is always future in temporal reference, and provides a meaningful contrast to the Aorist within the Koine verbal network. This is largely consistent with Stanley Porter’s definition of the Future as expressing a semantic value of [+expectation], but goes further in asserting consistent perfective aspect for the Future tense-form. Constantine Campbell’s model of the Future tenseform finds confirmation in the instances of aspectual substitution examined in this study. Second, consideration of the quotation technique of authors contributes to the field of NT use of the OT. This study demonstrates how quotations that alter the grammar of the source text can support the argument of the NT author. Considering how these quotations are used in their context and the changes made to them with respect to the original wording of the verses quoted, this study finds that NT authors quote Scripture in line with their contemporary standards for quotation. Grammatical modification is both common and minor. Changes are

6 | Aspectual

Substitution

made to texts without substantially altering the sense of the original, allowing the quoted verse to match its new context either syntactically, or in support of the argument, or both.

Outline of Contents This study proceeds in three stages: introductory background matters (Chapters 2–3); exegetical detail (Chapters 4–6); and synthesis and conclusions (Chapters 7–8). Chapter 2 provides an overview of the fields of scholarship that impact on this study: the nature of the language of the LXX in relation to the NT; various ways in which the NT makes use of OT Scripture; and the array of models proposed for the significance of the verb in Koine Greek. Chapter 3 then outlines a methodology for investigating aspectual substitution in NT quotations of the OT, including a definition of quotation, the method of constructing a set of data to analyze, and a linguistic test known as contrastive substitution. Chapters 4 through 6 work through the instances of aspectual substitution in quotations as defined in Chapter 3, proceeding in canonical order. Chapter 4 treats quotations in the Synoptic Gospels; Chapter 5 treats quotations in other narrative texts, namely John’s Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles; Chapter 6 treats quotations in epistolary contexts from Paul to Revelation. Synthesis of findings made concerning individual quotations is performed in Chapter 7. Aspectual substitution of various kinds is surveyed to demonstrate common characteristics and interpretive uses: perfective–imperfective substitution; perfective–perfective substitution; and other types of substitution. General conclusions on NT quotation technique follows, and some conclusions specific to the Future tense-form conclude the chapter. Chapter 8 provides a summary conclusion to the study. Quotations that fit the criteria for alteration of the verb but do not display aspectual substitution are collected with brief comments in Appendix A.

2

Background Issues

Interlocking Fields Analyzing the aspectual changes in NT citations of the LXX is a project at the nexus of three different fields of study: the nature of the LXX text; use of the OT in the NT; and linguistic study of Koine Greek, especially aspectual studies. A number of questions immediately arise in approaching this topic of changed citations, including: Is the Greek of the Septuagint (or parts thereof ) the “same kind” of Greek as the NT (or parts thereof )? Can we even begin to make a comparison, let alone analyze the changes? Is the text stable enough to identify a “change,” as opposed to different textual traditions? Did the NT writers even care about the change? Were they appropriating Scripture for different purposes? And even if we can find answers to all of the above, what does the change in verbal aspect signify? (And aspectual change according to whose definition?) This chapter will address background issues in these three areas that impact on this project, before outlining a methodological approach to this project in the following chapter. First, however, a word on terminology. In this study the terms “Septuagint” and “LXX” are preferred for referring to the corpus of the Greek Old Testament in general, for the sake of simplicity despite their ambiguity. As Benjamin Wright states, “names matter inasmuch as they carry with them all sorts of ideological

8 | Aspectual

Substitution

commitments and implicit assumptions, and they have as much potential to mislead or confuse as to clarify.”1 While “the Septuagint” (and its abbreviation “LXX”) is a term applied in different contexts in scholarship—properly, to the initial Greek translation of the Pentateuch, but also to the translators themselves, the translation of the whole of the Hebrew Scriptures by a number of different translators at different stages, the larger Greek corpus including inter- and postNT works that were never in fact translations, and even modern compilations/ editions—the alternatives are cumbersome and do not resolve all uncertainty. This study will use Septuagint and LXX interchangeably to refer to the Greek Scriptures at the time of the New Testament (inclusive of extra-canonical Greek writings).2 Where additional specificity is required, attention will be drawn to the exact referent of the term used.3

The Nature of the LXX In considering the relationship of the NT to its source of scriptural quotations, the nature of the Greek of the LXX is a concern. Is the character of the language used throughout the Septuagint sufficiently similar to the NT, especially with regard to its verbal system, to warrant an investigation into aspectual substitution? The stream of scholarship that considered the language of the LXX a peculiar dialect, or a subset of normal usage termed “Jewish Greek” has been challenged in the past half-century.4 The fact that much of the Septuagint is a translation means 1. Benjamin G. Wright, “The Septuagint and Its Modern Translators,” in Die Septuaginta—Texte, Kontexte, Lebenswelten (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 104. 2. Cf. the full title of the NETS project: Pietersma and Wright, eds., A New English Translation of the Septuagint and the Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included under That Title (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007). 3. For an overview of the terminology and its difficulties in scholarship, see Karen H. Jobes and Moisés Silva, Invitation to the Septuagint (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), 30–33; Timothy Michael Law, When God Spoke Greek: The Septuagint and the Making of the Christian Bible (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013). 4. For example, Moisés Silva, “Bilingualism and the Character of Palestinian Greek,” Bib 61 (1980): 198–219; G. H. R. Horsley, “The Fiction of ‘Jewish Greek’,” in New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity: Linguistic Essays (North Ryde, N.S.W.: Ancient History Documentary Research Centre, Macquarie University, 1989), 5–40; John A. L. Lee, A Lexical Study of the Septuagint Version of the Pentateuch, SBL Septuagint and Cognate Studies 14 (Chico, CA: Scholars, 1983),

Background Issues | 9 a number of features exist in its Greek that are influenced or derived from Hebrew or Aramaic, but these ought not to be emphasized to the point where natural Greek usage is overwhelmed.5 While our broader corpus of contemporary Koine Greek limits the definitiveness with which we can speak about “normal” Koine Greek of the time,6 as Muraoka notes there is no reason not to suspect a number of these features often ascribed to translation interference could not be natural language features of Hellenistic/Koine Greek of the time, but simply documented for the first time in the LXX.7 Aside from these features, it is noteworthy that the Septuagint (as at the time of the composition of the NT) contains a sizable corpus of works composed in Greek, which are therefore theoretically free from “translation Greek.” In addition, the method of how the Septuagint’s Vorlage was translated across its corpus demonstrates at least considerable variation in its Semitic character, with many passages being quite free from the kind of influence we might expect. The sizable number of studies of translation technique—that is, the technique used by the translators of the LXX from Hebrew, in distinction to discussions on modern translations of the LXX—attest to the great number of places where the Greek of the LXX is “negatively” influenced by its Hebrew Vorlage. Caragounis, for example, does not regard the LXX (nor the NT) as representative of “main-line Greek among Greeks” given its “heavy Semitic influence” and non-native-Greek authorship.8 In his refutation of Horrocks’s assessment of the Septuagint as representative of Koine Greek, however, he appears to set too high a standard: Caragounis finds these corpora falling below the fluency and natural expression of a theoretical, contemporary, native Greek speaker (theoretical,

11–31. See also Barthélemy’s historical overview of how the relationship between the LXX and MT has been articulated: D. Barthélemy, “L’enchevêtrement de l’histoire textuelle et de l’histoire littéraire dans les relations entre la Septante et le Texte Massorétique,” in De Septuaginta: Studies in Honour of John William Wevers on his Sixty-fifth Birthday, eds. Albert Pietersma and Claude Cox (Ontario: Benben, 1984), 19–40. 5. T. Muraoka, A Syntax of Septuagint Greek (Leuven, Belgium: Peeters, 2016), xxxvii–xxxix. 6. Lee, Lexical Study, 31. 7. Muraoka, A Syntax of Septuagint Greek, xxxviii. 8. Chrys C. Caragounis, The Development of Greek and the New Testament: Morphology, Syntax, Phonology, and Textual Transmission, WUNT 167 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 40–44.

10 | Aspectual

Substitution

because he admits that a substantial written record of this period and locale of Greek is not extant). Yet Koine Greek was the language of an entire empire, spoken well beyond the limits of its original home. Reflecting on an Alexandrian letter cited by Deismann,9 Caragounis finds it “doubtful whether a Greek could have written in this uncouth manner”—this, however, claims too much.10 Even if a native Greek speaker would not write this way (a point assumed rather than demonstrated in Caragounis’s work), the fact is we have a good deal of evidence that many Greek-speaking members of the time did do so, on a spectrum from barely literate through to highly sophisticated literature. If I were to fault a teenager from another country because the syntax and vocabulary she uses for texting her friends is not “the Queen’s English,” I would not be demonstrating that this is necessarily atypical language usage but rather I would be committing a form of linguistic colonialism. That Septuagint (and NT) Greek is typical of the broad period is held by a number of other scholars: for example, even in the cases of so-called “calques”, where “incorrect” or “inappropriate” Greek constructions correspond formally to the Hebrew from which they are translated, Hauspie finds that the LXX exhibits good, natural, Koine Greek idiolect as the target language for translation.11 Comparisons of the syntax and vocabulary of the LXX to other contemporary documents, through corpus linguistics and computer-assisted methods,12 have demonstrated that the LXX is indeed a valid and normal part of the world of Hellenistic Greek, albeit with considerable variation within the corpus (as there is with the NT).13 It should be noted that simple designations of 9. Cited in Adolf Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East: The New Testament Illustrated by Recently Discovered Texts of the Graeco-Roman World (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1911), 187–89: Letter from Theon, an Egyptian boy, to his father Theon, 2nd or 3rd cent. A.D., papers from The Oxyrhynchus Papyri (I.) No. 119, cf. II. p. 320. Note it is not only Caragounis who finds this Greek to be very poor—Deissmann also draws attention to the “uncouth manner” of this letter’s language: “Blass’s remark, that the boy ‘violates’ grammar, is about as true as if I were to call a sloe-hedge a violation of the espalier.” 10. Caragounis, Development of Greek, 44. 11. Katrin Hauspie, “The Idiolect of the Target Language in the Translation Process,” in Die Septuaginta—Texte, Kontexte, Lebenswelten (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 205–13. 12. David L. Mealand, “Hellenistic Greek and the New Testament: A Stylometric Perspective,” JSNT 34 (2012): 323–45. 13. Cf. the variation in translation technique outlined in James K. Aitken, ed., T&T Clark Companion to the Septuagint (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015). Note

Background Issues | 11 translation technique as “literal” or “free” are reductionistic and do not capture the complexity inherent in translation from the Hebrew to Greek Scriptures.14 Discussions of ancient translation technique have bearing on the scholarly debate surrounding modern translation technique of the Septuagint into contemporary languages, as shown by the differing translation philosophies of the New English Translation of the Septuagint (NETS), La Bible d’Alexandrie (BdA), and the Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX.D).15 The question here is what was the intent of the original translators themselves: Were they consciously producing scriptural and liturgical documents that could stand apart from their source material, or were they producing something closer to an educational document, serving “as a semantic bridge, bringing the reader to the real object of study?”16 The NETS project conceives the Greek text as being the product of the latter intention: the Greek translated texts are in a relationship of “dependence and subservience” to the Semitic parent text, “aimed at bringing the reader to the Hebrew original rather than bringing the Hebrew original to the reader.”17 This “interlinear also the variation of the wider Koine literature, both in dialects and in adopting external linguistic features: Vit Bubenik, “The Persistence of Dialect and the Diffusion of Koine,” Studies in Greek Linguistics 29 (2009): 315–24; Vit Bubenik, “Hellenistic Koine in Contact with Latin and Semitic Languages during the Roman Period,” Studies in Greek Linguistics 30 (2010): 32–54. 14. Cf. Characterizing “literalism” and “freedom” in Hans Ausloos and Bénédicte Lemmelijn, “Content-Related Criteria in Characterising the LXX Translation Technique,” in Die Septuaginta—Texte, Theologien, Einflüsse, eds. Wolfgang Kraus and Martin Karrer (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 358–63. 15. Wolfgang Kraus, “Contemporary Translations of the Septuagint: Problems and Perspectives,” in Septuagint Research: Issues and Challenges in the Study of the Greek Jewish Scriptures, eds. Wolfgang Kraus and R. Glenn Wooden (Atlanta: SBL, 2006), 63–83; Wright, “The Septuagint and Its Modern Translators.” 16. Cameron Boyd-Taylor, “In a Mirror, Dimly—Reading the Septuagint as a Document of Its Times,” in Septuagint Research: Issues and Challenges in the Study of the Greek Jewish Scriptures, eds. Wolfgang Kraus and R. Glenn Wooden (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 22. 17. Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright, “General Introduction: To the Reader of NETS,” in A New English Translation of the Septuagint and the Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included Under That Title (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), xiv. Cf. also the “source-oriented” approach in translation theory (as opposed to a “target-oriented” approach): J. A. Naudé, “An Overview of Recent Developments in Translation Studies with Special Reference to the Implications for Bible Translation,” AcT Supplementum 2 (2002): 64.

12 | Aspectual

Substitution

model” understands the translation as intending to reflect what the translator understood the Vorlage to mean, and is therefore to be read (and, in this case, translated into English) in terms of its connection to the Hebrew/Aramaic original.18 Helmut Utzschneider categorizes NETS—along with the work of most scholars—as broadly adopting an “upstream” perspective, where the traditional dependent relationship of the Sitz im Lieben is the foundation for contemporary interpretation and translation.19 Contrary to this position in which the Greek text has a dimension of unintelligibility is the approach of the French BdA project, where the Greek Bible is conceptualized as a work that stands on its own: “un oeuvre autonomy, détachée de son modèle” [an autonomous work, detached from its model].20 This “downstream” perspective treats the text as it would have been received by later generations, as a text “pour elle-même” [for itself ] with no contact to the Hebrew.21 The translation philosophy is to translate the Greek as it is, without recourse to the Hebrew: A cause de ce destine de la Septante en milieu hellénophone, juif ou chrétien, nous sommes conduites à traduire la Septante rigoureusement ‘selon le grec’ alors qu’il est parfois tentant de la traduire ‘selon l’hébreu’ qui lui est sous-jacent.22

18. A. Pietersma, A New Paradigm for Addressing Old Questions: The Relevance of the Interlinear Model for the Study of the Septuagint, Brill, Leiden 2002; Albert Pietersma, “Exegesis in the Septuagint: Possibilities and Limits (The Psalter as a Case in Point),” in Septuagint Research: Issues and Challenges in the Study of the Greek Jewish Scriptures, eds. Wolfgang Kraus and R. Glenn Wooden (Atlanta: SBL, 2006), 33–46, esp. 38, 45. 19. Kraus, “Contemporary Translations”. Cf. Marguerite Harl’s discussion of the text, where this upstream perspective is designated amont: Marguerite Harl, “Traduire le Septante en Français: Pourquoi et Comment?,” in La Langue de Japhet: Quinze Études sur la Septante et le Grec des Chrétiens, ed. Marguerite Harl (Paris: Cerf, 1992), 33–42. 20. Harl, “Traduire le Septante en Français,” 34. 21. Harl designates this downstream perspective as aval. Harl, “Traduire le Septante en Français”; Marguerite Harl, “La Bible d’Alexandrie dans les débats actuels sur la Septante,” in La double transmission du texte biblique: Etudes d’histoire du texte offertes en hommage à Adrian Schenker, eds. Y. Goldman and C. Uehlinger (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001), 7–21. Cf. Kraus, “Contemporary Translations,” 68–69; Alison Salvesen, “A Well-Watered Garden (Isaiah 58:11): Investigating the Influence of the Septuagint,” in “Translation Is Required”: The Septuagint in Retrospect and Prospect, ed. Robert J. V. Hiebert (Atlanta: SBL, 2010), 191–92. 22. Harl, “La Bible d’Alexandrie,” 9.

Background Issues | 13 [Because the Septuagint ended up in a Jewish and Christian Greek-speaking milieu, we are led to translate the Septuagint rigorously ‘according to the Greek’ even when sometimes it is tempting to translate it ‘according to the Hebrew’ which lies behind it.]

Utzschneider and Kraus, both editors for the German LXX.D project, position their project as mediating between upstream and downstream perspectives, including “a relation to the Vorlage as well as the possibility of conscious modifications and attempts to bring things up-to-date.”23 Their primary intention is to translate “auf Augenhöhe mit dem Text” [at eye-level with the text]—the text in the present perspective. These approaches to translation are instructive for our present question— the degree of linguistic similarity between the Septuagint and the NT—because of the acknowledgement in all three approaches of the distinction between the inception and reception history of the LXX. Even if the original intent of the translators was akin to a school setting, instructing readers in the Hebrew original by means of Greek translation (in line with the interlinear model of NETS), none of the approaches confuse this with the later reception of the Greek texts.24 A shift in status of the LXX over time is clear. This is shown by the defense of the Greek Pentateuch given in the letter of Aristeas against those who would “correct” it.25 Philo regards the translators as inspired, and provides a picture of the translation as making available the Jewish Scriptures to the Greeks who had previously been denied it on account of their inability to understand Hebrew.26 The Greek

2 3. Kraus, “Contemporary Translations,” 70. 24. Johann Cook, “Translating the Septuagint: Some Methodological Considerations,” in Translating a Translation: The LXX and its Modern Translations in the Context of Early Judaism, eds. Hans Ausloos et al. (Leuven: Peeters, 2008), 21. 25. Sebastian Brock, “To Revise or Not to Revise: Attitudes to Jewish Biblical Translation,” in Septuagint, Scrolls and Cognate Writings: Papers Presented to the International Symposium on the Septuagint and Its Relations to the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Writings, eds. George J. Brooke and Barnabas Lindars (Atlanta: Scholars, 1992), 308. 26. Philo, De Vita Mosis, 2.25–44; cf. Abraham Wasserstein and David J. Wasserstein, The Legend of the Septuagint: From Classical Antiquity to Today (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 35–39; Jutta Leonhardt-Balzer, “Philo und die Septuaginta,” in Die Septuaginta—Texte, Theologien, Einflüsse, eds. Wolfgang Kraus and Martin Karrer (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 636. Note here similarities to the

14 | Aspectual

Substitution

translations were also accorded the status of Scripture in the early church.27 Regard for the Septuagint, then, moved from its original position of dependence on the Semitic source texts to “an independent, free-standing replacement of this Semitic parent text ‘without experiencing any modification of its textual-linguistic make-up.’ ”28 The language of the LXX assumed a place of significance in the community, and exerted influence on the language of the NT. Narrowing our focus from the character of the language as a whole to the specific cases of verbal forms employed—the center of this project—verbal aspect has a demonstrably significant role in the history of the Greek language prior to the NT. Even if some interpreters do not agree on its primacy, from Homer through to Hellenistic Greek aspect is a major factor in how the language is constructed.29 Trevor Evans has demonstrated that at least in the case of the Pentateuch not only is verbal aspect alive in the Greek of the LXX, but the translators’ technique demonstrates sensitive transference of aspect from the Hebrew Vorlage to the target language.30 While examination of what forms of aspectual transference exist “target-oriented” approach, in contrast to the source-oriented interlinear model; Naudé, “Recent Developments in Translation Studies.” 27. Timothy McLay, “Why not a Theology of the Septuagint?,” in Die Septuaginta— Texte, Theologien, Einflüsse, eds. Wolfgang Kraus, Martin Karrer and Martin Meiser (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 609; R. Timothy McLay, The Use of the Septuagint in New Testament Research (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 144; Martin Hengel, The Septuagint as Christian Scripture: Its Prehistory and the Problem of Its Canon (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004); Emanuel Tov, “The Septuagint between Judaism and Christianity,” in Die Septuaginta und das frühe Christentum, eds. Thomas Scott Caulley and Hermann Lichtenberger (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 3–25. 28. Cook, “Translating the Septuagint,” 21. 29. For example, Kenneth L. McKay, “On the Perfect and Other Aspects in the Greek Non-Literary Papyri,” BICS (1980): 23–49; Neal K. Wilkinson, “ ‘Aspect’ in the Syntax of the Verb in the Poems of Homer: The Testing of a Theory” (PhD diss., Australian National University, 1980); Corien Liesbeth Anke Bary, “Aspect in Ancient Greek: A Semantic Analysis of the Aorist and Imperfective” (PhD diss., Radboud Universiteit, 1981); Egbert J. Bakker, “Verbal Aspect and Mimetic Description in Thucydides,” in Grammar as Interpretation: Greek Literature in Its Linguistic Contexts, ed. Egbert J. Bakker (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 7–54; Klaas Bentein, “Aspectual Choice and the Presentation of Narrative: An Application to Herodotus’ Histories,” Glotta 92 (2016): 24–55. Most of the Koine verbal aspect studies (e.g., Porter, Campbell) cover the NT, LXX, and other contemporary texts. 30. Trevor Evans, “A Hebraism of Mixed Motivation,” in Helsinki Perspectives on the Translation Technique of the Septuagint, eds. Sollamo R. and Sipilä S. (Helsinki: Finnish

Background Issues | 15 in Hebrew–Greek translation is far beyond the scope of this project (let alone the question of which model of Hebrew verbal aspect ought to be adopted), the fact that it does occur in major portions of the translation gives warrant for two potential stages of analysis within this project. First, it provides a good basis for seeing aspectual oppositions in LXX Greek, as in the NT—given the sensitivity of the Pentateuch translators on this score. Secondly, in difficult cases of LXX textual criticism that may be required for establishing the text, sensitivity to aspect is a viable criterion when comparing Hebrew to Greek. So while semitisms are evident throughout the Septuagint, it can be reasonably characterized as exhibiting standard contemporary Koine Greek, with the same basic linguistic structures as seen in the NT. This description is not altered by the fact it is a translation, nor by the ongoing debate over the accessibility of its Vorlage.31 Debate over the accessibility of the Hebrew Vorlage is important, and certainly has bearing in text-critical questions of the LXX text available to the NT authors, but for our purposes is a tangential issue. We are interested primarily in the use of a particular Greek text and its changes when placed in a new context—the NT. If that source LXX text can be ascertained, the source of its translation is only important insofar as it enables us to identify the particular text-type, recension, or version of the Greek Scripture.32 In fact, given the close parallels to the source text in quotations in the NT (a requirement in considering quotations as part of our data to consider), the debate over the nature of the LXX recedes even further in importance. If the NT authors took the language of the LXX and adapted it on their own terms, it implies they were taking that language in the frame of their current linguistic context. Not only is the LXX written in standard, contemporary, Koine Greek, NT texts demonstrate the significant influence of the language of the LXX in terms of vocabulary, technical terminology, theological foundations, and direct quotations.33 There is of course considerable variation with the NT, not to mention the textual variations in the Greek source(s) the authors use—this is a question to which we will return when considering the details of particular uses of Scripture

Exegetical Society, 2001), 211–28; Trevor Evans, Verbal Syntax in the Greek Pentateuch: Natural Greek Usage and Hebrew Interference (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001). 31. Hengel, The Septuagint as Christian Scripture, 44. 32. McLay, Septuagint in New Testament Research, 133–34. 33. For example, Tov, “The Septuagint between Judaism and Christianity,” 8–15.

16 | Aspectual

Substitution

within the NT.34 In summary, the answer to the question posed at the outset of this section—is the character of the language used throughout the Septuagint sufficiently similar to the NT to warrant an investigation into aspectual substitution?—must be, “Yes.” The use of the LXX in the NT will require careful thought as to not only the textual form cited but also its theological use. But at the level of vocabulary, or linguistic, syntactical, and grammatical structures, the comparison is warranted.

The Old Testament in the New If the character of OT Greek is taken therefore to be similar to that of the NT, the plain observation that the NT regularly cites the OT leads us to a second broad area of inquiry: what is the relationship between the Testaments vis-à-vis the use of quotations? There appear to be many options for interpretation provided by the texts themselves: Matthew, for example, makes common use of a pattern-fulfillment motif such as ἵνα πληρωθῇ τὸ ῥηθὲν (“so that what was spoken might be fulfilled”; for example, Matt 1:22; 2:15, 17, 23; 4:14; 8:17; 12:17; 13:35; 27:9; cf. also 3:15; 5:17; 13:48; 26:54, 56). Speakers and authors appear at times to evoke the mood of the original context, for example, the Gospel recordings of Jesus’s quotation of Psalm 22 on the cross. Paul uses terms of Scripture to argue for a particular theological point by setting quotations alongside one 34. Note now the way the question is raised by a number of scholars, put succinctly by Gert J. Steyn, “Which ‘LXX’ are We Talking about in NT Scholarship?”: in Die Septuaginta—Texte, Kontexte, Lebenswelten, eds. Martin Karrer, Wolfgang Kraus and Martin Meiser (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 697–707. See also Carl R. Holloday, “Luke’s Use of the LXX in Acts: A Review of the Debate and a Look at Acts 1:15– 26,” in Die Septuaginta und das frühe Christentum, eds. Thomas Scott Caulley and Hermann Lichtenberger (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 235–38; Martin Karrer, “The Epistle to the Hebrews and the Septuagint,” in Septuagint Research: Issues and Challenges in the Study of the Greek Jewish Scriptures, eds. Wolfgang Kraus and R. Glenn Wooden (Atlanta: SBL, 2006), 335–54; Florian Wilk, “The Letters of Paul as Witnesses to and for the Septuagint Text,” in Septuagint Research: Issues and Challenges in the Study of the Greek Jewish Scriptures, eds. Wolfgang Kraus and R. Glenn Wooden (Atlanta: SBL, 2006), 253–72; Radu Gheorghita, The Role of the Septuagint in Hebrews: An Investigation of its Influence with Special Consideration to the Use of Hab 2:3–4 in Heb 10:37–38, WUNT 160 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 35–55.

Background Issues | 17 another in Gal 3:6–13. We see allegory (e.g., the two sons of Gal 4), typology (the Adam–Christ contrast in Rom 5), interpretation of new revelation (Paul’s use of μυστήριον throughout his letters),35 exemplary action (Peter’s depiction of Jesus’s suffering draws on Isaianic language yet is also an example to the church). Other instances, however, are more difficult. Do the NT authors use the OT as a series of proof-texts, decontextualized and stripped of their original context? Or are they sensitive to the literary background and create new interpretive vistas? Or is it both, or somewhere in between, or does it change from author to author or citation to citation? Once again, the literature surrounding this issue is vast, constituting an entire sub-discipline in itself.36 Taking just the book of Acts as an example, Holloday outlines some of the diversity in scholarly constructions of Luke’s use of the OT.37 A quick summary of his findings demonstrates the diversity of interpretation in the literature: Fitzmeyer relates NT quotations to those in Qumran sources, on the basis of being (1) literal or historical, (2) modernized, (3) accommodated, and (4) eschatological;38 Jacques Dupont takes Luke to be uninterested in the original OT meaning, occasionally typological, presuppositional, and Messianic;39 Martin Rese, operating with a sharp citation/allusion distinction identifies prophecy-fulfillment, hermeneutical application, typology, and simple proof-texting;40 Luke Timothy Johnson analyzes speeches in Acts according to midrash, noting targum, pesher, and haggadic midrash as identifiable uses of Scripture.41 Holloday then goes on to identify another crop of scholars

35. Cf. the construction offered in Greg K. Beale and Benjamin L. Gladd, Hidden But Now Revealed: A Biblical Theology of Mystery (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2014). 36. David M. Allen, “Introduction: The Study of the Use of the Old Testament in the New,” JSNT 38 (2015): 3–16. 37. Holloday, “Luke’s Use of the LXX in Acts,” 238–43. 38. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “The Use of Explicit Old Testament Quotations in Qumran Literature and in the New Testament,” NTS 7 (1960): 330. 39. Jacques Dupont, “L’Utilisation apologétique de l’ancien Testament dans les discours des Actes,” in Études sur les Actes des Apôtres (Paris: Les éditions du Cerf, 1967), 274–80. 40. Martin Rese, “Die Funktion der alttestamentlichen Zitate und Anspielungen in den Reden der Apostelgeschichte,” in Les Actes des Apôtres: Traditions, redaction, théologie (Louvain: Leuven University, 1979), 36–42, 208–209. 41. Luke Timothy Johnson, Septuagintal Midrash in the Speeches of Acts, The Père Marquette Lecture in Theology 2002 (Milwaukee, WI: Marquette University Press, 2002).

18 | Aspectual

Substitution

who recognize the centrality of prophecy-fulfillment in Acts.42 This brief overview of the diversity of opinion evident in scholarship could easily be multiplied to other books of the NT. Given the scope of this literature, in what follows we will survey only a handful of relevant works. This survey relates both to the aspectual substitution we will consider in due course, and to the literary relationship of OT and NT texts in a quotation. As noted above, the Greek Bible has significantly influenced the language of the NT. There are parallels observed at the level of vocabulary and syntax,43 even when considered apart from formal parallels in quotations.44 When particular Scriptures are used, however, there is debate as to what constitutes a quotation, allusion, or echo of a text in the NT, given the textual uncertainty of the source, variation of wording, and argument about “misuse” by the later author(s).45 If and when a quotation/allusion/echo is identified in the NT text on the basis of verbal or thematic similarity, the question then becomes what purpose it serves in its new context. Scholarly opinion on this too varies widely. Leroy Huizenga outlines several broad approaches to interpretation of the NT use of the OT (under which there are of course variations), with 20th century approaches characterized by the scholars C. H. Dodd, Donald Juel, and Richard B. Hays.46 While dismissive of Dodd and similar scholars (ascribing undue influence from German idealism, labelling their approach naïve, and asserting that prior commitments drive their conclusions) Huizenga is correct to describe Dodd’s approach as identifying and explicating an overarching theological narrative spanning the Scriptures, 4 2. Holloday, “Luke’s Use of the LXX in Acts,” 240. 43. Frederick W. Danker, Walter Bauer and William Arndt, eds., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), xxii}; McLay, Septuagint in New Testament Research, 146–48. Elliott C. Maloney, Semitic Interference in Marcan Syntax, SBL Dissertation Series 51 (Chico, CA: Scholars, 1981), 244–45. 44. Jobes and Silva, Invitation to the Septuagint, 189; Law, When God Spoke Greek, 115. 45. See G. K. Beale, Handbook on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2012) for an overview of the points of contention in this debate, pp. 29–40. The statistics of quotations and allusions vary widely, as definitions of these terms differ depending on the strictness of what one considers to be a “quotation”: Jr. Kaiser, Walter C., The Uses of the Old Testament in the New (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2001), 2–3; cf. also Roger Nicole, “New Testament Use of the Old Testament,” in Revelation and the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1958), 137–51. 46. Leroy A. Huizenga, “The Old Testament in the New, Intertextuality and Allegory,” JSNT 38 (2015): 17–35.

Background Issues | 19 culminating in the gospel story. This natural connection of the Testaments under a unified theological narrative is followed by a great many scholars especially in the biblical-theological tradition, even when operating with varied understandings of the interpretive context of the NT authors. Not all think of Paul as “the first nineteenth-century Lutheran.”47 Donald Juel’s contention that NT use of Scripture is atomistic, and closely related to word and sentence association techniques common at Qumran and in rabbinic midrash, is presented by Huizenga as characteristic of a common contemporary interpretation of the NT use of the OT.48 In this way of reading citations and allusions in the NT, the new context is the determinative factor in interpretation, not their original or canonical context. While taking seriously the Jewish cultural context of the NT authors but allowing for broad allusive impact of the original cultural and literary context for new uses in the NT, Richard Hays’s work on “echoes of Scripture” has made a deep impact on how the OT can be seen to be used creatively in the NT. Interested primarily in the subtleties of intertextual echo, he looks at how drawing on Scripture allows the authors to poetically invoke new vistas of correspondence between the Old and New Testaments. His seven criteria for detecting an allusion speak to both the ability and the likelihood of a NT author making use of a particular text, and so are also applicable to the stricter verbal coherence and parallelism of a quotation. These concrete criteria are: availability, volume, recurrence, thematic coherence, historical plausibility, history of interpretation, and satisfaction.49 In addition to 47. Huizenga, “The Old Testament in the New,” 22. James Dunn, for example, stated that Paul’s theology could be recast in the language of narrative theology; James D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 17–18. Or take N. T. Wright’s picture of Paul as “the first theologian,” as another example: Paul is portrayed as a thoroughly Jewish interpreter of Scripture, expounding the grand story of the Jewish Scriptures in light of the arrival of the Messiah Jesus. Narrative analysis “sheds a positive flood of light” on problems in the theological coherence of the letters; N. T. Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2013), 475. Cf. also Benjamin Schliesser, “Paul and the Faithfulness of God among Pauline Theologies,” in God and the Faithfulness of Paul, eds. Christoph Heilig, J. Thomas Hewitt and Michael F. Bird (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2017), 44–45. 48. Huizenga, “The Old Testament in the New,” 21. According to Juel, “the rules of the game were different in the first century”: Donald Juel, Messianic Exegesis: Christological Interpretation of the Old Testament in Early Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), 13. 49. Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), 28–32; Richard B. Hays, The Conversion of the Imagination: Paul as

20 | Aspectual

Substitution

providing a framework for appreciating such intertextuality, Hays engages more broadly with the question of how NT authors treat the OT: are they producing midrashic commentary; is the new context an abuse of the original authorial intent; or are they operating with an integrative textual worldview?50 Engaging with various historical proposals for connecting the NT and OT, including Rudolf Bultmann’s proposal that the NT is more suited to be a Christian book than the OT, and Arnold van Ruler’s opposite claim that the OT ought to be considered the essential Bible, David L. Baker helpfully outlines four major frameworks that take seriously the possibility of a non-atomistic connection between the two.51 On the basis of how the biblical authors speak of their own hermeneutical processes, he outlines typology, promise and fulfillment, covenant, and continuity and discontinuity as important interpretive keys for the relationship between the Testaments. A few brief examples will suffice here. Taking “promise” as a broader, more encompassing category than either “prediction” or “prophecy” Baker argues there are a variety of ways the Scriptures look forward to what will happen—the passage referred to at the opening of this study, Acts 2:22–36, falls into this category. Peter calls David a προφήτης, and claims that his foresight was fulfilled in the resurrection of the Messiah Jesus. Continuity and discontinuity between the Testaments can be mapped on several axes, including biblical history and a number of theological foci. Staying within the book of Acts, Stephen’s speech in Chapter 7 is an example of drawing on historical and theological continuity with events in the shared history of the people of Israel, while drawing the conclusion that they stand in continuity not with the trajectory of the people of God but those who reject him, resisting the Holy Spirit (7:51). Drawing on a number of scholars, with von Rad and Goppelt as seminal

Interpreter of Israel’s Scripture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 34–44; Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Gospels (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2016). 50. Cf. again Beale, Handbook, ch. 4 for an entree to the debate over NT interpretation/ typological use/abuse of the NT. Michael Bird also provides a good overview of the history of interpretation of Paul’s relation to Judaism, including: the classic JewishChristian discontinuity trajectory including Baur, von Harnack, and Bultmann; the New Perspective on Paul; apocalyptic readings; and other positions: Michael F. Bird, An Anomalous Jew: Paul among Jews, Greeks, and Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016), esp. ch. 1. 51. David L. Baker, Two Testaments, One Bible: The Theological Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments, 3rd ed. (Nottingham: Apollos, 2010).

Background Issues | 21 influences,52 Baker outlines typology as a major interpretive framework, with real theological and historical correspondences to events, persons, or institutions.53 To guard against being arbitrary in detecting correspondences, writers such as Graeme Goldsworthy have opted for a broad “macro-typology” that controls “micro” correspondences—in his case, a tripartite scheme of the historical experience of the fulfillment of God’s promise to Abraham through to David and Solomon’s kingdom; the projection of this fulfillment into the future day of the Lord by the prophets; and the ultimate fulfillment of promise in Jesus Christ and the Spirit.54 It is “because of this ‘macro-analogy’ that the facts, persons and events [of history] do correspond.”55 Within this macro-typology, more individual typological characteristics are therefore valid to the degree that they foreshadow the theological function of Christ in consummating the kingdom of God.56 On a similar trajectory N. T. Wright discerns an overarching story to Scripture, and sees Paul as a theologian of the church, taking Scripture and scriptural categories and reinterpreting and reworking it for a new context and a renewed people of God.57 Again, the correspondences in context and worldview find their ground in a larger framework, legitimating theological developments and uses of Scripture that recall and build on their original literary and social contexts. It is well beyond the scope of this study to argue decisively for a reading of NT citations as being cognizant and dependent on their OT literary and cultural context. However, given the variety of works surveyed above, and the grounds they take for discerning correspondence between the NT and OT on more than a midrashic verbal correspondence, we will proceed in a manner similar to Beale and Carson’s directives to their contributors: both the New and Old Testament contexts ought to be considered in teasing out the use of Scripture in another

52. For example, Gerhard von Rad, “Typological Interpretation of the Old Testament,” Int 15 (1961): 174–92; L. Goppelt, Typos: The Typological Interpretation of the Old Testament in the New (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982). 53. Baker, Two Testaments, One Bible, 169. 54. Graeme Goldsworthy, Christ-Centered Biblical Theology: Hermeneutical Foundations and Principles (Nottingham: Apollos, 2013), 190. 55. Graeme Goldsworthy, Gospel-Centered Hermeneutics: Foundations and Principles of Evangelical Biblical Interpretation (Downers Grove: IVP, 2007), 247–48. 56. Graeme Goldsworthy, Preaching the Whole Bible as Christian Scripture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 112–13. 57. Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, for example, 46.

22 | Aspectual

Substitution

context.58 As this project examines instances of NT use of the OT it will examine what form of interaction exists between the original and new literary contexts (e.g., typological connections, promise-fulfillment patterns, salvation-historical connections, etc.), so that the semantic element of the verbal change can be more clearly understood.

Verbal Aspect A final significant area of research remains to be surveyed. Given (1) the language of the OT and the NT is sufficiently similar to warrant comparison, and (2) that there are a variety of ways in which the NT authors use OT texts to develop their theology and particular arguments, (3) we want to look at instances where verbal forms in particular are altered when placed into a NT context. Given that particular situation, what exactly is indicated by the morphology of the Greek verb must be clearly understood—and this is an issue over which there have been several major disagreements in recent history. In traditional (Modern, Western) approaches to Greek grammar, tense has been the dominant paradigm for understanding the function of the Greek verb. Partly due to importing methods and frameworks from Latin and other European languages, temporal reference was taken to be the primary implication of tense forms. Winer is a good example of this approach, not least because of his outsize influence on the field. He adopted what he termed a “rational” method for linguistic study, seeking “the explanation of all the phenomena of languages, even of their anomalies, in the modes of thought which characterize nations and

58. Beale and Carson ask their contributors to consider six questions in their analysis: (1) What is the NT context of the citation or allusion? (2) What is the OT context from which the quotation or allusion is drawn? (3) How is the OT quotation or source handled in the literature of Second Temple Judaism or (more broadly yet) of early Judaism? (4) What textual factors must be borne in mind as one seeks to understand a particular use of the OT? (5) What is the nature of the connection as the NT writer sees it? (6) To what theological use does the NT writer put the OT quotation or allusion? G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson, eds., Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007), xxiii–xxiv. See also the discussion of “intertextuality” in Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Is There a Meaning in This Text?: The Bible, the Reader, and the Morality of Literary Knowledge, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009), 132–33.

Background Issues | 23 individual writers.”59 That is, analyzing Greek on its own terms should lead to a reasonable and consistent explanation of the significance of forms—which, for him, was relative temporal reference: The N. T. grammarians and commentators have been chargeable with the grossest mistakes in regard to the tenses of the verb. In general, these are used in the N. T. exactly as in Greek writers. The aorist refers to the past simply (the simple occurrence of an event at some past time, considered as a momentary act), and is the ordinary tense of narration; the imperfect and the pluperfect always have reference to subordinate events which stood related, in respect to time, with the principal event (as relative tense); and lastly, the perfect brings the past in connexion with the present time, and represents an action as a completed one, in relation to the present time.60

Note that each of these tenses—for in this model of Greek verbs, the tense-forms are properly tenses—indicate a temporal relationship either with the subject or a given reference time. Not only that, but they do this consistently and regularly, with any substitution of tenses or other uses being readily explicable by appeal to temporal reference.

Zeitart, Aktionsart, and Aspect In the 19th century, Georg Curtius was the first grammarian to work within comparative philology and propose a system of the kind of action expressed by the verb, rather than “the doctrine of the use of the tenses.”61 He proposed a new term, Zeitart (“kind of time”), which related to internal distinctions depicted by tense forms: continuous (the Present), completed (the Perfect), and eintretend (the Aorist).62 That is, rather than indicating temporal reference relative to the speaker 59. G. B. Winer, A Treatise on the Grammar of New Testament Greek: Regarded as the Basis of New Testament Exegesis (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1882), 7. 60. Winer, Treatise, 330–31. 61. Originally, “Die Lehre vom gebrauch der Tempora”: Georg Curtius, Erläuterungen zu meiner Griechischen Schulgrammatik (Prague: F. Tempsky, 1863), 171. 62. Curtius, Erläuterungen, 173. The English translation leaves eintretend untranslated, but offers an explanation: the term is taken from the terminology of Rost and Krüger and denotes a kind of time that is “initial”, “culminating”, and “instantaneous” (as opposed to “continued”, “preparatory”, and “durative” respectively). See Georg Curtius, Elucidations of the Student’s Greek Grammar (London: John Murray, 1870), 205.

24 | Aspectual

Substitution

or to the contextual reference time (Zeitstufe in Curtius’s terminology), verb stems indicate the manner in which the action or event should be understood. Although his work was taken up by many subsequent scholars, only Stahl retained his terminology of Zeitart, although he altered the definitions somewhat: Hinsichtlich der Zeitart unterscheidet die griechische Sprache 1) dauernde Erscheinung 2) vollendete Erscheinung 3) Erscheinung and und für sich und bedient sich zu ihrer Bezeichnung 1) des Präsensstammes 2) des Perfektstammes 3) des Aoriststammes.63 [With regard to Zeitart the Greek language distinguishes 1) continuous aspect 2) completed aspect 3) aspect in and of itself, and have the names 1) the Present stem 2) the Perfect stem 3) the Aorist stem.]64

Others altered the term Zeitart to Aktionsart to differentiate it further from notions of tense, while still indicating the kind of action depicted by the verb. The term Aktionsart itself was coined by Brugmann,65 but was used extensively and divergently throughout the late 19th and early 20th centuries. With variations, this concept of the verb was brought to biblical studies through newer Greek grammars, applying comparative-historical philology to German (Blass/Debrunner), English (Moulton/Howard/Turner), and American (Robertson) schools.66 63. Johann Matthias Stahl, Kritisch-historische syntax des griechischen verbums der kalssischen zeit (Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1907), 74. 64. The term translated “aspect” here anticipates the discussion below on terminological confusion between “grammatical aspect” and “viewpoint aspect.” Stahl’s emphasis is on how the action should be viewed, but made in distinction to the temporal sphere in which it occurred. As Gildersleeve’s rather exasperated review of Stahl’s work says, “We are told over and over again that we have to deal with the kind of time and not the sphere of time, over and over again that, after all, the difference is the difference of point of view, so that we become positively ungrateful to the tireless scholar who has heaped up example after example of constructions that no one will dispute.” Basil L. Gildersleeve, “Stahl’s Syntax of the Greek Verb: Second Article.” AJP 29 (1908): 400. 65. Karl Brugmann and Leopold Cohn, Griechische Grammatik: Lautlehre, Stammbildungsund Flexionslehre und Syntax, 4th ed. (München: Beck, 1913), 538. 66. Friedrich Blass and Albert Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961); James H. Moulton, Francis Howard and Nigel Turner, A Grammar of New Testament Greek (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1908); A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New

Background Issues | 25 Moulton notes that “tense” is a relatively recent development in comparative linguistic terms, having come into existence in Indo-Germanic languages after their separation from one another. It is therefore a term that cannot be applied from one language to another with direct comprehensibility, and so he claims Aktionsart is the better category for analyzing Greek: In most of these [verb conjugations] we are able to detect an Aktionsart originally appropriate to the conjugation, though naturally blurred by later developments. It is seen that the Aorist has a “punctiliar” action, that is, it regards action as a point: it represents the point of entrance, or that of completion, or it looks at a whole action simply as having occurred, without distinguishing any steps in its progress. On the same graph, the Constative will be a line reduced to a point by perspective. The Present has generally a durative action—“linear,” we may call it, to keep up the same graphic illustration. The Perfect action is a variety by itself, denoting what began in the past and still continues.67

This is then the rationale for defective/suppletive verbs, where lexical items that cannot, say, have a durative meaning and therefore only occur in the Aorist conjugation are combined with another lexical root that can take a durative meaning for the present stem. Despite this theoretical background, Moulton still mixes his categories with Aktionsart and tense, given his determination that the augment indicates definite past time: We turn to the Imperfect, with which we enter the sphere of Tense proper, the idea of past time being definitely brought in by the presence of the augment. This particle—perhaps a demonstrative base in its origin, meaning “then”—is the only decisive mark of past or present time that the Indo-Germanic verb possesses, unless the final -i in primary tenses is rightly conjectured to have denoted present action in its prehistoric origin. Applied to the present stem, the augment throws linear action into the past; applied to the aorist, it does the same for punctiliar action.68

Testament in the Light of Historical Research (Nashville, TN: Broadman, 1934). Cf. Porter, Stanley E., “The Linguistic Competence of New Testament Commentaries,” in On the Writing of New Testament Commentaries: Festschrift for Grant R. Osborne on the Occasion of his 70th Birthday, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Eckhard J. Schnabel (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 39. 67. Moulton, Howard and Turner, Grammar, 108–09. 6 8. Moulton, Howard and Turner, Grammar, 128.

26 | Aspectual

Substitution

Terminological confusion of a different sort is evident in Blass and Debrunner (cited here in the English translation by Funk): “The original function of the so-called tense stems of the verb in Indo-European languages was not that of levels of time (present, past, future) but that of Aktionsarten (kinds of action) or aspects (points of view).”69 No further mention of aspects is made in this section on the syntax of the verb (§§318–56), leaving the reader with the impression that the two terms are equivalent. Similarly to Brugmann, Aktionsart categories are defined according to sense rather than strictly morphologically, with multiple possible categorizations given for a single morphological form (e.g., “durative” and “iterative” in the present stem). The above survey should help us to see that discussions of Aktionsart, tense, and aspect have both considerable variation along with much common ground. The alteration and finessing of terminology evident even in the citations given above characterizes much of the scholarly work on the “kind of action” conceived by the verbal stem.70 Based on the verbal stems divergent numbers of Aktionsart categories were grouped together under broader definitions (that differed by author), indicating that the category is not strictly morphological but takes into account other factors such as lexis, prefixes and suffixes, and context. The intent, however, was to identify how the event or situation was structured, thus terms such as “linear,” “punctiliar,” “ingressive,” “iterative,” etc. were used. In a recent essay Christopher Thomson surveys six different ways that Aktionsart has been used in recent literature, in order of narrowing specificity:71

1. an objective concern of the event itself, not how it is conceptualized or described.72 2. one’s psychological conception of a situation, as “quasi-objective.”73

6 9. Blass and Debrunner, Grammar, 166. 70. Porter offers an overview of this period and the resultant confusion of terminology regarding Aktionsart definitions and overlap with “aspect”: Porter, Verbal Aspect, 29–35. 71. Christopher J. Thomson, “What is Aspect? Contrasting Definitions in General Linguistics and New Testament Studies,” in The Greek Verb Revisited, eds. Steven E. Runge and Christopher J. Fresch (Bellingham, WA: Lexham, 2016), 28–31. 72. Amalia Moser, “From Aktionsart to Aspect: Grammaticalization and Subjectification in Greek,” ALH 46 (2014): 67. 73. David R. Dowty, “Studies in the Logic of Verb Aspect and Time Reference in English” (PhD diss., University of Texas at Austin, 1972), 55; Carl Bache, “Aspect and Aktionsart: Towards a Semantic Distinction,” JL 18 (1982): 57.

Background Issues | 27



3. a property of clauses, rather than situations or conceptions about them, referring to what is expressed through the clausal components, including verbal aspect and lexical considerations.74 4. a property of the “verbal constellation” of the lexeme together with its arguments.75 5. a property of the verb alone—sometimes referred to as “lexical aspect.”76 6. the temporal property of a particular class of verbs (within Slavonic linguistics) known as “procedurals.”77

Aktionsart, then, is far from being an obsolete concept—yet neither is it univocal in its scholarly use. With the rise of verbal aspect studies within Greek linguistics, however, it has increasingly been argued that a better category is needed for connecting the event or process with the morphological characteristic of the verb used.

Aspect, Aktionsart, and Tense within General Linguistics While Aktionsart was being cemented as the standard model of Greek verbal morphology, aspect studies in general linguistics began to flourish. Early definitions 74. Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 499. Thomson is unclear on Campbell’s definition of Aktionsart, seeing it as at times being akin to the first definition, but in practice as this third clausal property definition. While Campbell defines Aktionsart as referring to “the way in which the action occurs in reality,” he argues this does not determine the verbal morphology, rather that the kind of action can be determined from the interaction of verbal aspect with other contextual factors. See Campbell, Indicative Mood, 11; Constantine R. Campbell, Basics of Verbal Aspect in Biblical Greek (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008), 22, 55. 75. Carlota S. Smith, The Parameter of Aspect, SLP 43, 2nd ed. (Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1991), 17; Paul Kroeger, Analyzing Grammar: An Introduction (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 58. 76. Geoffrey Horrocks and Melita Stavrou, “Grammaticalized Aspect and SpatioTemporal Culmination,” Lingua 117 (2007): 637; Crellin, “The Greek Perfect Active System,” 40, 47; Susan D. Rothstein, “Introduction,” in Theoretical and Crosslinguistic Approaches to the Semantics of Aspect, ed. Susan D. Rothstein (Amsterdam: Benjamins, 2008), 2–3; Hana Filip, “Lexical Aspect,” in The Oxford Handbook of Tense and Aspect, ed. Robert I. Binnick (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012), 721–51. 77. James Forsyth, A Grammar of Aspect: Usage and Meaning in the Russian Verb, Studies in the Modern Russian Language Extra Volume (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970), 19.

28 | Aspectual

Substitution

of aspect in terms of “viewpoint” or “focus,” in contrast to or alongside Aktionsart, can be found for example in Porzig: “Gesichtspunkt, unter dem ein Vorgang betrachtet wird, nämlich ob als Verlauf oder als Ereignis” [The point of view under which a process is considered, whether as a course or an event].78 Notable here is the move from the procession of the event in question (“Die Aktionsart ist die Art, wie eine Handlung oder ein Vorgang verläuft” [Aktionsart is the way an action or process proceeds]) to the point of view of the action (“Gesichtspunkt”), with that view being either progressive or discrete. Bernard 78. W. Porzig, “Zur Aktionsart indogermanischer Präsensbildungen,” IF 45 (1927): 152. See also Bache, “Aspect and Aktionsart,” 64. Bache and others draw on and direct readers to significant work in Western and Slavic languages on aspect that includes (but is by no means limited to) Sigurd Agrell, Aspekteränderung und Aktionsartbildung beim polnischen Zeitworte: Ein Beitrag zum Studium der indogermanischen Praeverbia und ihrer Bedeutungsfunktionen, Lunds Universitets Årsskrift (Lund: Håkan Ohlssons, 1908); E. Hermann, “Objective und subjektive Aktionsart,” IF 45 (1927): 207–28; H. Jacobsohn, “Wackernagel, Vorlesungen über Syntax,” Gn 2 (1927): 379–95; H. Jacobsohn, “Aspektfragen,” IF 51 (1933): 292–318; E. Koschmieder, “Studien zum slavischen Verbalaspekt (Part I),” Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 55 (1928): 208–304; E. Koschmieder, “Studien zum slavischen Verbalaspekt (Part II),” Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 56 (1929): 78–105; H. M. Sørensen, “Om Definitionerne af Verbets Aspekter,” in Im Memoriam Kr. Sandfeld: udgivet paa 70-aarsdagen for hans fødsel (Copenhagen: Gyldendal, 1943), 221–33; F. Rundgren, Intensiv und Aspektkorrelation: Studien zur athiopischen und akkadischen Verbalstammbilding, Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis 5 (Uppsala: A. B. Lundequistska Bokh, 1959); Forsyth, Grammar of Aspect. Western and Slavic languages have the most prominent work in aspect in the literature, but studies are not limited to these languages. See for example works in Afroasiatic Linguistics: Aharon Barnea, “Reference to Time, Space and Other Types of Quantification in the City Dialect of Gaza,” Afroasiatic Linguistics 2, no. 3 (1975): 1–17; Paul Newman and Russel G. Schuh, “The Hausa Aspect System,” Afroasiatic Linguistics 1, no. 1 (1974): 1–39; Stanislav Segert, “Verbal Categories of Some Northwest Semitic Languages: A Didactic Approach,” Afroasiatic Linguistics 2, no. 5 (1975): 1–12; Ekkehard Wolff, “Grammatical Categories of Verb Stems and the Marking of Mood, Aktionsart, and Aspect in Chadic,” Afroasiatic Linguistics 6, no. 5 (1979): 1–48. Examples could be multiplied in this and many other language families. While it has not been updated for over a decade, a bibliographical project of aspectual studies across many language groups is illustrative of the breadth of this literature, covering over 9000 entries up to 2006: Robert I. Binnick, ed., “Project

Background Issues | 29 Comrie, building on earlier work in distinguishing Aspect from Aktionsart, offers a commonly used and accessible definition. He draws on features in a number of languages to give a general definition of aspects as “different ways of viewing the internal temporal constituency of a situation.”79 He distinguishes this feature of language from tense, which relates the situation being addressed to some other time, usually to the moment of speaking.80 Aspect is therefore not unrelated to time, as it has to do with “internal temporal constituency,” but is not deictic in the manner that tense is. He outlines a primary semantic aspectual distinction, existing between the perfective and imperfective aspects, where the perfective aspect views the event as a complete (not “completed”) whole, and the imperfective aspect as having explicit reference to the situation’s internal temporal structure.81 The perfective aspect does not necessarily view the situation as a undifferentiated point (cf. language of “punctiliar” action), but as a “blob”: “a blob is a three-dimensional object, and can therefore have internal complexity, although it is nonetheless a single object with clearly circumscribed limits.”82 Internal temporal structure is therefore integral to Comrie’s definition of aspect, and so he outlines further aspectual oppositions within the imperfective aspect: “Habitual” aspect opposed to “Continuous” aspect, and with the continuous aspect a further “Progressive” aspect opposed to “Non-Progressive.”83 Carl Bache critiques Comrie for his definition of aspect on the grounds that it is not precise enough and, in his view, mixes the categories of Aktionsart and aspect.84 Because Comrie’s view of aspect is outlined in pragmatic temporal categories relative to his definition of tense—aspect is “situation-internal time,” while tense is “situation-external” time—Comrie refers to the structural properties of the event in language others use for Aktionsart.85 Bache seeks to provide a far more

on the Bibliography of Tense, Verbal Aspect, Aktionsart, and Related Areas,” (2006) http://www.utsc.utoronto.ca/~binnick/TENSE/Bibliography.html. 79. Bernard Comrie, Aspect: An Introduction to the Study of Verbal Aspect and Related Problems (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1976), 3. 80. Comrie, Aspect, 1–2. 81. Comrie, Aspect, 16, 17, 24. 82. Comrie, Aspect, 18. 83. Cf. the system chart of aspectual oppositions, Comrie, Aspect, 25. 84. Bache, “Aspect and Aktionsart.” 85. Here we encounter considerable variation in terminology. Smith speaks of aspect as having two components, namely “viewpoint aspect” and “situation aspect”, otherwise known as Aktionsart: Smith, The Parameter of Aspect, 3, 5. Operating on a

30 | Aspectual

Substitution

generalized, abstract, meta-linguistic category of aspect than what Comrie or Lyons propose.86 By this he intends the category of “aspect” to be descriptive of linguistic possibility irrespective of it being realized in any particular language.87 Arguing against those who see aspect as an author’s purely subjective choice of how to depict a situation,88 Bache asserts that aspect is not always unrestrained, subjective choice, nor is Aktionsart always an objective measure of real-world events.89 With Dowty, he notes that the presentation of the length of time over which a durative situation exists or takes place can be not absolutely constrained by the situation itself, but is more of an imprecise “relevant psychological moment.”90 That is, Aktionsart is not strictly objective, but involves “the speaker/writer’s conception of situations and corresponding semantic properties of verbs.”91 On the other hand, aspect is not always optional, with some languages having a strict logical incompatibility between certain aspects and types of events under discussion.92 Given this state of affairs, Bache argues for developing a set of minimal pairs with respect to aspect to distinguish Pure Aspectual Opposition and Aspectual Function. The former term refers to the optional nature of aspectual choice, the latter to a complex distributive relationship of aspect to tense and Aktionsart.93 In so doing lexical, syntactical, and contextual interactions are minimized and a generalizable meta-linguistic category of aspect can be determined.94

8 6. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92.

93. 94.

similar distinction, Rothstein distinguishes “grammatical aspect” from “lexical aspect” (Aktionsart): Susan D. Rothstein, Structuring Events: A Study in the Semantics of Aspect (Oxford: Blackwell, 2004), 1–2. Cf. also F. Chasioti, “Of Aspect and Tense: A Corpus-Based Study on the Role of Lexical Aspect in the Acquisition and Use of the English Past Tense,” Studies in Greek Linguistics 35 (2015): 157. John Lyons, Semantics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977), 705. Bache, “Aspect and Aktionsart,” 57–58. See for example, Forsyth, Grammar of Aspect, 365. Bache, “Aspect and Aktionsart,” 65–67. Dowty, “Studies in the Logic of Verb Aspect and Time Reference in English,” 54. Bache, “Aspect and Aktionsart,” 65. Bache cites both a general “central theorem” and some particular examples. He notes a general incompatibility between the perfective aspect and a process or activity in progress at the time of speaking. In particular, in Russian, Polish, and Czech the present perfective is regularly used with future meaning, in aspectual opposition to a periphrastic future imperative. See Bache, “Aspect and Aktionsart,” 66. Bache, “Aspect and Aktionsart,” 67. We will return to this concept in the next chapter when discussing the methodology of this study. Carl Bache, The Study of Aspect, Tense and Action: Towards a Theory of the Semantics of Grammatical Categories, 2nd ed. (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1997), 257.

Background Issues | 31 Grammatical and Lexical Aspect It now ought to be clear that “aspect” has no more a universally accepted definition in practice than does Aktionsart—indeed, the categories overlap in other authors besides Comrie.95 Binnick uses “aspect” as a general term covering “situation aspect, viewpoint aspect, and phasic aspect.”96 Lyons’s rejection of Aktionsart in favor of “aspectual character” leads to further terminological confusion.97 Dowty, for example, uses “aspectual class” (or “character”) to mean Aktionsart, rather than Lyons’s slightly adjacent terminology: “… that the aspectual classes of the predicates in the discourse, i.e. their Aktionsarten, seem to determine these temporal relationships.”98 The “aspectual character” of the situation is often denoted as “lexical aspect,” defined in contrast to “grammatical aspect” (or, sometimes, “viewpoint aspect”): “I label the internal temporal constituency lexical aspect; it has also been known as situation aspect, inherent aspect, Aktionsart (German for ‘type of action’), actionality, aspectual class, verb class, and predicate class.”99 Where lexical and grammatical aspect are distinguished, they refer respectively to semantic oppositions that have been lexicalized, especially in Slavonic languages (i.e., aspect “construed on the basis of lexical content of a verbal root and that of its complements”),100 or grammaticalized (i.e., aspect expressed by means of verbal

95. Mari Olsen wryly notes, “From the literature one would suppose every work on aspect to be required to offer a new definition of the phenomenon in general or a unique characterization of imperfective and perfective aspect in particular.” Mari Broman Olsen, A Semantic and Pragmatic Model of Lexical and Grammatical Aspect (New York: Garland, 1997), 60. 96. Robert I. Binnick, “Aspect and Aspectuality,” in The Handbook of English Linguistics, eds. Bas Aarts and April McMahon (Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2006), 244. 97. Lyons, Semantics, 706, cf. “character of action” standing for Aktionsart in Hendrik Poutsma, The Characters of the English Verb and the Expanded Form: And Equivalent Or Analogous Constructions of the Verb in English and Cognate Languages (Groningen: P. Noordhoff, 1921), 5. 98. David R. Dowty, “The Effects of Aspectual Class on the Temporal Structure of Discourse: Semantics or Pragmatics,” Linguistics and Philosophy 9 (1986): 37. 99. Olsen, Semantic and Pragmatic Model, 8. 100. Jacqueline Guéron and Jacqueline Lecarme, “Introduction,” in The Syntax of Time, eds. Jacqueline Guéron and Alexander Lecarme (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2004), 2; cf. Roger W. Anderson and Yasuhiro Shirai, “The Primacy of Aspect in First and Second Language Acquisition: The Pidgin–Creole Connection,” in

32 | Aspectual

Substitution

morphology).101 Vendler provides a much-used taxonomy of verb classes—state, activity, accomplishment, and achievement—which the lexical and syntagmatic relationships of the verbal complex indicate.102 Building on Vendler’s verb classes Olsen provides an example of accounting for lexical aspect in conjunction with grammatical aspect while carefully distinguishing the two.103 Her account of the interaction of lexical and grammatical aspect provides for her a model of how these produce temporal reference under certain situations. The various accounts of lexical aspect/ aspectual character/aspectual class fall under the six Aktionsart definitions surveyed by Thomson above, and, as Bache rightly wants to ensure, ought not to be confused with the term “(grammatical) aspect.” When it comes to applying this discussion of aspect and Aktionsart to a particular language and not a meta-linguistic category—in our case, Koine Greek—a difficulty that arises is that the abstract category is often necessarily constrained by the specific languages used to develop it.104 In much of the literature these specific languages tend to be English, various European languages, and Slavonic languages, especially Russian.105 These languages feature aspect in different ways to Hellenistic Greek, which must be accounted for in the model being applied to Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, eds. W. C. Ritchie and T. K. Bhatia (San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 1996), 530. 101. Crystal, Linguistics and Phonetics, 38. 102. Zeno Vendler, “Verbs and Times,” Philosophical Review (1957): 143–60. 103. Olsen, Semantic and Pragmatic Model. 104. In discussing variations in Aktionsart characterization, Cook notes, “Early treatments of phrasal aspect, often termed Aktionsarten or modes d’action, varied widely due to the fact that some linguists approached these aspects in terms of morphology and/or syntax, while other linguists understood them in semantic terms (so Binnick 1991: 144). These alternative approaches stemmed from the object languages being studied.” John A. Cook, Time and the Biblical Hebrew Verb: The Expression of Tense, Aspect, and Modality in Biblical Hebrew (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2012), 25. 105. Hopper notes, for example, that Slavists engaging with Russian “are apt to be more insistent on the distinction between the extra lexical value imparted by a prefix (the Aktionsart) and the purely categorial difference between perfective and imperfective in which such value is missing (aspect sensu stricto)”: Paul J. Hopper, “Aspect between Discourse and Grammar: An Introductory Essay for the Volume,” in TenseAspect: Between Semantics & Pragmatics: Containing the Contributions to a Symposium on Tense and Aspect, held at UCLA, May 1979 (Amsterdam: J. Benjamins, 1982), 5. This strict distinction between aspect and Aktionsart, however, Comrie “sensibly eschews” because non-Slavic languages do not show it so starkly.

Background Issues | 33 a specific situation. Bache’s quest for minimal pairs with respect to aspect, when seen in English examples, demonstrates the delicacy of clearly appreciating aspect in a language whose structure is bound up in a complex of other categories, most especially the prevalence of tense markers. A particular form of this confusion of categories is found in second language acquisition, where the “Lexical Aspect Hypothesis” predicts a strong correlation (i.e., confusion) between the use of tense-aspect markings and lexical aspect.106 As much as it is possible to draw some common threads together, we can summarize the discussion thus: Aspect is a grammatical category, representing a more-or-less subjective “view” of the situation being described, presenting it either as a whole (perfective) or with reference to its internal viewpoint (imperfective). This category is distinguished from but also relates to lexical aspect—the connotations of the verb or verbal constellation—and also relates to tense—the placement of the event in time with respect to a reference point. Within this general agreement, there is divergence in how aspect is marked (whether it is privative or equipollent), how dependent on the situational class it is (e.g., whether “habitual” is a grammatical or lexical aspect feature), and how closely it is tied to indications of temporal reference.

Koine Greek Verbal Aspect Many current works on aspect in Hellenistic Greek and Biblical studies take their point of departure from the near-simultaneous works of Stanley Porter (1989) and Buist Fanning (1990), but works prior to these published dissertations are also instructive. Juan Mateos’s monograph predates Porter and Fanning, and adopts a position on aspect similar to Comrie, encompassing both grammatical and lexical aspect.107 Beginning by considering “aspecto semantico” (lexical 106. Yasuhiro Shirai, “Primacy of Aspect in Language Acquisition: Simplified Input and Prototype” (PhD diss., University of California, 1991), 9–10; K. BardoviHarlig, Tense and Aspect in Second Language Acquisition: Form, Meaning, and Use (Oxford: Blackwell, 2000), 227; Yasuhiro Shirai, “The Aspect Hypothesis, the Comparative Fallacy and the Validity of Obligatory Context Analysis: A Reply to Lardiere, 2003,” Second Language Research 23 (2007): 53; Chasioti, “Of Aspect and Tense,” 159; M Tiittanen, “The Influence of Lexical Aspect on Non-Target Like Uses of English Progressive Verb Forms,” The Asian Journal of Applied Linguistics 2, no. 2 (2015): 115–28. 107. Juan Mateos, El aspecto verbal en el Nuevo Testamento, Estudios de Nuevo Testamento 1 (Madrid: Ediciones Cristiandad, 1977).

34 | Aspectual

Substitution

aspect) in opposition to merely morphological or grammatical aspect, he retains the categories of Aktionsart.108 Grammatically he argues for three aspectual categories represented by the Present, Aorist, and Perfect tense-forms. Semantically he adopts a hierarchy similar to Comrie based on a fundamental static/dynamic opposition, which can then be further categorized with further oppositions such as habitual/dormant and instantaneous/unbound/continuous. Mateos argues that aspect is expressed by the relationship of three factors: “aspecto lexemático,” “aspecto morfemático,” and “aspecto sintagmático.”109 Lexematic aspect is the meaning carried by the lexical form, and corresponds to earlier Aktionsart definitions. Morphematic aspect is the viewpoint (perfective, imperfective, etc.) conveyed by the verbal morphology. Syntagmatic aspect is conveyed by syntactical relationships between the verb and other elements of the phrase. The total aspectual effect of an utterance is, for Mateos, determined by first categorizing verbs according to their lexeme and then assessing the interaction of these various morphematic aspects.110 Porter (and his collaborators) therefore dismiss Mateos’s work as traditional Aktionsart theory,111 while others reflect part of his methodology in their argument for a greater contribution of lexical aspect.112 Kenneth McKay, in several articles over a number of decades, examined the nature of aspect in Classical and Hellenistic Greek.113 He emphasizes the subjective portrayal of the situation by the speaker/writer, and is clear that aspect should be distinguished from Aktionsart: Aspect in ancient Greek is that category of the verb system by means of which an author (or speaker) shows how he views each event or activity he mentions in

108. At the same time as using these familiar categories he does, however, argue that the term Aktionsart is inadequate to express the static/dynamic semantic distinction, which is prior to the expression of the type of action: “De ahí que la denominación Aktionsart, usada por la mayor parte de las gramáticas, resulte inadecuada, aun a nivel morfemático, para designar el aspecto.” Mateos, El aspecto verbal, 18, 20. 109. Mateos, El aspecto verbal, 20–22. 110. Mateos, El aspecto verbal, 136. 111. Stanley E. Porter and Andrew W. Pitts, “New Testament Greek Language and Linguistics in Recent Research,” Currents in Research 6 (2008): 216; Porter, Verbal Aspect, 61. 112. Thomson, “What is Aspect?”, 41. 113. Kenneth L. McKay, “The Use of the Ancient Greek Perfect Down to the Second Century AD,” BICS (1965): 1–21; McKay, “On the Perfect and Other Aspects

Background Issues | 35 relation to its context. … Aktionsart, which was at one time commonly used by NT scholars instead of aspect, implies rather kind of action, and would be better applied to … lexical distinctions.114

He defines four aspects: the imperfective, expressing an activity in process; the aorist, expressing a whole or simple event; the perfect, expressing a state consequent upon an action; and the future, which despite lacking some of the moods other aspects have is regarded as an aspect of intention.115 The subjectivity of aspectual choice is placed within a larger observation of context, and he contrasts this focus on context with the more rigid framework of Porter.116 McKay’s views evolved over time, but ultimately ended up with a tenseless framework for aspect, similar to Porter. McKay claims that deictic temporal reference is not indicated by morphology (the “tenses”) but by context only: “It is commonly assumed that each tense has, or should have, a time reference proper to it. Although this is true of some languages, the tenses of ancient Greek do not signal time except by implication from their relationship to their context.”117 McKay’s work is significant for what follows in Hellenistic Greek aspect because of his identification of the tense forms with aspect and not with the time of the event (hence his re-labeling of the Present as “imperfective”), and his delineation of aspect and Aktionsart. While he allows that tense exists within the indicative mood, “he tends to minimize the extent to which the time of event is connected with verbal form.”118 Linguistic studies of aspect in Koine Greek gained prominence with the near-simultaneous publications of Stanley Porter and Buist Fanning.119 Both Porter and Fanning apply the concept of verbal aspect in a rigorous way to Greek,

in the Greek Non-Literary Papyri”; Kenneth L. McKay, “On the Perfect and Other Aspects in New Testament Greek,” NovT 23 (1981): 289–329; Kenneth L. McKay, “Aspect in Imperatival Constructions in New Testament Greek,” NovT 28 (1985): 201–26; McKay, New Syntax. 114. McKay, New Syntax, 27. 115. McKay, New Syntax, 27. 116. McKay, New Syntax, 37. 117. McKay, New Syntax, 39. 118. D. A. Carson, “An Introduction to the Porter/Fanning Debate,” in Biblical Greek Language and Linguistics: Open Questions in Current Research (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), 21. Carson wrote this prior to McKay’s final work, and does not state McKay’s position as strongly as he might. 119. Porter, Verbal Aspect; Fanning, Verbal Aspect.

36 | Aspectual

Substitution

with much overlap in their verbal model and in how they draw on and depart from earlier linguists.120 They differ slightly in aim—Porter develops a rigorous linguistic model; Fanning writes as a New Testament interpreter for the explicit benefit of those doing New Testament exegetical work.121 Both, however, define aspect as a grammatical category reflecting the choice of viewpoint of the speaker, employed to portray the event or process subjectively, apart from the nature of the event in itself. In so doing both see aspect as a feature to be clearly distinguished from Aktionsart.122 After summarizing the discussion surrounding tense, procedural characteristics, lexical meaning, and context, Fanning proposes this definition of aspect: “Verbal aspect in NT Greek is that category in the grammar of the verb which reflects the focus or viewpoint of the speaker in regard to the action or condition which the verb describes. It shows the perspective from which the occurrence is regarded or the portrayal of the occurrence itself far from the actual or perceived nature of the situation itself.”123 He argues that aspect is of “a different semantic order” from procedural oppositions and “is not to be equated with various characteristics of the actual occurrence (e.g., duration, repetition, completion, inception, and their opposites).”124 At the same time he also distinguishes aspect 120. Comrie, Aspect; Charles F. Hockett, A Course in Modern Linguistics (New York: Macmillan, 1958); McKay, New Syntax; cf. also D. A. Carson, “An Introduction to the Porter/Fanning Debate.” 121. Buist M. Fanning, “Approaches to Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek: Issues in Definition and Method,” in Biblical Greek Language and Linguistics: Open Questions in Current Research, eds. Stanley E. Porter and D. A. Carson (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), 46. 122. For example, Fanning notes “The history of aspect studies has shown that the major problem in understanding verbal aspect involves two interrelated issues: first, to distinguish aspect from other features of meaning with which it is commonly intertwined (e.g., tense, procedural character of verbs, structural contrasts between aspects, and discourse functions), and second, to note the variable function of aspect in connection with these other features.” Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 8. Trevor Evans considers Porter’s and Fanning’s treatments to have resulted in a “particular achievement” of “the redefinition of aspect as a viewpoint feature”: Trevor Evans, “Future Directions for Aspect Studies in Ancient Greek,” in Biblical Greek Language and Lexicography, eds. Bernard A. Taylor et al. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 200, emphasis original. 123. Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 84–85. 124. Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 49–50.

Background Issues | 37 from these same features expressed by the lexical meaning of the verb or by the surrounding context. In so doing he sets his work apart from some others by carefully distinguishing aspect from Aktionsart. This viewpoint of the speaker/ writer describes a relationship between the situation and some reference-point from which the situation is viewed—aspect is either internal, with a focus on the structural make-up of the action without reference to its end points, or external, focussing on the action from beginning to the end.125 That is, in the NT Fanning identifies two primary aspects: perfective (Aorist) and imperfective (Present/ Imperfect). In contrast to Porter (see below) he does not accept a stative aspect. The Perfect form, for Fanning, is a complex of “the Aktionsart-feature of stative situation, the tense-feature of anteriority, and the aspect of summary viewpoint concerning the occurrence.”126 He sees the Future form as a tense category, not as an aspect.127 Following Bache, Fanning describes aspect as a “rather subjective” category given the distinction between the conceptualization of the action and its actual nature, but notes that fully subjective aspectual oppositions are not common as various factors can restrict choice. Fanning holds that analysis of aspect depends on complex relationships with four other linguistic features: tense; procedural character/Aktionsart; structural oppositions among aspects; and discourse functions.128 Drawing on Trubetzkoy and Jakobson’s work on privative and equipollent relationships Fanning discusses structural oppositions in terms of “markedness”—a discourse function of aspect—thus identifying aspect as a prominence feature.129

1 25. Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 85. 126. Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 119–20. 127. Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 123. 128. Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 77. McKay’s work similarly considers the formal features to have wider significance than aspect alone (including especially tense): McKay, “Use of the Ancient Greek Perfect”; McKay, “On the Perfect and Other Aspects in the Greek Non-Literary Papyri”; McKay, “Aspect in Imperatival Constructions”; McKay, New Syntax. 129. Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 54–72. Cf. Roman Jakobson, “Zur Struktur der russischen Verbums,” in Charisteria: Guilelmo Mathesio Quinquagenario—A Discipulis et Circuli Linguistici Pragensis Sodalibus Oblata (Prague: Pražský Linguistický Kroužek, 1932), 74–84; Roman Jakobson, “Beitrag zur allgemeinen Kasuslehre: Gesamtbedeutungen der russischen Kasus,” in Selected Writings: Word and Language, Vol. II (The Hague: Mouton, 1971), 46; Nikolai S. Trubetzkoy,

38 | Aspectual

Substitution

Stanley Porter’s approach is similar to Fanning on a number of key points, but he is more thoroughgoing in his disentanglement of aspect from tense, Aktionsart, and discourse. Noting what he sees as the inadequacy of prior understandings of the Greek verb through temporal and Aktionsart models, he argues strongly that these models cannot account for semantic distinctions found between uses of the same verb in different contexts.130 He argues, therefore, that aspect is the feature grammaticalized in tense-forms. He adopts a Systemic Functional Linguistic framework, in which he finds the same focus on the subjective viewpoint apart from the character of the situation itself: “Greek Verbal Aspect is a synthetic semantic category (realized in the form of verbs) used of meaningful oppositions in a network of tense systems to grammaticalize the author’s reasoned subjective choice of conception of a process.”131 Developing a network of aspectual oppositions, Porter describes three individual aspect systems: perfective aspect (the Aorist tense form), presenting the event as a totality; imperfective aspect (the Present and Imperfect forms), presenting an internal viewpoint; and stative aspect (Perfect and Pluperfect forms).132 Grammaticalization of aspect across the tense-forms has come to be a defining feature of Porter’s impact on the Greek verbal aspect discussion,133 as his strict separation of temporal features and procedural characteristics from what can be determined by the morphological form has come to exert significant influence. Applying Bache’s “contrastive substitution” test he argues that temporal information must be removed from the semantics of the verbal form.134 The Greek verb is fully atemporal, describing no relative temporal relationship of the speaker to the event. He does not consider the Future form to be fully aspectual but as Principles of Phonology (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1969), 76–77; Nikolai S. Trubetzkoy, Grundzüge der Phonologie: Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague (Göttingen: Vanderhoek & Ruprecht, 1968), 67; Jan H. Nylund, “The Prague School of Linguistics and its Influence on New Testament Language Studies,” in The Language of the New Testament: Context, History, and Development, eds. Stanley E. Porter and Andrew Pitts (Leiden: Brill, 2017), 155–221. 130. Porter and Pitts, “New Testament Greek Language,” 219–20; Porter, Verbal Aspect, 83. 131. Porter, Verbal Aspect, 88. 132. Porter, Verbal Aspect, 8. 133. “One of the fundamental pillars of Porter’s theory is that tense-forms do not grammaticalize time”: Porter and Pitts, “New Testament Greek Language,” 221. 134. Runge argues that Porter has misapplied this test: Steven E. Runge, “Contrastive Substitution and the Greek Verb: Reassessing Porter’s Argument,” NovT 56 (2014): 154–73. See the next chapter for a fuller discussion.

Background Issues | 39 anomalous in the Greek verbal system, as it lacks full paradigmatic choice between indicative, subjunctive, optative, and imperative moods.135 Rather, he says, the Future is aspectually vague, retaining aspects of modality and a non-temporal [+expectation] towards a process.136 Porter’s proposal for the Greek verbal system has been applied to NT texts in a number of article- and monograph-length treatments, principally by Decker, Cirafesi, and Mathewson.137 Alongside Porter’s model of the Greek verbal network in which aspect is clearly distinguished from temporal considerations, he argues these aspect forms have a structural discourse function. In applying Porter’s aspectual model to synoptic Gospel passages, Wally Cirafesi outlines Porter’s markedness model of tense-forms in discourse, echoing Halliday’s description of markedness as a term for “the phenomenon of linguistic high-lighting, whereby some feature of the language of a text stands out in some way.”138 Like Porter, he takes the primary binary oppositions in the verbal network to be the opposition of +perfective (Aorist) vs. −perfective, with a secondary opposition of +imperfective (Present/Imperfect) vs. +stative (Perfect/Pluperfect).139 These oppositions fall on a continuum of markedness, “ranging from the least heavily marked perfective aspect (Aorist) to the most heavily marked stative aspect (Perfect, Pluperfect).”140 A given aspect’s place on this continuum is determined by assessing its form by four criteria: material (morphological complexity), implicational (formal regularity), distributional (syntagmatic possibilities and frequency), and semantic markedness (breadth of semantic scope).141 Given these terms Cirafesi (following Porter) argues that the Aorist is “the most basic, least marked choice within the Greek aspectual system;” the imperfective aspect (Present/Imperfect) is more heavily marked than the Aorist, and the stative aspect (Perfect) is the most heavily marked.142 Constantine Campbell both develops and moves away from Porter’s model, arguing for only two aspects: perfective (Aorist and Future) and imperfective 1 35. Porter, Verbal Aspect, 409. 136. Porter, Verbal Aspect, 414. 137. Decker, Temporal Deixis; Cirafesi, Synoptic Parallels; Mathewson, Verbal Aspect in the Book of Revelation. 138. M. A. K. Halliday, Explorations in the Functions of Language (New York: Elsevier, 1977), 113; cited in Cirafesi, Synoptic Parallels, 60. 139. Cirafesi, Synoptic Parallels, 52. Cf. Porter’s further (non-aspectual) opposition of +/–remoteness: Porter, Verbal Aspect, 90. 140. Cirafesi, Synoptic Parallels, 54. 141. Cirafesi, Synoptic Parallels, 54–55. 142. Cirafesi, Synoptic Parallels, 56.

40 | Aspectual

Substitution

(Present/Imperfect, and also Perfect/Pluperfect).143 He too argues that the verbal form does not grammaticalize tense; temporal indication must be derived from other deictic markers, context, and from spatial values. Using a synchronic approach, he adopts a strict distinction between the semantics of the form—the “uncancelable essence of meaning that is inherent to the verb form in question”— and its pragmatic usage—“the way in which language is used in context. It has to do with linguistic performance and implicature, which will vary depending on lexical, stylistic, grammatical and deictic interactions, and thus refers to cancelable features.”144 Adopting Olsen’s Gricean distinction between semantic meaning and conversational pragmatic implicature, termed in his work as the principle of “cancelability,”145 he argues that aspect is an uncancelable feature of the semantic core of a Greek tense-form, but that tense (and a variety of other implicatures) are cancelable pragmatic features.146 Greek tense-forms, therefore, are semantically atemporal,147 and Campbell uses a spatial metaphor to discuss the role of the augment in the indicative mood (a feature traditionally understood as a past-time marker). He uses the terms “proximity” and “remoteness” to describe these spatial oppositions in the indicative mood, with the augment signaling “remoteness.” This distinction is operative both for the Present/Imperfect opposition along with the “heightened” proximity/remoteness values of the Perfect/Pluperfect.148 His construal of the future indicative also contrasts with Porter, as he takes it to be perfective in aspect and, unlike other tense-forms, properly a future tense.149

143. Campbell, Indicative Mood; Campbell, Non-Indicative Verbs; Constantine R. Campbell, Advances in the Study of Greek (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2015),  ch.  5. 144. Campbell, Indicative Mood, 24. 145. Cancelable features are those not present in every use of a certain linguistic form, while uncancelable features are inherent to the form. Olsen: “Semantic meanings may not be canceled without contradiction or reinforced without redundancy. … In contrast, conversational pragmatic implicatures may be cancelled or reinforced without contradiction or redundancy.” Olsen, Semantic and Pragmatic Model, 17; cf. H. Paul Grice, “Logic and Conversation,” in Syntax and Semantics: Speech Acts, eds. P. Cole and J. Morgan (New York: Academic Press, 1975), 44–45. 146. Campbell, Indicative Mood, 26. 147. With the exception of the Future Indicative. 148. Campbell, Indicative Mood, 88–91, 195–99. 149. Campbell, Indicative Mood, 159. Porter argues the Future is not fully aspectual, but grammaticalizes +expectation: Porter, Verbal Aspect, 438; Stanley E. Porter, Studies in the Greek New Testament, SBG 6 (New York: Peter Lang, 1996), 29.

Background Issues | 41 While he insists that tense is not encoded by the verb form, he readily acknowledges that each tense-form has default temporal contexts in which we expect to see them occur—the Aorist is not a past-time form as such, but because perfective aspect is a natural means of expressing past time, we observe the Aorist frequently (but not exclusively!) in past-time contexts. The points of disagreement between Porter, Fanning, and Campbell over recent years has served to highlight their differences. They all, however, share a remarkable amount of common ground. Each attempts to disentangle aspect from tense and procedural character, and each argues that the morphology of the Greek verb indicates a subjective viewpoint of the action or state, either primarily or to the exclusion of these other features. Campbell and Fanning share a two-aspect model, while Porter opts for three, but they are united on the imperfective/perfective aspectual opposition for the Present/Imperfect and Aorist respectively. While they adopt differing terminology, they each see the importance of distinguishing invariant semantic meaning from pragmatic variation, and point to aspect being a discourse feature in terms of markedness. A significant point of disagreement between Fanning, Porter, and Campbell has been on the nature of the Perfect. However, as this discussion does not significantly impinge upon the subject of this study, an overview of this disagreement can be set aside.150 More recently a number of scholars, dissatisfied with the arguments for the non-temporal view of the verb, argue for an aspect-prominent understanding of the Greek verb, in many cases following Bhat’s typology.151 Bhat presents a typological

150. On this debate see especially the forthcoming Perfect Volume, a compilation of Porter, Fanning, and Campbell’s interactions at a special 2013 SBL session titled “The Perfect Storm.” Cf. also recent works on the Greek Perfect interacting with Porter/Fanning/Campbell: Alexander Andrason and Christian Locatell, “The Perfect Wave: A Cognitive Approach to the Greek Verbal System,” BAGL 5 (2016): 7–121; Aubrey, “Greek Perfect”; Randall Buth, “Perfect Greek Morphology and Pedagogy,” in The Greek Verb Revisited, 416–29; Crellin, “The Greek Perfect Active System”; Robert Crellin, “The Semantics of the Perfect in the Greek of the New Testament,” in The Greek Verb Revisited, 430–57; Steven E. Runge, “Discourse Function of the Greek Perfect,” in The Greek Verb Revisited, 458–85. 151. The conference proceedings captured by Runge and Fresch are a summary of this position: Runge and Fresch, eds., The Greek Verb Revisited. See especially Rutger J. Allan, “Tense and Aspect in Classical Greek: Two Historical Developments; Augment and Perfect,” in The Greek Verb Revisited, 81–121; Nicholas J. Ellis, “Aspect-Prominence, Morpho-Syntax, and a Cognitive-Linguistic Framework for

42 | Aspectual

Substitution

study of languages that classifies languages as tense-prominent, aspect-prominent, or mood-prominent on the basis of how these factors are presented across a language, examining grammaticalization, obligatoriness, systematicity or paradigmatization, and pervasiveness.152 A number of authors in this group rightly assess Greek as aspect-prominent, given the full paradigm for aspectual oppositions, and how consistent and systematic it is across the moods—Ellis is the clearest in demonstrating these characteristics in Greek verbal forms.153 While thus far in agreement with the aforementioned authors on the primacy of aspect, Ellis et al. take as a starting assumption that tense is operative in the indicative mood, for example, “the most prominent feature (aspect) is in view across the majority of the verb forms, with the addition of tense added in the indicative mood.”154 Working within a model of cognitive linguistics the various atypical uses of tense-forms— uses outside expected temporal contexts that prompted theories of the Greek verb outlined above, for example, Present tense forms in past-referring contexts—are termed “atypical” rather than “exceptions.” Fresch outlines a typological approach to explain the aspect–tense relationship in the case of the Aorist: because cross-linguistically Aorist forms tend to be strongly correlated to past-time contexts, “we should, under normal circumstances, expect the aorist indicative to be tied to and signal past time.”155 The normal, expected, past-time uses of the Aorist exemplify the prototypical use of the category; non-past uses of the Aorist are part of a polysemous category and “are understood as category members but peripheral ones, since they resemble the prototype in certain respects but are distinct from it and far less normative.”156 There are variations within this group of scholars, but in general they adopt a three-aspect system—perfective (Aorist), imperfective (Present/Imperfect), and “combinative” (Perfect/Pluperfect). Tense is also seen as morphologically encoded in the indicative mood, with the augment understood as a past-time marker. the Greek Verb,” in The Greek Verb Revisited, 122–60; Thomson, “What is Aspect?”; cf. Ellis, Aubrey, and Dubis, “The Greek Verbal System.” 152. D. N. S. Bhat, The Prominence of Tense, Aspect and Mood, Studies in Language Companion Series 49 (Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1999), 95. 153. Ellis, “Aspect-Prominence,” 132–36; cf. also Ellis, Aubrey, and Dubis, “The Greek Verbal System.” 154. Ellis, “Aspect-Prominence,” 144. 155. Christopher J. Fresch, “Typology, Polysemy, and Protopypes: Situating Nonpast Aorist Indicatives,” in The Greek Verb Revisited, 393. 156. Fresch, “Typology, Polysemy, and Protopypes,” 405.

Background Issues | 43 The Historical/Narrative Present Within the broad outlines of the scholarly discussion of the Greek aspect system—where there is general agreement on at least the prominence of aspect, and of the perfective-imperfective opposition—two areas of contention are relevant for the scriptural citations addressed in this study. The first is the role of the historical Present; the second is the Future form. Both areas help outline various models of aspect, and therefore suggest what exegetical weight might be placed on particular instances of these forms. The historical present refers to instances in which the Present indicative form occurs in a past-time context. This occurs in many languages, including English. For example, when relating a situation that occurred in the past we may choose to use Present-tense verbs: “So yesterday, I’m walking down the street, and a guy comes up to me, and ….” This function in languages that have tense (or, more explicitly, tense marked morphologically by tense forms) has been analyzed by Fleischman as “recycling tense morphology to do other types of (non temporal) work in discourse.”157 Elizabeth Robar summarizes a number of different possibilities for this “other” non-temporal work across several languages, including information structuring in Hebrew, thematic or evaluative prominence in premodern English, and narratival introductory functions in Koine Greek.158 Given the preceding outline of models of the (a)temporal nature of the verb, care needs to be taken in applying these insights—there is significant disagreement about the existence or significance of tense in the indicative mood. That the historical Present is a tense-based mismatch is not a universally-held assumption. Four broad categories of analysis of the historical Present can be discerned. The traditional view is that the historical Present portrays vividness,159 transporting the reader into a “current” experience of a past event, for example, Winer: “The present is used for the aorist, as an historical tense, only when the narrator wishes to bring a past event vividly before us, as if it were taking place at the present moment.”160 This traditional view was labelled as anachronistic by Kiparsky, who proposed a zero-tense theory in which the historical Present is emptied of its present tense 157. Suzanne Fleischman, Tense and Narrativity: From Medieval Performance to Modern Fiction (London: Routledge, 1990), 19. 158. Elizabeth Robar, “The Historical Present in NT Greek: An Exercise in Interpreting Matthew,” in The Greek Verb Revisited, 330–31. 159. Moulton, Howard and Turner, Grammar, 3:61; Blass and Debrunner, Grammar, §321; Wallace, Greek Grammar, 527. 160. Winer, Treatise, 333.

44 | Aspectual

Substitution

meaning and functions as a past tense “semantically indistinguishable from the past tenses, and it alternates with these in conjoined structures.”161 While the alternation between (historical) Present and Aorist forms provided the basis for Kiparsky’s proposal, McKay’s criticism of the zero-tense view is that it inadequately explains instances where there is no alteration or need for a past tense.162 A discourse function for the historical present is observed by Buth and Levinsohn, who argue that it signals a change in scene, character, or other break in discourse.163 Runge contends that the historical Present is “the most viable option for marking prominence in a past-time setting,” highlighting an event or speech that follows.164 Buth argues this prominence is a result of using the present form in contexts that contravene its own semantics: “not only do the historical presents contravene the past time by using a traditionally viewed present tense, they also contravene aspect by consistently using present imperfective in contexts that are contextually bounded as complete and prototypically perfective.”165 Robar, assessing this model in the Gospel of Matthew, states the rhetorical function of this prominence: “the HP is an editorial device to indicate thematic prominence: an aid to the reader or listener to discern the hierarchy of themes present, and in particular to know which themes are of intrinsic interest to the author himself.”166 Finally, the timeless aspect school (especially Porter and Campbell) agree in large part that the function of the historical Present is to draw attention to particular speeches or events in discourse, but because they hold that the indicative mood does not encode time there is, for them, no problem in the mismatch

1 61. Paul Kiparsky, “Tense and Mood in Indo-European Syntax,” FL 4 (1968): 33. 162. Kenneth L. McKay, “Further Remarks on the ‘Historical’ Present and Other Phenomena,” FL 11 (1974): 274. 163. Randall Buth, “Mark’s Use of the Historical Present,” Note on Translation 65 (1977): 7–13; Stephen H. Levinsohn, “Preliminary Observations on the Use of the Historic Present in Mark,” Note on Translation 65 (1977): 13–28. 164. Runge, Discourse Grammar, 130. Fanning now largely agrees with this position, arguing the historical Present is generally anticipatory. He notes this is a reversal of his position taken in his 1990 monograph: Buist M. Fanning, “Greek Tenses in John’s Apocalypse: Issues in Verbal Aspect, Discourse Analysis, and Diachronic Change,” in The Language and Literature of the New Testament, eds. Lois K. Fuller Dow, Craig A. Evans and Andrew W. Pitts (Boston: Brill, 2016), 345–46. 165. Randall Buth, “Participles as a Pragmatic Choice: Where Semantics Meets Pragmatics,” in The Greek Verb Revisited, 295, cf. also 306 n. 23. Emphasis original. 166. Robar, “Historical Present,” 350.

Background Issues | 45 in tense, just “potentially misleading problems of nomenclature.”167 Porter opts for a markedness distinction between the Present and Imperfect indicative being used in such a context, and continues to make space for a subjective element of authorial choice. Campbell extends this issue of markedness, arguing that the Present’s proximity markedness is the factor that gives rise to the prominence of the historical Present.168 The Future Form As indicated above, scholars are divided over the nature of the Future form. This is not a new development; difficulties in the procedural character of situations expressed by the Future have long been noted. For example Moulton says, “there is no question that the action of the Future is in usage mixed. Ἄξω is either ‘I shall lead’ or ‘I shall bring’—the former durative, the latter effective.”169 Furthermore, the future forms outside the indicative are missing or deficient: The imperative and subjunctive never existed. … The optative, which only performed the function of orat. obl. substitute for fut. indic., has disappeared entirely. The infinitive, originally limited in the same way … has shrunk very considerably, though not obsolete. … Finally the participle, the only modal form which may claim prehistoric antiquity, retains a limited though genuine function of its own.170

Fanning and Olsen both conclude that the Future is not an aspect, but a tense category. Fanning argues that the punctiliar and durative uses of tense and aspect in the Future indicate not a flexible aspectual meaning but “its non-aspectual character.”171 Olsen notes that variations in situational marking for telicity indicates that the Future is aspectually unmarked.172 McKay labels it an aspect, albeit “something of an anomaly.”173 He notes it lacks subjunctive, imperative, and optative forms, and the participle is restricted in function. The Future, for McKay, expresses “intention” and therefore simple futurity, but in many cases

1 67. Porter, Verbal Aspect, 196; Campbell, Indicative Mood, 64. 168. Campbell, Indicative Mood, 65. 169. Moulton, Howard and Turner, Grammar, 148–49. 170. Moulton, Howard and Turner, Grammar, 151. 171. Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 120. 172. Olsen, Semantic and Pragmatic Model, 260. 173. McKay, New Syntax, 34.

46 | Aspectual

Substitution

this overlaps with the subjunctive and imperative of other aspects. For Porter, the Future does not neatly fit in the network of aspectual oppositions given it lacks a full paradigm and overlaps with functions of modality. He applies the category of “aspectual vagueness” (developed with respect to verbs such as οἴδα that lack a full paradigm) to the Future, arguing it is a hybrid mood form, indicating an attitude of [+expectation].174 Campbell treats the Future as fully aspectual with perfective aspect and, unlike other tense-forms, as a fully operative (future) tense.175 He argues against Porter’s restrictive network system that requires oppositions for definition. This model—the Future is a full aspect, with tense attached to the form—finds some corroboration in Baht’s cross-linguistic observation of future reference. Bhat argues that while future reference is a tense indicator it is typically attached to whatever prominent feature exists in a particular language and will be expressed by forms within that system.176 Part of the confusion surrounding the form stems not only from its incomplete paradigm, but from different views of its historical development. Some hold that it developed from a Proto-Indo-European desiderative suffix -s, giving it a modal character. Others argue it comes from the perfective aspect suffix -s, giving it a non-past aspectual character. Some hold both.177 In instances cited below there is significant contrast and/or change evident between the Aorist subjunctive/indicative and the Future indicative; discussion of the aspectual and temporal values of these instances will have bearing on this topic.

Summary of Background Issues Three distinct fields of research have been briefly surveyed in this chapter: the nature of the language of the LXX in relation to the NT; various ways the NT makes use of OT Scripture; and the array of models proposed for the significance of the verb in Koine Greek. We have seen that, notwithstanding the considerable variation in style, register, and translation technique across the LXX, the character of its Greek is sufficiently similar to that of the NT to warrant investigating aspectual 1 74. Porter, Verbal Aspect, 413–15. 175. Campbell, Indicative Mood, 159. 176. Bhat, Prominence, 176–77. 177. Andrew Sihler, New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995); Wallace, Greek Grammar, 566–67; Moulton, Howard and Turner, Grammar, 148–49.

Background Issues | 47 substitution. There is ample room for comparison of the NT forms to their source texts at the levels of vocabulary, linguistic structure, and syntax. Moreover, there is also warrant at a rhetorical and theological level for such a comparison given the use to which OT quotations are put. The variety of ways that NT authors use the Scriptures in their arguments—including typology, prophecy-fulfillment, or other intertextual connections—provide grounds for regarding the original setting and form of the source text as informing its use in the new context. Finally, we have seen multiple options for how the Greek verb is to be understood. Broad agreement exists that aspect is the most prominent feature of the verb. Some argue that temporal markers are secondary in the indicative. Others argue for aspect only and no deictic tense in the semantics of the verb. Procedural character or Aktionsart related to lexical choice is for some a complicating factor in modeling the tense-form morphology. For others it is a question disentangled from aspect itself and concerned only with pragmatic, contextual usage. It should be noted that these three broad areas impact this project in different ways. The consensus that the character of Greek is consistent across the LXX and NT gives us warrant to compare quotations with their source text(s). The plurality of uses of Scripture invites us to consider aspectual substitutions in terms of their rhetorical effect in both old and new contexts. Further, ongoing debates about aspect lay the ground for the contribution of this study: what light do these instances of aspectual substitution throw on this discussion? To do this, we must now turn to consider the constraints of this study, and outline a method for the identification of verbal changes within quotations and for delineating the impact of such changes.

3

Linguistic Models and Methodology

This study seeks to investigate the function of altered tense-forms in scriptural quotations by NT authors (and by so doing outline the semantic force(s) of different tense-forms). To ensure we approach this task in a consistent matter, we need to account for several aspects of methodology. First we ought to adopt a particular framework for analyzing such differences in verbal morphology such as this: how is language in general put together, and Koine Greek specifically? What conclusions may be drawn from comparing forms in this manner? What theoretical basis is there for arguing for the communicative effect of a particular choice? This study will outline why Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) is adopted and draw especially on a couple of key principles relevant to the area of verbal differentiation and choice. Having established a framework within which it is theoretically possible to draw some conclusions, we then need to outline the parameters within which we can draw our data for comparison. Specifically: what constitutes a quotation? How do we identify a direct quotation with changes as opposed to a vague reference with some similarity? What type of difference are we interested in, and under what other circumstances? Given these considerations, what passages in the NT are relevant to this enquiry—where do authors quote the LXX, and the verb form is the only significant difference? The middle portion of this chapter

50 | Aspectual

Substitution

addresses these questions, and outlines a working definition of a quotation and consequently a set of NT citations the LXX to examine. Finally, with a theoretical model of the significance of a particular language component, and parameters for establishing what is a quotation (and therefore an altered quotation), we then need a method for outlining what differences exists when comparing the original citation with the altered version. What linguistic features are operative when comparing, say, a Present indicative form with an Aorist indicative in a given clause? How can we isolate features to assess their contribution, and therefore assess the various proposals for aspect in Koine Greek? This study will adopt a variation of Carl Bache’s “contrastive substitution” test that allows us to discern what level of change is brought about by tense-form choice.

Systemic Functional Linguistics Given the variety in approaches to and conclusions drawn about the Greek verbal system, a lack of consensus concerning linguistic theory within the NT scholarly community is not surprising. Nor is this a recent phenomenon: in a 1985 article Daryl Schmidt surveyed the preceding decades and noted that the variety of linguistic methodologies meant that “there is no well-established set of results that can be directly applied to the grammar of NT Greek,” offering no obvious successor to structuralist linguistics.1 Arguably since then SFL has been established as a primary model (but certainly not the only model) within New Testament studies, having been adopted by some of the primary contributors to the discussion.2 M. A. K. Halliday is the major proponent of SFL, and elements of his approach are derived from the functionalist approach of J. R. Firth and the structuralist school going back to the work of Ferdinand de Saussure. In Koine Greek aspect studies, Stanley Porter explicitly adopts an SFL framework for his explanation of the system or network of aspectual oppositions;3 Campbell argues that a functional

1. Daryl Schmidt, “The Study of Hellenistic Greek Grammar in the Light of Contemporary Linguistics,” PRSt 11, no. 4 (1985): 33. 2. More recently a cognitive linguistic approach, in concert with typological modeling, has also emerged in the work of Runge, Fresch, et. al. 3. Porter, Verbal Aspect, 7–16. He is followed closely (methodologically speaking) by both Mathewson and Cirafesi: Cirafesi, Synoptic Parallels, ch. 3; Mathewson, Verbal Aspect in the Book of Revelation, 38.

Linguistic Models and Methodology | 51 approach is ideally suited to the analysis of how verbs are used in a finite set of texts for which no native speakers exist.4 Halliday’s framework is primarily oriented to function in three closely related senses: “in its interpretation (1) of texts, (2) of the system, and (3) of the elements of linguistic structures.”5 In regards to spoken and written texts and their contexts, this approach is functional in the sense that it seeks to account for how language accomplishes the goals of human interaction. As a consequence, fundamental components of language are functional, contributing to what Halliday terms “metafunctions” of the language system as a whole. These metafunctions accomplish extralinguistic goals of creating meaning and enacting social relationships. SFL seeks to describe the function of linguistic components in terms of how they contribute to these metafunctions. In the SFL framework, the outlining of language metafunctions gives each element in the system a functional explanation by reference to its position in the overall system. As Halliday summarizes: This introduction to (systemic) functional grammar differs in various ways from other accounts—in terms of both theory and description. (i) In terms of theory, we can locate systemic functional theory of grammar within a general family of functional theories of grammar, contrasting these with formal theories of grammar […] Within the family of functional theories, systemic functional theory is unique in its paradigmatic orientation […] —its orientation to grammar as system, represented by means of system networks; other functional theories are syntagmatic in their orientation. Systemic functional theory also differs from many other functional theories in its emphasis on comprehensive, text-based descriptions—descriptions that can be used in text analysis; other functional theories have tended to foreground linguistic comparison and typology based on descriptive fragments from a wide range of languages.6

As a model, therefore, SFL prefers to investigate the function of language as it is presented rather than focussing on a theory of its form or mental patterns which produce it, contrasting directly with the Chomskian approach. Furthermore, there is a focus on paradigmatic choice as opposed to syntagmatic chains. This distinction traces back to de Saussure’s definitions: syntagmatic structure refers to relations between two or more terms in an effective series, while paradigmatic 4. Campbell, Indicative Mood, 19. 5. M. A. K. Halliday, An Introduction to Functional Grammar, 2nd ed. (London: Arnold, 1994), xiii. 6. Halliday, Introduction, 56.

52 | Aspectual

Substitution

difference is associative, referring to the substitutional potential of all possible components that could be inserted into a particular component of a clause.7 The paradigmatic focus is what enables SFL to outline system networks, represented by decision trees of the possible choices a speaker/writer has for any linguistic element. A consequence of this focus, put simply (and adopted as a principle by a number of writers), is that meaning and choice are closely connected—an author’s choice of this particular form rather than that one produces meaning. Halliday’s metafunctions—the ways in which language makes sense of our experience, and implements social relationships—offer an interesting approach for considering the use of citations in new contexts. He defines the “ideational” metafunction as that which construes human experience, distinguished into experiential and logical components. The “interpersonal” metafunction enacts relationships. Finally, the “textual” metafunction enables the other two metafunctions to occur through “building sequences of discourse, organizing the discursive flow, and creating cohesion and continuity as it moves along.”8 With regard to verbal aspect, Wally Cirafesi contends “that the primary functional purpose for a language user’s choice of Greek tense-form lies here in the realm of the ideational, since Greek verbs first and foremost grammaticalize an author’s conception of a verbal process.”9 While he adopts Porter’s definition of aspect, his claim is well founded whatever model of the verb is adopted, since all view the choice of tense-form as indicating the author’s construal of reality. This is also true for our purposes: we are interested in investigating what changes in the depiction of a situation occur when altering a tense-form, and what implications these semantic shifts imply about the broader system. That is, the paradigmatic options for the substitution of one tense-form for another is the key to this project, and SFL provides an appropriate framework for such an analysis. Cirafesi goes on to argue that the choice of aspect also has significant implications for the textual metafunction which, in his work, is related directly to a discourse analysis of linguistic cohesion.10 This work will not adopt a discourse analysis process due to the nature of the instances under investigation. Some discussion of “prominence” or “markedness” will be necessary for examination of how particular texts function in their contexts, but analysis of quotations in 7. de Saussure, Linguistique Générale, 170–75. 8. Halliday, Introduction, 30–31. 9. Cirafesi, Synoptic Parallels, 51. 10. Cirafesi, Synoptic Parallels, 51; cf. M. A. K. Halliday, Cohesion in English, ed. Ruqaiya Hasan (London: Longman, 1976), 27.

Linguistic Models and Methodology | 53 this manner is not necessarily straightforward—at least not straightforward in the manner proposed by Porter and Cirafesi (i.e., the perfective aspect provides Background information in narrative; the imperfective Frontground; the stative Foreground information). The nature of quotations often make them an intrusive or marked element into the flow of the discourse, so that generic descriptions of prominence associated with particular aspects are not straightforwardly applicable. The manner in which they are quoted also has bearing on this kind of analysis (on this, see the next section), for the mechanics of how an utterance is introduced can have an impact on the intensity or prominence with which it is to be understood. For examples of how this kind of prominence can be achieved by inserting a marked element into a discourse, Soderberg’s work on reported dialogue is instructive. While dealing with “quotation formulae” in the context of dialogue rather than quotations as such, Soderberg argues that the type and position of a quotation formula is indicative not only of the intensity of dialogue interaction, but of the overall significance of the quotation within the discourse.11 None of this is to say that discourse analysis is not an appropriate tool for analyzing quotations, but given the variability of their presentation across the NT instances, and their functional difference from surrounding clauses, it is not a tool that can be applied consistently across the full set of citations.

Selecting the Data Criteria for Quotation Having outlined a linguistic framework that provides theoretical space for ­analyzing the grammatical and communicative contributions of particular morphological distinctions in given clauses, we now turn to establish how these morphological distinctions are to be identified. How do we determine, first, that a NT author is quoting an OT text and, second, if he is deliberately changing the tense-form or simply repeating an alternative textual reading?

11. Craig Soderberg, “Quotation Formula and Utterance Significance in ‘A Fisherman and his Wife’,” JOTT 9 (1997): 35–47; cf. Robert E. Longacre, “The Dynamics of Reported Dialogue in Narrative,” Word 45 (1994): 125–43. While Soderberg’s conclusions are circumspect, he acknowledges other cross-linguistic work that is consistent with his position on English narrative.

54 | Aspectual

Substitution

To the first question, in order to examine to what extent changes occur in NT quotations of the Greek Scriptures we need an appropriate definition of a quotation. This is something that is often simply assumed as self-evident in commentary on the NT use of the OT, with relatively few attempts made to outline the parameters within which we may identify a quotation. A common approach is to consider only those instances that are formally introduced by quotation formulae, for example, the common γέγραπται in the Gospels, or Paul’s λέγει γὰρ ἡ γραφή.12 A precise definition of these formulae is rarely offered, but generally they are taken to consist of words of writing, speech, prophecy, or a direct reference to Israel’s Scriptures. Sometimes, however, a quotation is obvious from context but is introduced by a general-purpose item, such as Paul’s use of conjunctions to preface his use of Scripture in Gal 3:11–12 (introductory words underlined, quotations in italics): ὅτι δὲ ἐν νόμῳ οὐδεὶς δικαιοῦται παρὰ τῷ θεῷ δῆλον, ὅτι ὁ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεως ζήσεται· ὁ δὲ νόμος οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ πίστεως, ἀλλ᾿ ὁ ποιήσας αὐτὰ ζήσεται ἐν αὐτοῖς. For it is clear no-one is justified before God by the law, because the righteous will live by faith. But the law is not of faith, rather the one who does them will live by them.

By means of the surrounding context (where more formal citation formulae are evident) these instances are clearly presented as scriptural citations, tied into the flow of Paul’s argument by means of these conjunctions. Because of such instances, some scholars opt for a dual definition of quotation along the lines of (a) a formal introduction or (b) being clear from context—a subjective, but defensible, judgement.13 12. Steyn carefully outlines his parameters, but deals only with “explicit quotations” in Luke: Gert J. Steyn, Septuagint Quotations in the Context of the Petrine and Pauline Speeches of the Acta Apostolorum, Contributions to Biblical Exegesis & Theology 12 (Kampen: Pharos, 1995), 26. Cf. also Stendahl’s approach to drawing a line between a quotation and an allusion in Matthew’s Gospel, Krister Stendahl, The School of St. Matthew, and its Use of the Old Testament, 2nd ed. (Uppsala: Gleerup, 1968), 45–46. 13. For example, David New’s “rough guidelines” for distinguishing a quotation from an allusion are: “A quotation will normally have an introductory formula indicating that the following text is a quotation. Should this formula be lacking, evidence that it is the intention of the writer to make an explicit quotation will suffice. This evidence could take the form of several words identical to an OT text. On the other hand, if the text has no more than a fleeting resemblance to a possible OT text, then even an introductory formula might not indicate a biblical quotation.” David

Linguistic Models and Methodology | 55 Restricting quotations only to those instances in which there is a clear textual marker may unduly limit recognition of direct uses of Scripture.14 Frequently phrases appear (from context) to be quotations but are not introduced in any way—they are simply part of the wider sentence, while using wording from another text.15 For example, again in Galatians 3, Paul uses the wording of Genesis 15 in verse 6 but does not introduce it as such: Καθὼς Ἀβραὰμ ἐπίστευσεν τῷ θεῷ, καὶ ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ εἰς δικαιοσύνην. Just as Abraham believed God and it was accredited to him as righteousness.

So there are evident uses of Scripture that deploy either the exact wording of another text or something close to it, but exhibit a range of signals to the reader that this is the case. Beale’s definition of a quotation is therefore useful: “A quotation is a direct citation of an OT passage that is easily recognizable by its clear and unique verbal parallelism.”16 Here he restricts the larger category of “citation” to a parallelism of the words used, such that it is clear enough to the reader that another source is being adopted. Considering the clause or sentence level only, we can assess references to the OT in the NT at four levels of specificity: (1) direct quotations, with associated quotation formulae/introductions, for example, γέγραπται, etc. (inclusive of non-specific introductions, e.g., ὅτι); (2) direct parallels, which employ the wording of OT texts but are not explicitly introduced as such; (3) allusions or paraphrases, which are less direct references to particular texts or passages; and (4) echoes, which are similar to allusions but even less direct—often to a concept, person, or event Stewart New, Old Testament Quotations in the Synoptic Gospels, and the Two-Document Hypothesis, SCS 37 (Atlanta: SBL, 1993), 8. 14. Ancient scribes evidently had what van der Bergh calls “Old Testament awareness”: they identified scriptural use, and marked it out in the layout of the text itself, using indications such as indentation in the margin of certain manuscripts for scriptural quotations. See Ronald H. van der Berg, “ ‘Old Testament Awareness’ and the Textual Tradition of the Explicit Quotations of Isaiah in Codex Bezae’s Acts,” NovT 57 (2015): 360–78. 15. Considering the presence or absence of a quotation in this way does not make any comment on the significance of the quotation—merely its identification as a quotation as such. Cf. Soderberg, “Quotation Formula.” 16. Beale, Handbook, 29. Admittedly in the context of this project “verbal parallelism” is potentially misleading. Beale means “parallelism of the wording employed” rather than the kind of aspectual comparison under investigation here.

56 | Aspectual

Substitution

rather than a particular text. These four classes apply only at the clause or sentence level—there are other ways in which the NT authors can use the OT at structural and broader levels of discourse, but for our purposes we must set these aside as they do not entail direct correspondences in wording. Differences in literary style notwithstanding, these four gradations in reference are illustrated in the following paragraph that contains a series of appeals to the works of William Shakespeare: The apparent meaningless of life and unrighteous cause-and-effect of earthly existence in which the wicked prosper and the righteous suffer, noted alike by the writer of Ecclesiastes and the psalmist, is echoed widely in Western literature—as Shakespeare says, “Some rise by sin, and some by virtue fall.” There is a suffering that is common to all, yet for some the only alternative to enduring these slings and arrows of outrageous fortune appears to be to end them in the final sleep of death. Life without wisdom or righteousness for the psalmist is ultimately immaterial, blown away like chaff (Ps 1:4), full of bluster and rage but standing for nothing. Mortality will have her pound of flesh.

Note that alongside biblical references the first sentence contains a direct quotation from Shakespeare, introduced as such (from Escalus’s speech in Measure for Measure, Act II, Scene I). The next sentence uses parallel language drawn from Hamlet’s famous “to be or not to be” soliloquy (the phrase “slings and arrows of outrageous fortune” is word-for-word from Hamlet, Act III, Scene I). This sentence continues with an allusion to the following lines of the same speech: the alternative given in this sentence is a circumlocution of “’Tis a consummation / devoutly to be wished. To die, to sleep, / To sleep, perchance to Dream.” The third sentence uses indirect language to allude to Macbeth’s description of life: “it is a tale / Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, / Signifying nothing” (Macbeth, Act V, Scene V). Note that this is an allusion to one particular text, while the final sentence contains an echo to a recurring theme/plot device regarding debt, revenge, and death in The Merchant of Venice. In this project, we will consider the first two types of textual reference—direct quotation, introduced as presenting an exact prior utterance, and parallel language, in which the form of the earlier text is used but may not be flagged clearly as a quotation. I will describe both of these uses of the OT as “quotations” when clear parallelism of four words or more is evident, and are presented within acceptable bounds of ancient quotation.17 17. The choice of four words as a boundary condition is somewhat arbitrary, but is intended to be (a) long enough to exclude individual words or terms, and (b) short enough to create a viable set of texts to analyze.

Linguistic Models and Methodology | 57 Michael Licona has defined “acceptable bounds of ancient quotation” in his work on synoptic parallels and the degree of differences found in particular parallel texts.18 He examined Plutarch’s Nine Lives and initially set out to provide a synopsis comparable to Aland’s Synopsis of the Four Gospels, juxtaposing the pericopes appearing in two or more of those nine Lives.19 He found, however, that Plutarch paraphrased much more freely than the Gospel writers do, yet in so doing remained very much in line with what contemporary compositional textbooks described as “quotation.” Despite employing many of the same devices that these compositional manuals describe, the Gospel writers, says Licona, evidence minimal editing by ancient standards. Citing Gerald Browning he notes that the remarkable refusal to paraphrase in the main indicates a high regard for the very words of Scripture, more so even than Josephus.20 This is not to say that there are no changes, but simply that there are fewer than we might expect given the conventions of the time. Furthermore, the changes that we do see are commonplace and to be expected, such as minor rearrangement of the order of clause components, or an alteration of tense-form or lexical item.21 In fact, both the normal practice of paraphrase/alternate expression and the remarkable practice of textual similarity in quotation is significant for our purposes. The former means that intentional changes to an authoritative text put in a new context are normal, widespread, understood by the audience, and do not diminish the authority of the quoted text. The latter shows reverence and a high view of the text as given—which in turn places greater significance on the (surprisingly few) instances in which authors choose to diverge from their sources.

18. Michael R. Licona, Why are there Differences in the Gospels? What We can Learn from Ancient Biography (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017). 19. Licona, Differences in the Gospels, 199. 20. Licona, Differences in the Gospels, 200. 21. Cf. also the citation techniques in Mark’s Gospel (and Paul) noted by Evans, including inversion of the order of quoted phrases and a change in the referent of the original verse. Craig A. Evans, “Why Did the New Testament Writers Appeal to the Old Testament?” JSNT 38 (2015): 43–44; Gert J. Steyn, “Observations on the Text Form of the Minor Prophets Quotations in Romans 9–11,” JSNT 38 (2015): 52–53; Susan Docherty, “ ‘Do you Understand what you Are Reading?’ (Acts 8.30): Current Trends and Future Perspectives in the Study of the Use of the Old Testament in the New,” JSNT 38 (2015): 118.

58 | Aspectual

Substitution

Given these considerations, I will conclude that a NT text is quoting an OT text if:

1. there is a quotation formula or contextual indicators that reveal a direct citation, or 2. there are clear, direct parallels over at least four words of an OT text, with minimal variation (e.g., word order, or other minor alterations).

Which Text? Having established a working criteria for identifying quotations, the next step in identifying verbal parallels and alterations is to examine the source of the quotation. Martin Hengel claims that “it can easily be deduced from the verbatim citations in the New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers which collection of writings were involved and which books were given preference.”22 By this he means that one can tell if the author is referring to the Hebrew or Greek text, but even within such broad brush-strokes details of the exact form of an antecedent text are not so simply defined. Some citations appear to formally side with the Greek, while presupposing knowledge of the Hebrew argumentation.23 Other instances arguably seek to pull the interpretation of the Greek back towards the Hebrew.24 J. Ross Wagner’s survey of scholarship on Paul’s use of the LXX outlines the varied approaches to his source texts, in addition to possibilities of quotation from memory and/or “testimony books” of excerpts.25 In such cases there is no direct source chain available, that is, the transformation cannot be represented simply

2 2. Hengel, The Septuagint as Christian Scripture, 22. 23. Richard Bauckham, “James and the Jerusalem Church,” in The Book of Acts in its Palestinian Setting, ed. Richard Bauckham (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 461–62. 24. Paul A. Himes, “Why Did Peter Change the Septuagint? A Reexamination of the Significance of the Use of Τίθημι in 1 Peter 2:6,” BBR 26 (2016): 227–44. 25. J. Ross Wagner, Heralds of the Good News: Isaiah and Paul in Concert in the Letter to the Romans (Leiden: Koninklijke, 2002), 5–13, 20–28. Cf. Christopher D. Stanley, Paul and the Language of Scripture: Citation Technique in the Pauline Epistles and Contemporary Literature, SNTSMS 69 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992); Timothy H. Lim, Holy Scripture in the Qumran Commentaries and Pauline Letters (Oxford: Clarendon, 1997), 12–18; Timothy H. Lim, “Qumran Scholarship and the Study of the Old Testament in the New Testament,” JSNT 38 (2015): 68–80.

Linguistic Models and Methodology | 59 by [LXX] → [authorial change of verb form] → [NT text].26 Susan Docherty, reflecting on the complexity of the textual state of the LXX in the first century and the scribal practices of conforming LXX texts to NT readings and vice versa, argues that we should assume the writer to the Hebrews cites his sources faithfully without deliberate alteration.27 That is, she suggests that “the current state of thinking within the field of Septuagintal Studies now reverses the burden of proof, placing it on those who would argue against a variant reading and for a definite theologically motivated alteration of a biblical source-text, rather than the other way round.”28 This is not a new idea unique to the current state of scholarship; it is merely increasingly accepted due to ongoing textual discoveries. Stendahl conceded this point about his work on Matthew’s Gospel: New data are about to allow new and better founded hypotheses about text forms available in the first century A.D. Such a promising yet unfinished state of affairs both hinders and helps further progress in the study of Matthew quotations. It makes it more probable that readings found in Matthew could witness to text forms actually available in Greek, prior to Matthew. It makes the recourse to testimonies less compelling as an explanation of textual peculiarities.29

None of these observations exclude the possibility of identifying the source text— nor, to the last point, that a deliberate alteration has been made—but they do mean that greater sophistication is required than simply citing the major manuscript witnesses to Rahlfs and judging them the source of the quotation. Careful work on the sources for NT quotations is necessary, and alternative manuscripts 26. Even in these cases, however, all is not lost. If the clauses have directly comparable Greek, as per the working quotation definition, the impact of the alteration in verb form can still be assessed in the two contexts. What we must be very careful of—generally speaking, but especially in these cases—is any implication of motivated change. That is, we ought to be careful not to assume we know that the NT author changed the OT text (or why). We can, however, study the resultant effect of the change in the discourse setting(s) somewhere in the transmission history. 27. Susan Docherty, “The Text Form of the OT Citations in Hebrews Chapter 1 and the Implications for the Study of the Septuagint,” NTS 55 (2009): 364–65. 28. Docherty, “Text Form,” 365. 29. Stendahl, School of St. Matthew, iv; cited in Graham Stanton, “Matthew,” in Scripture Citing Scripture: Essays in Honour of Barnabas Lindars, SSF, eds. D. A. Carson and H. G. M. Williamson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 208.

60 | Aspectual

Substitution

entertained to pinpoint the source of the quotation and its textual form. The goal of this study is not to rehearse, replicate, or even necessarily improve upon the many studies of textual traditions and source text forms for NT citations. These have been covered in great detail by a vast number of scholars for each of the books of the NT (see the exegetical work in later chapters for relevant examples of their works). The intent here is to build upon that work: by identifying the availability of sources and the likely texts used for NT citations we can see what changes have been made, and their significance in their new context. Regarding the broader implications of Docherty’s argument—that the burden of proof must rest on those arguing for a deliberate alteration of a source— the issue of sources that the NT authors had access to (but that we do not) must be addressed. Given the textual fluidity of the LXX at the time of the composition of the NT, is it possible that a NT author faithfully reproduced a source that we simply have never seen? Recent scholarship has shown this to be a real possibility: we now have access to manuscripts that only decades ago were lay undiscovered, and we can now identify LXX texts that match much more closely to NT wording than was previously evident. For any particular instance, therefore, there is a non-zero possibility that future discoveries may demonstrate no actual differences in textual form. At the present time, however, such possibilities are untestable hypotheses. Furthermore, the broad sweep NT quotations mitigates the difficulty raised by uncertainty inherent in the precise relationship of a quotation to its source text. Any specific quotation has a real (but small) chance of being shown to be, in fact, not an altered quotation. However, when considering dozens of similarly altered quotations (as we can at this time label them), the chance that multiple similarly unattested readings exist in manuscripts that we do not posses, quoted across multiple authors and OT source books, becomes very small indeed. Part of the strength of a study across the whole NT corpus is the production of such a statistical effect—even if a few particular instances are shown to be irrelevant to the study as a whole, the cumulative weight of comparable instances across a range of authors, styles, genres, idiolects, and contexts remains strong.

Data Set Complexities of the preceding discussion notwithstanding, we still need a starting point from which to identify possible altered quotations, after which closer examination of specific instances can be undertaken. The appropriate critical editions, where available—NA28 and the Göttingen editions, where they are complete,

Linguistic Models and Methodology | 61 with Rahlfs as a fallback30—are used to create an initial list of quotations of the LXX in the NT.31 As an aid to constructing this set of quotations various lists and databases are consulted.32 These particular instances (some 240 occasions) are then compared to the LXX to rule out occasions where the NT use is too loose or paraphrastic, or quotations that appear to be the NT author’s translation from a Semitic source rather than a quotation of a prior Greek source. Again, we are

30. NB: We will assume that the Göttingen critical editions sufficiently reflect the Old Greek for our purposes here. Where these editions do not exist, the IOSCS statement on “Critical Editions of Septuagint/Old Greek Texts” is consulted for the recommended critical edition(s). See http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/ioscs/editions.html. 31. Using these texts as an initial comparison point for quotations does indeed take account of the preceding discussion about possible variants, for if there is no variation from the major LXX witnesses to the NT then any claim of intentional change by the NT author using another source is very much a minority report and, for our purposes, can be safely discarded. The reverse case—where there appears to be a change from the major LXX witnesses to the NT—needs more scrutiny for possible variant sources. 32. Amongst others: the appendices and marginal notes to NA28 and UBS5; Martin Karrer, ed., “Datenbank Septuagintazitate im NT,” (2011) http://www.isbtf.de/ datenbank-septuagintazitate-im-nt/; G. Archer and G. Chinichigno, Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament: A Complete Survey (Chicago: Moody, 1983); R. G. Bratcher, Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament (London: United Bible Societies, 1983); W. Dittmar, Vetus Testamentum in Novo: Die alttestamentlichen Parallelen des Neuen Testament im Wortlaut der Urtexte und der Septuaginta (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1899); Hans Hübner, Vetus Testamentum in Novo (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997); Kaiser, Uses of the OT; Beale and Carson, eds., Commentary. Regarding these databases and lists, we need to compare their working definitions of “quotation” to the operative definition provided above. For example, the Wuppertal database “combines three widely acknowledged aspects [of the definition of a quotation]: the existence of a quotation marker in the text (New Testament); the use of a whole phrase from a pre-text (Septuagint or related text); and, the evidence of the old scriptoria (discernible by annotations and margins in the manuscripts).” See Johannes de Vries and Martin Karrer, “Early Christian Quotations and the Textual History of the Septuagint: A Summary of the Wuppertal Research Project and Introduction to the Volume,” in Textual History and the Reception of Scripture in Early Christianity, eds. Johannes de Vries and Martin Karrer (Atlanta: SBL, 2014), 7.

62 | Aspectual

Substitution

looking for quotations rather than allusions or echoes, with clear parallelism of four words or more, presented within the acceptable bounds of ancient quotation. As a result, instances of apparent quotation of the Hebrew text, loose allusions, and apparent quotations from memory are excluded from the comparison. A quotation formula is not required for identification—only a close and clear parallel in wording. Within this set of close quotations from a Greek source, we are then interested in those quotations where there is a change to the verb, whether it be aspect, voice, mood, or otherwise. That is, we want to find places where the NT authors quote the Greek and change the verb, with minimal other changes in the quotation. Isolating the verbal change from other additional changes in this way will help identify the impact, if any, on the discourse. Such a procedure yields approximately one hundred instances of verbal form change, with minimal variations otherwise (e.g., word order, lexical substitution). Aspectual change is necessarily often accompanied by other alterations of mood, person, voice, and occasionally lexeme. Changes are evident in the following verses:

• Matt 2:15, 18; 4:10, 15–16; 13:14; 16:27; 19:5, 18–19; 22:24; 24:29– 30; 26:31, 64; 27:35 • Mark 4:12; 9:48; 10:7, 19; 12:19; 13:25–26; 14:27, 62; 15:24 • Luke 4:8, 19; 8:10; 18:20; 20:28; 21:27; 23:34, 46 • John 1:23, 51; 2:17; 15:25; 19:24 • Acts 1:20; 2:27–31; 4:24; 7:5, 32–33, 40; 28:26 • Romans 2:6; 3:4; 9:9, 27, 33; 10:11; 11:2–4; 12:20 • 1 Corinthians 5:13; 15:27, 54 • Hebrews 2:12; 8:5, 10; 10:6, 16; 13:5 • 1 Peter 2:3; 3:10–12 • James 2:11 • Revelation 2:27; 7:17; 14:11; 18:2

With the data assembled, the task that follows in subsequent chapters is to compare and contrast the citations across the NT corpus with their source texts, taking into account overall characteristics of authorial style and source text translation. While Hays’s criteria for identifying a scriptural echo are not developed for quotations as such, they nevertheless provide a useful checklist of contextual factors. In particular, considerations such as what text was available to the NT author is useful not only for text-critical evaluation, but also

Linguistic Models and Methodology | 63 for evaluating the impact of the quotation in the discourse.33 Because of the stricter requirements for identifying a “quotation” rather than an allusion or an echo, there is less scope for literary sensitivity and intertextual analysis in identifying a quotation. The points of connection Hays outlines between source and target text, however, still apply to more direct textual parallels. Close exegetical work can then follow for significant examples of verbal change—examining the original and new contexts, the contribution that aspect brings to their literary placement, syntactical relationships, and discourse functions. While remaining agnostic of the outcome at this stage, I will adopt Campbell’s model of the Greek verbal system as an initial assumption while examining other possibilities. For instances of verbal change I will attempt to (a) confirm or falsify Campbell’s claims about the semantics of the form, and (b) compare the theoretical fitness of his model against other proposals. Such a comparison of verbal forms in original and new contexts, and their effect on the discourse in light of disagreements regarding verbal aspect, is an integral part of this process. We ought to be able to see, for example, if an aspectual change in the indicative mood forces a temporal interpretation apart from pragmatic factors (or, on the contrary, if this is not a consistent feature). In the same vein, examining how the Future indicative form is opposed to other forms (e.g., the Aorist subjunctive) will highlight the applicability of various models of the Greek verbal system. As an initial example of the sort of quotation and alterations we are interested in, consider a set of parallel examples. These sit on the edge of what we might consider a quotation, as opposed to an allusion or paraphrase. The quotation of Psalm 21:19 LXX in all four Gospels is illustrative of a number of relevant characteristics: the presence/absence of a quotation formula; variation in tense-form; change of person to fit the context; and compression of the original in changing genre (i.e., the Psalm’s original parallelism is compressed into a terser narrative statement): διεμερίσαντο τὰ ἱμάτιά μου ἑαυτοῖς καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν ἱματισμόν μου ἔβαλον κλῆρον. They divided my garments amongst themselves, and cast lots for my clothing. (Ps 21:19 LXX)34 3 3. Cf. Hays, Echoes, 28–32. 34. Here and in future citations, italics indicate the modified verbal forms in the LXX and NT contexts. This is not to be confused with the Nestle-Aland practice of marking quotations with italic text.

64 | Aspectual

Substitution

John 19:24 quotes this couplet exactly, using an explicit citation formula, and applies the verse to the actions of the soldiers: ἵνα ἡ γραφὴ πληρωθῇ [ἡ λέγουσα]· διεμερίσαντο τὰ ἱμάτιά μου ἑαυτοῖς καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν ἱματισμόν μου ἔβαλον κλῆρον. Οἱ μὲν οὖν στρατιῶται ταῦτα ἐποίησαν. … so that the Scripture might be fulfilled which says, “They divided my garments amongst themselves, and cast lots for my clothing.” The soldiers did these things. (John 19:24)

The Synoptic writers each vary the quotation in different ways, with none of them using a citation formula. All three change the quotation to refer to a third person rather than the speaker. Matthew changes the Aorist indicative from the second line into a Present participle: Σταυρώσαντες δὲ αὐτὸν διεμερίσαντο τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτοῦ βάλλοντες κλῆρον After crucifying him they divided his garments by casting lots (Matt 27:35)

Luke does the reverse, changing the first Aorist indicative but retaining the second: διαμεριζόμενοι δὲ τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτοῦ ἔβαλον κλήρους. Dividing his clothing they cast lots. (Luke 23:34)

Mark makes both Aorists into Presents, with the second a participle: Καὶ σταυροῦσιν αὐτὸν καὶ διαμερίζονται τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτοῦ, βάλλοντες κλῆρον ἐπ᾿ αὐτὰ τίς τί ἄρῃ. They crucified him and divided his garments, casting lots for them to see who would get what. (Mark 15:24)

Despite these variations from the LXX text, in my judgement the editors of NA28 are correct to flag these Synoptic instances as quotations of the Psalm—especially given the parallel to the more direct Johannine example. The implications of

Linguistic Models and Methodology | 65 these changes to the text will be discussed in the following chapter. For now, we note that, while the Synoptic examples are further down the scale of “directness” than the Johannine example, they nevertheless demonstrate clear parallels in their wording to the LXX across multiple words. They also provide several avenues for investigating the effect of these changes on the flow of the discourse in each particular instance.

Linguistic Justification Contrastive Substitution The process of analyzing pairs of clauses to identify the functional purpose of the differences between them is a tool found especially in structural linguistics.35 In this project we are interested in the paradigmatic opposition of verbal forms to assess the difference in their impact on the discourse. A point of distinction here from, say, Porter’s system network of paradigmatic oppositions, is that we are not developing a network of all possible substitutions (i.e., for any given clause we do not look at the set of all possible aspect forms in some kind of decision tree to develop a theory of markedness, for example). We are interested not in the theoretical possibilities, but in the function of the opposition of two particular instantiations. For example, in Peter’s quotation of Psalm 15:10 LXX in Acts 2:31 (discussed briefly in the introduction to this study) we have the instantiated forms of the Future ἐγκαταλείψεις and Aorist ἐγκατελείφθη respectively. It is the discourse function of these two aspects we are interested in (and not, say, what the Present or Perfect tense-forms would contribute). This is a particular, realized, subjective choice of the author—what they did choose, rather than the array of possible options the author could have chosen. Fundamental to analyzing this morphological opposition is the principle of “choice implies meaning”: where one means of expression is chosen over another possibility there is some effect on the meaning of the clause, determined by that choice.36 In what follows, detailed analysis of verbal change in particular instantiations of paradigmatic opposition will proceed via a variation of a linguistic test known as “contrastive substitution.” This test, as outlined by Carl Bache, is one

3 5. de Saussure, Linguistique Générale, 166–67; Crystal, Linguistics and Phonetics, 54. 36. Runge, Discourse Grammar, 3; Halliday, Introduction, 22–24.

66 | Aspectual

Substitution

in which the contribution of verbal aspect to meaning is seen by different verb forms placed into the same syntactic context—that is, what difference exists between two otherwise identical sentences when the verb form (and only the verb form) is altered. Bache describes the source of his inspiration for this process as Jakobson and Trubetzkoy’s functional view of language and their description of privative and equipollent oppositions, American phonology’s use of minimal pairs, and Halliday’s systemic grammar.37 He considers two areas of English grammar—restrictive clauses and verbal aspect—and investigates how a substitution relation demonstrates the semantic content of the substitutable component: does it provide a one-to-one correspondence of semantics with form (where a given form always corresponds to one, invariant semantic category), or is it a one-tomany correspondence (where several possible options exist for the given form)? Considering a substitution relationship between verbal forms, he notes that the semantic distinction between the English simple past and progressive past cannot be fully resolved by appeal to a theory of progression/completion, as the possible alternatives are too diverse. For example, consider just a couple of the examples he provides: I couldn’t imagine why Louise married him. I couldn’t imagine why Louise was marrying him. I had a chat with him the other day. I was having a chat with him the other day.38

The first two sentences describe quite separate time periods and processes, while the latter pair relate the same (objective) situation. The difference between the simple and progressive past, at least in these examples, is a one-to-many correspondence if appealing only to progression/completion. To account for this observation, and to account for the semantic complexity of binary oppositions of this type, Bache argues that different levels of meaning must be distinguished. He outlines King’s approach to English grammar—that “grammatically relevant” meaning is a one-to-one correspondence between forms of a system and the values of the relevant semantic category, and “grammatically 37. Carl Bache, Verbal Aspect: A General Theory and Its Application to Present-day English (Odense: Odense University Press, 1985), iii; Carl Bache, “The Semantics of Grammatical Categories: A Dialectical Approach,” Journal of Linguistics 21 (1985): 51–52. 38. Bache, “Semantics of Grammatical Categories,” 59.

Linguistic Models and Methodology | 67 irrelevant” meanings are one-to-many relationships39—and then expands upon it. He articulates “two levels of grammatically relevant meaning rather than just one”: a subjective “definition” level, corresponding to King’s “grammatically relevant meanings”; and a “function” level where variant meanings can be derived from the intersection of definitions of different systems.40 To see how Bache arrives at these two levels of semantics we will first outline how he sees meaning distinguished in opposable constructions. Bache outlines how constructions can be marked as +/−opposed, +/−substitutable, and +/−distinctive.41 Opposable forms (+opposed) constitute the broadest category. These are forms that can in fact be substituted for one another, a necessary condition for contrastive substitution. Examples of forms that cannot be opposed are those without a complete paradigm—for example, there is no possible Present opposition to the perfect form οἴδα; nor is there an Aorist opposition to the Present εἰμί. An English example is the lack of progressive forms of certain verbs with a stative sense, for example, “The bucket contains water” vs. “* The bucket is containing water.”42 Moving to tighter, more specific categories, substitutable forms (+substitutable) are +opposed replacement forms that are grammatical or acceptable. For example, consider the English verb “to run.” The past continuous form is “was running”; the past simple is “ran.” They are therefore +opposed forms. The following, however, is not acceptable as an independent clause, despite the past time context: * She was running two miles yesterday.

In this sentence construction the past continuous form is +opposed and –substitutable for the past simple “ran.” Finally, +distinctive constructions are +substitutable forms which, on replacement, produce a definite “clear and verifiable change” of propositional or truth-conditional meaning; −distinctive constructions are “saying the same thing

39. Larry D. King, “The Semantics of Tense, Orientation, and Aspect in English,” Lingua 59, nos. 2–3 (1983): 101–54. This approach is comparable to Porter and Campbell’s stark distinction between invariant semantic meaning and the array of possible pragmatic implicatures. 40. Bache, “Semantics of Grammatical Categories,” 63. 41. Bache, Verbal Aspect, 42, 124; Bache, Verbal Aspect, 46. 42. Note here and below the convention of prepending a grammatically unacceptable sentence with an asterisk.

68 | Aspectual

Substitution

but in different ways.”43 To illustrate this category, consider once again the English past simple and past continuous forms of “to die.” The following two example sentences describe different situations: Ali died. Ali was dying.

In this case, these forms are +opposed (the appropriate forms exist), +substitutable (both clauses are grammatically acceptable), and +distinctive (they produce a clear change of propositional meaning). It is possible, however, to produce two sentences that do not describe different events in reality, but do use different verb forms to express the same situation: Sarah moved to the door while talking. Sarah was moving to the door while talking.

The shift of verb form in the latter pair of sentences does not produce a difference in propositional content—in both cases Sarah moves to the door while simultaneously talking. The difference is one of viewpoint: the past simple views her movement externally, as an undifferentiated whole; the past continuous adopts a viewpoint internal to the movement. This is a −distinctive opposition. Returning to Bache’s framework for determine the semantics of contrastive verbal forms, he argues that the −distinctive contrasts, being subjective and free choices unconstrained by extralinguistic factors, provide the “definition” level of meaning. These substitutional variants display a minimum of semantic contrast, but this small definition can be generalized to be pervasively applicable across other usage contexts. For the −distinctive examples given above, where Sarah “moved/ was moving” to the door, at the definition level of the system “we find pure aspectual meanings—those of external, internal and neutral focus.”44 Given this “definition” level specification, the +distinctive, −substitutable and −opposed constructions can then be used to specify the “function” level of meaning, where the definition of the form intersects with other semantic categories (e.g., the interplay between aspect and Aktionsart or tense).45 Determining these levels of meaning in 4 3. Bache, “Semantics of Grammatical Categories,” 64–65, emphasis original. 44. Bache, “Semantics of Grammatical Categories,” 71–72. 45. Bache, “Semantics of Grammatical Categories,” 69, 72.

Linguistic Models and Methodology | 69 contrastive substitution is therefore important in defining the semantic content of the form: My analysis of the semantics of substitutional relations suggests that subjectivity may in fact be of central importance—at least in a theory of substitutional relations—in that it provides the definition level of meaning and thus the very basis for our understanding of the function level of meaning—the level which arguably is susceptible of an analysis in terms of truth conditions.46

Contrastive Substitution in Greek Aspect Studies This theory of contrastive substitution has had limited but important use in studies of the Greek verb. Stanley Porter claimed to employ contrastive substitution in his Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament to demonstrate the use of the same forms in different temporal contexts, and thus claimed that Koine tenseforms do not have temporal reference.47 He cites Bache twice (along with Curtius and Wallace) when appealing to contrastive substitution, but he does not appear to use the test rigorously or even correctly.48 He first appeals to this linguistic test by citing a number of variant uses of Greek verb forms, claiming that the most persuasive account of the verb must be able to provide a unified semantic theory that accounts for usages such as: Matt 8:25: κύριε … ἀπολλύμεθα (lord … we are perishing) Mark 11:27: καὶ ἔρχονται πάλιν εἰς Ἰεροσόλυμα (and they were coming again into J.) Matt 26:18: πρὸς σὲ ποιῶ τὸ πάσχα μετὰ τῶν μαθητῶν μου (with you I am going to make the passover with my disciples) Matt 7:19: πᾶν δένδρον μὴ ποιοῦν καρπὸν καλὸν ἐκκόπτεται καὶ εἰς πῦρ βάλλεται (every tree not making good fruit is cut off and thrown into the fire) 2 Cor 9:7: ἱλαρὸν γὰρ δότην ἀγαπᾷ ὁ θεός (for God loves a joyful giver).49

This, however, is certainly not “contrastive substitution” in the terms Bache defines. It is, in fact, almost the complete opposite: rather than considering otherwise 4 6. Bache, “Semantics of Grammatical Categories,” 77. 47. Porter, Verbal Aspect, 75. 48. Porter, Verbal Aspect, 77, 83. 49. Porter, Verbal Aspect, 75. Note this list (Matt 8:25–2 Cor 9:7) is a direct quotation from Porter. He goes on to list similar examples for the Aorist and Perfect forms.

70 | Aspectual

Substitution

identical sentences with the change of the verb form only, Porter here considers the same tense-form not only with different lexical items but across totally different sentence constructions. Porter’s definition demonstrates this misreading: Applying this to the Greek examples above, it becomes clear according to a principle of contrastive substitution (see Curtius, Elucidations, 209; Bache, Aspect, 1; cf. Collinge, “Reflexions,” 89 n. 1, as well as several grammarians analysed in chapt. 1)—by which the identical form is used in different temporal contexts—that Greek does not grammaticalize absolute tense with the Present, since only Matt 8:25 clearly makes reference to present time as defined above.50

This is simply not at all the terms of Bache’s test. It is an interesting set of uses to investigate, but it is not contrastive substitution. Porter’s point—that the tense forms are used (and, implicitly, regularly used) outside their putative temporal frame—is not therefore invalid, but this is clearly the wrong linguistic test to appeal to at this point. Later, Porter offers a second set of examples, using terms for speech and knowledge: Luke 21:10: τότε ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς (then he was saying to them) Luke 20:41: εἶπεν … πρὸς αὐτούς (he said … to them) Acts 20:38: τῷ λόγῳ ᾧ εἰρήκει (the word which he spoke) Luke 24:18: ούκ ἔγνως τὰ γενόμενα ἐν αὐτῇ ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ταύταις; (you don’t know the state of things [in Jerusalem] these days?) John 5:42: ἔγνωκα ὑμᾶς (I know you) John 21:17: σύ γινώσκεις ὅτι … (you know that …)51

These examples, while not being ideally identical apart from the verb forms in the way a constructed set of examples might be, do conform more properly to the principles of contrastive substitution in that they demonstrate the variation in meaning due to the insertion of different tense forms of the same item. In Bache’s terms, these verse triplets are (roughly) +opposable and +substitutable. I say “roughly” here because Porter does not construct entirely identical sentences, but uses particular verses from the New Testament that are as similar as possible. In arguing against an Aktionsart explanation for these latter groups of verses he acknowledges that in the absence of

5 0. Porter, Verbal Aspect, 77, emphasis added. 51. Porter, Verbal Aspect, 83.

Linguistic Models and Methodology | 71 any other contextual information they could well refer to exactly the same objective situations—in other words, there is no necessary truth-conditional or propositional distinction. Porter’s argument is that there is a semantic distinction to be found between these tense forms (otherwise why would there be a formal distinction?) but a strictly objective, type-of-action statement cannot be the best explanation. In Bache’s terms, therefore, these groups of sentences are +opposable, +substitutable, and −distinctive. They describe the same thing using different words. Stephen Runge has critiqued Porter’s use of contrastive substitution both in terms of his methodology and his conclusions.52 Runge’s argument, in brief, is that Porter only cites +distinctive examples to bolster his aspectual opposition case, while his non-temporal argument is drawn only from −distinctive data.53 Runge argues that −distinctive oppositions do not create meaningful semantic shifts, so cannot indicate anything other than the subjective contribution of aspect alone—that is, these oppositions cannot be used to conclude that tense is not grammaticalized in the verb. There are, however, some issues with Runge’s critique. First, he adopts Porter’s erroneous definitions and examples of contrastive substitution—presumably so that he can critique Porter’s position on his own terms—which is a step that does not clarify matters. He therefore calls the Matt 8:25/Mark 11:27/etc. group above −distinctive examples, even though they describe not only entirely different temporal frames but completely distinct situations. The speaking/knowing group (Luke 21:10/Luke 20:41/etc. above) he labels +distinctive, presumably on the basis of Porter’s assertion that there is a meaningful semantic difference. However, as outlined above this is not the best characterization of Porter’s examples, even granting the loose application of contrastive substitution.54 The criticism of Porter’s application of his linguistic sources is therefore both valid on some points— Porter does not appear to have accurately cited or applied Bache’s framework— but the case for a methodological fault is not necessarily as strong. The problem Runge finds with Porter’s method is captured here: Examples from Bache’s fourth “−distinctive” group—those which lack a clear semantic distinction—are used to disprove the presence of absolute tense in

5 2. Runge, “Contrastive Substitution.” 53. Runge, “Contrastive Substitution,” 159–64. 54. Mike Aubrey in his discussion is nuanced in his evaluation of the lexical items being used, and labels the γινώσκω group as –distinctive (Type IV in his terminology). Aubrey, “Greek Perfect,” 47–48.

72 | Aspectual

Substitution

Greek, whereas examples from the +distinctive group provide the basis for his description of verbal aspect. In other words, Porter only considers the portion of the data that makes his point, without considering the remaining portion.55

This is not accurate. Runge’s explanation, “those which lack a clear semantic distinction,” is should be “those which lack a clear propositional or truth-conditional distinction.” If we recognize that the group Runge labels as +distinctive is in fact −distinctive, then Porter does proceed in a defensible way: these examples are used to highlight a purely subjective, free, aspectual opposition, which then forms the basis for a description of verb forms in contexts where there is an interaction with other language features such as temporal reference frames. Runge has not entirely invalidated Porter’s method, only demonstrated his inaccuracy in citing a framework he claims to use. Runge not only critiques Porter’s methodology in drawing on contrastive substitution, but also critiques the conclusion that he draws—namely, that tense is not grammaticalized in Greek verbs. Runge cites what he terms a reductio ad absurdum from Stephen Wallace’s discussion of the interconnectedness of tense, aspect, and mood.56 But Wallace’s point is more general than Porter’s discussion, being about a universal grammar description of tense, aspect, and modality: The facts are such that we must agree with Lyons (690) when he says: “… at this point there is not, and cannot be, in universal grammar any sharp distinction between tense and aspect, on the one hand, or between tense and modality, on the other.”57

Wallace’s supposed reductio does not entirely demonstrate the point Runge asserts. After mention of the existence of the historical Present, where the “present” tense narrates past events (see the previous chapter for a discussion on the possibilities in Greek here), he notes that English and French have a “polite or indirect use of the ‘past’ tense,” for example, saying “Did you want me?” in place of the more direct “Do you want me?”58 This, however, is not exactly a “past” tense referring to a 5 5. Runge, “Contrastive Substitution,” 161. 56. Stephen Wallace, “Figure and Ground: The Interrelationships of Linguistic Categories,” in Tense-Aspect: Between Semantics and Pragmatics, ed. Paul J. Hopper (Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1982), 201–23. 57. Wallace, “Figure and Ground,” 207, emphasis added. 58. Wallace, “Figure and Ground,” 202–03.

Linguistic Models and Methodology | 73 “present” event. This phrase is more polite because of the tense—it defers from an assumption of current motives on the part of the other person to what can be reasonably inferred about what has already happened. In other words, this is not an example of English using different tense forms in the same temporal context; the English verbs still operate temporally. Wallace’s point is simply that there is also a modal element here, tied up in a complicated fashion with tense. Moreover, a description of the interaction between these categories when describing languages in general, rather than in one particular language, is a complicated endeavor. Yet this complexity that is true of languages in general does not rule out a particular language in fact being separable: What then, is the usefulness of viewing grammatical organization in terms of the figure-ground distinction, if it does not always predict the facts of individual languages correctly? Above all, generality is a highly valued property of scientific explanations, hypotheses, and theories, even though the most general statement sometimes fails to be the most accurate.59

In principle, therefore, Porter’s procedure is not invalidated. Porter uses the contrastive substitution test in a partially correct way, while also misapplying the term to another quite different observation. If it is considered apart from the claim of aligning with contrastive substitution, this other observation—that the same tense form is used in very different contexts—is not in itself methodologically suspect nor are the conclusions impossible. The contrast between “he died” and “he was dying” in English is +distinctive in part because of the interaction of Aktionsart and tense, conveyed necessarily by morphology. If it could be demonstrated that this is frequently not the case for Greek (i.e., at least often enough that “tense” is not a reliable descriptor of the form) then a comparable contrast in Greek may not be necessarily +distinctive. If it can be shown that Greek regularly uses tense forms contrary to their “expected” temporal frame then it is reasonable in principle to claim that the temporal frame of an utterance is a result of the verb’s aspectual value acting in combination with other linguistic features. Put differently: the semantic distinction between clauses in terms of tense can be understood as the result of a definitional aspectual distinction, gleaned from −distinctive contrasts, acting in concert with other features to demonstrate the form’s functional semantic value in particular contexts.

59. Wallace, “Figure and Ground,” 217.

74 | Aspectual

Substitution

A Modified Contrastive Substitution Tying this discussion back to the methodological procedure for this study, contrastive substitution can be meaningfully applied to the analysis of variations in scriptural citations. Many NT quotations of the OT, when compared to the original OT clause, contain the same truth-conditional content. These quotations are therefore −distinctive constructions. That is, the functional variance evident at the level of the clause between two −distinctive texts that differ only by tense-form is the subjective contribution of aspect. Hebrews 8:5 is an excellent example of this pattern of −distinctive quotations. The author of Hebrews quotes Exodus 25:40, referring to the pattern of the heavenly tabernacle shown to Moses on the mountain. Both texts—Exodus 25:40 and Hebrews 8:5—look back to when Moses was “shown” the pattern on Mount Sinai. That is, both OT and NT texts refer to the same event—they have identical propositional content. The verb “shown,” however, is a Perfect tense-form in Exodus 25:40 and an Aorist tense-form in Hebrews 8:5. These verses therefore relate the same event using different words, thus these clauses are −distinctive in the terms Bache defines. Unfortunately, not everything is quite so straightforward. The discourse function of quotations means that we need to take a broader view of how verbal oppositions can be compared. Whenever a quotation is inserted into a new context, a re-contextualization process occurs. Transformation of meaning is the result of quotation, even without any change to the text of the quotation.60 We could term this “saying something different, but in the same way.” For example, if I give a speech and refer to events of 193361 by saying “Four score and seven years ago,” or claim that “The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here,” I quote Abraham Lincoln word for word. The use to which this quotation is put, however, dictates that the situations are very different. Quotations can often be used in a similar way in the Scriptures, saying something rather different from the original referent by using the exact or very similar words. To pick just one scriptural example, consider the announcements in the Synoptic Gospels of the coming

60. Sternberg calls this the “Proteus Principle” after the shape-shifting, future-telling Greek god of the sea: Meir Sternberg, “Proteus in Quotation-Land: Mimesis and the Forms of Reported Discourse,” Poetics Today 3 (1982): 107–56; cf. Katja Kujanpää, “From Eloquence to Evading Responsibility: The Rhetorical Functions of Quotations in Paul’sArgumentation,” JBL 136 (2017): 186. 61. At the time of writing, 1933 was 87 years ago.

Linguistic Models and Methodology | 75 Messiah: Matthew 3:3; Mark 1:3; Luke 3:5.62 The evangelists quote Isaiah 40:3 in identical fashion, writing φωνὴ βοῶντος ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ· ἑτοιμάσατε τὴν ὁδὸν κυρίου, εὐθείας ποιεῖτε τὰς τρίβους αὐτοῦ (“A voice crying out in the wilderness: ‘Prepare the way of the Lord, make straight his paths.’ ”).63 While this quotation “says the same thing” as its source text, the new contextual setting announcing the ministry of Jesus gives it a new interpretation. Factors external to the verbal morphology control a difference in semantics. There are therefore two intersecting levels of analysis that enable us to deal with complex examples: contextual transformation of meaning; and semantic shift due to contrastive substitution. Some quotations display both of these transformations: the contextual interpretation, separate to the verbal form, controls a difference in the semantics of the clause. In addition, a verbal substitution is made that provides a further functional variance at the level of the clause. Some quotations will fall under the +distinctive category, displaying a clear functional shift due how the form is employed. What we can consider is a two-step process: first, consider how the NT passage would read if the quotation were unaltered. This will fix the extralinguistic factors of interpretation in place. (In other words, look for cases where quotations are “saying something different, but in the same way.”) Second, consider the semantic shift that results from substituting the verb form— does it result in a +distinctive or −distinctive contrast, and why? (In other words, look for cases where quotations are “saying the same thing but in different ways.”) Teasing out these categories for each set of texts will form a useful test to examine how verbal aspect contributes to altered quotations, and which of the available models of the verb best accounts for these shades of meaning.

62. John 1:23 is parallel to these verses but has its own particularities. See Appendix A for details. 63. The only difference from the source text is the insignificant gloss of τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν by αὐτοῦ.

4

The Synoptic Gospels

Having outlined the general methodological approach this project takes, we can now turn to the relevant NT texts. To adequately account for issues such as idiolect, patterns of source usage, and quotation technique—and to make the analysis of such a large number of texts manageable—we will consider quotations grouped by author. This chapter concerns the Synoptic Gospels, addressed together because most of their quotations occur in some form across more than one Gospel. The verses are presented in canonical order, treating parallels together. There are several interesting examples of aspectual substitution in the Synoptics (including parallels). Most of these involve a Future tense-form, often substituting for a modal meaning (e.g., an imperative, or an expectation). A further set of non-aspectual changes can also be found in the Synoptic quotations of the LXX (e.g., changes to person, mood, etc.). This latter category is treated briefly, and the relevant verses are collected together in Appendix A. As a general outline we can proceed using the method sketched above. We can determine if the change being made is −distinctive or +distinctive in Bache’s terms.1 If it is not distinctive, then the subjective contribution 1. Depending on the quotation, the distinctive/non-distinctive determination may be clear. It may however require a further step of postulating a theoretical alternative NT

78 | Aspectual

Substitution

of aspect can be observed. If it is distinctive, then we consider what produces the semantic shift. What feature is combined with aspect in this situation: for example, tense, Aktionsart, etc.? At the outset, a number of general comments may be offered regarding the Synoptic authors. Because of the prevalence of the Future form in these verses, first we note the difficulties inherent to nomenclature. For those who regard the Future as an anomalous form that is part mood, part tense, and part aspect, the label “Future indicative” puts a thumb on the scales to an unacceptable degree. However, in the interests of brevity and ease of identification, I will retain the label “indicative” because of its widespread usage, but will also note the arguments along the way that speak against this determination of its modal value. Second, I do not take a position on, nor argue for a particular solution to, the Synoptic problem. Certainly the differences between the authors evident in the following discussion could be (and, in the commentaries, are) fruitful data for discussion of what relationship(s) may exist between the authors and their sources. However, for our purposes such a discussion is largely tangential: either the Gospels agree, in which case the existence or direction of the relationship doesn’t matter; or they differ, at which point the differences in quoted text also bypasses the question of source relationships. If a change was made to quoted material, it is little different for our purposes whether, say, Luke altered Mark or Isaiah. Either way, we see a contrast in aspectual form, presented in multiple contexts. Because of the existence of parallels across multiple Gospels the same analysis can be performed on the grammatical contrast and rhetorical effect of such changes without reference to the question of source. Third, the Synoptics present something of a special case regarding the definition of a quotation adopted above—namely the presence of a quotation formula or equivalent contextual indicators, or clear parallels over at least four words with minimal variation. Some quotations considered below are further down the “allusion” end of the spectrum than we would prefer. Nevertheless they are included here because a more direct quotation exists in another ­Gospel.

text that quotes the LXX without alteration. Comparing this theoretical text with the actual text will reveal the difference brought about by the aspectual substitution, and its distinctive/non-distinctive character.

The Synoptic Gospels | 79

Matthew 4:15–16 Isaiah 8:23–9:1 LXX Τοῦτο πρῶτον ποίει, ταχὺ ποίει, χώρα Ζαβουλων, ἡ γῆ Νεφθαλιμ ὁδὸν θαλάσσης καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ οἱ τὴν παραλίαν κατοικοῦντες καὶ πέραν τοῦ Ιορδάνου, Γαλιλαία τῶν ἐθνῶν, τὰ μέρη τῆς Ιουδαίας. 9:1 ὁ λαὸς ὁ πορευόμενος ἐν σκότει, ἴδετε φῶς μέγα· οἱ κατοικοῦντες ἐν χώρᾳ καὶ σκιᾷ θανάτου, φῶς λάμψει ἐφ᾿ ὑμᾶς. 8:23

Do this first, and do it quickly, land of Zebulun, the land of Naphthali by the sea road, and the rest of those who live on the coast and beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the gentiles, the regions of Judea. 9:1 The people who walk in darkness, see a great light! Those who dwell in the country and in the shadow of death, a light will shine on you. 8:23

Matthew 4:14–16 ἵνα πληρωθῇ τὸ ῥηθὲν διὰ Ἠσαΐου τοῦ προφήτου λέγοντος· γῆ Ζαβουλὼν καὶ γῆ Νεφθαλίμ, ὁδὸν θαλάσσης, πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου, Γαλιλαία τῶν ἐθνῶν, 16 ὁ λαὸς ὁ καθήμενος ἐν σκότει φῶς εἶδεν μέγα, καὶ τοῖς καθημένοις ἐν χώρᾳ καὶ σκιᾷ θανάτου φῶς ἀνέτειλεν αὐτοῖς. 14 15

So that the word spoken through the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled: Land of Zebulun and land of Naphthali, by the sea road, beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the gentiles, 16 The people dwelling in darkness saw a great light, And on those dwelling in the country and in the shadow of death a light dawned. 14 15

Table 4.1 Isaiah 8:23–9:1; Matthew 4:14–16

80 | Aspectual

Substitution

The first quotation in our analysis is Matthew’s use of Isaiah in Matthew 4:15–16. This quotation is a supporting piece of evidence concerning the beginning of Jesus’s ministry, as Matthew begins his narrative and discourse sections between the infancy and passion narratives.2 This quotation is introduced by an explicit quotation formula in 4:14: ἵνα πληρωθῇ τὸ ῥηθὲν διὰ Ἠσαΐου τοῦ προφήτου λέγοντος. This particular formula marks this quotation out as one of Matthew’s “fulfillment quotations,” which often present difficult textual problems.3 The text form of this quotation is indeed difficult to identify, as it has several differences from both the LXX and MT (and any known version thereof ). Major possibilities for the source of this quotation include Matthew’s own independent translation from a Hebrew source,4 modification of a divergent manuscript,5 or following the LXX but introducing corrections.6 The manuscript tradition of the NT and LXX texts is remarkably homogeneous given the divergence of Matthew from the major Greek and Hebrew textual traditions.7 Given these observations many

2. The five sections according to Osborne are Matt 4:12–7:29; 8:1–11:1; 11:2– 13:53; 13:54–18:54; 19:1–25:46: Grant R. Osborne, Matthew, ZECNT (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010), 139. For a similar outline see D. A. Carson, Matthew, EBC, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2017). 3. Maarten J. J. Menken, “The Source of the Quotation from Isaiah 53:4 in Matthew 8:17,” NovT 39 (2007): 313–27. 4. For example, George M. Soares Prabhu concludes, “The text of Isaiah quoted in Mt 4,15f is therefore an ad hoc christologically oriented translation, made directly from the original (proto-Masoretic) Hebrew, but influenced in its language by the LXX”: George M. Soares Prabhu, The Formula Quotations in the Infancy Narrative of Matthew: An Enquiry Into the Tradition History of Mt 1–2, Analecta Biblica Dissertationes 63 (Rome: E. Pontifico Instituto Biblico, 1976), 104. Cf. also John Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 173; Carson, Matthew, 145. 5. Cf. Francis G. H. Pang, “Matthew’s Atomistic Use of Scripture? A Methodological Consideration,” Proceedings EGLBS & MWSBL 30 (2010): 62. 6. Maarten J. J. Menken, Matthew’s Bible: The Old Testament Text of the Evangelist, BETL 173 (Leuven: Peeters, 2004), 27; Craig E. Blomberg, “Matthew,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, eds. G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 19; Donald Alfred Hagner, Matthew 1–13, WBC 33A (Dallas: Word, 1993), 73. 7. Cf. Alfred Rahlfs, ed., Isaias, Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graeca XIV, 3rd ed. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983), 154–55.

The Synoptic Gospels | 81 conclude that the changes found in Matthew are his own editorial work, and not derived from another source.8 The changes apparent in Matthew’s version of Isaiah 8:23–9:1 LXX9 are mostly minor, and do not significantly affect the meaning.10 Most of the substantial differences between Isaiah and Matthew 4:15 are the removal of non-nominal elements (cf. Isa 8:23); Matthew 4:16 contains four verbal alterations but fewer overall changes. Isaiah’s participle πορευόμενος (Isa 9:1) is replaced by Matthew’s καθήμενος (Matt 4:16), which two lines later in plural form also replaces κατοικοῦντες from Isaiah.11 The finite verbs εἶδεν and ἀνέτειλεν also show alterations from the LXX original: the third-person indicative εἶδεν replaces Isaiah’s second-person imperative; the Aorist ἀνέτειλεν replaces Isaiah’s Future λάμψει. Alongside the lexical change from λάμπω to ἀνατέλλω this last verbal substitution is an instance of aspectual substitution: the original Future form is replaced by an Aorist in Matthew. The Isaiah text in its original context refers to oppression by Assyria: Naphthali, to the northwest of the lake of Galilee, was conquered by Tiglath-Pileser.12 The troubles of God’s people are political, stemming from abandonment of the Mosaic covenant (cf. Isa 8:5–8).13 That is, this Isaiah passage treats the present trouble as a theological consequence of prior action, but the “darkness” in which

8. Robert Shedinger outlines this consensus view, but goes on to argue that patristic sources are viable text-critical sources in this case and others: Robert F. Shedinger, “Must the Greek Text Always be Preferred? Versional and Patristic Witnesses to the Text of Matthew 4:16,” JBL 123 (2004): 449–50. 9. In what follows references are to the LXX versification, except when cited materials use the English numbering scheme. 10. Hagner says Matthew’s “agreement with the LXX continues to be close”: Hagner, Matthew 1–13, 73. 11. Blomberg suggests Matthew is “improving [the LXX’s] translation at several points to bring it more in line with the Hebrew,” but these participial substitutions are probably echoes of either Psalm 107:10 or Isaiah 42:7: Blomberg, “Matthew,” 19; Menken, Matthew’s Bible, 24; cf. Nolland, Matthew, 172. 12. The specific campaign of the Assyrian kingdom to which this passage refers is debatable. The Hebrew text (throughout MT Isa 9:1–5) is composed of Qatal/Perfect tense-forms, and the Greek Future form does not correspond directly to a future temporal reference. Watts translates the entire section with present-referring verbs, but nevertheless argues that the reference to Assyria is solid: John D. W. Watts, Isaiah 1–33, WBC 24, rev. ed. (Columbia: Nelson, 2005), 171–2. 13. David L. Turner, Matthew, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008), 133.

82 | Aspectual

Substitution

they dwell is a socio-political issue, not a spiritual issue.14 As Matthew adopts this passage into his context, however, he appears to interpret the darkness as spiritual in nature. As Turner argues, “Israel’s dark political prospects were symptomatic of her need for the redemption from sin available through Jesus the Messiah.”15 While a spiritual interpretation is not universally held,16 it does appear consistent with Matthew’s larger theological project, and is also supported by the aspectual substitution evident in Matthew 4:16.17 As Isaiah’s words are adopted in Matthew 4:16, the quotation demonstrates that Jesus is the fulfillment of this originally future-oriented passage. The 14. John Watts suggests this passage is not a promise as such, but is an expression declaring that the only possible deliverance is something that comes from the hand of the Lord: “This passage has often been understood as promise. Yet the analysis above does not support this for its original setting. It is not spoken by the prophet or in the name of God. It is an attempt to assemble from the resources of faith and doctrine words to bolster hope. Yet the chorus knows that only a miracle can bring the light, restore the joy, or reestablish the power and authority of David’s reign. That is why they sigh, “May the Zeal of YHWH of Hosts do this!” Of course, nothing is impossible with God.” Watts, Isaiah 1–33, 173. 1 5. Turner, Matthew, 133. 16. Carter interprets the quotation in Matthew 4:15–16 as creating an intertextual correspondence with Isaiah 7–9, relating the subjugation of Israel by the Assyrians to imperial subjugation in the New Testament era, with the light dawning promising liberation from such political oppression: Warren Carter, “Evoking Isaiah: Matthew Soteriology and an Intertextual Reading of Isaiah 7–9 and Matthew 1:23 and 4:15– 16,” JBL 119 (2000): 513–18. While France appreciates Carter drawing attention to the broader Isaianic context, he contends that Carter’s anti-imperial interpretation “can be maintained as Matthew’s intention only if, with Carter, we take ‘the kingdom of heaven’ as opposition to Roman rule, and ‘Galilee of the Gentiles’ as meaning ‘Galilee under Gentile oppression’ ”: R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 143 n. 18. 17. Blomberg states, “it seems best here to speak of double fulfillment. Matthew recognized a short-term fulfillment during OT times but also saw a longer-term fulfillment in the coming of Jesus the Messiah. What began as physical liberation from the exile culminates in spiritual liberation in the messianic age”: Blomberg, “Matthew,” 19. Nolland is stronger in taking the interpretation as spiritual, not political: “Matthew’s unfolding story makes it quite clear that the political dimensions intrinsic to the original significance of Is. 9:1–2 play no role for him”: Nolland, Matthew, 174.

The Synoptic Gospels | 83 imperative ἴδετε of Isaiah 9:1 looks (literally) to the future, and is replaced in Matthew 4:16 with the indicative εἶδεν. The Future λάμψει from Isaiah is replaced by the Aorist indicative ἀνέτειλεν. To understand this Future–Aorist aspectual substitution, we must recall the various options for the Future tense-form. Porter regards the Future as anomalous within his systemic network and labels it aspectually vague—that is, it does not grammaticalize any aspectual choice, but rather indicates [+expectation].18 Fanning and Olsen label it as non-aspectual but properly a future tense.19 Evans labels it anomalous in aspect, overlapping in certain respects with the subjunctive and imperative.20 Campbell argues that the Future is fully aspectual, perfective in aspect, and future in tense.21 Specifically, in developing his argument for perfectivity he draws on Mark O’Brien’s work on the interaction between aspect and Aktionsart.22 O’Brien’s work points out the ingressive Aktionsart of a great many future forms, a procedural characteristic that parallels Aorist expressions of the same types of lexemes.23 His work omits several classes of verbs, but Campbell supplements this with analysis of similar constructions for other lexemes such as those for seeing and hearing.24 He concludes that these are similarly to be understood as expressing ingressive Aktionsart and so, by analogy to the Aorist, perfective aspect is a natural conclusion to draw for the Future tense-form. How can these frameworks help explain the aspectual substitution we see in Matthew 4:16? We ought to note first of all that in Bache’s terms these contrasts must be +distinctive. Isaiah’s context is of a future light, while Matthew argues that this is fulfilled in Jesus’s relocation to Galilee (cf. Matt 4:14). This is a meaningful distinction in propositional content—the difference demonstrated by this aspectual substitution is not only at the level of aspect; we at least have a temporal interaction, along with any other features we might note. Isaiah’s Future λάμψει is clearly future-referring, awaiting the deliverance only God can bring. In this theological/political context we could categorize it as having an ingressive procedural characteristic, which O’Brien and Campbell would affirm as being 1 8. Porter, Verbal Aspect, 427. 19. Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 120; Olsen, Semantic and Pragmatic Model, 260. 20. Evans, Verbal Syntax, 35. 21. Campbell, Indicative Mood, 159. 22. Mark B. O’Brien, “Verbal Aspect in the Future Tense of the Greek New Testament” (Th.M. diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 1997). 23. Campbell, Indicative Mood, 141. 24. Campbell, Indicative Mood, 146–49.

84 | Aspectual

Substitution

consistent with perfective aspect. Certainly the future event of light shining on this people is presented with an undifferentiated, complete perspective. Porter’s [+expectation] value offers an explanation for this future temporal frame, given that this is a common use of the Future, while not committing to perfective aspect for the Future tense-form. It also points to some level of echo with the prospective imperative ἴδετε in the preceding part of the quotation. As this verb is altered in Matthew 4:16 to the Aorist indicative ἀνέτειλεν, we have the removal of future temporal reference (or the removal of the [+expectation] value, in Porter’s terms). The introductory formula (“so it might be fulfilled”) shifts the temporal reference away from the future at the time of Jesus. These observations assist in understanding the change in Matthew’s quotation. His aspectual substitution could be tied to Matthew’s correction of his source towards the Hebrew—reflecting the Qatal tense-form of ‫— ָנגַהּ‬but it also reflects his theological motivation.25 For Matthew, “the prophecy has found its fulfillment in Jesus.”26 That the prophecy finds its end in Jesus, at least in some sense, is evident from the introductory formula, but the specificity of the fulfilment is supported by the grammatical change to tense-form.27 We can see this specificity if we consider how the quotation would function if the tense-form were unchanged, that is if Matthew 4:16 read as καὶ τοῖς καθημένοις ἐν χώρᾳ καὶ σκιᾷ θανάτου φῶς ἀνατελῶ αὐτοῖς. If this were the case, this clause would, like in Isaiah, look forward to rescue from oppression and death. Matthew has indicated that this prophesied situation is realized by the ministry of Jesus (4:14), but it would be unclear in this hypothetical version what the light in question is. Is the light that will dawn the event/process of salvation, or is is Jesus himself? The substitution of an Aorist tense-form, and the consequent removal of future

25. Hagner writes, “Matthew’s aorist ἀνέτειλεν, ‘dawned,’ supplants LXX’s future λάμψει, ‘will shine,’ reflecting the Hebrew perfect tense, but also Matthew’s own perspective”: Hagner, Matthew 1–13, 73–74, emphasis added. 26. France, The Gospel of Matthew, 143. 27. In contrast, Menken argues that this grammatical change is only grammatical, and carries no theological weight: “The use of the aorist indicatives εἶδεν and ἀνέτειλεν (instead of a less correct aorist imperative and a future) is sometimes explained by Matthew’s wish to emphasize the the prophecy has been fulfilled in Jesus’ actions. It seems to me that this interpretation of the tenses is beside the mark: in his fulfillment quotations, Matthew regularly has future tenses to refer to activities that are fulfilled in Jesus (see 1,23; 2,6.23; 12,18–21; 13,35). The change in tense in Matt 4,16 is simply a correction of the LXX, without theological purpose, and there is no reason to ascribe it to Matthew.” Menken, Matthew’s Bible, 29.

The Synoptic Gospels | 85 temporal reference from Matthew’s quotation, means that in Jesus beginning his ministry the light has dawned. If Matthew had retained a Future tense-form, Jesus beginning his ministry could be what guarantees the light of salvation coming. But, as Osborne says, “by using ‘dawned’ rather than the LXX ‘will shine,’ it means the light has come and originates in Jesus as he begins his messianic proclamation.”28 It is not only that Jesus brings the light of salvation from (spiritual and ­systemic) oppression, he is himself that light.29 Aspectual substitution in this instance supports Matthew’s case that Jesus’s ministry is the fulfillment of this prophetic expectation. By using an Aorist tense-form in place of a Future tenseform he removes future temporal reference from the prophetic expectation, and therefore grammatically underscores the locus of the fulfillment of that prophetic expectation in the person of Jesus.

Matthew 13:14 || Mark 4:12 || Luke 8:10 || Acts 28:26 Isaiah 6:9–10 καὶ εἶπεν Πορεύθητι καὶ εἰπὸν τῷ λαῷ τούτῳ Ἀκοῇ ἀκούσετε καὶ οὐ μὴ συνῆτε καὶ βλέποντες βλέψετε καὶ οὐ μὴ ἴδητε· 9

ἐπαχύνθη γὰρ ἡ καρδία τοῦ λαοῦ τούτου, καὶ τοῖς ὠσὶν αὐτῶν βαρέως ἤκουσαν καὶ τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς αὐτῶν ἐκάμμυσαν, μήποτε ἴδωσιν τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς καὶ τοῖς ὠσὶν ἀκούσωσιν καὶ τῇ καρδίᾳ συνῶσιν καὶ ἐπιστρέψωσιν καὶ ἰάσομαι αὐτούς. 10

He said, “Go and say to this people, ‘Listening you will listen but you will not understand, and seeing you will see but you will not perceive,’ 10 For this people’s heart became fat, and their ears heard with difficulty, and they closed their eyes, Otherwise they might not perceive with their eyes and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart and turn back—and I would heal them.” 9

2 8. Osborne, Matthew, 143. 29. As Blomberg states, “Jesus obviously is the light dawning on the peoples of those regions, presumably including Gentiles as well as Jews”: Blomberg, “Matthew,” 19, emphasis added.

86 | Aspectual

Substitution

Matthew 13:13–15 διὰ τοῦτο ἐν παραβολαῖς αὐτοῖς λαλῶ, ὅτι βλέποντες οὐ βλέπουσιν καὶ ἀκούοντες οὐκ ἀκούουσιν οὐδὲ συνίουσιν, 14 καὶ ἀναπληροῦται αὐτοῖς ἡ προφητεία Ἠσαΐου ἡ λέγουσα· ἀκοῇ ἀκούσετε καὶ οὐ μὴ συνῆτε, καὶ βλέποντες βλέψετε καὶ οὐ μὴ ἴδητε. 15 ἐπαχύνθη γὰρ ἡ καρδία τοῦ λαοῦ τούτου, καὶ τοῖς ὠσὶν βαρέως ἤκουσαν καὶ τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς αὐτῶν ἐκάμμυσαν, μήποτε ἴδωσιν τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς καὶ τοῖς ὠσὶν ἀκούσωσιν καὶ τῇ καρδίᾳ συνῶσιν καὶ ἐπιστρέψωσιν καὶ ἰάσομαι αὐτούς. 13

Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see and hearing they do not hear nor understand. 14 Isaiah’s prophecy is fulfilled in them, which says, “Listening you will listen but you will not understand, and seeing you will see but you will not perceive. 15 For this people’s heart became fat, and their ears heard with difficulty, and they closed their eyes, Otherwise they might perceive with their eyes and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart and turn back—and I would heal them.” 13

Mark 4:12 ἵνα βλέποντες βλέπωσιν καὶ μὴ ἴδωσιν, καὶ ἀκούοντες ἀκούωσιν καὶ μὴ συνιῶσιν, μήποτε ἐπιστρέψωσιν καὶ ἀφεθῇ αὐτοῖς. So that in seeing they might see but not perceive, and in hearing they might hear but not understand, otherwise they might turn back and they would be forgiven.

Luke 8:10 ἵνα βλέποντες μὴ βλέπωσιν καὶ ἀκούοντες μὴ συνιῶσιν So that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.

The Synoptic Gospels | 87

Acts 28:26 πορεύθητι πρὸς τὸν λαὸν τοῦτον καὶ εἰπόν· ἀκοῇ ἀκούσετε καὶ οὐ μὴ συνῆτε καὶ βλέποντες βλέψετε καὶ οὐ μὴ ἴδητε· ἐπαχύνθη γὰρ ἡ καρδία τοῦ λαοῦ τούτου καὶ τοῖς ὠσὶν βαρέως ἤκουσαν καὶ τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς αὐτῶν ἐκάμμυσαν· μήποτε ἴδωσιν τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς καὶ τοῖς ὠσὶν ἀκούσωσιν καὶ τῇ καρδίᾳ συνῶσιν καὶ ἐπιστρέψωσιν, καὶ ἰάσομαι αὐτούς. Go to this people and say, “Listening you will listen but you will not understand, and seeing you will see but you will not perceive: For this people’s heart became fat, and their ears heard with difficulty, and they closed their eyes, Otherwise they might perceive with their eyes and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart and turn back—and I would heal them.”

Table 4.2 Isaiah 6:9–10; Matthew 13:14; Mark 4:12

Continued 

88 | Aspectual

Substitution

Table 4.2  Continued

Table 4.3 Isaiah 6:9–10; Luke 8:10; Acts 28:26

The Synoptic Gospels | 89

Exegetical Challenges This collection of aspectual substitutions in the Gospels includes one of the most debated portions of the synoptic tradition.30 Jesus’s explanation of his parabolic teaching by means of a quotation taken from the beginning of Isaiah’s ministry has provoked broad disagreement. Scholars have differed over several issues: the function of the quotation in his “parable theory”; the source of the quoted material; its authenticity; and how the links to the surrounding material ought to be understood and translated. Isaiah 6:9–10 is quoted clearly in four places in the NT: Matthew 13:14; Mark 4:12; Luke 8:10; Acts 28:26.31 Isaiah’s cleansing and prophetic commissioning in Isaiah 6 contains two singular imperatives (passive πορεύθητι, active εἰπὸν), which are repeated verbatim in Acts 28:26 but omitted in the three Gospel accounts. The content of the message that Isaiah is to relay to the people, however, is present in all four NT passages. This complicated set of scriptural citations has remarkably secure source texts. The LXX offers only minor variant possibilities, consisting of subjunctive variants βλέψητε/ται, εἴδητε, ἰάσωμαι in a handful of manuscripts.32 The Greek recensions are in accordance with the LXX, although Symmachus inserts a slightly different version of 6:10, with variations due to alternative translations of the Hebrew text.33 The NT manuscript evidence demonstrates similarly secure texts. Matthew’s quotation in 13:14–15 omits the introductory imperatives (πορεύθητι, εἰπόν) but thereafter reproduces the LXX text exactly. His quotation is, however, preceded by a paraphrase of Isaiah 6:9–10 in Matthew 13:13. Mark’s and Luke’s versions introduce several changes. Due to the broad scholarly acceptance of Markan priority, the majority of attention is devoted to Mark’s 30. “The logion in Mark that contains the paraphrase of Isa. 6.9–10 (Mark 4.11–12) has produced more discussion and disagreement than just about any other passage in the gospels.” Craig A. Evans, To See and Not Perceive: Isaiah 6.9–10 in Early Jewish and Christian Interpretation, JSOTSupp 64 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1989), 91. 31. Broadly accepted allusions to this passage can be found in Mark 8:18 and John 12:40. Evans, amongst others, also points to allusions in Paul: Evans, To See and Not Perceive, ch. 6. 32. Rahlfs, ed., Isaias, 143–44. βλεψητε: (vel—ται) S 26–106 147–36*–93–233–456 377 ø. ειδητε: S V Ø. ιασωμαι: V 36–46 ø. 33. Evans, To See and Not Perceive, 64–65.

90 | Aspectual

Substitution

paraphrastic rendering.34 Following Manson and Jeremias, many scholars point out the similarity of Mark’s text to the Targum of Isaiah, over against the Hebrew or LXX versions.35 Three major similarities to the Targum exist: third person constructions are used (βλέπωσιν, ἴδωσιν, ἀκούωσιν, συνιῶσιν); the quoted verses end with a reference to forgiveness (‫וישתביק להון‬/καὶ ἀφεθῇ αὐτοῖς) rather than healing (‫וְ ָרפָא לו‬/καὶ ἰάσομαι αὐτούς); and the divine passive is used rather than an active verb (ἀφεθῇ).36 The first three lines of Isaiah 6:10 are also omitted. A relationship to the Aramaic is postulated to be a result of: (1) Jesus’s original quotation; (2) a pre-existing parable tradition incorporated by Mark into its present placement; or (3) Mark’s intentional quotation source. The possibility of dependence on an Aramaic text should not, however, be overstated. Mark’s form is not an exact match to the Targum, and quoted material from Aramaic is unusual for Mark.37 Change of person in quotations is common throughout the NT (as shall become clear over the course of this study). Participial forms are indeed found in the Targum for both verbs of seeing/hearing (rather than only one in the LXX, the other being the nominal form ἀκοῇ), but Mark’s alteration to the text provides a plausible reason for this change.38 Mark switches the order of seeing/hearing—possibly to highlight the “vision” metaphor

34. There is no reason in principle why these arguments could not apply equally to a different reconstruction of Gospel priority. The putative intentions of the Gospel authors would simply be reversed under, say, the Griesbach hypothesis (i.e., rather than Matthew/Luke “softening” Mark’s language, Mark would be assumed to be opting for a more severe tone). 35. Joachim Jeremias, The Prayers of Jesus, SBT 2 (Naperville, IL: Allenson, 1967); T. W. Manson, The Teaching of Jesus: Studies of its Form and Content (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967). 36. Robert H. Stein, Mark, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008), 210; Mark L. Strauss, Mark, ZECNT (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2014), 184. 37. E. P. Sanders, review of A Galilean Rabbi and His Bible: Jesus’ Use of the Interpreted Scripture of His Time, JBL 106 (1987): 335, noting Chilton, 142; Joel Marcus, Mark 1–8: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, Anchor Bible (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000), 301. 38. Guelich, in summarizing Manson’s and Jeremias’s appeal to the Targum, states incorrectly that “only the Targum has the participial equivalents of βλέποντες and ἀκούοντες”: Robert A. Guelich, Mark 1–8:26, WBC 34A (Dallas: Word, 1989), 210. The LXX reads βλέποντες.

The Synoptic Gospels | 91 expanded upon later in his account39—and then renders both lines of the quotation with synonymous parallelism.40 The vocabulary of the passage strongly reflects the LXX.41 Furthermore, while appeal is made to the Aramaic form to account for the observations above, it has also been used to ease the purportedly unpalatable natural meaning of the received text of Mark 4:12, which has to do with the conjunctions ἵνα and μήποτε (primarily the former): “The stumbling block here is the ἵνα. As the text stands it can only mean that the object, or at any rate the result, of parabolic teaching is to prevent insight, understanding, repentance, and forgiveness. On any interpretation of parable this is simply absurd.”42 Manson argues that Mark’s text rests on an Aramaic source, and that the troublesome conjunction ἵνα is a mistranslation of the particle ‫ד‬, which ought to have been rendered οἵ.43 In line with later Jewish interpretation of Isa 6:9–10 (including the shift away from the Hebrew imperative-infinitive verb pairs [‫ ] שִׁמְעוּ שָׁמועַ;וּרְאוּ רָאו‬to the softer rendering of the LXX, Targums, and versions at Qumran) Manson argues for an interpretation that he regards to be more appropriate for Jesus’s ministry. However, as Guelich notes, this is not easy to reconcile with Mark 4:12 as it stands.44

39. Marcus, Mark 1–8, 300. Marcus’s contention that this switch also smooths the transition to language of hearing, while possible, is not quite so clear. 40. Stein, Mark, 210. 41. Marcus: “Mark’s version of Isa 6:9–10 basically uses the same vocabulary as the LXX, even when the LXX differs from the MT, as in its transformation of ydʿ = ‘to know’ into idein = ‘to see.’ ” Marcus, Mark 1–8, 300. 42. Manson, The Teaching of Jesus, 76. 43. Manson, The Teaching of Jesus, 78. 44. Several suggestions have been made for Mark’s connective ἵνα, including:

1. The default use of this conjunction in Mark is to introduce a final, telic, purpose clause (“in order that”). 2. A resultative, consecutive conjunction (“so that”). 3. Manson: ἵνα is a mistranslation of the Aramaic ‫ד‬, and should have been rendered οἵ. Manson, The Teaching of Jesus, 78. 4. Jeremias, followed by Lane and others: ἵνα is an abbreviation of the quotation formula ἵνα πληρωθῇ. 5. Zerwick: a causal conjunction, parallelling Matthew’s ὅτι (Matt 13:13). Maximillian Zerwick, Biblical Greek: Illustrated by Examples, SubBi 41, 2nd ed. (Vatican: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1963), 146.

92 | Aspectual

Substitution

In contrast, a number of modern interpreters have stressed the necessity of interpreting the received text, whatever its source may be.45 The active role of the prophet’s words (i.e., Jesus’s words in Mark’s use of the quotation) in hardening and preventing understanding reflects accurately the tenor of the Masoretic Text of Isaiah 6:9–10. Watts notes the strong imperative, causative force of the verbs for seeing and hearing, that echoes the dialectical balance between the hardness and hardening of Pharaoh’s heart or Israel’s hearts: “The MT, however, sees the messenger playing an active part in hardening and dulling so that repentance will not take place, now that the decision to destroy has been taken.”46 Mark, of all the Gospel writers, appears therefore to mirror most closely the tone of the MT.47 Taking the ἵνα … μήποτε pairing as it is found in Mark 4:12 puts a similar strong causative purpose on the lips of Jesus—a harshness potentially softened even by Matthew and Luke. Yet while the tone and implicit divine purpose echoes the MT, the vocabulary is largely of the LXX, and the text-form contains certain strong parallels to the Aramaic. If this quotation were solely in Mark, it would be best to exclude it from analysis on the basis of the quotation criteria outlined earlier—there are many changes to consider all at once. Yet the presence of direct parallels in the other Synoptic Gospels (along with Acts) allows us to compare of the effect of Mark’s changes.





6. Lampe: the conjunction is epexegetical, providing a description of τοῖς ἔξω in v. 11. Peter Lampe, “Die markinische Deutung des Gleichnisses vom Sämann Markus 4,10–12,” ZNW 65 (1974): 141. 7. France; Stein: ἵνα indicates a Semitic sense of purpose that leaves secondary causes implicit—in effect arguing from result to cause. That is, this is ultimately a divine purpose clause, even if it appears to be a result of the people’s pre-existing obduracy. Stein, Mark, 210.

45. That is, many interpreters essentially agree with Black: “Nothing is more certain than that Mark wrote and intended ἵνα … μήποτε: his original purpose is clear from the ἵνα clause; it is continued and reinforced by the μήποτε clause, which has been selected and adapted from the Old Testament quotation in order to be subordinated to the ἵνα clause. We are dealing not with direct quotation or misunderstanding of a quotation, but with intentional adaptation and interpretation of a quotation.” M. Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Oxford: Clarendon, 1967), 213–14. 46. Watts, Isaiah 1–33, 109. 47. McComiskey: “Jesus adopts a meaning for Isa 6:9–10 virtually identical to the original meaning in Isaiah.” Douglas S. McComiskey, “Exile and the Purpose of Jesus’ Parables (Mark 4:10–12; Matt 13:10–17; Luke 8:9–10),” JETS 51 (2008): 59.

The Synoptic Gospels | 93

Aspectual Substitution Our procedure is to consider what function the quotation performs in its new context(s). To do so, we can first propose a theoretical citation: what would be the effect of the quotation in its new context if it remained unaltered? This allows us to consider what effect any aspectual substitution may have on the use of this quotation in its new context. In the case of Mark’s quotation this first step has been preempted by the above discussion: the conjunctions ἵνα and μήποτε indicate an active divine purpose. The hardening of the hearers is brought about by the speech. If Mark had used the LXX verb forms (e.g., ἀκοῇ ἀκούσετε and not Mark’s ἀκούοντες ἀκούωσιν; οὐ μὴ συνῆτε not μὴ συνιῶσιν)—as Matthew does, for example—the overall effect of the quotation would be to depict the situation foreseen in Isaiah as realized by Jesus’s teaching in parables. We see this application in the subsequent discourse in Matthew. In Matthew’s explanation, in contrast to the negative description of the unbelieving people (Matt 13:14–15), the disciples are regarded as μακάριοι because their eyes see and their ears hear (13:16–17; note the Present verbs βλέπουσιν and ἀκούουσιν). The forms of this quotation in Mark and Luke, however, provide some interesting adaptations. In place of the LXX Future indicatives (ἀκούσετε, βλέψετε) and an Aorist subjunctive (συνῆτε), we find Present subjunctive forms in Mark (ἀκούωσιν, βλέπωσιν, συνιῶσιν). Mark’s version is constituted predominantly by Present forms, both participial and finite, with two Aorist subjunctives to finish the quotation (ἐπιστρέψωσιν, ἀφεθῇ). Luke 8:10 has the most terse re-working of the original, retaining the Present forms of Mark (βλέπωσιν, συνιῶσιν) but omitting the Aorist (ἐπιστρέψωσιν, ἀφεθῇ). Luke does not include an equivalent to the latter μήποτε clause. The third Gospel retains the participle βλέποντες, and like Mark substitutes the parallel Present participle ἀκούοντες for ἀκοῇ. As with Mark we find the Present subjunctive συνιῶσιν in place of the LXX’s Aorist subjunctive συνῆτε, with the parallel Present form of βλέπω replacing the ἴδητε of Isaiah 6:9.48 Overall, Mark’s altered quotation contrasts Future indicative and Aorist subjunctive forms with Present tense-forms, along with changes from second to third person.49 This latter change in person is both common and minor: the shortened 4 8. Variant readings concur with Mark’s ἴδωσιν, cf. NA28 Luke 8:10. 49. Future → Present: ἀκούσετε → ἀκούωσιν; βλέψετε → βλέπωσιν. Aorist → Present: συνῆτε → συνιῶσιν. Second → Third Person: ἀκούσετε → ἀκούωσιν; συνῆτε → συνιῶσιν; βλέψετε → βλέπωσιν; ἴδητε → ἴδωσιν.

94 | Aspectual

Substitution

quotation assumes the third-person reference of the final line and applies the former clauses to the same group (τοῦ λαοῦ τούτου). To what extent do the various models of the Future form help explain the tense-form contrasts evident here? Comparable to the preceding example in Matthew 4:16, Isaiah’s context is a future situation—in this case a rejection of the message—while Jesus’s use of this quotation applies it directly to contemporaneous events (as evidenced by the surrounding explanations). There is therefore a meaningful distinction in propositional content that can be drawn between the two envisaged situations—this is a +distinctive contrast. This means the difference demonstrated by this aspectual substitution is not only at the level of aspect; we at least have a temporal interaction, along with any other features we might note. Yet concerning Porter’s aspectually vague and [+expectation] approach, the significance of this aspectual substitution is difficult to discern. He deals specifically with Mark 4:12, asserting that “the author’s restructuring is aspectually significant.”50 Beyond describing the changes in form, however, there is no explanation of why interpretaive significance should be found here.51 For other more temporally-oriented frameworks, the change from Future to Present forms involves a necessary removal of explicit future temporal reference. In Campbell’s model, this is also a definite aspectual change throughout the first two lines of the quotation, from a perfective frame (both the Future and Aorist forms in Isaiah/Matthew) to imperfective (Mark/ Luke).52 Mark’s quotation shows a marked change in aspect even when only considering the Aorist–Present contrast.53 If we further assume perfective aspect for 5 0. Porter, Verbal Aspect, 325. 51. He describes the use of the Present subjunctive as “marked” in relation to an Aorist subjunctive, but this does not explain the significance of any change from a Future indicative. He also asserts that the second line places μὴ συνιῶσιν as “a negated Present Subjunctive as the most damning judgment of the entire unit—that the audience of the parables hears but does not understand.” Why this is indeed more damning than the first line is an inference not self-evident from the parallel syntax. 52. Campbell’s extension of O’Brien’s work is important for this passage, as ἀκούω is among the words under investigation. Campbell, Indicative Mood, 146–49. 53. Speaking generally of the Aorist–Present subjunctive opposition, Campbell cites David Lightfoot: “Distinctions between present and aorist […] subjunctives are always aspectual and never temporal.” David Lightfoot, Natural Logic and the Greek Moods: The Nature of the Subjunctive and Optative in Classical Greek, Janua Linguarum Series Practica 230 (The Hague: Mouton, 1975), 72; cited in Campbell, Non-Indicative Verbs, 53.

The Synoptic Gospels | 95 the Future indicative, then Isaiah 6:9–10 maintains the perfective frame of the Aorist subjunctives through the Future indicatives ἀκούσετε and βλέψετε. Note this is not a formal argument for a generally-applicable perfective aspect for the Future form, but this passage coheres well with Campbell’s broader outline of Future perfectivity.54 Mark and Luke therefore are both characterized by imperfective aspect and the removal of future expectation. The overall effect of this is to efficiently shift the reader’s/hearer’s viewpoint of the effect of prophetic speech. Isaiah was warned that the Israelites were a rebellious people, and the message he would bring to them would be rejected. In this original instance the perfective aspect—carried by the Aorist subjunctives and, according to Campbell, the Future indicatives—portrays this rejection as a future, undifferentiated whole. Yet Mark’s use of this quotation presents an internal perspective on why everything is given in parables (τοῖς ἔξω ἐν παραβολαῖς τὰ πάντα γίνεται, Mark 4:11). Jesus’s explanation of his teaching is given privately to those with him (4:10). In contrast to Isaiah’s expectation, however, there are two responses to parabolic teaching. There are those to whom the mystery of God’s kingdom has been given (τὸ μυστήριον τῆς βασιλείας τοῦ θεοῦ, 4:11), and then there are those outside who respond by not perceiving nor understanding. The crowds are deaf and blind, as were the people in Isaiah’s day, but the disciples and those with Jesus can hear and see.55 Use of the Present forms in Mark and Luke depict this action as both non-future (removal of future tense) and unfolding (imperfective aspect).56 Jesus therefore invites those around him to see this response to his teaching as something ongoing, unfolding before them—a natural implicature of imperfective aspect. Jesus’s use of the quotation implies its application to his present teaching irrespective of any grammatical modification. But the shift to imperfective aspect 54. If the future is indeed to be considered “aspectually vague” or “non-aspectual”, then the aspectual frame of the original is derived from the Aorist forms. That is, the same perfective-imperfective contrast can be drawn as with Campbell’s framework, albeit in a more subdued form. 55. Darrell L. Bock, Luke 1:1–9:50, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994), 727–29. 56. There is no requirement here to assign a semantic temporal value to the Present tenseform itself. Contemporaneous temporal reference is implied by the removal of future temporal reference, but far more by its context as an explanation of parables situated between the Parable of the Sower and its explanation.

96 | Aspectual

Substitution

allows Mark and Luke to mirror that broader point through the syntax. The grammar follows the explanation, compactly echoing the typological comparison being made. Rather than the prophet’s words bringing about rejection of the Lord, Jesus argues it is his words that produce this effect on those outside the kingdom. Why then do Matthew and Acts retain the original perfective verb forms? In Matthew the same contrast outlined above is drawn in the explanation of the following verses. Similar Present tense-forms identify the disciples as those who hear and see and are blessed (Matt 13:16).57 In Acts Paul quotes this verse, but draws on the original context much more directly. He argues that the leaders of the Jews (τοὺς ὄντας τῶν Ἰουδαίων πρώτους, Acts 28:17) are directly parallel to the nation of Israel in Isaiah 6:9–10 in that they, considered as a whole, reject the gospel he proclaims (28:25–28). In summary, taking the Future tense-form as perfective in aspect and future in temporal reference aligns well with the perfective aspect of the Aorist forms in Isaiah, Matthew, and Acts. Substitution of imperfective aspect in Mark and Luke shifts the application of Jesus’s teaching to those in his immediate presence, as something in process before them. Aspectual substitution is an efficient means for Mark and Luke to communicate the immediacy of this application, in contrast to Matthew’s similar, but longer, explanation.

Matthew 19:18–19 || Mark 10:19 || Luke 18:20 || James 2:11 Exodus 20:12–16 (LXX) τίμα τὸν πατέρα σου καὶ τὴν μητέρα, … οὐ μοιχεύσεις. οὐ κλέψεις. οὐ φονεύσεις. οὐ ψευδομαρτυρήσεις … Honor your father and mother, … You shall not commit adultery. You shall not steal. You shall not murder. You shall not give false testimony …

57. Leon Morris, The Gospel According to Matthew, PNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 343; cf also. Bock, Luke 1:1–9:50, 729.

The Synoptic Gospels | 97

Deuteronomy 5:16–20 (LXX) τίμα τὸν πατέρα σου καὶ τὴν μητέρα σου, … οὐ μοιχεύσεις. οὐ φονεύσεις. οὐ κλέψεις. οὐ ψευδομαρτυρήσεις … Honor your father and your mother, … You shall not commit adultery. You shall not murder. You shall not steal. You shall not give false testimony …

Matthew 19:18–19 ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν· τὸ οὐ φονεύσεις, οὐ μοιχεύσεις, οὐ κλέψεις, οὐ ψευδομαρτυρήσεις, τίμα τὸν πατέρα καὶ τὴν μητέρα, … Jesus said, “You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, honor your father and mother, …”

Mark 10:19 τὰς ἐντολὰς οἶδας· μὴ φονεύσῃς, μὴ μοιχεύσῃς, μὴ κλέψῃς, μὴ ψευδομαρτυρήσῃς, μὴ ἀποστερήσῃς, τίμα τὸν πατέρα σου καὶ τὴν μητέρα. You know the commandments: you shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, you shall not defraud, honor your father and mother.

Luke 18:20 τὰς ἐντολὰς οἶδας· μὴ μοιχεύσῃς, μὴ φονεύσῃς, μὴ κλέψῃς, μὴ ψευδομαρτυρήσῃς, τίμα τὸν πατέρα σου καὶ τὴν μητέρα. You know the commandments: you shall not commit adultery, you shall not murder, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, honor your father and mother.

James 2:11 μὴ μοιχεύσῃς, … μὴ φονεύσῃς· You shall not commit adultery, … you shall not murder.

98 | Aspectual

Substitution

Table 4.4 Exodus 20:12–16; Deuteronomy 5:16–20; Matthew 19:18–19; Mark 10:19; Luke 18:20; James 2:11

Jesus’s interaction with a man asking how he could inherit eternal life is captured in parallel passages in the Synoptic Gospels.58 Jesus’s response is, partly, to cite some of the latter commandments from the Decalogue. These are recorded in slightly different forms across the Gospels. The LXX source texts are secure: the 58. Frequently this episode is referred to as Jesus’s interaction with the “rich young ruler”, an identification composed of a composite sketch taken from all three accounts. The

The Synoptic Gospels | 99 only variant witnesses recorded in the Göttingen edition apparatus are these NT texts.59 Matthew 19:18–19 is a quotation of Exodus 20:12–16 LXX, with the fifth commandment (honor your father and mother) moved to the end of the list.60 Mark 10:19 and Luke 18:20, however, show a different form in the commandment listing: in place of the Septuagint’s οὐ + Future indicatives, Mark and Luke have μή + Aorist subjunctive verbs.61 (The citation of just two of the commandments in James 2:11 also has these negated subjunctive forms.) Trevor Evans notes that throughout the Pentateuch both the Aorist subjunctive and Future indicative are common translation choices for the Hebrew verbal forms found in these commandments (a negated Qal Yiqtol form, e.g., ‫)ל ֹא ִתּ ְרצָ ח‬.62 Given this common translation equivalent, Mark (and/or Luke) may not be intentionally transforming the LXX text here. The Aorist subjunctive could simply be a natural translation choice given a Hebrew (or Aramaic) source. It is plausible that this is

man in question is identified as young (ὁ νεανίσκος, Matt 19:20), a ruler (ἄρχων, Luke 18:18), and wealthy (ἦν γὰρ ἔχων κτήματα πολλά, Matt 19:22/Mark 10:22; ἦν γὰρ πλούσιος σφόδρα, Luke 18:23). 59. John William Wevers, ed., Exodus, Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graeca II,1 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991), 243. 60. Exod 20:12–17 and Deut 5:16–21 are almost identical. The only minor variations are the addition of a genitive pronoun σου to τὴν μητέρα, and the inversion of the order of the commandments concerning murder and adultery. This inversion is reflected in some of the NT passages—compare the order in Matthew/Mark vs. Luke/James. 61. One major witness (D) shows Luke’s listing using future indicative forms, as per the LXX. The only significant variant in Mark is his distinctive μὴ ἀποστερήσῃς, not reflected in the OT commandment lists. This command is absent in a number of the textual witnesses. Its inclusion here is possibly an explication of commandment against theft (μὴ κλέψῃς); for example, so R. T. France, The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 402. Alternatively it could be a substitute for the final commandment against coveting (LXX οὐκ ἐπιθυμήσεις), or, if the man is rich enough that covetousness is less of a temptation a more applicable command is given by Jesus in its stead. See Craig A. Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, WBC 34B (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988), 97, citing H. B. Swete, The Gospel According to St Mark, 3rd ed. (London: Macmillan, 1913), 224; D. E. Nineham, The Gospel of St Mark, PNTC (New York: Penguin, 1963), 274. 62. Evans, Verbal Syntax, 282–83. Wallace specifies the imperatival use of the Future in OT contexts as “due to a literal translation of the Hebrew”: Wallace, Greek Grammar, 718. This assessment is more negative than Evans’s description of natural translation choice.

100 | Aspectual

Substitution

not a case of aspectual substitution—however, as with the Parable of the Sower, we can nevertheless analyze the contrast that arises with the other Synoptic accounts. That is, while not an instance of aspectual substitution per se, placing Mark/Luke alongside Matthew still offers an instance of aspectual contrast. Similarly to the previous passage, we may investigate this contrast in terms of the effect of these aspects/moods in the surrounding discourse. Unlike the Parable of the Sower, however, there is minimal difference evident between these forms. Many have noted the semantic overlap between the Future indicative and the Aorist subjunctive, asserting the former developed from the latter. To investigate this more closely, it will be advantageous to survey volitional constructions in Koine Greek more broadly, especially prohibitions. Three main constructions express volition, and overlap to some degree: imperatives (Present and Aorist), subjunctives (predominantly Aorist), and Future indicatives.63 Several points on these forms are useful to note. 1. One of the uses of the Future indicative is to express an imperatival sense or volition in main clauses. The negative form of this type of command (seen above with οὐ) is found in the NT mostly in OT quotations or Jesus’s words, especially in Matthew.64 The negated Future indicative is a common form in the LXX for legal commands, has limited attestation in classical Greek, and has little influence in the remainder of the NT.65 2. The imperative mood, found principally in both Present and Aorist tense-forms, is used throughout Koine and Classical Greek to express commands. Following McKay there has been widespread agreement that aspect is operative in the imperative mood—the Present expresses an imperfective viewpoint, the Aorist a perfective viewpoint.66 Frequently therefore the Aorist imperative is used for specific commands, as the action is viewed in summary form; the Present imperative is frequently used for generic commands. Fanning terms this “the most frequent secondary function of these aspects”; Campbell argues this is a correlation

63. Optatives also express volition, but because of their rarity in the NT and their absence in the quotations dealt with in this study we will exclude them from consideration. 64. Wallace, Greek Grammar, 718. 65. BDF §362. 66. McKay, “Aspect in Imperatival Constructions”; cf. Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 329; Porter, Verbal Aspect, 351; Campbell, Non-Indicative Verbs, 100.

The Synoptic Gospels | 101 that is a good rule of thumb and not a hard rule. That is, these characteristics of commands are features of pragmatic use, not core aspectual features of the form. The move to an aspectual understanding of the imperative has in large part displaced what Michael Aubrey terms the “STOP DOING X and DO NOT START X” meanings of the imperative.67 This more traditional view of imperative implicature, widely accepted because of Moulton’s discussion, held that the Present imperative was used to command the cessation of an in-progress activity (“stop doing X”), while the Aorist was used to command that a situation should not be initiated (“do not start X”).68 Huffman, Wallace, and others have argued that this pattern does not accord well with the evidence of the NT, let alone Koine Greek more generally.69 Moderating this position somewhat, Aubrey states that while there is no necessary link between aspect and the implications of stop doing/do not start X, they are common enough patterns. He argues that the causative relationship is actually reversed: in order to express the meaning “stop doing X,” one needs an imperfective prohibition.70 3. In Koine and Classical Greek there is a natural substitution of the negated Aorist subjunctive for the negated Aorist imperative: “The use of the aorist subjunctive with μή … for the negative aorist imperative corresponds to classical usage.”71 In the second person this is always the case in the NT.72 For negated imperatives, therefore, there is a bifurcation: if the Present tense-form (imperfective aspect) is desired, an imperative

67. Michael Aubrey, “Greek Prohibitions,” in The Greek Verb Revisited, eds. Steven E. Runge and Christopher J. Fresch (Bellingham, WA: Lexham, 2016), 486–538, capitalization original. 68. Moulton, Howard and Turner, Grammar, 123–26; Henry Jackson, “Prohibitions in Greek,” Classical Review 18, no. 5 (1904): 262–63; H. Darnley Naylor, “Prohibitions in Greek,” Classical Review 19 (1905): 26–30. 69. Douglas S. Huffman, Verbal Aspect Theory and the Prohibitions in the Greek New Testament, SBG 16 (New York: Peter Lang, 2014), esp. 31–34; Wallace, Greek Grammar, 716–17. 70. Aubrey, “Greek Prohibitions,” 490. 71. BDF §364. 72. Daniel B. Wallace, “Greek Grammar and the Personality of the Holy Spirit,” BBR 13, no. 1 (2003): 723.

102 | Aspectual

Substitution

mood follows; if an Aorist tense form (perfective aspect) is chosen, the subjunctive mood is used.73 4. It is commonly held that the Future indicative derived morphologically from the Aorist subjunctive at some point in the development of the language.74 Even if this diachronic development is not held strongly, there is obvious formal correspondence between the two: the characteristic sigma of both forms. This close morphological relationship, along with the shift in usage from Aorist subjunctive to Future indicative in the centuries following Homer, forms the basis for some scholars to assert a semantic overlap between these two forms.75 5. One construction that demonstrates overlap in usage between the Future indicative and Aorist subjunctive is the strong prohibitive injunction (οὐ μή + Aorist subjunctive/Future indicative). This construction is found throughout LXX and Classical texts, but as with the negated imperatival Future indicative, it is limited in the NT to OT quotations and sayings of Jesus. Some NT instances of this emphatic prohibition are indeterminate because the Future and Aorist share some morphology, but others are distinguishable (e.g., Matthew 16:22 has a Future ἔσται).76 Regardless of whether this emphatic negative construction uses a Future indicative or Aorist subjunctive, the meaning is the same (e.g., John 6:35 employs both tense-forms within the same sentence in an identical fashion). The overlap between the Aorist subjunctive and Future indicative in negative prohibitions is instructive for our consideration of the Decalogue in Matthew 73. Antonio Lillo demonstrates that in the Homeric corpus the negated Present imperative is used for prohibitions regarding situations in which the speaker finds himself, and the negated Aorist subjunctive for external situations. This accords with the aspectual argument made above by McKay, et al. Antonio Lillo, “Sobre los usos verbales para la expresión de la prohibición,” in Word Classes and Related Topics in Ancient Greek, eds. E. Crespo, J. de la Villa and A. R. Revuelta (Louvain-la-Neuve: Peeters, 2006), 273–90. 74. For example, Sihler, New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin; Wallace, Greek Grammar, 566–67; Moulton, Howard and Turner, Grammar, 148–49. 75. For example, Wallace, Greek Grammar, 566–67. Campbell notes the diachronic correspondence but takes it only as confirmatory support for his position: Campbell, Indicative Mood, 140. 76. BDF §365.

The Synoptic Gospels | 103 19:18–19, Mark 10:19, Luke 18:20, and James 2:11. In these cases there appears to be minimal, if any, difference between wordings of the commandments provided. These listings of the Decalogue function identically across the different accounts. In Bache’s terms, they are −distinctive, showing no difference in the propositional or truth-conditional content of the situation depicted. Both οὐ φονεύσεις and μὴ φονεύσῃς prohibits this action (and similarly for the other commandments). The Aorist subjunctive is prospective, relating to a situation that must not come to pass. The Future indicative is truly future-referring, depicting an action in the future that cannot happen.77 The contextual surrounds of the contrasting versions does not differ in any meaningful way: the Aorist and Future forms are used identically in Matthew and Mark (and the textual variant in Luke does not alter the use of this quotation). This particular instance appears to support the claim that the Future is perfective in aspect, suiting “the portrayal of future events that will not occur.”78 In Aubrey’s terms these commands are non-referential—that is, there is no specific act in view, but they are generalized injunctions.79 For example, it is not a specific murder that is prohibited, but any murderous act. In Aubrey’s discussion of this Markan passage he notes that it is difficult to determine whether this is a prohibition of a prospective event (“do not start X”, or “beware of doing this in future time”) or an absolute prohibition (“do not do this at all”).80 The difference is largely carried by contextual factors, and he says that in Mark 10 it is difficult to determine which of these specific senses best accounts for this use.81 However, he

77. Fanning regards the Future tense-form as future-referring, but non-aspectual; Campbell regards it as future-referring and perfective in aspect (like the Aorist subjunctive); Porter’s [+expectation] marker is roughly equivalent to the modality and prospective nature of the Aorist subjunctive. 78. Campbell, Non-Indicative Verbs, 58. Regarding the general correlation in usage of the Future indicative and Aorist subjunctive, Campbell says the “modality of the subjunctive mood” appears to overlap somewhat with the “futurity and modality of the future tense-form.” 79. Aubrey, “Greek Prohibitions,” 519. 80. Aubrey, “Greek Prohibitions,” 516–17. He provides a similar example from Tob 4:12, which he takes to be more clearly prospective: “μὴ λάβης γυναῖκα ἀλλοτρίαν.” 81. This is what Porter and Campbell would term Aktionsart—the interaction of Aspect with other factors such as lexis, context, and so on. Aubrey agrees to an extent, but (contra Porter) does not hold that it follows that this is therefore an outmoded description of the form.

104 | Aspectual

Substitution

notes an interesting correlation: generalized prohibitions normally require an imperfective prohibition, but negated Aorists (perfective prohibitions) can serve in nonspecific/general contexts when there is no specific referential situation in view. If Campbell’s view is correct—that the Future indicative conveys both future tense and perfective aspect—then the Exodus/Deuteronomy versions of the Decalogue provide confirmatory evidence. Aubrey’s evidence suggests that non-referential, generalized negative commands can be, and often are, carried by perfective prohibitions (when we might expect imperfective aspect for a general or proverbial statement). The LXX Decalogue forms are οὐ + Future indicatives: perfective in aspect, according to Campbell. The only positive command that stands in parallel to the other prohibitions of the Decalogue is that of honoring one’s parents: a Present (imperfective) imperative τίμα, naturally presenting a generalized, non-specific command: τίμα τὸν πατέρα σου καὶ τὴν μητέρα (Exod 20:12–16; Deut 5:16). The Future indicative prohibitions are presented in summary form, generalized, and non-specific: οὐ φονεύσεις; οὐ μοιχεύσεις; οὐ κλέψεις; οὐ ψευδομαρτυρήσεις (Exod 20:12–16; Deut 5:16–20; Matt 19:18–19). These are equivalent to the Aorist subjunctive prohibitions which are presented in summary form, generalized, and non-specific: μὴ φονεύσῃς; μὴ μοιχεύσῃς; μὴ κλέψῃς; μὴ ψευδομαρτυρήσῃς; μὴ ἀποστερήσῃς (Mark 10:19; Luke 18:20; Jas 2:11). A model for understanding the Future form must not only account for these features (as each of the proposals by Fanning, Porter, Campbell, and Aubrey do in differing fashions) but also for the way that in this specific construction the function of the Aorist subjunctive is practically identical to that of the Future indicative.

Matthew 22:24 || Mark 12:19 || Luke 20:28 Genesis 38:8 Εἴσελθε πρὸς τὴν γυναῖκα τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ σου καὶ γάμβρευσαι αὐτὴν καὶ ἀνάστησον σπέρμα τῷ ἀδελφῷ σου. Go in to your brother’s wife and marry her and raise up offspring for your brother.

Matthew 22:24 διδάσκαλε, Μωϋσῆς εἶπεν· ἐάν τις ἀποθάνῃ μὴ ἔχων τέκνα, ἐπιγαμβρεύσει ὁ ἀδελφὸς αὐτοῦ τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀναστήσει σπέρμα τῷ ἀδελφῷ αὐτοῦ.

The Synoptic Gospels | 105 Teacher, Moses said, “if a man dies, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife and raise up offspring for his brother.”

Mark 12:19 διδάσκαλε, Μωϋσῆς ἔγραψεν ἡμῖν ὅτι ἐάν τινος ἀδελφὸς ἀποθάνῃ καὶ καταλίπῃ γυναῖκα καὶ μὴ ἀφῇ τέκνον, ἵνα λάβῃ ὁ ἀδελφὸς αὐτοῦ τὴν γυναῖκα καὶ ἐξαναστήσῃ σπέρμα τῷ ἀδελφῷ αὐτοῦ. Teacher, Moses wrote for us that if a man’s brother should die and leaves behind a wife but no children, that man shall take his wife and raise up offspring for his brother.

Luke 20:28 διδάσκαλε, Μωϋσῆς ἔγραψεν ἡμῖν ὅτι ἐάν τινος ἀδελφὸς ἀποθάνῃ καὶ καταλίπῃ γυναῖκα καὶ μὴ ἀφῇ τέκνον, ἵνα λάβῃ ὁ ἀδελφὸς αὐτοῦ τὴν γυναῖκα καὶ ἐξαναστήσῃ σπέρμα τῷ ἀδελφῷ αὐτοῦ. Teacher, Moses wrote for us that if a man’s brother should die and leave behind a wife but no children, that man shall take his wife and raise up offspring for his brother.

Table 4.5 Genesis 38:8; Matthew 22:24; Mark 12:19; Luke 20:28

106 | Aspectual

Substitution

In this set of parallel passages the Sadducees come to Jesus with a question concerning levirate marriage. This was a custom practiced since Patriarchal times and part of Israel’s law code (Gen 38:8ff.; cf. Deut 25:5–6), although it is debatable as to how widely it was observed by the first century.82 The LXX text before us is relatively secure, with good grounds for reading the second verb as originally an Aorist active imperative (ἀναστήσει): only two minuscules contain variants on the LXX reading (αναστησαι 422; αναστησεις 56).83 No variants exist for the NT verb forms. There is an important difference in the settings of these texts. The Genesis account relates a very specific situation, and the command to go and “raise up” children has a particular referent. Judah told Oman to sleep with Tamar, his widowed sister-in-law, so that she would have children to carry on her late husband’s line. As such it is entirely appropriate that a perfective imperative is used here: the command relates to the specific situation and is not a generalized injunction. Later in the OT when the principle behind this episode is codified,84 the setting is no longer descriptive narrative but prescriptive law, with Future indicatives employed: ὁ ἀδελφὸς τοῦ ἀνδρὸς αὐτῆς εἰσελεύσεται πρὸς αὐτὴν καὶ λήμψεται αὐτὴν ἑαυτῷ γυναῖκα καὶ συνοικήσει αὐτῇ. Her husband’s brother shall go in to her and take her for himself as his wife and live with her. (Deut 25:5)

Comparing Deuteronomy 25:5 with Genesis 38:8 shows a difference in both mood and tense-form. What was commanded of Onan in highly specific terms is now applied more broadly to any man who finds himself in a comparable situation. Yet even with this wider scope, it is still appropriate to understand these Future forms as conveying perfective aspect—the situation is conceptualized in summary form. This verse retains an imperatival force; as with the 82. Morris, Matthew, 559; Craig S. Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 526–27. 83. John William Wevers, ed., Genesis, Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graeca 1 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974), 362. 84. The Onan episode is, of course, a negative example of the principle at work: he does not do what he ought with respect to his sister-in-law and her family, and thus receives his penalty: πονηρὸν δὲ ἐφάνη ἐναντίον τοῦ θεοῦ ὅτι ἐποίησεν τοῦτο, καὶ ἐθανάτωσεν καὶ τοῦτον (Gen 38:10).

The Synoptic Gospels | 107 context of other commands the situation of a new marriage and household is assumed to be something that will take place. Deuteronomy 25:5 is clearly a command, and not lessened by the use of something other than an Aorist imperative. The perfective summary view is in turn appropriate for a specific command: the envisaged arrangement relates to a tight set of family circumstances. Considering just the OT sources, the Future indicative is used in a parallel sense to the Aorist imperative: both concern prospective situations, in summary form, commanding a specific action bound by definite criteria and not generalized. When the Sadducees come to Jesus, their question refers to the latter command with wider scope, but they use the text of the former highly specific narrative. There are, however, differences between the Gospel accounts. Matthew’s version is closest to Genesis 38:8, with the two imperatives appearing in the NT text. Both γάμβρευσαι85 and ἀνάστησον are transformed from Aorist imperatives in Genesis 38:8 to Future indicatives (ἐπιγαμβρεύσει; ἀναστήσει) in Matthew 22:24. Mark and Luke both employ λάβῃ from Deuteronomy (λήμψεται, Deut 25:5) along with ἐξαναστήσῃ (ἀνάστησον, Gen 38:8).86 The shift to the subjunctive mood in Mark and Luke is explained by their roles in a subordinate ἵνα purpose clause. Such a shift in mood is a natural change to make. There is not necessarily any degree of uncertainty added here, nor a shift from volition to cognition.87 Because the ἵνα clause completes the thought beginning with Μωϋσῆς ἔγραψεν ἡμῖν (Mark 12:19), it too clearly carries imperatival force.88

85. Matthew’s text has a compound verb form prefixed by ἐπι, but there is little difference in semantic sense between the two lexemes. Cf. Danker, Bauer and Arndt, eds., Dictionary, ἐπιγαμβρεύω; Franco Montanari, The Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek (Leiden: Brill, 2015), γαμβρεύω, ἐπιγαμβρεύω. 86. Again, a prepositional form of the verb in the NT text carries no discernible variation in meaning, cf. Danker, Bauer and Arndt, eds., Dictionary, ἀνίστημι, ἐξανίστημι; Johannes P. Louw and Eugene A. Nida, eds., Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains (New York: UBS, 1989), 23.59; Montanari, Brill Dictionary, ἀνίστημι, ἐξανίστημι. 87. Wallace, Greek Grammar, 446, 463. 88. Wallace, Greek Grammar, 476–77. This is contrary to France’s suggestion that the use of the subjunctive form so soon after the reminder of the Saduccees’ unbelief concerning ἀνάστασις emphasizes that levirate marriage was the only form of resurrection they could envisage: France, Mark, 473. Whether or not this may be true, it cannot be derived from the verb form.

108 | Aspectual

Substitution

Both NT renderings—Matthew’s Future indicative (ἐπιγαμβρεύσει; ἀναστήσει) and the ἵνα + Aorist subjunctive (ἐξαναστήσῃ) of Mark and Luke—have the same imperatival force of Genesis 38:8, and retain the same perfective aspect as their corresponding Aorist imperatives (γάμβρευσαι; ἀνάστησον). All three forms are equivalent ways of expressing a command relating to a prospective event. Unlike some other instances examined below, the future setting does not have eschatological or prophecy-fulfillment significance. They are all −distinctive substitutions. The parallel usage, however, does serve as a useful test for various models regarding the Future tense-form. Explicit future tense is fitting for Matthew’s rendering using a Future tense-form (and similarly for Deut 25:5). Yet restricting the Future indicative only to tense does not convey the whole story either: the parallel function to Aorist renderings suggests that a summary viewpoint is also appropriate. Porter’s [+expectation] value for the Future does explain these uses, as there is an expectation of a future process along with imperatival modality being a significant feature of these instances. Campbell’s model also offers explanatory power: the substitution of a Future tense-form in place of an Aorist is capably explained by the addition of explicit future temporal reference and perfective aspect.

Matthew 24:29 || Mark 13:25 Isaiah 13:10 οἱ γὰρ ἀστέρες τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ ὁ Ὠρίων καὶ πᾶς ὁ κόσμος τοῦ οὐρανοῦ τὸ φῶς οὐ δώσουσιν, καὶ σκοτισθήσεται τοῦ ἡλίου ἀνατέλλοντος, καὶ ἡ σελήνη οὐ δώσει τὸ φῶς αὐτῆς. For the stars of heaven and Orion and all the adornment of heaven will not give light, and it will be dark when the sun rises, and the moon will not give its light.

Isaiah 34:4 καὶ ἑλιγήσεται ὁ οὐρανὸς ὡς βιβλίον, καὶ πάντα τὰ ἄστρα πεσεῖται ὡς φύλλα ἐξ ἀμπέλου καὶ ὡς πίπτει φύλλα ἀπὸ συκῆς. Heaven will roll up like a scroll, and all the stars will fall like leaves from a vine, as leaves fall from a fig tree.

The Synoptic Gospels | 109

Matthew 24:29 Εὐθέως δὲ μετὰ τὴν θλῖψιν τῶν ἡμερῶν ἐκείνων ὁ ἥλιος σκοτισθήσεται, καὶ ἡ σελήνη οὐ δώσει τὸ φέγγος αὐτῆς, καὶ οἱ ἀστέρες πεσοῦνται ἀπὸ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, καὶ αἱ δυνάμεις τῶν οὐρανῶν σαλευθήσονται. Immediately after the distress of those days the sun will be darkened and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.

Mark 13:24–25 24

Ἀλλ᾿ ἐν ἐκείναις ταῖς ἡμέραις μετὰ τὴν θλῖψιν ἐκείνην ὁ ἥλιος σκοτισθήσεται, καὶ ἡ σελήνη οὐ δώσει τὸ φέγγος αὐτῆς, 25 καὶ οἱ ἀστέρες ἔσονται ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ πίπτοντες, καὶ αἱ δυνάμεις αἱ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς σαλευθήσονται.

24

But in those days after that distress the sun will be darkened And the moon will not give its light, 25 and the stars will be falling from heaven, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken.

Table 4.6 Isaiah 34:4; Matthew 24:29; Mark 13:24–25

110 | Aspectual

Substitution

In the midst of his apocalyptic predictions in Mark 13/Matthew 24, Jesus alludes to and cites a number of Scriptures when talking about the parousia. In this section we will consider the Isaiah 34:4 quotation, although it flows naturally to the next instance considered from Daniel 7:13 (Mark 13:26/Matt 24:30). The majority of our analysis here will concern Mark’s rendering, since Matthew’s is much closer to the LXX text. Once again these NT passages are not short on commentary. Major exegetical questions for Mark 13:24–25 revolve around how this vision of the future is tied to the immediately preceding passage. That is, is the parousia part and parcel of the just-mentioned destruction of Jerusalem? Or is it a separate event? How tight a sequence exists between the two? The common temporal phrase ἐν ἐκείναις ταῖς ἡμέραις places this situation after the trouble in Jerusalem (μετὰ τὴν θλῖψιν ἐκείνην, Mark 13:24), but this phrase is often loaded in biblical literature with apocalyptic overtones of theophany, divine judgement, or restoration.89 The imagery of the “day of the Lord” is evoked, bringing to mind a time of cataclysmic events understood in terms of divine judgment and purpose.90 In this context, Jesus alludes to and quotes two portions of Isaiah, combining them into one vivid picture. Isaiah 13:10b is alluded to, not by direct quotation but with clearly reminiscent parallel language. The alterations made to Isaiah 13:10b in both Matthew 24:29 and Mark 13:24 are not major, with some rearrangement of word order, but there is no aspectual substitution made to the verbs σκοτισθήσεται and (οὐ) δώσει. The process description τοῦ ἡλίου ἀνατέλλοντος is simplified to ὁ ἥλιος, and the moon’s τὸ φῶς is replaced by τὸ φέγγος. The second portion of this composite allusion/quotation comes from Isaiah 34:4.91 This verse is quoted with only a few words, but more directly than is 13:10b. Isaiah 34 announces the coming wrath of God on πάντα τὰ ἔθνη (34:2) in terms of holy war (cf. MT ‫)הרם‬. The impending judgement is asserted as the divine right of Yahweh over people who reject him and despise his chosen people 89. Stein, Mark, 611; John J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 29. Stein notes comparisons in Jer 3:16, 18; 5:18; 31:29; 33:15–16; Joel 3:1 LXX; 4:1 LXX; Zech 8:23. Additional examples can easily be multiplied, but include Exod 32:29; Josh 4:14; Hos 2:21; Amos 8:3, 9; Mic 5:10; Obad 8; Ezek 20:6; Dan 12:1. 90. France, Mark, 533. 91. While several texts could be alternative sources for the earlier part of the verse, including Ezekiel 32:7; Joel 2:10, 31; 3:15; Amos 8:9, Rikk Watts notes that Isaiah 34:4 is “the only OT text that speaks of stars falling in the context of judgment.” Rikk E. Watts, “Mark,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, 225.

The Synoptic Gospels | 111 Israel.92 This promised judgement on, and destruction of, rebellious peoples affects even the immutable elements of creation: their blood will soak the mountains; the sky will roll up like a scroll; the starry host will fall. The message of Isaiah 34:4 is partly this: when God intervenes clearly and directly in the events of the world, extraordinary signs will accompany his intervention. Consequently when we come to the NT adoption of this imagery of falling stars from Isaiah 34:4, it evokes not only the idea of a great and powerful work of God but one that ought to be terrifying to those who witness it. Furthermore, the scale of these events (again, affecting the fixed, permanent elements of creation) stand in contrast to the σημεῖα καὶ τέρατα of false messiahs and prophets. These are world-changing events that will not be missed—the consistent prospective setting of these descriptions conveys true future reference: Jesus predicts what has not yet come to pass, but with no sense of indefiniteness or mere potentiality. Matthew’s change to the verb πίπτω is merely one of person: Isaiah’s singular πεσεῖται is rendered by Matthew with the plural πεσοῦνται. This is nothing more than a stylistic change. The neuter τὰ ἄστρα of Isaiah 34:4 LXX is altered to the masculine plural οἱ ἀστέρες,93 thus the singular verb (appropriate for a neuter plural subject) is switched to the plural form. Zeigler notes a variant reading in one of the minuscules that corresponds to Matthew’s version,94 and a few variants of Mark 13:25 also read πεσουνται, however both texts have good, early support as they stand. This brings us to Mark’s Future periphrasis in 13:25: καὶ οἱ ἀστέρες ἔσονται ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ πίπτοντες. While disagreements over more or less restrictive definitions of periphrastic participial constructions remain, all would recognize this example as a periphrastic participle.95 The Future εἰμί is separated from the Present participle of πίπτω only by a clause relating to the participle, making it a classic example of the construction (albeit a rare one as it contains a Future participle). If we wish to first consider how Mark 13:25 might have quoted Isaiah 34:4 unchanged before considering the altered version, we need look no further than 9 2. Watts, Isaiah 1–33, 522. 93. Ἀστήρ and ἄστρον cover much of the same semantic domain; cf. their entries on these words in Montanari, Brill Dictionary; Dictionary; Louw and Nida, eds., Greek-English Lexicon. 94. Rahlfs, ed., Isaias, 243. 95. Porter adopts one of the tighter definitions of a periphrastic participial construction, for example, Stanley E. Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament (Sheffield: JSOT, 1992), 452–54.

112 | Aspectual

Substitution

Matthew’s version. The aspect of the verb is not altered in Matthew 24:29; only the person is changed to match the grammatically plural subject (τὰ ἄστρα πεσεῖται → οἱ ἀστέρες πεσοῦνται). By means of a comparison of Matt 24:29 and its immediate context with Mark 13:25 and its immediate context, it is clear that there is no distinction between the events being depicted in the two passages.96 This is an excellent example of a −distinctive contrastive substitution: the only difference between this particular clause in Mark and Matthew is the viewpoint. Campbell is clearest on what this distinction might be, because he is the most definitive on the aspectual values of both the Future indicative and the Future periphrasis. Understanding the Future indicative as perfective (and a true Future tense) enables a clear opposition to the Future periphrasis. Periphrastic constructions derive their aspectual value from the participle, which is always imperfective (a Present participle form). Campbell argues that this opposition provides a meaningful network opposition to the Future, in contrast to Porter who finds the Future to be deficient in its paradigmatic options.97 The contrast shown by Mark 13:25 and Isaiah 34:4 is that—rather than presenting the stars falling in summary fashion off in the future—it is to be seen as an unfolding process that will occur in a time still yet to come. Circling back to Bache’s terms of contrastive substitution, the perfective–imperfective contrast here is entirely analogous to one of the examples given, but for the future temporal frame: “I had a chat with him the other day.” vs. “I was having a chat with him the other day.” In the flow of the surrounding discourse, which consists of a great many Future indicative forms that depict events in toto, this description of the stars stands out as a contrasting view.98 This periphrastic

96. Bache’s “propositional” or “truth-conditional” content are potentially misleading terms here given we are talking about a future, unrealized situation. We can however readily see the point being made by this language: the events described are one and the same, and the only difference is the view one has of them. 97. “All future periphrases are imperfective in aspect”: Campbell, Non-Indicative Verbs, 34. 98. Craig Long notes the high correlation of Future forms in apocalyptic contexts, and especially so in Mark 13. Across the entire New Testament Future tense-forms occur at a ratio of once every 17.3 verbal forms; Mark’s Gospel has a ratio of once every 21.4 verbal forms. Mark 13, however, has a future form once every 4.58 verbal forms, dramatically higher than other contexts. See Craig M. Long, “The Discourse Function of the Greek Future Tense-Form: A Corpus Linguistic Discourse Analysis” (PhD diss., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 2013), 28.

The Synoptic Gospels | 113 construction, followed closely by the Present participle ἐρχόμενον in Mark 13:26 (also expressing an internal viewpoint; cf. Matt 24:30), has the effect of slowing down the narrative, placing the hearer/reader within the apocalyptic future context. The rhetorical impact of the current discourse is heightened. For the disciples to whom this is addressed, this echoes the personal implications of this imminent time of distress for the disciples (Mark 13:13–19; cf. the other Future periphrastic construction in 13:13). While the details of this distress are disputed,99 the imperfective aspect of these descriptions invite us to see them as ongoing, in-progress situations. The rhetorical effect of this is to present them as being before the disciples rather than viewed from afar, placing them in the situation to “see” the events around them.100 The apocalyptic mood of Mark’s discourse perhaps gives some explanation for the difference between renderings in Matthew and Mark. For Mark, the apocalyptic mood continues from c­ hapter 13 through the Passion narrative.101 Matthew, however, interweaves another set of parables before Jesus’s preparation for his burial, the Passover account, his betrayal, and the crucifixion narrative. Mark’s narrative frame, therefore, may be a reason for using verbal constructions that invite the hearer (and reader) into the events. 99. Bolt argues this tribulation refers to the suffering of Christ on the cross; Peter G. Bolt, The Cross from a Distance: Atonement in Mark’s Gospel, NSBT 18 (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 102–03. Other scholars dispute where on the eschatological timeline the Gospel writers place themselves and the production of their writings. Nolland, for example, comments on the Synoptic writers as a group: A question that has considerably exercised scholars is that of where in the development outlined in the Eschatological Discourse the Gospel writers understood themselves to be as they produced their Gospels. For example, the claim is often made that Mark’s equivalent to v. 25 (13:23) signals the time of the present for him. Similar statements in other apocalyptic literature are thought to be markers of the present for the apocalypticists. But Theissen has drawn attention to parallel statements in several texts where the events in focus are clearly still part of the future for the writer. The lack of precision in Mt. 24 and the limitation of a precise fit between the materials in Mt. 24 and first-century events between the time of Jesus and the outcome of the Jewish War make it likely that for Matthew too the events of vv. 15–24 (par. Mk. 13:14–23) are still future. Nolland, Matthew, 978. 100. This is a rhetorical impact similar to the efficient encoding of the disciples’ present reality in the Isaiah 6:9 quotation in the Parable of the Sower (see above). 101. Bolt, Cross from a Distance, 103.

114 | Aspectual

Substitution

Campbell is not alone on the Future periphrastic participle construction. Decker, who follows Porter in defining the Future as aspectually vague, argues that the Future periphrasis does indeed have imperfective aspect.102 He draws attention to Mark 13:13, which contains a similar prediction that Jesus intended for his disciples: καὶ ἔσεσθε μισούμενοι ὑπὸ πάντων διὰ τὸ ὄνομά μου. The contrast for Decker, however, is between an imperfective participial phrase and an ill-defined aspectual value. The [+expectation] value ought to remain the same between them, however, given the Future form of both εἰμί and πίπτω. The question here is why would a Future periphrastic clause exist as an alternative to the synthetic form? What choice does it provide? Levinsohn has argued that, for imperfective finite verbs and their periphrastic equivalents, the use of the latter often indicates a more stative idea while still retaining the imperfective aspectual value of the synthetic alternative. If a non-aspectual value is adopted for the Future tense-form, the positions are not as clear for the Future finite and periphrastic choices. If one grants the existence of the Future indicative as an anomalous category (e.g., partially modal, non-aspectual but temporal, [+expectation], and so on as outlined above) then there is no reason in principle not to grant a paradigmatic choice between that anomalous category and one with similar features but explicit imperfective aspect. Coulter George’s work on ἕξω and σχήσω in Classical Greek demonstrates an interesting aspectual contrast between these two Future forms, albeit one that is declining through the period studied and is limited to a particular lexical coincidence.103 Campbell’s proposal of an aspectual contrast between the finite and periphrastic Future forms suggests that such an opposition can exist more generally in the verbal system, rather than being limited to a particular lexical item.104 This proposal makes for both an elegant system network of paradigmatic choice as well as an effective aspectual substitution contrast in this instance. 102. Rodney J. Decker, Reading Koine Greek: An Introduction and Integrated Workbook (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2014), 453. Cf. also Decker, Temporal Deixis, 112–16. Porter mentions Mark 13:25 in his section on Future periphrastic constructions (“[+expectation] form of εἰμί + Present participle”, in his nomenclature) and treats it as expressing imperfective aspect: Porter, Verbal Aspect, 463–64. 103. Coulter H. George, “Verbal Aspect and the Greek Future: ἕξω and σχήσω,” Mnemosyne 69 (2016): 597–627. 104. Provided, of course, that the Future’s perfective aspect can be confirmed elsewhere—a task beyond the scope of this section here.

The Synoptic Gospels | 115

Matthew 24:30 || Mark 13:26 || Luke 21:27; Matthew 26:64 || Mark 14:62 Daniel 7:13 (Old Greek) ἐθεώρουν ἐν ὁράματι τῆς νυκτὸς καὶ ἰδοὺ ἐπὶ τῶν νεφελῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἤρχετο ὡς υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου I was watching in the night visions and look, one like a son of man was coming on the clouds of heaven

Daniel 7:13 (Theodotion) ἐθεώρουν ἐν ὁράματι τῆς νυκτὸς καὶ ἰδοὺ μετὰ τῶν νεφελῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ὡς υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου ἐρχόμενος ἦν I was watching in the night visions and look, one like a son of man was coming with the clouds of heaven

Matthew 24:30 καὶ ὄψονται τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐρχόμενον ἐπὶ τῶν νεφελῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ And they will see the son of man coming on the clouds of heaven

Matthew 26:64 ἀπ᾿ ἄρτι ὄψεσθε τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου καθήμενον ἐκ δεξιῶν τῆς δυνάμεως καὶ ἐρχόμενον ἐπὶ τῶν νεφελῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ. From now on you will see the son of man sitting at the right hand of power and coming on the clouds of heaven.

Mark 13:26 καὶ τότε ὄψονται τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐρχόμενον ἐν νεφέλαις And then they will see the son of man coming in clouds

116 | Aspectual

Substitution

Mark 14:62 ἐγώ εἰμι, καὶ ὄψεσθε τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐκ δεξιῶν καθήμενον τῆς δυνάμεως καὶ ἐρχόμενον μετὰ τῶν νεφελῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ. I am, and you will see the son of man sitting at the right hand of power and coming with the clouds of heaven.

Luke 21:27 καὶ τότε ὄψονται τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐρχόμενον ἐν νεφέλῃ μετὰ δυνάμεως καὶ δόξης πολλῆς. Then you will see the son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.

Table 4.7 Daniel 7:13; Matthew 24:30; 26:64; Mark 13:26; 14:62 Luke 21:27

The Synoptic Gospels | 117 Having set the theophanic stage by laying out extraordinary astronomical transformations (Matt 24:29/Mark 13:25), the Gospels present Jesus predicting his appearance in the heavenly court. This language is drawn from the vision in Daniel 7:13. Not counting allusions to this verse (of which there are several in the Gospels) this quotation occurs at two different stages in the Gospel narratives, paralleled in all three Synoptic Gospels. Initially it occurs in the apocalyptic portion discussed in the preceding instance of aspectual substitution; it is also quoted later in the trial before the Sanhedrin. Both places in Matthew, Mark, and Luke—five instances in total—use the language of the Son of Man, coming with/ in the clouds [of heaven]. This means we have multiple contexts to consider, with a number of potential changes. The Daniel text has a complicated textual history, and divergent versions exist even in the Greek, let alone the Aramaic and Syriac witnesses. The two principal strains of tradition given in the Göttingen text, cited above, are represented by the Old Greek version and the Theodotion recension. The extant differences are relevant for ἔρχομαι—rendered ἐρχόμενον in all NT contexts.105 This is a possible case of verbal alteration, depending on the source text. The Old Greek has the Imperfect indicative form ἤρχετο and the prepositional phrase ἐπὶ τῶν νεφελῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ. Matthew’s two instances match this prepositional phrase, while Mark reads ἐν νεφέλαις and μετὰ τῶν νεφελῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ in 13:26 and 14:62 respectively. Luke has ἐν νεφέλῃ. Theodotion is a witness to a periphrastic participial construction ἐρχόμενος ἦν, a construction roughly equivalent to the finite Imperfect form in the Old Greek.106 The NT passages render this as a lone participle, with the case differing from the participle in Theodotion in order to fit the verbal object (i.e., τὸν υἱὸν … ἐρχόμενον). Given the freedom in constituent order found in the NT texts (and between the LXX texts) and the variance in text forms for this clause, we will not consider ἔρχομαι an instance of verbal substitution. As a result, we restrict our observations to the verbs of seeing found in these verses. In Daniel 7 the prophet moves to a new event in his vision by means of the Imperfect indicative ἐθεώρουν. This verb acts as a marker of consecutive stages in this vision throughout this chapter (Dan 7:2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 13), often with a temporal phrase such as μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα or τότε. With this verb in 7:13 we find 105. Joseph Ziegler, ed., Susanna, Daniel, Bel et Draco, Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graeca XVI,2, 2nd ed. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999), 338–39. 106. Michael B. Shepherd, “Daniel 7:13 and the New Testament Son of Man,” WTJ 68 (2006): 102.

118 | Aspectual

Substitution

the interjection particle ἰδού in its absolute form. This form originally developed from ἰδοῦ, the Aorist middle imperative conjugation of ὁράω. When used absolutely as an interjection it is accented with the acute. In NT and LXX usage this stereotyped particle no longer retains its verbal force.107 Through the New Testament ἰδού functions as a discourse marker, introducing or drawing attention to characters or events in both narrative and discourse. That is, ἰδού is a grammaticalized form.108 In narrative it appears to be a popular story-telling tool, and its use differs amongst the biblical writers.109 There is, however, a correspondence in biblical writing between this interjection (“look!”) and verbs of seeing. Ἴδε, for example, takes either an imperative sense or a purely discourse function, depending on the context. Within this same discourse block in Matthew/Mark there is a correspondence between Mark’s use of βλέπετε and Matthew’s ἰδού— Mark 13:23/Matthew 24:25 is the antecedent example.110 The deictic function of highlighting a character/event can be accomplished by an explicit injunction, or by a stylized interjection, and authors are free in their choice of expression. This choice affects the grammar of the surrounding clause (e.g., the case of the pointed-to object), but the overall function within the larger literary unit is equivalent. It appears that this is what is occurring in the NT uses of Daniel 7:13. The prophet’s reported experience—namely seeing (ἐθεώρουν) and calling

107. The imperative form ἴδε in the NT may have imperative force on occasion, especially in Mark, but is also often used as a discourse marker in a manner parallel to that of ἰδού. Cf. Mark 2:24; 3:32–34. As Turner says, “Ἴδε with nom. as object is explained by the fact that, like ἰδού, ἴδε has become a stereotyped particle of exclamation”: Nigel Turner, James Hope Moulton, ed., Syntax 3 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1963), 231. See also George Dunbar Kilpatrick, “Ἰδού and ἴδε in the Gospels,” JTS 18 (1967): 425–26; E. J. Pryke, “Ιδε and ιδού,” NTS 14 (1968): 418–24; Roger Van Otterloo, “Towards an Understanding of ‘Lo’ and ‘Behold’: Functions of ἰδού and ἴδε in the Greek New Testament,” JTT 2 (1988): 34–64. 108. “When a content word assumes the grammatical characteristics of a function word, the form is said to be ‘grammaticalized’ ”: Paul J. Hopper and Elizabeth Closs Traugott, Grammaticalization (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 4. 109. I. Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 208. 110. Cf. Nolland, Matthew, 979. While Nolland assumes Markan priority, the observation does not depend on this position. The correspondence/contrast exists no matter which direction the source argument takes.

The Synoptic Gospels | 119 attention to (ἰδού)—is transposed to a verbal form discussing a future occurrence (ὄψονται/ὄψεσθε).111 The Future form in this context is not the only marker of future time, although if one assigns it future temporal reference (Campbell, Fanning, etc.) it is entirely consistent with its context. Porter’s [+expectation] value, in this instance, would also correspond to a future time frame. The Synoptic Gospel writers report Jesus’s reworking of Daniel’s visionary account that places this seeing event at, or after, the time of the cataclysmic astronomical signs (τότε, twice, Matt 24:30; Mark 13:26; Luke 21:27). A number of other Future tense-forms also occur in this context (e.g., φανήσεται, κόψονται, ἀποστελεῖ, ἐπισυνάξουσιν, Matt 24:30–31). For these instances the Future is not the only marker of future time, but it is a consistent one—in this case, therefore, the future temporal value of the Future form is adequately corroborated. In terms of aspectual contrast, we cannot really talk here of “contrast” in the same way as other examples in this project. The aspectual value of ἰδού must be considered as null, as this word retains none of the verbal force it once had. The Future tense-form in the NT settings, however, still stands as a choice made to move away from both the discourse marker ἰδού and the imperfective narrative frame created by ἐθεώρουν. The absence of a one-for-one aspectual substitution does not prevent us from noting any aspectual (and/or temporal) value of the given Future form. As noted above the Future tense-forms ὄψονται/ὄψεσθε are part of a string of Future indicatives. The previous section argued for reading these as summary descriptions of future situations, appropriate for a perfective aspectual value intrinsic to the Future form. Some imperfective verbs are used in this section for certain events portrayed as ongoing processes—the Future periphrastic participle from Mark 13:25 is one example, as is the arrival itself of the Son of Man (the Present participle ἐρχόμενον, echoing the imperfective aspect of either ἤρχετο or ἐρχόμενος ἦν). In his expansion of O’Brien’s work, Campbell argues for the semantic value of perfective aspect for the Future indicative by examining the consistency of an ingressive Aktionsart value for a variety of lexemes, including ὁράω. Because his data set includes

111. Nolland notes the elegant transition in Matthew 24 from an echo of Zechariah 12:10–14 to the reference to Daniel 7, using ὄψονται as the bridge. This verb also ties nicely via paronomasia to the preceding κόψονται—material unique to Matthew but common enough apocalyptic imagery. Nolland, Matthew, 984; cf. Donald Alfred Hagner, Matthew 14–28, WBC 33B (Dallas: Word, 1995), 710.

120 | Aspectual

Substitution

Luke but not the other Synoptic writers, he examines Luke 21:27 but not our other instances. Campbell concludes that the usage in this verse is appropriately labeled ingressive, which is a natural and predictable pragmatic implicature of perfective aspect when used together with a lexeme of perception. As this correlation between perfective aspect and contextual usage is quite consistent for the Aorist tense-form, he concludes that the same perfective aspect holds for the Future. Francis Pang argues that the correlation between perfective aspect and certain Aktionsart values is not adequately demonstrated.112 In part this is due to his work deriving from the framework proposed by Porter, who has admittedly little interest in investigating any such correlations. From our previous discussion of Bache’s contrastive substitution framework, however, predictable correlations are to be expected. An aspectual value (discerned through −distinctive contrasts) combined with other features such as temporal settings produce shifts in propositional value—or, put differently, a different presentation of the objective nature of the event, described by differing Aktionsarten. Regardless of whether the temporal value of the Future is taken to be semantic or contextual, in this case there is a temporal change from a reported (past) event to a future prediction. These instances are therefore most certainly +distinctive: substitutable forms that nevertheless describe different situations. Given the +distinctive nature of this contrast, and what we can discern about the temporal and aspectual nature of the Future indicative forms in the above NT passages, we are left with the question of what literary function such a substitution performs. The Gospel writers in all of these instances present Jesus as speaking of a future theophany in terms of the “Day of the Lord.” A number of apocalyptic signs mark out this appearance, drawing on common apocalyptic literature and theologically-charged OT texts. The incorporation of the Danielic language in this context is to rework this prophecy to an eschatological vision of his own triumph. As a literary strategy the broader discourse seeks to shape his hearer’s “imaginative perception” of the coming situation by drawing on a shared conceptual framework by similar, but not exact, textual appeal to the Day of the Lord.113 The verb forms help to effect this apocalyptic imaginative transformation 112. Francis G. H. Pang, “Aspect, Aktionsart, and Abduction: Future Tense in the New Testament,” Filología Neotestamentaria 23 (2010): 129–59; Francis G. H. Pang, “Aspect and Aktionsart Once Again,” in Modeling Biblical Language, eds. Stanley E. Porter, Gregory P. Fewster and Christopher D. Land (Leiden: Brill, 2016), 48–72. 113. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature, 5, 13, 42, 261–62.

The Synoptic Gospels | 121 very efficiently. By drawing on the content of Daniel’s reported vision but casting it in summary form into a future time period, the Son of Man scene is recast as an eschatological work of God with Jesus of Nazareth clearly at the center. Even within the narrative itself, the effectiveness of this theological/eschatological point is demonstrated by the response of the Sadducees. The verbal transformation of inserting a Future tense-form to highlight the future temporal value of the vision is by no means the only or even the primary means of theological construction. It is, however, a contributing factor, and one that allows the broader point to be communicated and reinforced efficiently.

Matthew 26:31 || Mark 14:27 Zechariah 13:7 Ῥομφαία, ἐξεγέρθητι ἐπὶ τοὺς ποιμένας μου καὶ ἐπ᾿ ἄνδρα πολίτην μου, λέγει κύριος παντοκράτωρ· πατάξατε τοὺς ποιμένας καὶ ἐκσπάσατε τὰ πρόβατα, καὶ ἐπάξω τὴν χεῖρά μου ἐπὶ τοὺς ποιμένας. Awake, sword, against my shepherds and against my fellow citizen, says the Lord Almighty; Strike the shepherds and draw off the sheep, and I will bring my hand against the shepherds.

Matthew 26:31 Τότε λέγει αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς· πάντες ὑμεῖς σκανδαλισθήσεσθε ἐν ἐμοὶ ἐν τῇ νυκτὶ ταύτῃ, γέγραπται γάρ· πατάξω τὸν ποιμένα, καὶ διασκορπισθήσονται τὰ πρόβατα τῆς ποίμνης. Then Jesus said to them, Tonight all of you will fall away because of me, for it is written: ‘Strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered.’

Mark 14:27 καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς ὅτι πάντες σκανδαλισθήσεσθε, ὅτι γέγραπται· πατάξω τὸν ποιμένα, καὶ τὰ πρόβατα διασκορπισθήσονται. Jesus said to them, All of you will fall away, for it is written: ‘Strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered.’

122 | Aspectual

Substitution

Table 4.8 Zechariah 13:7; Matthew 26:31; Mark 14:27

This portion of the Passion narrative contains a number of allusions and connections to Zechariah 9–14.114 As arguably is the case for any presentation of Jesus’s teaching in the Gospels this passage is some combination of Jesus’s own theological reflection on his present situation as he calls to mind the prophecies of Zechariah 9–14, and the church’s later theological construal of the episode mediated through the evangelists. Based on the independent attestation of a similar allusion to Zechariah in John 16:32, Keener concludes the probable existence of a 114. Marcus identifies connections to Zech 9–14 in every verse of Mark 14:24–28 (listed below): Joel Marcus, Mark 8–16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, Anchor Bible (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000), 969; Joel Marcus, The Way of the Lord: Christological Exegesis of the Old Testament in the Gospel of Mark (Westminster John Knox: Louisville, 1992), 154–64. France counters that a number of these are plausible but very general—for example, is the Mount of Olives an allusion to a particular text, or just a general echo of a common biblical concept? See France, Mark, 575 n. 72. Marcus’s textual connections are:

– Mark 14:24, “my blood of the covenant,” Zech 9:11; – Mark 14:25, “that day”, “dominion of God,” Zech 14:4, 9; – Mark 14:26, “Mount of Olives,” Zech 14:4–5; – Mark 14:27, “strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered,” Zech 13:7; – Mark 14:28, “restoration of scattered sheep,” Zech 13:8–9.

The Synoptic Gospels | 123 common shepherd logion tradition.115 For our purposes, however, any distinction between Jesus’s intent in quoting from Zechariah 13:7 and that of the evangelists as they report his words is not only difficult to discern but also not a critical factor for the analysis of this quotation. As Jesus speaks to his disciples immediately prior to his arrest in the Garden of Gethsemane he predicts their stumbling (πάντες [ὑμεῖς] σκανδαλισθήσεσθε), and bases this prediction on a quotation from the prophet Zechariah. In both Matthew and Mark this quotation is formally introduced with the formulae ὅτι γέγραπται/γέγραπται γάρ. The NT and LXX texts under consideration here have a number of variant readings, but none of them significantly affect the aspectual substitution we find. The NT forms of πατάξω are secure in both texts. Πατάξατε is the preferred reading from the majority of uncials and other manuscripts for the LXX text, although πατάξω is attested in the Lucianic text.116 The majority of LXX witnesses match the Masoretic Text’s imperative form.117 The Targum is close to the MT in text form. NT quotations have a complicated place in OT textual criticism, but in this case it is plausible that, given the dating and provenance of the Septuagintal textual families represented by those that read πατάξω, the textual influence flows from the NT. Regarding the remainder of the quotation, the LXX text twice has the plural τοὺς ποιμένας, whereas the MT and NT passages have a singular shepherd.118 Minor variations in constituent order for the final phrase τὰ πρόβατα διασκορπισθήσονται exist for Mark, along with an alternate verb conjugation and construction διασκορπισθησεται/σκορπισθησεται. Similarly, διασκορπισθησεται appears in a number of manuscripts for Matthew 26:31—naturally enough a neuter noun takes either a singular or plural verb. Matthew also adds the restrictive phrase τῆς ποίμνης.

1 15. Keener, Matthew, 635. 116. We find this form in the 8th-century codex Venetus, a handful of minuscules, the Arabic and Aramaic versions, and select Church Fathers who were no doubt influenced by the NT readings. Παταξον is also attested by later writings such as Justin and Eusebius. 117. Commenting oddly on Matt 26:31 Hagner writes, “the form of the opening verb (πατάξω, “I will strike”), also taken from Mark, agrees with the Masoretic text against all the LXX witnesses.” Hagner, Matthew 14–28, 777. The MT, however, has an imperative: ‫אֶ ת־הָ רֹ עֶה הַ ְך‬. 118. Menken notes this substitution of plural “shepherds” for the singular also occurs in LXX Zech 11:4, 17. Maarten J. J. Menken, “Striking the Shepherd: Early Christian Versions and Interpretations of Zechariah 13,7,” Bib 92 (2011): 43.

124 | Aspectual

Substitution

The change of person from Zechariah’s imperative πατάξατε to the evangelists’ first-person Future πατάξω makes explicit the agency of the original p ­ rophecy.119 In Zechariah God speaks this command to his sword (  Ῥομφαία [‫]חֶ ֶרב‬, 13:7). Throughout the Scriptures authority is often granted to an agent in order to bring about certain purposes—both by God and other actors possessing authority, and often for ends including judgement and punishment.120 Whether the sword ought to be identified as Satan (as is a common trope of ancient literature, especially apocalyptic) or an unnamed aggressor, the ultimate agent is clearly God.121 This is further confirmed by the second half of the verse: καὶ ἐπάξω τὴν χεῖρά μου ἐπὶ τοὺς ποιμένας.122 The second verb in this quotation employs a different lexeme to the LXX—διασκορπισθήσονται in place of ἐκσπάσατε—but the Aorist imperative to Future indicative change is paralleled. The second action in the NT is both passive and consequent on the first, unlike the LXX rendering which is another active command given to the sword of the Lord. Menken mounts an argument for Mark’s text being a better rendering of the Hebrew original than the LXX text on three main counts: the singular “shepherd,” the choice of lexeme in the construction διασκορπισθήσονται, and the singular person in πατάξω (although this last item is not without its own difficulties

119. Implicit agency and indirect action is common in scriptural language, and it is often even less direct than here. Cf. the “divine passive,” especially of lexemes such as δίδωμι. The passive of divine activity, originally coined by Joachim Jeremias, is a common “circumlocution used for avoiding the direct mention of the activity of God”; David E. Aune, Revelation 6–16, WBC 52B (Nashville: Nelson, 1998), 527. 120. For example, in relation to a king or other person with authority commissioning an agent for military action (e.g., 1 Macc 1:13; 10:6, 8, 32; 3 Macc 7:12; Dan 3:97) or some form of social standing (e.g., 1 Macc 11:58). General authority over life (e.g., humanity over creation, Sir 17:2) and license to act as one sees fit (e.g., Prov 17:4; Sir 30:11; 33:20) are also evident. Common to all of these instances is the intentional, active, knowledgable commissioning of an agent to carry out something at the bidding of the one who has the authority to begin with. That is, none of these references indicate simple permission to the exclusion of authorization (i.e., there is no sense of hands-off or grudging permission for distasteful activity). 121. Cf. the delegation to Satan concerning Job: δίδωμι ἐν τῇ χειρί σου (1:12); Ἰδοὺ παραδίδωμί σοι αὐτόν (2:6). 122. There is an important LXX variant “little ones” that agrees with the MT ‫הַ צֹּ ע ֲִרים‬. Joseph Ziegler, ed., Duodecim Prophetae, Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graeca XIII, 4th ed. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1943), 322.

The Synoptic Gospels | 125 as an equivalent for ‫)הַ ך‬.123 The first two of these considerations—the renderings he considers superior translation choices—leads him to suggest “we have to do either with a fresh translation from the Hebrew, or with a LXX that had been revised to bring it closer to the developing Hebrew standard text. A decision between these two options is not possible.”124 When considering the change of agency indicated by πατάξω in Mark, however, he concludes it is a “typically Christian trait.” This change provides, on the one hand, contextualization for a quotation removed from its surrounding narrative, and on the other a theological motivation for divine involvement and purpose in the Passion narrative. Because of the lack of evidence for testimonia collections by Christians during the period when Mark’s Gospel would have been created (or Christian interpretive marginalia in OT texts) and Mark’s characteristic use of the LXX in quotations, he concludes that this change is a “Christian ad hoc creation” sourced either in the evangelist or in his source material. That is, he detects two changes likely attributable to revisions from or towards the Hebrew text, and another altered separately to aid a Christian interpretation of the verse used outside its original context. This is a plausible argument, and has much to commend it. Others disagree on this construction, attributing the changes to Mark and/or Jesus’s original utterance.125 If, however, Menken is correct, then our common pattern in interrogating quotations for aspectual substitution needs to be slightly more circumspect here. If Menken is right, the textual flow is more complex than [LXX source] → [authorial alteration] → [NT quotation].126 We cannot in this case ascribe any authorial intention to the aspectual substitution, for Mark is apparently using his sources as he finds them. What we can do, however, is continue to compare the rhetorical effect of the different verb forms as a resultant effect of aspectual substitution without imputing any motivation for the change to the evangelist.

1 23. Menken, “Striking the Shepherd,” 45. 124. Menken, “Striking the Shepherd,” 45. 125. Menken notes two alternatives to this argument (which he labels as improbable) by Breytenbach and Longenecker. Menken, “Striking the Shepherd,” 48 n. 27; C. Breytenbach, “The Minor Prophets in Mark’s Gospel,” in The Minor Prophets in the New Testament, eds. Maarten J. J. Menken and Steve Moyise (London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2009), 27–37; Richard N. Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 55. 126. Again, Menken’s is not the only construction of this text. Mark may have made these alterations intentionally.

126 | Aspectual

Substitution

One major change brought about by the wording of the NT passages is the narrowing of possible interpretations for the shepherd(s). In the original, the identity of the shepherd is enigmatic: he could be a negative figure, or possibly even messianic at the other extreme.127 The pluralizing of τοὺς ποιμένας in the LXX could indicate the identity of a ruling class separate from the “sheep,” from whom the sheep must be rescued.128 In later interpretation, however, the shepherd is seen in a far more positive light. In the Damascus Scroll this verse is applied to the Qumran community yet is set in an eschatological context, arguably identifying the Teacher of Righteousness as the shepherd and the community as the sheep.129 The Targum translates “shepherd” as “king,” consistent with its practice elsewhere. When this is used in the NT passages the reference is unambiguously to a good leader. The disciples are the sheep about to be scattered; their leader, Jesus, is the shepherd to be struck down. Later Christian interpretation took the scattering to be at this time, or the dispersion of the disciples after the crucifixion (cf. Justin, Dial. 53:5; Irenaeus, Epid. 76 respectively). For this action to be attributable directly to God brings a strong theological statement to the Passion narrative. The formal change to the verb therefore makes explicit the agent of the action, removing the imperatival force of the original. However the prospective nature of the situation is not removed. Nor is the overall viewpoint of the conceived situation: both are summary statements without any internal perspective. We can say that this substitution of mood and aspect is grammatically +distinctive because of the difference in addressee, but functionally identical. But unlike our previous instance of alignment between an Aorist imperative and a Future indicative, the Future form here is not used as an imperative.130 It does not carry the force of a command. Rather, it is a truly temporal Future. It gathers up the temporal setting of the entire discourse of Zechariah 13—indicated in the context by the repetition of the temporal deictic phrase ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκείνῃ [‫—]ּבַ ּיֹום הַ הּוא‬and indicates that this action of “striking” will take place at a time yet to come (relative, of 127. Watts provides a good overview of the scholarly debate over the identity of the shepherd: Watts, “Mark,” 232. 128. Menken, “Striking the Shepherd,” 44. 129. CD XIX, 6–14. Watts notes that the Sibylline Oracles may allude to Zech 13:8 but it is not unambiguous (Sib. Or. 3:544; 5:103); if it does, however, the reading is also eschatological. Watts, “Mark,” 232. 130. Leon Morris quotes Carr in his commentary as he notes the correspondence of the Aorist imperative and Future indicative, “both the LXX and Hebrew have imperative for future”: Morris, Matthew, 664 n. 65. While this is true, it does downplay the literary function of Isaiah’s imperative demonstrating the authority of the Lord.

The Synoptic Gospels | 127 course, to the time of the utterance as given in Zechariah). The significance of this temporal setting is that in Jesus’s use of this phrase, he is indicating that what was a future event then is on the immediate horizon now. While different in certain details to previous Aorist–Future and imperative– Future indicative parallels, this instance of aspectual substitution demonstrates certain properties of the Future form. It appears to be perfective in aspect, mirroring the summary view of the Aorist form. In this instance it is also clearly temporal, referring to a relative future time with respect to the time of utterance. Functionally it works to interpret and fulfill a prophetic utterance from Israel’s theological heritage. The enigmatic statement about divine judgement on Israel’s leadership becomes a statement about a future time that is imminent for Jesus and his hearers. In the midst of other evangelist references to Zechariah’s apocalyptic, eschatological vision, what appears to be a tremendous setback for God’s people is seen as a future assurance of the Lord’s sovereignty even in the betrayal and death of the Messiah, and a promise of restoration for his people.

Matthew 27:35 || Mark 15:24 || Luke 23:34 || John 19:24 Psalm 21:19 (MT 22:19) διεμερίσαντο τὰ ἱμάτιά μου ἑαυτοῖς καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν ἱματισμόν μου ἔβαλον κλῆρον. They divided my garments amongst themselves, and cast lots for my clothing.

Matthew 27:35 Σταυρώσαντες δὲ αὐτὸν διεμερίσαντο τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτοῦ βάλλοντες κλῆρον After crucifying him they divided his garments by casting lots

Mark 15:24 Καὶ σταυροῦσιν αὐτὸν καὶ διαμερίζονται τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτοῦ, βάλλοντες κλῆρον ἐπ᾿ αὐτὰ τίς τί ἄρῃ. They crucified him and divided his garments, casting lots for them to see who would get what.

128 | Aspectual

Substitution

Luke 23:34 διαμεριζόμενοι δὲ τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτοῦ ἔβαλον κλήρους. Dividing his clothing they cast lots.

John 19:24 διεμερίσαντο τὰ ἱμάτιά μου ἑαυτοῖς καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν ἱματισμόν μου ἔβαλον κλῆρον. They divided my garments amongst themselves, and cast lots for my clothing.

Table 4.9 Psalm 21:19; Matthew 27:35; Mark 15:24; Luke 23:34; John 19:24

The Synoptic Gospels | 129 We observed this set of verses in a cursory manner in a previous chapter.131 Now it is time to investigate more closely. Psalm 21:19 LXX is quoted in all four Gospels.132 The Göttingen edition shows no significant variants for this verse.133 John’s version is an exact quotation, introduced with a quotation formula. The LXX reflects the parallel structure of the original Hebrew poetry, with two Aorist indicatives anchoring the imagery. As John uses this verse the soldiers are identified as the opponents of the protagonist—and by identifying them as the antagonists he casts them as enemies of the Messiah. In contrast to the directness of John’s quotation, none of the Synoptic writers introduce this verse with a quotation formula. All three change the quotation to refer to a third person, and not the speaker. Matthew changes the Aorist indicative ἔβαλον in the second line into a Present participle βάλλοντες. Luke does the reverse, shifting the first Aorist indicative διεμερίσαντο to its participial form διαμεριζόμενοι, but retaining the second.134 Mark substitutes both Aorist forms with Present tense-forms (διαμερίζονται; βάλλοντες), the second being a participle. These changes alter the poetic structure of the original, yet still fall within the bounds of what we can consider a quotation.135 Blomberg notes the possibility that the independent uses of this quotation (John’s direct use vs. the alterations present in the Synoptics) could suggest “the use of a collection of OT prooftexts by early Christians to explain Jesus’ crucifixion.”136 While this is a possibility, as noted elsewhere there is no solid evidence of the Synoptic authors’ use of such a document or collection. We are limited to a discussion of the texts as they are presented in their final form. Examining these texts as we find them, we can say all three evangelists communicate the same propositional content as the Psalm

1 31. See “Data Set,” p. 60. 132. Verse references below are to the LXX versification, except for when cited material use the English/Hebrew numbering scheme. 133. Alfred Rahlfs, ed., Psalmi cum Odis, Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graeca X, 3rd ed. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1931), 110–11. 134. Note that a variant reading found in D, Θ and c has the Lukan structure as a mirror of Matthew’s text. Nolland notes the differences in finite verb and participle here with respect to Mark’s text (assuming Markan priority) along with other changes— the plural κλήρους and the absence of anything for Mark’s ἐπ᾿ αὐτὰ τίς τί ἄρη—and concludes “it is not possible to determine whether Luke draws directly on Mark here.” Nolland, Matthew, 1146. 135. Because of the range of definitions of “quotation” other writers may refer to this as, for example, a clear allusion. See for example, Blomberg, “Matthew,” 95. 136. Blomberg, “Matthew,” 98.

130 | Aspectual

Substitution

(the righteous sufferer having his possessions divided by his enemies). In contrastive-substitution terms, these are −distinctive verses. Matthew and Luke’s structure—a Present participle co-ordinated with an Aorist indicative—likely depicts the action indicated by the participle as contemporaneous with the main indicative verb.137 In so doing, both Matthew and Luke naturally rework a poetic original verse in a narrative frame. Rather than two subsequent Aorists carrying the through-line of a sequence of events, they retain one of these actions as the main verbal idea and coordinate the other by rendering it as a participle. This structure neatly ties the two actions together closely in a way that creatively mirrors the effect of the Hebrew’s synonymous parallelism. This appears to be an instance of scriptural quotation that is sensitive to the new grammatical/ syntactical context. The same can be said of Mark’s alterations, but his operate in a slightly different fashion. As with Luke and Matthew, Mark opts to render one of the verbs as a Present participle (βάλλοντες). His finite verbal form, however, is also altered: the Aorist original is given in Mark by the Present middle indicative διαμερίζονται. The natural and effective communication of the Hebrew poetic device in a narrative frame is just as true for Mark as it is the other Synoptic authors. The Present tense-form, however, comes in the midst of several other Present tense-forms used to narrate the events of the crucifixion. Consider the verbs used in independent clauses to describe the main events in this section of the narrative from Mark 15:20ff: – Καὶ ἐξάγουσιν αὐτὸν … (20b) – καὶ ἀγγαρεύουσιν τινα Σίμωνα Κυρηναῖον … (21) – Καὶ φέρουσιν αὐτὸν … (22) – Καὶ σταυροῦσιν αὐτὸν … (24a) – καὶ διαμερίζονται τὰ ἱμάτια … (24b) – Καὶ σὺν αὐτῷ σταυροῦσιν δύο λῃστάς (27)

This sequence is broken up by two pieces of scene-setting: the soldiers were offering him mixed wine (Imperfect ἐδίδουν) in v. 27, and the hour and the circumstances are noted in vv. 25–26 (Imperfect ἦν δὲ ὥρα τρίτη; Aorist καὶ ἐσταύρωσαν αὐτόν; Imperfect καὶ ἦν ἡ ἐπιγραφή …). This is therefore a heavily clustered passage of what is typically termed “Historical Presents.” Recall the options put forward for the historical Present in Koine Greek: (1) a tense mismatch to create vividness (the traditional position held by Winer, 137. This is a common pragmatic usage of the present participle, either preceding or following its coordinated finite verb. Cf. for example, Wallace, Greek Grammar, 623.

The Synoptic Gospels | 131 Moulton, Blass and Debrunner); (2) an alternating zero-tense structure (Kiparsky); (3) an intentional mismatch in (tense and) aspect for discourse prominence (Buth, Levinsohn, Runge); (4) a discourse function expressed in terms of markedness (Porter, Campbell).138 McKay’s critique of Kiparsky’s zero-tense theory is especially applicable in this section of Mark as there is no alternating between (Historical) Present and Aorist forms. Several Present tense-forms are used in sequence to narrate the main through-line of the story. If aspect-prominence is affirmed (either as the exclusive or prominent semantic feature of the Greek verb) as it has been elsewhere, we are left with some form of discourse prominence as the explanation for this series of Present tense-forms. These verses will not serve to distinguish between, say, Buth’s and Campbell’s models of the discourse function of the historical Present—we can be satisfied for the moment with a prominence function due to the tense-form.139 Certainly a strong case can be made for the crucifixion narrative being the highlight of Mark’s Gospel.140 Furthermore, these verses highlight the Roman soldiers as the perpetrators of Jesus’s crucifixion, and Jesus as the passive recipient of their actions.141 The aspectual substitution of a (historical) Present tense-form for an Aorist places the quoted text at the same level as the other actions taken by the enemies of the protagonist of Mark’s narrative. In Mark’s telling of the story, the division of Jesus’s clothes is just one action in a series of indignities perpetrated against the Christ. At the same time, however, it is also one of a series of typological reflections of the righteous sufferer of Psalm 21, implying there is a pre-ordained divine plan that stands behind these events.142 Mark’s use and modification of this verse of the Psalm in this context not only includes the imagery of the righteous man suffering at the hands of God’s enemies, but seamlessly integrates that typological element into a marked, prominent section of discourse.

1 38. See “The Historical/Narrative Present,” p. 43. 139. That is, the evidence here could fit either model. If one opts for a model in which these tense-forms contravene tense and aspect in order to give prominence in the discourse then confirmation can be found in this entire sequence. (That is, each of the Present forms operates as if it were an Aorist form in an aspect-prominent system of the verb, with tense being a secondary feature, but still extant). If, on the other hand, one disregards tense and assumes the marked tense-form instead conveys markedness or prominence, then that can be affirmed here too. 140. Highlight in the sense of “most accented or featured” as opposed to “most enjoyable.” 141. Porter, Verbal Aspect, 193, 196; Campbell, Indicative Mood, 70–71. 142. Marcus, Mark 8–16, 1050.

132 | Aspectual

Substitution

This observation serves to bolster some of the claims made about the Christian use of this Psalm as an interpretation of the events of Jesus’s crucifixion— Mark’s in particular, but also the other evangelists. As Marshall notes, this event could be considered a pious fabrication on the basis of the prior existence of the Psalm text but for the stubborn counter-evidence of certain facts.143 A historically attested custom is reflected in these events.144 Furthermore, the insertion of this verse into this context in the Synoptic Gospels is a messianic interpretation of the Psalm that has no clear precedent.145 The “righteous sufferer” is not an uncommon idea in Mark’s passion narrative, and Psalm 21 LXX is especially pervasive.146 In this verse Jesus’s garments are divided; later he is mocked by onlookers (15:29; cf. Ps 21:7); his cry of dereliction is another clear reference to the suffering of God’s righteous servant (15:34; cf. Ps 21:1).147 Mark’s (and the other evangelists’) use of this Psalm is not, however, mirrored in contemporary tradition. There is some evidence of an inter-testamental interpretation of the righteous sufferer (e.g., Wis 2:12–24; 5:1–8; 2 Bar 15:7–8; 48:49–50), however Watts claims “there are no clear citations or undisputed allusions to Ps 22.”148 There is no firm evidence that Psalm 21 LXX was understood messianically. Mark, however, ties this quotation to one event of many in a sequence, tying the high point of τοῦ εὐαγγελίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (Mark 1:1) to the scripturally projected experience of the Messiah. Mark’s deliberate application of this concept and clear quotations and allusions to this Psalm is therefore of a kind unattested in contemporaneous tradition.

1 43. Marshall, Luke, 868. 144. See Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 502. He writes, “The division of the crucifixion victim’s property, including his clothing, was apparently customary (Digest of Justinian 48.20.1; Tacitus, Ann. 6.29: ‘people sentenced to death forfeited their property’), though there were exceptions (Digest of Justinian 48.20.6; cf. Tacitus, Hist. 4.3). The allusion to Ps 22:18 (which in John 19:24 becomes explicit) obviously derives from Christians who passed on the story, phrasing it to take on scriptural overtones.” 145. Anticipating the following discussion, if there is no common messianic interpretive tradition of this Psalm, then there is no necessity for the crucifixion accounts to include it to “prove” the messianic claims of Jesus. 146. Watts, “Mark,” 235. 147. France, Mark, 640; Marcus, The Way of the Lord, 175. 148. Watts, “Mark,” 236. Note in this quotation Ps 22 MT = Ps 21 LXX.

The Synoptic Gospels | 133 All three of the Synoptic authors, therefore, adapt the language of Psalm 21 to their own narrative contexts in ways that fit naturally in their new context. Not only are these quotations not introduced formally, they are reconfigured to communicate the same content as the original, yet placed seamlessly within a different genre entirely. Most clearly with Mark’s quotation (but also with Matthew and Luke) the Psalm text is accorded the same prominent status as other events in the narrative sequence, creating a typological correspondence with the experience of the Messiah and the suffering of Jesus. Mark’s use of the Present tense-form in place of the original Aorist places this quotation on the same level as other surrounding (historical) Presents, lending the whole narrative a heightened prominence as a climactic point in his Gospel. These aspectual substitutions as the Gospel authors adopt this Psalm text into the Synoptic tradition serve to efficiently tie typological fulfillment into the events of Jesus’s crucifixion. In each case a broader theological point abut the Messiah is made, creating an interpretive context into which the quotation is inserted and grammatically altered to suit. Form follows the broader considerations of content and theological construction.

Mark 9:48 Isaiah 66:24 καὶ ἐξελεύσονται καὶ ὄψονται τὰ κῶλα τῶν ἀνθρώπων τῶν παραβεβηκότων ἐν ἐμοί· ὁ γὰρ σκώληξ αὐτῶν οὐ τελευτήσει, καὶ τὸ πῦρ αὐτῶν οὐ σβεσθήσεται, καὶ ἔσονται εἰς ὅρασιν πάσῃ σαρκί. They will go out and see the corpses of people who have transgressed against me: for their worm will not die, and their fire will not be put out, and they will be a spectacle to all flesh.

Mark 9:48 Καὶ ἐὰν ὁ ὀφθαλμός σου σκανδαλίζῃ σε, ἔκβαλε αὐτόν· καλόν σέ ἐστιν μονόφθαλμον εἰσελθεῖν εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ ἢ δύο ὀφθαλμοὺς ἔχοντα βληθῆναι εἰς τὴν γέενναν 48 ὅπου ὁ σκώληξ αὐτῶν οὐ τελευτᾷ καὶ τὸ πῦρ οὐ σβέννυται. 47

And if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than having two eyes be thrown into hell, 48 where their worm does not die and their fire is not put out. 47

134 | Aspectual

Substitution

Table 4.10 Isaiah 66:24; Mark 9:48

In Mark’s version of Jesus’s concluding warning concerning personal holiness and abstention from sin, he quotes the final verse of Isaiah. This quotation of Isaiah 66:24 is, in some manuscripts, added at the end of vv. 43 and 45 (traditionally, Mark 9:44 and 46 respectively). Because of the symmetry of the three preceding conditional clauses (ἐὰν […] σκανδαλίζῃ …, 9:43–47) it is likely these additional quotations are scribal additions meant to reinforce the pattern of commands.149 The Göttingen text of Isaiah 66:24 lists only two variants for τελευτήσει: τελευτᾷ in Mark 9:48, and παυ(θη)σεται in Justin.150 The NT text is secure in Mark 9:48. The quoted verse comes from the concluding vision to the book of Isaiah, in which the ascendancy of Yahweh is described in his establishment of new heavens and a new earth. Accompanying the fruits of this triumph we also see the contemporaneous judgement on rebellious people (τῶν ἀνθρώπων τῶν παραβεβηκότων, 66:24). This eschatological vision is marked by consistent use of Future tenseforms throughout, establishing the prospective nature of the described situation.151 Viewing the destruction of those who oppose the Lord in terms of unquenchable

149. Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1998), 102. The additional insertions do not substantially affect our analysis here because, even if they were deemed to be original, they have identical aspectual substitution to the verb forms under consideration in 9:48. 150. Rahlfs, ed., Isaias, 370. 151. Note that any definitiveness or confidence in the outcome of this future situation is not derived necessarily from the Future indicative forms, but by the confidence the reader has in the one making the prediction—namely the Lord himself.

The Synoptic Gospels | 135 fire (πῦρ) and worms/maggots (σκώληξ) came to be a consistent feature of Jewish interpretation. Sirach 7:17 lists exactly this as the punishment that comes on the impious (ἀσεβοῦς); Judith 16:17 goes further in describing the punishment of κύριος παντοκράτωρ on ἔθνεσιν ἐπανιστανομένοις τῷ γένει μου: fire and worms ἐν αἰσθήσει ἕως αἰῶνος. A good deal of commentary on this verse has to do with how the phrase “eternal punishment” ought to be understood in relation to this description. That is, is the punishment of the rebellious continual, eternal, conscious torment, or is it annihilation that is irreversible? Those who opt for the latter interpretation point to the description of the fire as undying rather than the torment,152 or the hyperbolic context.153 Others read these eternal descriptions in light of the function of the fire and worm—namely the punishment they enact—and thus opt for a continual, everlasting torment (cf. also the traditional Jewish interpretation in this vein, e.g., Judith).154 France, however, notes that the wording of this verse does not establish the point either way.155 Certainly the aspectual values of the verbs in these verses (in both OT and NT) do not settle the question: neither choice speaks to the existence or non-existence of an end to the torment of the wicked. The contextual and temporal indicators are similar across these two passages. In other words, these are −distinctive situations: a prospective situation describing the eschatological punishment of God’s enemies. Isaiah’s broader vision is of a restored kingdom that is nevertheless accompanied by a dire warning of what awaits those who reject it. As people from all nations gather to the holy mountain of the Lord, participating in the ὁ οὐρανὸς καινὸς καὶ ἡ γῆ καινή (Isa 66:23) they look out and see the dead bodies of the rebels. Similarly, Jesus speaks of entering life (εἰσελθεῖν εἰς τὴν ζωὴν, Mark 9:43, 45) and the kingdom of God (εἰσελθεῖν εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ, Mark 9:47) in parallel statements. Up to this point in Mark’s Gospel the normal usage of ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ has been related to earthly matters, so the parallel with ἡ ζωή starts to develop, as France states, “a new and

152. Cf. Morna Hooker, The Gospel According to Saint Mark, BNTC (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996), 233; Edward Fudge, “The Final End of the Wicked,” JETS 27 (1984): 328–29. 153. Marcus, Mark 8–16, 698. 154. So Augustine, City of God, 21.9. Stein is a good example of a modern interpreter who takes this position: Stein, Mark, 449. 155. France, Mark, 382. He also warns of “the danger of using vivid traditional imagery to establish formal doctrine.”

136 | Aspectual

Substitution

more otherworldly use of the phrase.”156 In Mark’s narrative Jesus’s reference to this future life in the kingdom of God is contrasted to Gehenna, quoting Isaiah 66. That is, in both OT and NT contexts the life brought about by God stands alongside a vision of the consequences of not attaining it. Also comparable are the temporal frames of each verse. Isaiah’s reference is future-referring, set in an eschatological vision of what the Lord will bring about. Jesus’s words are placed in a set of three parallel third-class conditional phrases (ἐὰν […] σκανδαλίζῃ) presenting a theoretical possibility. This does not imply that these events are certain to come about, but it still gives the potential cause-and-effect chain a prospective setting. The use of the Present tense-forms τελευτᾷ and σβέννυται appear to be omni-temporal, or proverbial. This mirrors the preceding proverbial character of the value-judgement καλόν ἐστίν σε/καλόν σέ ἐστίν statements (Mark 9:43, 45, 47). The Present forms do not appear to carry a tense value here—certainly not a present, “now” value. That is not to say that these warnings don’t carry a warning in the present for the disciples. As Edwards states, “The horrible imagery of these verses is intended as a sober admonition to disciples now rather than simply as a prediction of the future. The architectural plans of eternity are being drawn by the behavior of disciples today.”157 Edwards is correct to note the rhetorical function of the aspectual substitution here, although his wording could lend itself to misinterpretation. His opposition of present- and future-referring terminology (“now”, “behavior … today”; “prediction of the future”) lead the reader to understand the Present and Future tense-forms in terms of tense. But this is not what creates the effect Edwards correctly identifies. Primarily this personalizing and internalizing of the warning comes from its placement in a series of hypothetical situations. These conditional statements are put in general terms; they are not tied to specific situations.158 The prospective nature of the conditional statements do therefore function as “a sober admonition to disciples now,” but this is equally true of the “simple prediction” of the future in Isaiah 66. The future consequence acts as a warning intended to reform action in the present—both in Mark and Isaiah. What then is the function 156. France, Mark, 381, noting the further development of the concept in 10:15–30; 14:25. 157. James R. Edwards, The Gospel According to Mark, PNTC (Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, 2002), 295, emphasis original. 158. Deming proposed that the three references to body parts (hand, foot, eye) relate to specifically sexual sin in correspondence with b. Nid. 13b: Mark Deming, “Mark

The Synoptic Gospels | 137 of the shift to imperfective aspect?159 The effect is to place the reader/hearer with an internal viewpoint on the action. It is as if the disciples hearing this are standing in the place of those around the temple of Yahweh in Isaiah 66, looking out on the destruction wrought upon those who reject the kingdom. The terrible consequences of rejecting God are not only presented as a logical corollary to sin, but are done in such a way that they feel proximate to the hearers. This evocative language is less concerned with the exact picture of destruction or the relation of the images to each other than the effect of deterrence and need for self-examination.160

Luke 23:46 Psalm 30:6 (MT 31:6) εἰς χεῖράς σου παραθήσομαι τὸ πνεῦμά μου· ἐλυτρώσω με, κύριε ὁ θεὸς τῆς ἀληθείας. Into your hands I will entrust my spirit; You redeemed me, Lord, God of truth.

Luke 23:46 καὶ φωνήσας φωνῇ μεγάλῃ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν· πάτερ, εἰς χεῖράς σου παρατίθεμαι τὸ πνεῦμά μου. τοῦτο δὲ εἰπὼν ἐξέπνευσεν. And calling out with a loud voice Jesus said: Father, into your hands I entrust my spirit. Saying this, he breathed his last.

9:42–10:12, Matthew 5:27–32, and B Nid 13b: A First Century Discussion of Male Sexuality,” NTS 36 (1990): 130–41. Others see the domain of reference as being wider, with such subtle euphemisms being too restrictive of the reference to sin. See for example, Marcus, Mark 8–16, 696; Strauss, Mark, 413–14. The specifics of what sin is intended here are not determinative for us—the description of the result of sin is at issue here. 159. Based on previous instances a perfective value for the Future form is reasonable. Even if this is not granted, a shift to explicitly mark the NT verse with imperfective aspect is found here. 160. France, Mark, 382–83.

138 | Aspectual

Substitution

Table 4.11 Psalm 30:6; Luke 23:46

Luke’s account of Jesus’s final words on the cross is different to Mark’s. R ­ ather than Mark’s quotation of Psalm 22:2, Luke’s Jesus quotes Ps 30:6 LXX (31:6 MT; 31:5 English versions).161 The LXX text is relatively secure. A handful of Old Latin readings preserve a form of παρατίθεμαι or –τιθημι, likely influenced either by Luke’s well-known version or by an alternative translation of the Hiphil Yiqtol ‫ אַפְ קִ יד‬in the MT.162 The NT text has some minor attestations to alternative readings: παρατιθημι, and παραθησομαι.163 The given Present middle form παρατιθεμαι has by far the strongest, earliest, most varied support. Joseph Fitzmeyer sensibly concludes that the Psalm’s Future form entered the textual tradition due to scribal harmonization.164 Joel Green argues the differences between Luke 23:46, Psalm 30:6 LXX, and the Masoretic Text (vocative πάτερ, plural χεῖράς for the singular ‫יָד‬, and the tense-form of παρατίθημι) are explicable “solely in terms of a translation from the MT.”165 In this he discounts Moo’s argument—that the LXX influence

161. The versification of this Psalm is more complicated than usual: the LXX, MT, and English editions all have differing reference schemes. Verse references below are to the LXX versification, except for when cited material use the English/Hebrew numbering scheme. Conversion to other languages is left as an exercise for the reader. 162. Rahlfs, ed., Psalmi cum Odis, 123. 163. The active form παρατιθημι is found in D, family 1, and minuscules 892 and 2542. The Future form παραθησομαι (i.e., as the LXX) is found in some later uncials (L Γ Δ), family 13, minuscules 565, 700, 1424, the Majority Text, and the Vulgate. 164. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke (X–XXIV), Anchor Bible 28A (New York: Doubleday, 1985), 1519. 165. Joel B. Green, The Death of Jesus: Tradition and Interpretation in the Passion Narrative, Repr. ed. (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 1988), 98, emphasis original. For Green the number of χεῖρ is irrelevant but the tense form of παρατίθημι is significant. He notes the Hebrew Yiqtol can be translated with either a Present or a Future Greek form.

The Synoptic Gospels | 139 is “almost certainly” based on the translation of ‫ פקד‬with παρατίθημι, which occurs only twice in the LXX—by noting that ‫ פקד‬in this sense occurs rarely.166 Yet Green’s argument is undercut by the observation that the two other verse he cites (following BDB)—3 Kingdoms 14:27 and 2 Chronicles 12:10—do not use παρατίθημι for ‫פקד‬. Of course for any quotation in the NT a re-translation of a Hebrew source text is possible, and this is no less the case here. However, given the close wording of the NT and LXX texts along with the contextual placement of the speaker—Jesus, on the cross, at the exact moment of his death—a citation of the LXX with a shift from Future to Present is the most likely explanation. Psalm 30 LXX is a Davidic psalm of lament. It combines confident assertions of covenant relationship,167 anticipation of deliverance, and pleas for assistance in crisis. The commitment of the psalmist to God in v. 6 is, as Craigie says, not “resignation to certain fate, but confidence in God’s ability to deliver and protect.”168 Verse 6 mirrors the form of the preceding verse: a confident assertion of what God will do for the psalmist in deliverance, because of the current status of their relationship. Future and stative verbal concepts are combined. Verse 5 declares that the Lord will free (ἐξάξεις) David because God is his refuge. Similarly, the Future form in Psalm 30:6 is a prospective commitment in the context of repeated requests for deliverance. It is a future-referring action, based on a current reality. The paired line in this verse uses an Aorist form (ἐλυτρώσω; translating the Qal Qatal ‫ )פּ ִָדיתָ ה‬which describes what has been done for him. Both Future and Aorist forms here present these salvific actions of God in similarly summary terms—perfective aspect is an appropriate descriptor for both. Scholars are divided as to whether Luke is the originator of the use of this Psalm as a messianic descriptor of Jesus’s suffering, but it certainly fits Luke’s narrative more cleanly than if he had followed Mark’s quotation of Psalm 22.169 Mark’s account highlights Jesus’s abandonment by all and his isolation in death, while this is less emphatic in Luke. Matthew 27:50 (ἀφῆκεν τὸ πνεῦμα) and John 19:30 (παρέδωκεν τὸ πνεῦμα) arguably also allude to Psalm 30:6, giving credence 166. Douglas J. Moo, The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 1983), 280. 167. Cf. the covenant name of the Lord (‫יהוה‬/κύριος), language of righteousness (‫צדקה‬/δικαιοσύνῃ), loving-kindness, and trust/hope (‫בטח‬/ἐλπίζω). 168. Peter C. Craigie, Psalms 1–50, WBC 19 (Columbia: Nelson, 1983), 260. 169. John Nolland, Luke 18:35–24:53, WBC 35C (Columbia: Nelson, 1993), 1158; Frank J. Matera, “The Death of Jesus according to Luke: A Question of Sources,” CBQ 47 (1985): 476.

140 | Aspectual

Substitution

to the existence of this interpretation prior to Luke’s composition.170 In later tradition Psalm 30:6 was used as part of an evening prayer, seeing sleep as the threshold of death—although this tradition may well have been influenced by Luke’s quotation.171 Parallels in this narrative setting to the Psalm are clear. Jesus acknowledges his close relationship to God as he addresses God as πάτερ (cf. also 22:42; 23:34), and he cries out in the midst of affliction and distress. The difference between the two lies in the relationship between the speaker and the event of entrusting his spirit into God’s hands. In the Psalm the event is future, and the description is external. For Jesus the reverse is true: the moment is right now, as he is very much in the midst of the situation. The act of entrusting his spirit is done in the moment of his death, seen in the close connection of his expiration (ἐξέπνευσεν) with this quotation (τοῦτο δὲ εἰπὼν). As Nolland says, “where the psalmist entrusts himself to God in the context of life, Jesus entrusts himself to God in the face of death.”172 Pao and Schnabel argue that this aspectual substitution is no violation of the original, but an extension of the psalmist’s confession of faith—the sphere of God’s protection of the righteous sufferer is not only in dangerous life situations but in death itself.173 Jesus, therefore, appropriates and heightens this Davidic expression of righteous faith. Bock argues that this articulation of righteous faith in this moment of obedience to death presents Jesus as the righteous sufferer par excellence.174 The appropriation of David’s words is a typological fulfillment, presenting Jesus as the suffering Messiah who looks to God for redemption and vindication. The Future–Present aspectual substitution in this instance thus creates both an aspectual (perfective–imperfective) and a temporal (future–present) shift that effectively focuses the reader on his fulfillment of the pattern of David’s trust in the Lord for deliverance.

170. Green, The Death of Jesus; C. K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978), 554. 171. Joachim Jeremias, “Das Gebetsleben Jesu,” ZNW 25 (1926): 126. 172. Nolland, Luke 18:35–24:53, 1158. 173. David W. Pao and Eckhard J. Schnabel, “Luke,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, 399. 174. Darrell L. Bock, Luke 9:51–24:53, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994), 1862.

5

Other Narrative: John, Acts

This chapter proceeds in the same manner as the previous chapter on the Synoptic Gospels. Instances of quotation from the Septuagint that display aspectual substitution from John’s Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles are detailed below, treated in canonical order. Both John and Luke prefer the LXX in quotations, but there are fewer cases in which the alteration meets our criteria as compared to the Synoptic Gospels.1 Again, a small number of quotations that meet our criteria for verbal changes but show non-aspectual alterations are collected in Appendix A.

1. Both authors appear to quote the LXX while often demonstrating knowledge of the Hebrew. Witherington, for example, says Luke’s style even apart from quotations demonstrates the influence of the LXX, and he “seems to be able to write in a deliberate LXX and Semitic style at will. Thus it is quite believable that he would cite the version of the OT throughout Luke-Acts which he himself and his Gentile audience were familiar with and could read”: Ben Witherington III, The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 125. Menken argues John’s citations tend to follow the text-form of the LXX: Maarten J. J. Menken, “The Quotation from Isa 40:3 in John 1:23,” Bib 66 (1985): 192.

142 | Aspectual

Substitution

John 1:51 Genesis 28:12 καὶ ἐνυπνιάσθη, καὶ ἰδοὺ κλίμαξ ἐστηριγμένη ἐν τῇ γῇ, ἧς ἡ κεφαλὴ ἀφικνεῖτο εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν, καὶ οἱ ἄγγελοι τοῦ θεοῦ ἀνέβαινον καὶ κατέβαινον ἐπ᾿ αὐτῆς. He dreamed: a ladder stood on the ground, whose top reached the sky, and God’s angels ascended and descended on it.

John 1:51 ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, ὄψεσθε τὸν οὐρανὸν ἀνεῳγότα καὶ τοὺς ἀγγέλους τοῦ θεοῦ ἀναβαίνοντας καὶ καταβαίνοντας ἐπὶ τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου. Truly truly I say to you, you will see heaven open and God’s angels ascending and descending on the son of man.

Table 5.1 Genesis 28:12; John 1:51

Jesus’s statement to Nathaniel of the “greater things” he will see draws on the language of Jacob’s dream in Genesis 28:12. This quotation stands at the end of a passage with notable allusions to the story of Jacob, presenting the reader with a new representative of Israel in the presence of heavenly, apocalyptic works of God.2 Both Old and New Testament texts are relatively secure. The Göttingen LXX lists the form found in John 1:51 only in one 9th–10th century manuscript, 509, likely influenced by John’s rendering.3 John’s quotation makes a handful of changes from 2. Cf. Craig R. Koester, “Messianic Exegesis and the Call of Nathanael (John 1:45–51),” JSNT 39 (1990): 24–27. 3. Wevers, ed., Genesis, 271, cf. also 18.

Other Narrative: John, Acts | 143 the LXX text. (That John quotes and refers to the LXX rather than translates from the Hebrew is well argued by Menken across several instances of quotation in John.)4 Genesis 28:12 recounts Jacob’s dream of a ladder stretching from earth to heaven, and angels of God ascend and descend on it. The Imperfects ἀνέβαινον and κατέβαινον provide supplementary information to the main Aorist verb ἐνυπνιάσθη. In John’s quotation of this passage, however, the setting is different. John’s text moves this phrase to be a composite object of the Future verb ὄψεσθε, necessitating the case change of ἄγγελοι to the accusative ἀγγέλους. The Imperfect finite verbs are also substituted with Present participles. These participles are subordinated to the prior finite verb along with the Perfect participle ἀνεῳγότα. Much of the scholarship on this verse relates to the material differences between the Genesis passage and Jesus’s appropriation of it—the angels appear to ascend and descend either on Jesus or with him as a destination point—and the christological import of Jesus’s self-description as τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου. Beasley-Murray notes the complex imagery of this passage, alluding not only to Jacob’s dream but also to Jesus’s baptism, possibly his temptation, and the apocalyptic language of the Son of Man.5 Rabbinic interpretation of Genesis 28:12 takes Jacob to be either the ladder (i.e., Jacob is himself the means of their ascent and descent), or the impetus for their transit (the angels compare and contrast Jacob’s εἰκών fixed on the heavens with the sleeping patriarch on the ground).6 This interpretation, however, cannot be reliably dated earlier than the third century, so there is no guarantee that John reads Genesis along the same trajectory. For Keener the backdrop of Jewish interpretation does not explain John 1:51 well, and argues that a straightforward reading of the ladder in Genesis 28:12 as a connection between heaven and earth is more useful: “It is Nathanael, not Jesus, who is the new Jacob here (1:47; Jesus is greater than Jacob, 4:12); Jesus is Jacob’s ladder (what Jubilees calls the ‘gate of heaven’), the way between God and the earth.”7 4. Menken, “Quotation from Isa 40:3,” 192. 5. George R. Beasley-Murray, John, WBC 36, 2nd ed. (Nashville: Nelson, 1999), 28. 6. Cf. the discussion between Rabbis Hiyya and Jannai in Genesis Rabbah 68:12; 70:12. See also Silviu Bunta, “The Likeness of the Image: Adamic Motifs and ‫ צלם‬Anthropology in Rabbinic Traditions about Jacob’s Image Enthroned in Heaven,” JSJ 37 (2006): 58; C. F. Burney, The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1922), 116; Christopher Rowland, “John 1.51, Jewish Apocalyptic and Targumic Tradition,” NTS 30 (1984): 501; Beasley-Murray, John, 28. 7. Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003), 490. Moloney, however, argues much the same point but in line with Jewish

144 | Aspectual

Substitution

Furthermore, as Jacob’s ladder, he is not only a promised apocalyptic figure but a mediator between earth and heaven; “he is also Bethel, God’s house (Gen 28:19), an image that naturally connects with Jesus as the new temple (1:14; 2:19–21; 4:20–24; 7:37–39; 14:2, 23).”8 A second point of scholarly contention is when exactly in the future the disciples will see this glorification of the Son of Man—does it refer to Jesus’s death, resurrection, and exaltation, or more generally to Jesus’s earthly incarnate work that immediately follows this episode? The futurity of ὄψεσθε cannot settle this, as it is temporally future only in relation to the given utterance. It does not, and cannot, determine how far in the future this prediction lies. William Loader’s reading is a case in point. Loader argues that the apocalyptic background of the phrase “Son of Man” is crucial for the christological interpretation of this passage. In keeping with this apocalyptic phraseology, τὸν οὐρανὸν ἀνεῳγότα is, for Loader, not a dispensing of heaven’s goods in the earthly ministry of the son but a glimpse into the heavenly realm to his glorification and exaltation—language that John reserves for the death and resurrection of Jesus.9 The point here is not necessarily that this interpretation is preferable to the “greater things” referring to Jesus’s earthly ministry, but rather that any determination must rest on wider considerations.10 This relatively mundane observation is useful nonetheless as we turn to examine what impact the grammatical changes in this quotation may have on interpretation: given that this phrase is a subordinate clause and the verbs are rendered as participles, what import does the aspectual value have? In the aspectual model promoted by Porter, Campbell, et al., finite Imperfect verbs are imperfective in aspect and remote spatially, appropriate for information interpretation. That is, Jesus shifts the emphasis of the passage away from the ladder and on to the focal person—Jesus, the locus of mediation between earth and heaven. See Francis J. Moloney, The Gospel of John, SP (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1998), 57; Francis J. Moloney, The Johannine Son of Man, 2nd ed. (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 1978), 26–30. 8. Keener, John, 489. Cf. also Andrew T. Lincoln, The Gospel According to Saint John, BNTC (London: Hendrickson, 2005), 122. 9. William R. G. Loader, “John 1:50–51 and the ‘Greater Things’ of Johannine Christology,” in Anfänge der Christologie: Festschrift für Ferdinand Hahn zum 65 Geburtstag, eds. Cilliers Breytenbach and Henning Paulsen (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991), 255–74. 10. For the alternative interpretation see for example, Beasley-Murray, John; D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John (Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1991); Lincoln, John; or the list of “most commentators” provided by Loader, “John 1:50–51,” 255.

Other Narrative: John, Acts | 145 that is subsidiary to the Aorist narrative frame. These actions are presented without reference to their beginning or end, drawing attention to the action of ascent and descent itself. Furthermore, the Imperfect indicates remoteness. This often expresses itself as temporal remoteness (and thus often, pragmatically, past temporal reference) but in this case spatial remoteness is entirely appropriate. This remoteness is literal—remote in space, not in metaphorical meaning—as Jacob views a ladder stretching to heaven with angels ascending and descending. The Imperfect has no counterpart outside the indicative mood, thus the aspectual shift to the Present participial forms is no shift at all. We cannot draw any distinction in terms of remoteness or temporality here (given that the aspectual and the traditional temporal frameworks both correctly deny these descriptors outside the indicative). The Present forms do still retain imperfective aspect, which in a participle almost always connotes contemporaneous action relative to the main verb.11 The main verb in this phrase is the Future ὄψεσθε, and the participles (both Present and Perfect) represent action that occurs at that future time when Nathanael will see.12 The promised “sight” is better taken as insight or understanding: ὁράω in John has the connotation of spiritual insight over against physical sight (θεωρέω).13 Again, the presentation of ascending and descending has no relation to the beginning or end of the action, focusing on the action itself. In this way, both contexts present offline, subsidiary information by imperfective aspect verbs that correspond to a perfective narrative frame. The aspectual substitution in the details of the verbs for ascent and descent is effectively no substitution at all, but a natural translation of an offline narrative clause to a subordinate content clause. It is an entirely commonplace outworking of an authorial choice to subordinate the phrase. Yet this observation sits alongside a broader one: the aspectual substitution made here is in the larger narrative frame, shifting from a description of an event (Aorist tense-form, past tense: ἐνυπνιάσθη) to a prediction of what will be evident in the future (Future tense-form, prospective: ὄψεσθε). 1 1. Campbell, Non-Indicative Verbs, 29. 12. Steyn notes this grammatical connection: “By adapting the quotation from its narrative context in Genesis 28:12 to a discourse context in John 1:51, John stylistically alters the structure by using accusatives plus participles after his introduction of ὄψεσθε as the main verb—which results in his addition of the participle, ἀνεῳγότα, his use of the accusative, τοὺς ἀγγέλους, and his use of the participles, ἀναβαίνω and καταβαίνω.” Gert J. Steyn, “The Text Form of LXX Genesis 28:12 by Philo of Alexandria and in the Jesus-Logion of John 1:51,” IDS 49, no. 2 (2015): 6. 13. John McHugh, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on John 1–4, ICC (London: T&T Clark, 2009), 168. Cf. John 1:39, 50, 51 (contrast 3:36); 11:40; 16:16, 17, 19.

146 | Aspectual

Substitution

Both are perfective narrative frames, but the temporal element of the Future tense-form throws the quotation into the future of the participants in the conversation. As we have seen this is not an uncommon feature of biblical quotation, but it is worth noticing how this common change then affects the syntax of the subsequent clauses. This instance is thus one in which grammatical change occurs necessarily because of other changes, and does not drive interpretation (as it does in other instances). The aspectual substitution “comes along for the ride” due to the choice of a future temporal and perfective aspectual frame. To read interpretive value into these instances of formal substitution would be to over-read. Yet this verse is still of value to us as it continues to demonstrate the other features of aspectual choice and freedom in altering quotation to suit new contexts that we have come across already. The Future indicative is perfective in aspect and future in temporal reference. Grammatical changes to a quotation are made naturally without decreasing any authority or reliability of the source text.

John 2:17 Psalm 68:10 (MT 69:10) ὅτι ὁ ζῆλος τοῦ οἴκου σου κατέφαγέν με, For zeal for your house consumed me,

John 2:17 ὁ ζῆλος τοῦ οἴκου σου καταφάγεταί με. Zeal for your house will consume me.

Table 5.2 Psalm 68:9–10; John 2:17

Other Narrative: John, Acts | 147 John 2:17 is a theological reflection on Jesus’s cleansing of the temple (John 2:13–16). The disciples recall (ἐμνήσθησαν) Psalm 68:10 LXX,14 a Davidic psalm of a righteous sufferer. John introduces this as an explicit quotation in 2:17a (ὅτι γεγραμμένον ἐστίν), but the tense-form of κατεσθίω is altered from Aorist (κατέφαγεν) to Future (καταφάγεται). The quotation is otherwise exact. The LXX κατέφαγεν parallels the Masoretic Text, with an alternate reading of καταφάγεται in B’ due to the wording of John 2:17.15 Despite the minor variation in the textual tradition, textual critics and commentators assert that the forms given in the LXX and NA28 texts are the correct readings.16 Psalm 68 speaks of the situation of the righteous suppliant as he calls to God for deliverance (Σῶσόν με, ὁ θεός; 68:2) and vengeance (68:23–29). The quoted verse, 68:10, refers to the specific suffering endured by the author as a result of zeal for the house of God. Because of the author’s loyalty and esteem for God he reaps the condemnation of his wicked enemies—Tate remarks that the scorn heaped on the author is really intended for God (68:10b).17 He is humiliated (68:8), alienated (68:9), and made to be a pariah in their eyes (68:11–13). The Aorist κατέφαγεν of 68:10, in context, therefore speaks of the situation the psalmist is forced to endure. He has been “eaten up” by this suffering almost to the point of death. The zeal (ὁ ζῆλος τοῦ οἴκου σου) he speaks of is unspecified,18 but it calls to mind other biblical examples of those who have wholeheartedly committed themselves to the Lord, for example, Phineas, or Elijah.19 When John quotes Psalm 68:10 in John 2:17 he replaces the original Aorist indicative κατέφαγεν with a Future indicative καταφάγεται. This is, therefore, an instance of aspectual substitution. When John makes this substitution in the 14. Verse references below are to the LXX versification, except when cited material uses the English/Hebrew numbering scheme. 15. Rahlfs, ed., Psalmi cum Odis, 193. 16. For example, McHugh: “Rahlfs is surely right in judging (LXX II, apparatus) that καταφαγεται at Ps 68.10 in B and ‫ א‬stems from Jn 2.17,” McHugh, John 1–4, 206 n. 11; Brown: “The future is the correct reading, although some manuscripts and the early versions conform it to the “has consumed” of the MTT and LXX (?) of Ps lxix 9,” Raymond Edward Brown, The Gospel According to John (I–XII): Introduction, Translation and Notes, Anchor Bible 29 (New York: Doubleday, 1966), 115. 17. Marvin E. Tate, Psalms 51–100, WBC 20 (Columbia: Nelson, 1990), 196. 18. Tate, Psalms 51–100, 196. 19. Num 25:11; 1 Kgs 19:10, 14. Moloney also notes Mattathias as an inter-testamental example relevant for the background of “zeal” in the NT: 1 Macc 2:24–26. Cf. Moloney, John, 77.

148 | Aspectual

Substitution

citation he casts the Psalm as future-referring, and no longer simply a comment on the psalmist’s current situation. Being “consumed” because of “zeal for your house” is, in John’s version of Psalm 68:10, something that is prophesied of the future righteous sufferer.20 The disciples remember this verse, realize that it points to Jesus, and John’s construction of this paragraph gives this quotation a messianic, prophetic function. The Future indicative καταφάγεται in this context must have a future temporal reference as it is applied from the time of the Psalm’s creation to the future situation of Jesus. Καταφάγεται in John 2:17 also has perfective aspect—there is no sense that the action or situation of “being consumed” is in process or incomplete. John 2:17 is therefore similar to other instances in which we have seen Aorist to Future aspectual substitution: perfective aspect appears to be operative in the Future indicative, and definite temporal reference is introduced. Zeal for God’s house “will consume” Jesus—but to what future does this Future indicative refer? The temporal reference is relative to the psalmist’s utterance, which in itself does not allow us to choose between the common interpretive options for this verse, all of which refer to particular episodes or time-spans in Jesus’s life. Two major options are common in commentary on this passage: (1) the consuming zeal refers to the intensity of Jesus’s action in the moment of clearing out the temple;21 and (2) Jesus’s action in the temple precinct leads directly to his death—being “consumed”—in the Passion narrative.22 It is not entirely clear when the disciples recall Psalm 68:10 in connection with Jesus’s action in the temple. Their remembrance in John 2:22 (using the same verb ἐμνήσθησαν) has a more explicit temporal reference: ὅτε οὖν ἠγέρθη ἐκ 20. Bruner notes this is an observation taken up by a number of historical interpreters, such as Calvin and Schlatter: Frederick Dale Bruner, The Gospel of John: A Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 151. Specifically, he argues the disciples had learned to read the Psalter as “Christ prediction”: Bruner, John, 144. He quotes Schlatter, “The future [‘will tear me,’ from Psalm 69:9’s original ‘has torn me’] rests on the fact that the whole Psalter was considered prophecy [in the conviction of ] Jesus and his disciples.” 21. For example, Westcott: “The reference is not to the future Passion of the Lord, but to the overpowering energy and fearlessness of His present action.” Brooke Foss Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John: The Authorized Version with Introduction and Notes (London: John Murray, 1882), 42. Cf. also Margaret Daly-Denton, David in the Fourth Gospel: The Johannine reception of the Psalms (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 126. 22. For example, Carson: “For John, the manner by which Jesus will be ‘consumed’ is doubtless his death.” Carson, John, 180. Beasley-Murray: “ ‘will consume,’ not in a psychological sense, but more drastically ‘will destroy.’ ” Beasley-Murray, John, 38.

Other Narrative: John, Acts | 149 νεκρῶν. If John 2:17 is contrasted to the retrospective theological reflection of 2:22, then their recollection of the Davidic psalm occurs in the midst of this scene. In this case, the alteration of the verb tense-form is suggestive. If John had kept the quotation unmodified—that is, the disciples remembered it is written that ὁ ζῆλος τοῦ οἴκου σου κατέφαγεν με—what would be the effect in this context? It is likely the disciples would be thinking of the intensity of Jesus’s burning zeal having overtaken or consuming him at that particular moment. Yet John uses a Future indicative, which not only creates a prophetic backdrop, but also opens the possibility of pointing beyond this situation to the upcoming Passion. While this is the only citation of Psalm 68:10 in the NT, McHugh notes that the Psalm is also quoted in Acts 1:20; Rom 11:9–10; 15:3; and most likely envisaged in John 15:25 and 19:28.23 John 2:17 together with 2:22 probably intends “a covert reference to Jesus’ suffering.”24 Contextual considerations are also crucial for Brown—both the context of the Psalm as well as the quotation in John 2. The prophetic tenor given to the Psalm by John’s aspectual substitution implies that “John interprets the Psalm to mean that zeal for the Temple will destroy Jesus and bring his death.”25 Furthermore, the differing sequence of John’s Gospel from the Synoptics places this episode some distance from the Passion, but this connection “preserves the memory that the action led to his death.”26 Having made a link between cleansing the temple and Jesus’s death, John “prepares for the interpretation of the saying about the Temple in reference to his resurrection.”27 Stephen Bryan makes an interesting argument that the zeal leading to Jesus’s destruction is not Jesus’s zeal, but his opponents’ misplaced zeal for the temple: “In John’s view, the psalmist of Ps 69 suffers at the hands of pious enemies motivated by their zeal for the temple and thus corresponds to Jesus, the righteous sufferer, attacked by ‘righteous’ enemies whose zeal for Herod’s temple will ultimately lead to Jesus’ death.”28 He argues that it is possible to 2 3. McHugh, John 1–4, 206. 24. McHugh, John 1–4, 206. Further, he states, “Indeed, when one recalls the Synoptic insistence that Jesus taught his disciples about his inevitable destiny (δεῖ in Mk 10.45 ||s), may he not have conversed with them before his Passion about the perennial relevance of Ps 69?” 25. Brown, John I–XII, 124. 26. Brown, John I–XII, 124. 27. Brown, John I–XII, 124. 28. Stephen M. Bryan, “Consumed by Zeal: John’s use of Psalm 69:9 and the Action in the Temple,” BBR 21 (2011): 481.

150 | Aspectual

Substitution

read Psalm 68:10 in this way given other parallels in the LXX to the language of Psalm 68’s condemnation of enemies,29 and especially given the differences between the LXX and MT regarding ὁ ζῆλος τοῦ οἴκου σου in Psalm 118:139 LXX.30 If this is the case, argues Bryan, then both strands of interpretation that take Jesus’s zeal for the temple as the proximate cause for the disciples’ recollection of this Psalm are incorrect: it is neither Jesus’s zeal that leads to his downfall, nor is “being consumed” a description of his emotional or physical state in the temple precinct.31 It is difficult to decide whether it is Jesus’s zeal for the temple that leads to his Passion and death (so the majority of commentators), or the misplaced zeal of his opponents that brings him into conflict (so Bryan). For our purposes the end result is much the same—the conflict at the temple results in Jesus’s trial and execution—and, more significantly for our investigation, the prophetic use of the Psalm remains the same. John’s substitution of aspect in this quotation forces us to read the Psalm as typological and prophetic. The added future temporal reference gives the Psalm a prophetic outlook, envisioning a time when the coming righteous sufferer would be consumed because of zeal for God’s house. Because this verse as quoted in John 2:17 is read as 2 9. Ps 68:29–30; cf. Isa 1:12–17; Amos 5:21–24; Jer 7:1–15, 21–23; Jer 26:1–24. 30. Bryan, “Consumed by Zeal,” 484. 31. This suggestion relating to the sociological context of Jesus’s enemies pairs well with Joel Marcus’s argument that there existed a well-known double-entendre in the immediately preceding allusion in to Zech 14:21 (cf. John 2:16): Joel Marcus, “No More Zealots in the House of the Lord: A Note on the History of Interpretation of Zechariah 14:21,” NovT 55 (2013): 22–30. Marcus posits that the connection between the ban on commerce in the temple and the idea of “zeal”—and thus the citation of Psalm 68—is punning exegesis of the Hebrew “Canaanite” or “trader” (‫)כמגני‬ and “Zealot” (‫)קנאנין‬, which have similar consonantal sounds. Although this does not translate well into Greek (the LXX of Zech 14:21 reads καὶ οὐκ ἔσται Χαναναῖος, “and there will be no Canaanite”) Marcus argues it was still relatively well-known. Aquila preserves the alternate meaning of the Hebrew and reads μετάβολος, “retail trader, “ in Zech 14:21. The significance of this double-entendre at this point in John’s Gospel is that it formed a comment on the centrality of the temple. Zechariah 14:21 was an allusion employed both by the Jewish Zealots and also their opponents—such as Mark and Josephus—and used as a proof-text for the righteousness of their particular approach to the temple. The existence of such differing interpretations of what proper “zeal” might be lends credence to Bryan’s reading of whom the zeal of John 2:17 refers.

Other Narrative: John, Acts | 151 prophecy, the typological relationship is also cemented. The “I” of Psalm 68:10 is, in the OT context, the righteous sufferer, taken to be David, the Messiah. If that “I” is waiting to be identified as another, namely Jesus in John 2:17, then the fourth Gospel’s pattern of typological identification of Jesus’s ministry with the experience of a zealous and humiliated king/prophet is strengthened.32 As Daly-Denton comments, the presumed Davidic authorship of the Psalm means we must assume the original readers would have heard “resonances of David and his story. This is especially true of references to ‘laments of the individual’ such as Psalm (21) 22 or Psalm (68) 69 which could easily be envisaged as actual utterances of David.”33 With the background of John’s prologue (“his own did not receive him,” 1:10) and his subsequent identification of himself as the temple of God, Jesus fits the mold of the righteous sufferer who comes to the point of death because of conflict over the true nature of the temple of God. The Aorist–Future aspectual substitution efficiently cements John’s typological and prophetic use of the Psalter.

John 15:25 Psalm 34:19 (MT 35:19) μὴ ἐπιχαρείησάν μοι οἱ ἐχθραίνοντές μοι ἀδίκως, οἱ μισοῦντές με δωρεὰν καὶ διανεύοντες ὀφθαλμοῖς. My those who are wrongfully hostile to me not rejoice over me, Those who hate me without cause and give a sign with their eyes.

Psalm 68:5 (MT 69:5) ἐπληθύνθησαν ὑπὲρ τὰς τρίχας τῆς κεφαλῆς μου οἱ μισοῦντές με δωρεάν, ἐκραταιώθησαν οἱ ἐχθροί μου οἱ ἐκδιώκοντές με ἀδίκως· ἃ οὐχ ἥρπασα, τότε ἀπετίννυον. Those who hate me without cause multiplied more than the hairs of my head, my enemies attacking me unjustly became strong; what I did not take, I would then repay.

3 2. Keener, John, 528. 33. Daly-Denton, David in the Fourth Gospel, 110–11.

152 | Aspectual

Substitution

Psalms of Solomon 7:1 Μὴ ἀποσκηνώσῃς ἀφ᾿ ἡμῶν, ὁ θεός, ἵνα μὴ ἐπιθῶνται ἡμῖν οἳ ἐμίσησαν ἡμᾶς δωρεάν. Do not take your dwelling away from us, O God, lest those who hated us without cause attack us.

John 15:25 ἀλλ᾿ ἵνα πληρωθῇ ὁ λόγος ὁ ἐν τῷ νόμῳ αὐτῶν γεγραμμένος ὅτι ἐμίσησάν με δωρεάν. But this happened that the word written in their law might be fulfilled: “they hated me without cause.”

Table 5.3 Psalm 34:19–20; Psalm 68:4–5; John 15:25

John 15:25 represents a scriptural justification for the instructions Jesus gives his disciples regarding the world’s hatred—hatred of Jesus first of all, and consequently also his disciples.34 While the quotation itself is very short (three words in John 34. Andreas J. Köstenberger, “John,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, 493; Margaret Daly-Denton, “David the Psalmist, Inspired Prophet: Jewish Antecedents of a New Testament Datum,” ABR 52 (2004): 131.

Other Narrative: John, Acts | 153 15:25; four words in the LXX original) it is introduced by the longest quotation formula in John’s Gospel: ἀλλ᾿ ἵνα πληρωθῇ ὁ λόγος ὁ ἐν τῷ νόμῳ αὐτῶν γεγραμμένος. The genitive descriptor ἐν τῷ νόμῳ αὐτῶν is ironic. It does not signify any distinction in the applicability of the law between Jesus’s opponents and Jesus and his disciples, but states that their own law condemns their action.35 There are two candidates for the source of this quotation: Psalm 34:19 LXX and Psalm 68:5 LXX.36 Menken argues that the LXX is preferable as the source, not the MT, because of the range of possible translations of the adverb ‫חִ נָּם‬.37 That John 15:25 uses δωρεάν, as per the LXX, is a possible indication that the source text is Greek, not Hebrew.38 Psalm of Solomon 7:1 is close to the quoted text, reading οἳ ἐμίσησαν ἡμᾶς δωρεάν, “they who hated us without reason,” but should not be taken as the source of this quotation. Even leaving aside questions of dating and possible antecedence, two major difficulties preclude Ps. Sol. 7:1 as the source text. The object of hate is “us” (ἡμᾶς) not “me” (με). Jesus’s instruction to the disciples is that the world hated him without reason, and therefore on that basis it also will hate them, but this chain is occluded if the source text is corporate in reference. Secondly, identifying Ps. Sol. as “their law” (15:25) is problematic. It is better then to take one of the Psalms as the source for this quotation. Both Psalm 34 and 68 were ascribed to David, and thus fit into John’s already-established typological patterning of Jesus after David’s righteous sufferer.39 While Moloney asserts that “most commentators” see Psalm 34 as the antecedent text, others disagree with his survey of the scholarship.40 The thematic background of Psalm 68—prayer for deliverance, righteous suffering, humiliation, isolation, rejection 3 5. Carson, John, 527; Moloney, John, 430. 36. Verse references below are to the LXX versification, except when cited material uses the English numbering scheme. 37. Alternative translations in similar contexts include ἀδίκως (cf. Prov 1:11), ἀναιτίως (Ps 34:19 Aquila; 68:5 Symmachus), διὰ κενῆς (Job 2:3), ματήν (Ps 34:7). 38. Maarten J. J. Menken, Old Testament Quotations in the Fourth Gospel: Studies in Textual Form, Contributions to Biblical Exegesis & Theology 15 (Kampen, The Netherlands: Kok Pharos, 1996), 142–43. 39. Note again here Daly-Denton’s assertion that David’s voice and story would have been heard by the original readers because of the presumed Davidic authorship of the Psalms. Daly-Denton, David in the Fourth Gospel, 110. 40. Moloney, John, 434. Cf. Raymond Edward Brown, The Gospel According to John (XII– XXI), Anchor Bible 29A (New York: Doubleday, 1970), 698; Barrett, John, 482; Carson, John, 527; Beasley-Murray, John, 276; Menken, OT Quotations in the Fourth Gospel, 145.

154 | Aspectual

Substitution

by those who ought to have been for the suppliant but instead oppose him— along with the fact it is cited numerous times in the NT, including already in John,41 tip the scales further in the direction of Psalm 68:5 as the citation source.42 The substitution in this instance is this: a Present substantival participle (οἱ μισοῦντές) is changed to a finite verbal form (ἐμίσησαν), in this case an Aorist indicative. Menken notes that this change “is not a surprising one for an author who writes in Greek and who wishes to quote just that tiny part of a text which has been construed in his source as a substantivized participle.”43 He gives examples of Philo doing this very thing, quoting from Gen 18:23; 49:17–18; Exod 12:11 and altering a participle to a finite verb to fit the syntax of the new clause context.44 The major change in John 15:25 is from a participle to a finite form. Nevertheless, aspectual substitution also occurs: a Present form (μισοῦντες) is found in the Psalm; an Aorist indicative (ἐμίσησαν) in John 15:25. These are both highly appropriate in their respective contexts—the Present tense-form is a natural choice to express a substantival participle, and an Aorist for John depicts the hate for him in a generalized fashion. The change from a nominal to a verbal element is because John wants to highlight only the portion of the verse that serves his purpose—the enemies of the Messiah hate him without cause, but other elements of the verse (their great number; their power) are not relevant to the context of John 15:25.45 Like the examples of Philo, this alteration is a legitimate method of quoting a short passage and placing it in a new context. The effect of this change, however, is to subtly shift the reader’s focus. Rather than focussing on the subject of the action, attention is now drawn to the verbal action and the object of that action. In Psalm 68:5, the surrounding details excised by John concern the numerous enemies of the psalmist. Together with the nominative substantival participle, this alteration ensures that our focus is firmly on the opponents of the Messiah. These details of the psalmist’s experience are not forgotten, as they form the contextual background for the link made by quoting this verse in John 15:25. Yet as we read 4 1. See the previous section on John 2:17. 42. So Brown: “Although there are two psalms from which the citation may have been taken, Ps lxix 5(4) is the more likely candidate; for elsewhere in the Gospels this psalm is associated with Jesus’ passion and death (Ps lxix 22[21] in John xix 29 and Mark xv 36; Revelation [iii 5, xiii 8, xvi 1, xvii 8]). Moreover the context of Ps lxix is better for the meaning that John gives to the citation.” Brown, John XII–XXI, 698. 43. Menken, OT Quotations in the Fourth Gospel, 143. 44. Philo, Agriculture 106, 123; Migration 132; Alleg. Interp. 3.154. 45. Menken, OT Quotations in the Fourth Gospel, 144.

Other Narrative: John, Acts | 155 John’s rendering, he brings to the fore the hatred itself and the object of the hatred—namely, Jesus. In Jesus’s discourse, this focus is critical to the function of this quotation as it closes this paragraph. The world hates Jesus without cause (cf. again John 1:10), but hatred of Jesus is the reason why his disciples will also be hated as they follow him. This is what he is preparing them for. The pattern John uses here is fulfillment typology, mirroring the experience of the righteous sufferer of Psalm 68 and extending its consequences to his disciples.46 In pointing to the fulfillment of Psalm 68:5 (ἵνα πληρωθῇ ὁ λόγος, 15:25) he draws on the Davidic sufferer to explain the significance of his opposition, and reveals the Psalm’s “decisive, eschatological meaning in his rejection and death.”47 Changes made to the verbal element in this quotation serve to force us to read carefully, make appropriate contextual, typological, and prophetic connections back to the original, and then shift our focus to take into account the new use to which this quotation is put.

Acts 2:27–31; 13:35–37 Psalm 15:8–10 (MT 16:8–10) προωρώμην τὸν κύριον ἐνώπιόν μου διὰ παντός, ὅτι ἐκ δεξιῶν μού ἐστιν, ἵνα μὴ σαλευθῶ. 9 διὰ τοῦτο ηὐφράνθη ἡ καρδία μου, καὶ ἠγαλλιάσατο ἡ γλῶσσά μου, ἔτι δὲ καὶ ἡ σάρξ μου κατασκηνώσει ἐπ᾿ ἐλπίδι, 10 ὅτι οὐκ ἐγκαταλείψεις τὴν ψυχήν μου εἰς ᾅδην οὐδὲ δώσεις τὸν ὅσιόν σου ἰδεῖν διαφθοράν. 11 ἐγνώρισάς μοι ὁδοὺς ζωῆς· πληρώσεις με εὐφροσύνης μετὰ τοῦ προσώπου σου, τερπνότητες ἐν τῇ δεξιᾷ σου εἰς τέλος. 8

I saw the Lord always before me, because he is at my right hand, I will not be shaken. 9 Therefore my heart was glad, and my tongue rejoiced, and my flesh will dwell in hope, 8

4 6. Köstenberger, “John,” 495. 47. Brian J. Tabb, “Johannine Fulfillment of Scripture: Continuity and Escalation,” BBR 21 (2011): 500.

156 | Aspectual

Substitution

Because you will not abandon my soul to Hades, nor give your holy one to see decay. 11 You made known to me the paths of life: you will fill me with joy in your presence, in your right hand are pleasures forever. 10

Acts 2:25–28 Δαυὶδ γὰρ λέγει εἰς αὐτόν· προορώμην τὸν κύριον ἐνώπιόν μου διὰ παντός, ὅτι ἐκ δεξιῶν μού ἐστιν, ἵνα μὴ σαλευθῶ. 26 διὰ τοῦτο ηὐφράνθη ἡ καρδία μου, καὶ ἠγαλλιάσατο ἡ γλῶσσά μου, ἔτι δὲ καὶ ἡ σάρξ μου κατασκηνώσει ἐπ᾿ ἐλπίδι, 27 ὅτι οὐκ ἐγκαταλείψεις τὴν ψυχήν μου εἰς ᾅδην οὐδὲ δώσεις τὸν ὅσιόν σου ἰδεῖν διαφθοράν. 28 ἐγνώρισάς μοι ὁδοὺς ζωῆς· πληρώσεις με εὐφροσύνης μετὰ τοῦ προσώπου σου, τερπνότητες ἐν τῇ δεξιᾷ σου εἰς τέλος. 25

For David says of him: “I saw the Lord always before me, because he is at my right hand, I will not be shaken. 26 Therefore my heart was glad, and my tongue rejoiced, and my flesh will dwell in hope, 27 Because you will not abandon my soul to Hades, nor give your holy one to see decay. 28 You made known to me the paths of life: you will fill me with joy in your presence.” 25

Acts 2:31 προϊδὼν ἐλάλησεν περὶ τῆς ἀναστάσεως τοῦ Χριστοῦ ὅτι οὔτε ἐγκατελείφθη εἰς ᾅδην οὔτε ἡ σὰρξ αὐτοῦ εἶδεν διαφθοράν. 32 τοῦτον τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἀνέστησεν ὁ θεός, οὗ πάντες ἡμεῖς ἐσμεν μάρτυρες· 31

Seeing what was coming he spoke concerning the resurrection of Christ, “he was not abandoned in Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption.” 32 God raised this Jesus, and we are all witnesses. 31

Other Narrative: John, Acts | 157

Acts 13:35–37 διότι καὶ ἐν ἑτέρῳ λέγει· οὐ δώσεις τὸν ὅσιόν σου ἰδεῖν διαφθοράν. Δαυὶδ μὲν γὰρ ἰδίᾳ γενεᾷ ὑπηρετήσας τῇ τοῦ θεοῦ βουλῇ ἐκοιμήθη καὶ προσετέθη πρὸς τοὺς πατέρας αὐτοῦ καὶ εἶδεν διαφθοράν· 37 ὃν δὲ ὁ θεὸς ἤγειρεν, οὐκ εἶδεν διαφθοράν. 35 36

Therefore he says in another passage, “You will not give your holy one to see decay.” 36 For David, having served God’s purpose in his own generation, fell asleep and was laid with his fathers and saw corruption: 37 but the one God raised up did not see decay. 35

Table 5.4 Psalm 15:8–10; Acts 2:25–28, 31

158 | Aspectual

Substitution

Table 5.5 Psalm 15:10; Acts 13:34–35, 36–37

As we have already noted,48 Peter’s speech at Pentecost in Acts 2 draws on Psalm 15:8–11 LXX as Peter makes the case that Jesus is both Lord and Christ (Acts 2:36). Three scriptural passages are employed in this speech: Joel 2:28– 32 (Acts 2:17–21); Psalm 15:8–11 (Acts 2:25–28; 31); and Psalm 110:1 (Acts 2:34–35). Steyn argues that they are connected by κύριος as a Stichwort, building to a climax in 2:36 where God himself has confirmed Jesus to be καὶ κύριον καὶ χριστὸν.49 The source text for Acts 2:25–28 is almost certainly the LXX, and not a translation from a Hebrew or Aramaic text. The correspondence to the LXX is exact (in Acts 2:25–28; not so in 2:31), and the LXX diverges from the Hebrew in some respects.50 A number of variants exist for both the 4 8. See “Aspectual Substitution in New Testament Quotations,” p. 1. 49. Steyn, Septuagint Quotations, 127. 50. Conzelmann argues “only the Greek text fits the argument” made by Peter; Steyn concurs. Specifically, the LXX translation ἐπ᾿ ἐλπίδι for ‫ לָבֶ טַ ח‬in Ps 15:9 and διαφθοράν for ‫ שָׁ חַ ת‬in 15:10 permits bodily resurrection as a theological theme, a connection with the grave “only possible from the existing Greek translation(s), while in the Hebrew it is clearly excluded.” Hans Conzelmann, Acts of the Apostles, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 20; Steyn, Septuagint Quotations, 107. Bock challenges this line of interpretation—though not the differences between the Hebrew and Greek—arguing that the key element of flesh and bodily resurrection is present in the Semitic text, and the LXX “is consciously clarifying” by “making the imagery more concrete.” Darrell L. Bock, Proclamation from Prophecy and Pattern: Lucan Old Testament Christology, JSNTSup 12 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1987), 176.

Other Narrative: John, Acts | 159 Göttingen and NA28 texts, but none of them are significant for reading the verbal forms.51 A remarkable feature of these quotations—Acts 2:25–31, and the similar passage in Acts 13:35–37—is that they are among the only instances in the New Testament in which a verse is quoted both in unmodified form as well as with changes made.52 In many other instances of aspectual substitution we have encountered so far the change(s) have served to efficiently or effectively support the broader rhetorical point being made by the author. For the NT reader, however, having only an altered quotation (without comparing it side-by-side with the original) means that the impact is implicit, creating the effect subtly and often silently. In Acts 2, however, the change is made entirely obviously, out in the open. Rather than supporting the argument of the surrounding discourse, this aspectual substitution is a core component of the argument itself. Luke’s account of Peter’s speech53 situates the quotation of Psalm 15 with a formal introduction: Δαυὶδ γὰρ λέγει εἰς αὐτόν (Acts 2:25). The αὐτός here is

51. Rahlfs, ed., Psalmi cum Odis. εγκαταλειψεις reads “-lipis” in R’s Latin translation, however this does not have any bearing on the tense-form we ought to read for the Greek. All other variants in this verse are tangential to our investigation: αδην is the genitive αδου in several manuscripts and versions; ουδε is also found as ου in Ga, reflecting the MT. Similarly variants found in the NT are immaterial, such as ουδε for ουτε in Acts 2:31. 52. The sole difference between the NA28 Acts 2:25–28 and Göttingen Ps 15:8–11 texts is the spelling of προορώμην/προωρώμην. Steyn, citing Holtz, notes that -ο- and -ωwere used interchangeably in this period: Traugott Holtz, Untersuchungen über die alttestamentlichen Zitate bei Lukas (Berlin: Akademie, 1968), 49; Steyn, Septuagint Quotations, 107. One other candidate for this unchanged-original-then-modified-version group is Hebrews 8:12 and 10:17. 53. The historiographical, textual, and theological question of how the accounts of speeches in Acts (and ancient literature in general) relate to the speeches as originally given (if they did at all) is complicated and the focus of much scholarship. Two general views can be identified: (1) Luke accurately reflects the content of speeches as they were originally given, albeit in truncated form; or (2) the speeches are a literary creation of the author. F. F. Bruce is a prominent example of the former view, taking Thucydides’s explanation of his method as an explicit model of how ancient historiography occurred; Martin Dibelius is a key proponent of the latter. F. F. Bruce, The Speeches in the Acts of the Apostles (London: Tyndale, 1942); F. F. Bruce, “The Speeches in Acts—Thirty Years After,” in Reconciliation and Hope: New Testament Essays on Atonement and Eschatology: Presented to L. L. Morris on his 60th Birthday, ed. Robert

160 | Aspectual

Substitution

Jesus—the man attested to Peter’s audience by δυνάμεσιν καὶ τέρασιν καὶ σημείοις (2:22). David is taken to be prophetic, speaking about the future death and resurrection of the Christ. The Psalms were viewed as having this prophetic character not only generally in the early church,54 but specifically by Peter in his speeches. In Acts 1:16 he says the Holy Spirit, speaking through the mouth of David, prophesied what had to take place in the betrayal of Judas, his punishment, and his replacement (cf. Psalms 68:26 and 109:8 quoted in Acts 1:20, and applied directly to Judas). Luke makes use of the Psalms frequently through Acts, as Fitzmyer notes: “This identification of David [as a prophet] in Acts undoubtedly also explains, in part at least, why Luke makes such an abundant use of the OT psalter in that book, for the psalms would then be for him merely another link in the chain of evidence used as support for his ‘proof-from-prophecy theology,’ of which Paul Schubert once wrote.”55 After quoting the Psalm, Peter then confidently comments further on the author. David the king is dead, buried, and his tomb remains to the present day (2:29). But the promise given him was that one of his descendants would sit on his throne (cf. 2 Sam 7:12–13), so he looked forward to when one of those descendants would embody Psalm 15:10 in a way Banks (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 53–68; Martin Dibelius, “The Speeches in Acts and Ancient Historiography,” in Studies in the Acts of the Apostles, ed. Heinrich Greeven (London: SCM, 1956), 138–91; Martin Dibelius, “Paul on the Areopagus,” in Studies in the Acts of the Apostles, ed. Heinrich Greeven (London: SCM, 1956), 26–77; Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War 1.22.1. A brief list for further interaction on this matter includes W. Ward Gasque, A History of the Criticism of the Acts of the Apostles (Tübingen: Mohr, 1975); Conrad Gempf, “Public Speaking and Published Accounts,” in The Book of Acts in Its Ancient Literary Setting, eds. Bruce W. Winter and Andrew D. Clarke (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 1:259–303; Gene Green, “Luke: Historian, Rhetor, and Theologian. Historiography and the Theology of the Speeches in Acts,” in New Testament Theology in Light of the Church’s Mission: Essays in Honor of I. Howard Marshall, eds. Jon Laansma, Grant Osborne and Ray Van Neste (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2011), 161–80; Richard I. Pervo, Profit with Delight: The Literary Genre of the Acts of the Apostles (Philadephia: Fortress, 1987); Stanley E. Porter, “Thucydides 1.22.1 and Speeches in Acts: Is There a Thucydidean View?,” in Studies in the Greek New Testament: Theory and Practice (New York: Peter Lang, 1996), 121–42. 54. See the discussion of the Psalter read as “Christ prediction” concerning John 2:17/ Psalm 68:10 above: “John 2:17,” p. 146. 55. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “David, ‘Being Therefore a Prophet’ (Acts 2:30),” CBQ 34 (1972): 339.

Other Narrative: John, Acts | 161 that he—obviously, says Peter, because of his tomb—would not. This use of the Psalter is, once again, employing Davidic typology. Resonances of David’s words in the Psalm ascribed to him in the present circumstances are inescapable, but more than simply pointing to Jesus as a similar figure Peter argues that only Jesus could be the subject of this messianic prophecy. The type established by David in his prayer to God for deliverance was not fully established by him, and remained unfulfilled, awaiting the anti-type. In Acts 2:31 Luke records Peter quoting Psalm 15:10 again, but here the quotation is modified. Peter still treats this verse with a type of quotation formula: προϊδὼν ἐλάλησεν περὶ τῆς ἀναστάσεως τοῦ Χριστοῦ (2:31). This time, the Future verbs (ἐγκαταλείψεις; δώσεις … ἰδεῖν) are substituted by their Aorist indicative counterparts (ἐγκατελείφθη; εἶδεν). A handful of other changes exist in 2:31: τὴν ψυχήν μου is omitted in the best manuscripts; οὐδέ changes to οὔτε, and σάρξ is used for ὅσιος.56 Σάρξ appears in the preceding verse of the Psalm—ἡ σάρξ μου κατασκηνώσει ἐπ᾿ ἐλπίδι, 15:9—thus the use here is not arbitrary, and reflects the parallelism of the original.57 But the intentionality of the ὅσιος/σάρξ substitution guarantees, as Bock states, “that the point of the passage is not mere spiritual translation, bodily preservation, or terminal illness, but bodily resurrection. The point is not just that the person of the Holy One is saved, but that his flesh is saved.”58 We should also note here that the second half of this Psalm verse appears in terser form in Acts 13:35, 37 (οὐ δώσεις τὸν ὅσιόν σου ἰδεῖν διαφθοράν … οὐκ εἶδεν διαφθοράν) with an identical aspectual substitution. So Peter quotes verses of a Davidic Psalm, demonstrates in his exegesis that the statements about the Lord cannot apply to its original author, and then restates the verse with aspectual substitution. What effect does this substitution have? The Future verbs in Psalm 15:10 demonstrate clear future temporal reference. Peter takes them to refer not only to a future point in David’s life, but beyond his death to a future descendant. They are also perfective in aspect, presenting the verbal action in summary form, without any reference to the internal makeup of the situation. In changing these to Aorist forms in Acts 2:31, Peter 56. The first two of these changes—τὴν ψυχήν μου and οὐδὲ—are reverted by some scribes to harmonize with the LXX, but the Nestle-Aland editors are right to judge the textual evidence is against them. 57. David Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles, PNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 148; I. Howard Marshall, “Acts,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, 540. 58. Bock, Proclamation, 177, emphasis original.

162 | Aspectual

Substitution

therefore removes the explicit future temporal reference. If it were taken alone the Aorist tense-form could possibly refer to a future event, but here in context there are other temporal indicators. Peter introduces this altered quotation with a contextual indicator—περὶ τῆς ἀναστάσεως—which at Pentecost was several weeks prior. He further clarifies in 2:32 by stating τοῦτον τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἀνέστησεν ὁ θεός, οὗ πάντες ἡμεῖς ἐσμεν μάρτυρες: God “raised” Jesus (also Aorist), a definite past reference given that “we all are witnesses” of this event.59 The aspectual substitution here is thus quite straightforward: both views of the action are perfective; the difference being drawn is a temporal distinction. David’s Psalm referred to the future; from the standpoint of Peter and his hearers this event is now no longer future, demonstrating the fulfillment of David’s prophecy.60 Peter’s exegetical argument in Acts 2:22–32 has a number of steps. David, the author of the Psalm, spoke of the deliverance of the Lord from death. Given that David did die and experienced the corruption of the grave, he must have been speaking beyond himself to the resurrection of the Christ.61 In contrast to the author of the Psalm who did see decay, Peter argues that Jesus, having been bodily resurrected from the grave, is the κυριός to whom Psalm 15 refers. Jesus, “considered as the offspring of David, is not an inhabitant of šē’ôl or hadēs; he has not experienced death’s ‘decay.’ ”62 Thus the changes made to the quotation in Acts 2:31 do not simply support the argument of this passage, but form a crucial component of the argument itself. Using σάρξ for ὅσιος highlights the bodily resurrection latent in the Psalm, but the substitution of an Aorist tense-form in place of the original Future tense-form cements Peter’s argument. This prophecy can no longer be taken to be temporally future, but has been fulfilled in the resurrection of Jesus. This use of Scripture is explicitly oriented to demonstrating the fulfillment of prophecy, undergirded by the grammatical changes to this quotation.

59. Note that the resurrection of Jesus is assumed as fact here. It is not argued for, but rather forms an assumption in favor of the conclusion in Acts 2:32. 60. So Schnabel: “The main verb tenses have been changed from future to aorist, underscoring Peter’s point that David’s prophecy has been fulfilled.” Eckhard J. Schnabel, Acts, Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012), 146–47. 61. C. K. Barrett, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles: Introduction and Commentary on Acts I–XIV, ICC (London: T&T Clark, 1994), 148; Peterson, Acts, 149–50. 62. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998), 258.

Other Narrative: John, Acts | 163

Acts 7:5 Genesis 12:7 καὶ ὤφθη κύριος τῷ Αβραμ καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ Τῷ σπέρματί σου δώσω τὴν γῆν ταύτην. The Lord appeared to Abram and said to him, “To your offspring I will give this land.”

Genesis 13:15 ὅτι πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν, ἣν σὺ ὁρᾷς, σοὶ δώσω αὐτὴν καὶ τῷ σπέρματί σου ἕως τοῦ αἰῶνος. For the whole land which you see I will give to you and to your offspring forever.

Genesis 17:8 καὶ δώσω σοι καὶ τῷ σπέρματί σου μετὰ σὲ τὴν γῆν, ἣν παροικεῖς, πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν Χανααν, εἰς κατάσχεσιν αἰώνιον καὶ ἔσομαι αὐτοῖς θεός. I will give to you and to your offspring with you the land in which you dwell, all the land of Canaan, as an eternal possession, and I will be their God.

Genesis 48:4 καὶ εἶπέν μοι Ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ αὐξανῶ σε καὶ πληθυνῶ σε καὶ ποιήσω σε εἰς συναγωγὰς ἐθνῶν καὶ δώσω σοι τὴν γῆν ταύτην καὶ τῷ σπέρματί σου μετὰ σὲ εἰς κατάσχεσιν αἰώνιον. He said to me, “I will grow you and multiply you and make you into a gathering of nations, and I will give this land to you and to your offspring with you as an eternal possession.”

Acts 7:5 καὶ οὐκ ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ κληρονομίαν ἐν αὐτῇ οὐδὲ βῆμα ποδὸς καὶ ἐπηγγείλατο δοῦναι αὐτῷ εἰς κατάσχεσιν αὐτὴν καὶ τῷ σπέρματι αὐτοῦ μετ᾿ αὐτόν, He didn’t give him an inheritance in it, not even a foot’s length, but promised to give it to him as a possession and to his offspring after him,

164 | Aspectual

Substitution

Table 5.6 Genesis 12:7; 13:15; 17:8; 48:4; Acts 7:5

Stephen’s speech in Acts 7 responds to the charges made against him in front of the Sanhedrin:63 that he was opposed to the temple and the law (Acts 6:13–14). Luke presents Stephen as speaking by the Spirit (Acts 6:10) in the same way the prophets he alludes to spoke (7:51–52).64 Stephen responds to the charges by turning the charges on his accusers,65 directly answering the temple accusation by explaining what he has said about the temple (see especially Acts 7:44ff.), and 6 3. These are false charges: ἔστησάν τε μάρτυρας ψευδεῖς, Acts 6:13. 64. Craig S. Keener, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1999), 1328–29. 65. F. F. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 161.

Other Narrative: John, Acts | 165 implicitly answering the law accusation through his “authoritative and pervasive use of Scripture.”66 While formal quotation formulae are relatively rare in this speech, occurring only in the final stages,67 informal markers and implicit quotations pepper the speech throughout. Stephen frequently marks quotations in the midst of his narrative with reported speech markers, such as ὁ θεὸς εἶπεν in the middle of a quotation in 7:7, προσερχομένου δὲ αὐτοῦ κατανοῆσαι ἐγένετο φωνὴ κυρίου in 7:31, or εἰπόντες τῷ Ἀαρών in 7:40. A number of Genesis texts are a possibility for the antecedent of this quotation—the same promise is reiterated by God to Abraham and his descendants in Genesis 12:7; 13:15; 17:8; and 48:4. Genesis 17:8 is likely the primary text for Stephen given his introduction and the comment that immediately follows. Stephen’s reference to οὐδὲ βῆμα ποδὸς (Acts 7:5) echoes biblical language from Deuteronomy 2:5, referring to the sovereignty of the Lord over geography and nations later in the history of Israel.68 Furthermore, Stephen follows his reference to the divine promise with οὐκ ὄντος αὐτῷ τέκνου, bringing Abraham’s childlessness to the fore. Genesis 17, more so than the other Genesis passages, is set not only in the context of Abraham’s status as an alien in the land of Canaan, but his advanced age and childlessness (Gen 17:1), a significant barrier—humanly speaking—to the fulfillment of promises concerning descendants and inheritance.69 Genesis 17:8 contains the main components in Acts 7:5, although there is some rearrangement and elision of some clausal components—the specifiers of “the land” (ἣν παροικεῖς, πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν Χανααν) are omitted, and εἰς κατάσχεσιν is repositioned. A hard disjunction between the antecedents would, however, be misleading given the apparent intentional repetitive and reiterative nature of this promise at successive stages of the patriarchs’ lives. All of the Genesis texts read with a Future first-person indicative δώσω.70 The NT manuscripts are secure. 66. Keener, Acts, 1329. Keener draws a parallel to the example of Aeschines, who defends himself against charges of treason against democracy by persistently condemning the suppressors of democracy: Aeschines, Against Timarchus, passim. 67. For example, καθὼς γέγραπται ἐν βίβλῳ τῶν προφητῶν, 7:42; καθὼς ὁ προφήτης λέγει, 7:48. 68. Conzelmann, Acts, 52; Keener, Acts, 1358. 69. Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 16–50, WBC 2 (Columbia: Nelson, 1994), 22. 70. The only variants in the textual tradition are in Genesis 17:8. A number of manuscripts read διδωμι, but the editors of the Göttingen edition are correct in accepting the Future form given the alternative textual evidence and strong parallels to other (textually secure) instances in Genesis. See Wevers, ed., Genesis, 177–78.

166 | Aspectual

Substitution

Stephen’s scriptural use throughout his speech generally matches our criteria for quotation despite not always marking off the language as an explicit reference.71 At times some syntax is altered to fit the summary of salvation history he is providing; this is the case for the quotation in Acts 7:5. The first-person promise of God (δώσω) is changed to a reported third-person action (ἐπηγγείλατο δοῦναι), with consequent alterations to the pronouns (e.g., τῷ σπέρματί σου to τῷ σπέρματι αὐτοῦ). Likewise the shift from the indicative δώσω in the Genesis texts to the complementary infinitive construction ἐπηγγείλατο δοῦναι in Acts 7:5 is because of the same summarizing function. While these changes are natural syntactical alterations based on the type of quotation employed, there is also an aspectual substitution: the Future tense-form is altered to an Aorist construction. Unlike other instances we have seen, however, the significant alterations to other grammatical structures make these two clauses quite different in their focus. A properly substitutable form of “I will give X” would be “I/he gave X,” but in this instance we have “he promised to give X.” We cannot apply aspectual substitution analysis as directly as we can elsewhere. Yet the differences in tense-form do still demonstrate for us the nature of the Aorist and Future tense-forms that we have observed elsewhere. The temporal and aspectual values are similar to other instances of this Aorist–Future change that we have already seen above. The Genesis texts are prospective, promising that something will happen in the future. Presented in summary form both perfective aspect and future temporal reference are operative in the speeches recorded in Genesis 12:7; 13:15; 17:8; 48:4. As Stephen employs this quotation in Acts 7:5, his point is that this promise occurred in the past but was still forward-looking and operative even though it was not fulfilled in the time of Abraham. So while the “giving” component of the action is still temporally future relative to the time of the event of “promising,” the whole construct is still obviously given a non-future temporal reference. Concluding that futurity has been removed in the Aorist construction is necessitated by context, but as we have seen before past temporal reference for the Aorist is a natural implicature of perfective aspect. A rhetorical effect of Stephen’s aspectual substitution is to emphasize the retrospective fact of the prospective promise of God, believed on yet not received fully by Abraham. Stephen then holds Abraham’s trust in God’s promise in tension with his report of Israel’s rebelliousness and lack of faith throughout history (cf. Acts 7:17, 51, 53).

71. Cf. the discussion above in “Criteria for Quotation,” p. 53.

Other Narrative: John, Acts | 167

Acts 7:40 Exodus 32:1 καὶ λέγουσιν αὐτῷ Ἀνάστηθι καὶ ποίησον ἡμῖν θεούς, οἳ προπορεύσονται ἡμῶν· ὁ γὰρ Μωυσῆς οὗτος ὁ ἄνθρωπος, ὃς ἐξήγαγεν ἡμᾶς ἐξ Αἰγύπτου, οὐκ οἴδαμεν, τί γέγονεν αὐτῷ. They said to him, “Get up and make gods for us, who will go before us: for this man Moses, who brought us out of Egypt, we don’t know what has happened to him.”

Exodus 32:23 λέγουσιν γάρ μοι Ποίησον ἡμῖν θεούς, οἳ προπορεύσονται ἡμῶν· ὁ γὰρ Μωυσῆς οὗτος ὁ ἄνθρωπος, ὃς ἐξήγαγεν ἡμᾶς ἐξ Αἰγύπτου, οὐκ οἴδαμεν, τί γέγονεν αὐτῷ. For they said to me, “Make gods for us, who will go before us: for this man Moses, who brought us out of Egypt, we don’t know what has happened to him.”

Acts 7:40 εἰπόντες τῷ Ἀαρών· ποίησον ἡμῖν θεοὺς οἳ προπορεύσονται ἡμῶν· ὁ γὰρ Μωϋσῆς οὗτος, ὃς ἐξήγαγεν ἡμᾶς ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου, οὐκ οἴδαμεν τί ἐγένετο αὐτῷ. Saying to Aaron, “make gods for us who will go before us: for this Moses, who brought us out of the land of Egypt, we don’t know what happened to him.”

Table 5.7 Exodus 32:1; 32:23; Acts 7:40

168 | Aspectual

Substitution

Steven’s speech to the Sanhedrin in Acts 7 covers significant portions of Israel’s history: from the promises made by God to Abraham, to Moses as a scorned and rejected deliverer. Luke’s account of his speech quotes again from the Pentateuch with a reported-speech quotation formula, καὶ λέγουσιν αὐτῷ (Acts 7:40). This text draws on a phrase that appears twice in almost identical form in Exodus 32:1 and 32:23. The first reference reports the demand made of Aaron by the Israelites at the base of Mount Horeb; the latter is Aaron’s recounting of that event to Moses. Aside from the imperative ἀνάστηθι in 32:1 and the contextual shift in pronouns (αὐτῷ/μοι) the Exodus texts are equivalent. The Greek manuscripts for the LXX verses are quite secure, with Exod 32:1 reading ἔλεγον for λέγουσιν only in A; the Göttingen edition otherwise lists only the Acts 7:40 form of γίνομαι as variants among the Greek witnesses.72 The LXX matches the MT closely in these verses.73 A number of manuscripts preserve variants of ἐγένετο in Acts 7:40 that read γέγονεν, in accordance with Exodus 32:23.74 The evidence for the text of Acts 7:40 as it stands, however, is early and strong, so there are good grounds for reading this as a genuine shift in aspect from a Perfect form to an Aorist.75 There is little basis to choose which Exodus 32 text is the antecedent verse, and little reason to do so. Both express the same impulse and action of the people in the absence of Moses, with the latter simply restating the former. Some take the directives of the people to Aaron to make “gods” for them as simply fear and uncertainty, not rebellion.76 This interpretation is not universal; nor, more importantly, is it Stephen’s. Luke’s account of Stephen’s speech introduces this quotation by noting the Israelites were unwilling to obey Moses—the archetypal prophet; their mediator to the Lord—and ἐστράφησαν ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις αὐτῶν εἰς Αἴγυπτον (Acts 7:39). This echoes Aaron’s description of the people as evil (σὺ γὰρ οἶδας τὸ ὅρμημα τοῦ λαοῦ τούτου, Exod 32:22 LXX, translating the MT’s ‫) אַתָּה יָדַעְתָּ אֶת־הָעָם כִּי בְרָע הוּא‬. Admittedly Aaron is attempting to shift the blame in describing the people in this fashion, removing any agency of his own from his recounting of the event, but Stephen effectively echoes his assessment of the hearts of Israel in this episode. Exodus 32:23 places λέγουσιν 72. Wevers, ed., Exodus, 354, 361. Λέγουσιν displays some variation in the later Latin versions, which does not affect our reading of the verbs. 73. So Fitzmeyer: “Stephen’s words quote the LXX of Exod 32:1 or 32:23 with insignificant variations; they reflect the substance of the MT.” Fitzmyer, Acts, 380. 74. See D E Ψ 33 M Cyr. 75. See P74 ‫ א‬A B C 36. 945. 1175. 1505. 1739, amongst others. 76. John I. Durham, Exodus, WBC 3 (Columbia: Nelson, 1987), 419; cf. also George W. Coats, Rebellion in the Wilderness (Nashville: Abingdon, 1968), 188–89.

Other Narrative: John, Acts | 169 in a logically subordinate relationship to the antecedent assessment of the Israelites by the conjunction γάρ. When we move to Acts 7:40 we see this same verb λέγω now both logically and syntactically subordinate to an equivalent antecedent phrase ἐστράφησαν ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις αὐτῶν (7:39). Shifting to the participle εἰπόντες subordinates the phrase in Acts 7:40, thereby making clear the connection between this directive to Aaron (ποίησον ἡμῖν θεοὺς, 7:40) and the object of their hearts’ desires (εἰς Αἴγυπτον, 7:39). A regular use of an Aorist participle is to supply antecedent information, which coordinates this demand in Stephen’s litany with the subsequent creation of the calf (καὶ ἐμοσχοποίησαν ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐκείναις, 7:41). The prior verb to which the participle εἰπόντες is connected, ἐστράφησαν, is also Aorist, depicting this whole complex retrospective with perfective aspect.‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬ Λέγουσιν in Exodus 32:1, 23 appears to be a so-called “historical” Present.77 In Exodus 32:1, the verbal idea in parallel with λέγω is an Aorist of συνίστημι: συνέστη ὁ λαὸς ἐπὶ Ααρων καὶ λέγουσιν αὐτῷ. The following verse uses another Present tenseform of λέγω to introduce another discourse block (καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς Ααρων, 32:2), and 32:3 continues the narrative with Aorist forms περιείλαντο and ἤνεγκαν. Moving down to Exodus 32:23, the preceding clause has a Perfect tense-form, οἶδας. As in Exodus 32:1 λέγουσιν introduces a block of discourse (32:23), and the subsequent narrative continues with Aorists εἶπα, ἔδωκάν, ἔρριψα, and ἐξῆλθεν (32:24). Both instances of λέγουσιν appear then to be instances of a historical Present tense-form, functioning to prominently mark an important speech that follows.78 Similarly, the Perfect tense-form γέγονεν in Exodus 32:1, 23 appears to be an instance of a “historical” Perfect. That is, rather than a Present tense-form that takes the place of what would otherwise be an Aorist tense-form, thereby creating either a tense/aspect mismatch or discourse prominence, we have a Perfect tense-form doing the same thing.79 The claim this is a historical Perfect is strengthened by its aspectual substitution in Acts 7:40 with an Aorist tense-form ἐγένετο. Three major theories about this function of the historical Perfect end up with the same conclusion, but arrive via different means. Porter argues the Perfect is heavily marked, and thus its use creates a degree of narrative prominence. Campbell also argues for heightened prominence, but this is due to his assessment of the Perfect as proximate-imperfective and its

77. For a fuller discussion of the options for the “Historical Present” see “The Historical/ Narrative Present,” p. 43. 78. See Runge, Discourse Grammar, 137. 79. Wallace terms this category the “Aoristic Perfect.” Wallace, Greek Grammar, 578. Incidentally he notes another just a few verses prior in Stephen’s speech, Acts 7:35.

170 | Aspectual

Substitution

relation to discourse.80 Although Buth does not extend his analysis of the historical Present in terms of a mismatch in tense and aspect to the Perfect tense-form, the same arguments could also apply to a historical Perfect creating discourse prominence. All three would conclude then that such a usage is prominent or marked in some fashion, which corresponds well to the importance of the utterance in Exodus 32. The exclamation “we don’t even know what has become of him!” forms the basis for the Israelite’s rejection of Moses’ leadership, and ultimately Yahweh himself.81 Aspectual substitution of an Aorist tense-form for a “historical” Perfect has the same grammatical function, but removes the prominence created by the use of the Perfect tense-form. Stephen’s version in Acts 7:40—οὐκ οἴδαμεν τί ἐγένετο αὐτῷ—is part of his long history of Israel in which God demonstrated his faithfulness but the people were stubborn and rebellious (cf. Acts 7:51–53). Additionally, Stephen has already supplied the root reason for the people’s rebellion, namely their longing for the relative security and comfort—and idolatry—of Egypt (Acts 7:39).82 The people’s stated reason for their idolatry is therefore given less significance in Stephen’s discourse, supplanted by Stephen’s reasoning. He uses the Aorist tense-form ἐγένετο in 7:40 to state the matter simply. The two instances of aspectual substitution in this verse, therefore, are part of a broader-scale interpretive framework. Stephen has told his hearers the connection between this utterance of the Israelites and the desires of their hearts. They have turned away from God and his prophet Moses, and back towards Egypt and its idolatry. The manner in which he quotes this verse from Exodus follows this interpretation. By altering the verb forms from Present and Perfect tense-forms to Aorists, he de-emphasizes the surface self-interpretation of the people, and connects them by coordinating them grammatically with the wider view of their rebellion. This verse is part of a longer speech (39 verses, so far) covering Stephen’s interpretive view of Israel’s history, stretching from divine promises made to Abraham to Moses as a scorned leader. Stephen’s consistent theme has been the rebelliousness of the people and their rejection of God’s chosen leadership and means of salvation. The verbal substitutions made in this verse serve to privilege Stephen’s view of their actions rather than their own self-interpretation, and therefore connects this episode to the through-line of argument in Stephen’s recounting of history. He condemns Israel for failing to keep the law and resisting the work of God’s Holy Spirit (Acts 7:51–53). 8 0. Campbell, Indicative Mood, 208–09. 81. ⁠Brevard S. Childs, The Book of Exodus, OTL (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1974), 564, 569–70. 82. Peterson, Acts, 259.

6

Epistolary Material

This final exegetical chapter collects quotations from epistolary material in the NT— primarily from Paul, but also from the author of Hebrews and John. Certain authorial differences should be kept in mind at the outset. Paul’s quotation technique has produced no shortage of scholarly commentary on his alterations, interpretations, and use of source material. As he quotes he often makes changes to his source, and tends to prefer the LXX, as Longenecker summarizes: “Of the approximately one hundred Old Testament passages quoted by Paul in his letters (disengaging the conflated texts and the possible dual sources, and treating each separately), over half are either absolute or virtual reproductions of the LXX, with almost half of these at variance with the MT.”1 Several instances of aspectual substitution in the terms defined above are evident in Romans and 1 Corinthians, with additional non-aspectual substitutions collected in Appendix A. The text form used by the author of Hebrews is difficult to determine, as while tending to be closer to the LXX quotations often show differences both from the MT and the major LXX textual traditions.2 Additionally, changes from 1. Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis, 96–97. 2. Gheorghita, Role of the Septuagint, 225–26; Gert J. Steyn, A Quest for the Assumed LXX Vorlage of the Explicit Quotations in Hebrews (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,

172 | Aspectual

Substitution

source texts are on occasion found to be in common with Philo’s quotations, suggesting to some scholars the use of a common textual tradition, or even literary dependence.3 The difficulty in determining if changes are introduced by the author of Hebrews is reflected in the fact that only two instances of aspectual substitution according to our criteria are included from the letter to the Hebrews. Two additional non-aspectual changes are collected in the Appendix. Quotations that fit our criteria for a quotation rather than an allusion are rare in the book of Revelation, as John much more commonly refers to texts rather than cites them directly. Only one instance of aspectual substitution is treated here, while a comparable but freer quotation is included in the Appendix.

Romans 3:4 Psalm 50:6 (MT 51:6) σοὶ μόνῳ ἥμαρτον καὶ τὸ πονηρὸν ἐνώπιόν σου ἐποίησα, ὅπως ἂν δικαιωθῇς ἐν τοῖς λόγοις σου καὶ νικήσῃς ἐν τῷ κρίνεσθαί σε. Against you alone I have sinned, and I have done what is evil before you, so that you might be justified in your words and prevail in your judgement.

2011), 30–31; Markus Barth, “The Old Testament in Hebrews: An Essay in Biblical Hermeneutics,” in Current Issues in New Testament Interpretation: Essays in Honor of Otto A. Piper, eds. W. Klassen and G. F. Snyder (London: SCM, 1962), 55. 3. For example, Stephen Stanley draws attention to the connection between Philo and Hebrews not only in the quotation of Exodus 25:40 in Hebrews 8:5 (see below) but in their broader interpretive contexts: Steven K. Stanley, “A New Covenant Hermeneutic: The Use of Scripture in Hebrews 8–10” (PhD diss., University of Sheffield, 1994), 214–15. He points to Thomas’s argument that the author of Hebrews likely knew Philo’s context of several quotations common to both authors—that is, a literary dependence. He also notes Schröger’s argument for similarity but not literary dependence based on their common literary and religious milieu. Cf. Kenneth J. Thomas, “Old Testament Citations in Hebrews,” NTS 11 (1965): 303–25; F. Schröger, Der Verfasser des Hebräerbriefes als Schriftausleger (Regensburg: Pustet, 1968).

Epistolary Material | 173

Romans 3:4 γινέσθω δὲ ὁ θεὸς ἀληθής, πᾶς δὲ ἄνθρωπος ψεύστης, καθὼς γέγραπται· ὅπως ἂν δικαιωθῇς ἐν τοῖς λόγοις σου καὶ νικήσεις ἐν τῷ κρίνεσθαί σε. May God be true, and every person a liar, as it is written: “so that you might be justified in your words and prevail in your judgement.”

Table 6.1 Psalm 50:6; Romans 3:4

Paul’s quotation of Psalm 50:6 LXX (51:6 MT)4 in Romans 3:4 serves to underline his preceding argument that human unfaithfulness does not undermine God’s faithfulness. Psalm 50 is David’s confession of his sexual sin against Bathsheba, acknowledging that he has sinned against God. David recognizes that God’s judgement against him is just, and it establishes God as the one who is right.5 In Paul’s usage of this quotation, David’s confession is applied to Israel as a whole: God is “proved right” in condemning sinners.6 While Paul arguably alludes to other Scriptures in the preceding passage, he introduces this quotation with the formula καθὼς γέγραπται.7 The quotation is evidently from the LXX as it retains νικάω, the LXX equivalent for the MT ‫זכה‬. Morris states that this quotation “is exactly as LXX,” although this is incorrect: the Aorist subjunctive νικήσῃς from Psalm 50:6 is replaced by a Future indicative νικήσεις in Romans 3:4. The verses are otherwise identical. The Göttingen edition records no variants for 4. Verse references below follow the LXX versification. 5. Michael F. Bird, Romans, SGBC (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2016), 95; Grant R. Osborne, Romans, IVPNTCS (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2010), 82. 6. Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans, PNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 156. 7. For example, τὰ λόγια τοῦ θεοῦ, 3:2, cf. Num 24:4, 16 LXX; πᾶς δὲ ἄνθρωπος ψεύστης, 3:4, cf. Ps 115:11 LXX.

174 | Aspectual

Substitution

Psalm 50:6;8 while there is some variation in textual support for the NT text,9 the evidence for the Future indicative is strong enough to endorse the decision of the Nestle-Aland editors to read νικήσεις in Romans 3:4.10 We have, therefore, another case of aspectual substitution involving an Aorist subjunctive and a Future indicative.11 Like the Synoptic passages above that quote the Decalogue, there is little apparent difference between the two verbal constructions. We saw previously that the Aorist subjunctive is perfective in aspect and prospective in orientation towards the future. It has been suggested previously that the Future indicative is also perfective in aspect, and definitely future in its temporal reference. The previous instance concerned a negative prohibition, wherein the two forms overlapped significantly—arguably to the point of interchangeability.12 A similar dynamic appears to be at play here in Romans 3:4, on the basis of two arguments: one is a syntactical and literary observation within the verse itself; the other a broader grammatical observation about the Greek of the NT. First, the quoted verse displays strong synonymous parallelism of the sort typical of much Hebrew poetry. Νικήσεις is paralleled to δικαιωθῇς—they are both the purpose or result of either David’s confession (Ps 50:3) or his sin (50:4).13 This parallel function holds regardless of how the key verb κρίνεσθαι in this clause is 8. Rahlfs, ed., Psalmi cum Odis, 163. 9. Codex Vaticanus and some later codicies and minuscules read νικήσῃς as in Psalm 50:6 (LXX), while ‫ א‬A D and other manuscripts support the Future indicative form. Perhaps these variant readings were the result of a scribal tendency to harmonize with the secure LXX form and/or the preceding parallel Aorist subjunctive δικαιωθῇς. 10. Brendan Byrne, Romans, SP 6 (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1996), 113. Longenecker tentatively accepts the Future indicative as the “harder reading.” While acknowledging uncertainty in the stages of MT–LXX–NT transmission, he suspects Paul used a different version of the text that may have been better known to the Roman church. Richard N. Longenecker, The Epistle to the Romans, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016), 348. 11. Cf. the discussion of Matthew 19:18–19 || Mark 10:19 || Luke 18:20 || James 2:11 above, James 2:11 above, p. 96. 12. Recall that there is no Future subjunctive, the forms arguably derive from the same root, and the modality of the subjunctive overlaps with the actuality of the Future indicative. See for example, Wallace, Greek Grammar, 462–63; Campbell, NonIndicative Verbs, 57–59. 13. Douglas J. Moo, Romans, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 187. Longenecker suggests the LXX translation makes it a result clause, “perhaps even turning it into something of a prayer”: Longenecker, Romans, 348.

Epistolary Material | 175 interpreted—that is, whether it is taken as middle (“when you judge”) or passive (“when you are judged”).14 Each of the parallel lines in this quotation are contingent on the introductory ὅπως, both in the Psalm and in Romans 3:4. The parallelism within this verse, therefore, places the Future indicative νικήσεις in parallel to the Aorist subjunctive δικαιωθῇς, suggesting their function is equivalent. Second, Blass and Debrunner note that in the Classical period final purpose clauses with ὅπως ἄν tended to be followed by a Future indicative, although Aorist subjunctives and optatives were also viable options.15 By the time of the NT, however, several tendencies were apparent. Authors preferred to employ ἵνα in final clauses over ὅπως,16 and where ὅπως (ἄν) was used it was almost exclusively followed by a subjunctive. The Future indicative in this type of logically subordinated clause had almost entirely phased out.17 These two observations lead to a reliable conclusion that we have a −distinctive example of aspectual substitution in Romans 3:4. No propositional or truth-conditional difference exists between the two situations envisioned by either νικήσῃς ἐν τῷ … or νικήσεις ἐν τῷ κρίνεσθαί σε. Some commentators detect a slightly stronger eschatological tone with the Future indicative.18 If this emphasis with the Future tense-form is accepted, the future orientation is one that focusses the reader on a final, eschatological judgement: “in the long run God will prevail (literally, “conquer” 14. Barrett, for example, takes it to be passive: “When God is ‘judged’ by the Jews he will be declared ‘justified’ by the fulfillment of his ‘words’ in the coming of Christ.” C. K. Barrett, The Epistle to the Romans, BNTC, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1993), 69. See also Longenecker, Romans, 348. Käsemann also takes the verse in this way, but understood in a larger apocalyptic framework in which God is engaged in a “struggle for vindication”: Ernst Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromily (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 81. A middle reading is preferred by most commentators: so Moo, Romans, 188; Osborne, Romans, 82; Mark A. Seifrid, “Romans,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, 615. Some argue both senses are possible in a judicial context: Morris, Romans, 156; Byrne, Romans, 113. 15. BDF §369; cf. also Robertson, Grammar, 985. 16. Robertson notes that in Attic inscriptions ὅπως was “quite the rule,” but cites statistics that demonstrate a shift to overwhelming support of ἵνα in the NT: Robertson, Grammar, 985. 17. Other instances in the NT with a Future indicative in a final clause are found only in variant readings of Matt 2:8; 26:59; Mark 5:23; 1 Cor 1:29. 18. For example, Byrne, Romans, 113; Seifrid, “Romans,” 615. The emphasis here is very tentative, however. Seifrid says the difference is “semantically insignificant,” and “at most, Paul suggests the final judgment a bit more strongly than does the LXX.”

176 | Aspectual

Substitution

[nikēsis]) when going to court against sinful human beings.”19 Longenecker suggests that the Future tense-form here means it ought to be best translated as “So that you may be justified [or ‘shown to be righteous’] when you speak [literally ‘in your words’] and will prevail [or ‘be victorious’] when you are judged.”20 Such a translation, however, rests on the standard distinction drawn between the subjunctive mood and the Future indicative. Yet as we have seen this instance is within a particular syntactic structure: a final clause introduced by ὅπως ἄν. Furthermore, the time period with which we are concerned is one where a linguistic transition is underway. This transition is almost (but not totally) complete from one default option following ὅπως (Future indicative in the Classical period) to a different default (Aorist subjunctive in Koine).21 Because the Aorist subjunctive is part of a final purpose/result clause, it is highly temporally oriented in itself. The view of the action described by such a phrase (ὅπως ἂν ) is necessarily prospective, as it must follow both logically and temporally the antecedent statement/ situation/action. Taking the established distinction between the Future and Aorist subjunctive forms—that of explicit tense—fails to recognize the construction in which it is placed and the lack of differentiation between the forms. These forms are, therefore, functionally equivalent in this context. As a consequence we may offer some observations about the Future tense-form. The prospective nature of the subjunctive mood’s potentiality, and the logical necessity of it occurring at a later stage to its preceding causal element, causes the Aorist subjunctive (in this type of dependent clause) to express future temporal reference. Because the Future indicative operates equivalently to an Aorist subjunctive in a ὅπως clause, perfective aspect and future temporal reference continue to be appropriate descriptors of the Future indicative. In Psalm 50:6 David’s purpose statement has to do with the Lord’s application of justice in pronouncing judgement on his individual sin.22 Paul quotes this verse to expand David’s personal statement more generally, with the eschatological judgement in view. As Krašovec concludes, “The very nature of God does not permit that judgment, in the sense of punishing an instance of human rebellion, could have a purpose other than establishment of truth, return of rebellious people to God, and restoration of God’s purpose in the sense 1 9. Byrne, Romans, emphasis added. 20. Longenecker, Romans. 21. In later stages of Greek the Future disappears entirely from such constructions, and final ὅπως clauses are in turn replaced by ἵνα: Robertson, Grammar, 985. 22. Tate, Psalms 51–100, 5–6, 17–18; Robert Alter, The Book of Psalms: A Translation with Commentary (New York: W. W. Norton, 2007), 181; Moo, Romans, 178; Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 152.

Epistolary Material | 177 of redemption.”23 The interpretation that the Future indicative tense-form brings the eschatological judgement into frame is correct insofar as Paul is concerned with final justice, but claims too much in stating that the grammatical distinction from the Aorist is what enacts this eschatological frame. Explicit future temporal reference is used in this clause to demonstrate that God’s final saving righteousness does not exclude and is not counter to his faithfulness in judgement.

Romans 9:33; 10:11 Isaiah 8:14 καὶ ἐὰν ἐπ᾿ αὐτῷ πεποιθὼς ᾖς, ἔσται σοι εἰς ἁγίασμα, καὶ οὐχ ὡς λίθου προσκόμματι συναντήσεσθε αὐτῷ οὐδὲ ὡς πέτρας πτώματι· And if you believe in him, he will be for you a sanctuary, and you will not encounter him as stumbling by a stone, or a fall by a rock.

Isaiah 28:16 διὰ τοῦτο οὕτως λέγει κύριος Ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ ἐμβαλῶ εἰς τὰ θεμέλια Σιων λίθον πολυτελῆ ἐκλεκτὸν ἀκρογωνιαῖον ἔντιμον εἰς τὰ θεμέλια αὐτῆς, καὶ ὁ πιστεύων ἐπ᾿ αὐτῷ οὐ μὴ καταισχυνθῇ. Therefore the Lord says, “Look, I will lay a precious, chosen stone for the foundation of Zion, a valuable cornerstone for its foundation, and the one who believes in it will not be put to shame.”

Romans 9:33 καθὼς γέγραπται· ἰδοὺ τίθημι ἐν Σιὼν λίθον προσκόμματος καὶ πέτραν σκανδάλου, καὶ ὁ πιστεύων ἐπ᾿ αὐτῷ οὐ καταισχυνθήσεται. As it is written, “Look, I set in Zion a stumbling stone and a rock of offense, but the one who believes in him will not be put to shame.” 23. Jože Krašovec, “Justification of God in his Word in Ps 51:6 and Rom 3:4,” VT 64 (2014): 433.

178 | Aspectual

Substitution

Romans 10:11 λέγει γὰρ ἡ γραφή· πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων ἐπ᾿ αὐτῷ οὐ καταισχυνθήσεται. 11

For the Scripture says: “No-one who believes in him will be put to shame.” 11

1 Peter 2:6 διότι περιέχει ἐν γραφῇ· ἰδοὺ τίθημι ἐν Σιὼν λίθον ἀκρογωνιαῖον ἐκλεκτὸν ἔντιμον καὶ ὁ πιστεύων ἐπ᾿ αὐτῷ οὐ μὴ καταισχυνθῇ. Because it stands in Scripture: “Look, I place in Zion a chosen and precious cornerstone, and the one who believes in him will not be put to shame.”

Table 6.2 Isaiah 28:16; Romans 9:33; 10:11; 1 Peter 2:6

Paul combines two verses from Isaiah in his quotation in Romans 9:33. Thus far in Romans 9 he has been dealing with faithfulness of God through,

Epistolary Material | 179 and in spite of, the history of the Israelite people. He argues that the word of God has not failed (9:6), nor is God unjust (9:14). The question “What then shall we say?” (9:30) sets up the discussion of δικαιοσύνη—and how it might be obtained—in Romans 9:30–33. Gentiles, Paul says, have received it—δικαιοσύ νην δὲ τὴν ἐκ πίστεως (9:30)—but Israel, having pursued it (διώκων, 9:31), has not (οὐκ ἔφθασεν). He goes on to say that they have stumbled over τῷ λίθῳ τοῦ προσκόμματος (9:32), which leads to the composite quotation in 9:33. Language concerning the “stone” motif is common throughout the New Testament (Matt 21:42; Mark 12:10–11; Luke 20:17–18; Acts 4:11; 1 Cor 3:11; Eph 2:20; this passage in Rom 9:33; 10:11; 1 Pet 2:6–8) where the referent is taken to be Jesus Christ. Some argue that the stone in Romans 9:33 is the Torah,24 but most commentators take it to be Jesus.25 The first half of this composite quotation in Romans 9:33 is sufficiently different from any known version of the OT to exclude it from consideration as a quotation. The initial clause ἰδοὺ τίθημι ἐν Σιὼν is somewhat similar to Ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ ἐμβαλῶ εἰς τὰ θεμέλια Σιων of Isaiah 28:16, but the expressions λίθον προσκόμματος and πέτραν σκανδάλου are drawn—with modifications—from similar phrases in Isaiah 8:14.26 The second portion (καὶ ὁ πιστεύων ἐπ᾿ αὐτῷ οὐ καταισχυνθήσεται), however, is almost identical to Isaiah 28:16. It is likely that the LXX is the source here rather than the MT, as the LXX has καταισχύνω for the MT ‫יָחִ ישׁ‬.27 The verbal change made in Romans 9:33 is the emphatic negation οὐ μὴ καταισχυνθῇ 24. For example, Barrett, Romans, 144–45; Paul W. Meyer, “Romans 10:4 and the End of the Law,” in The Divine Helmsman: Studies on God’s Control of Human Events, Presented to Lou H Silberman (New York: Ktav, 1980), 59–78; John E. Toews, Romans, BCBC (Scottdale, PA: Herald, 2004), 260–61. 25. For example, Steven Richard Bechtler, “Christ, the Τέλος of the of the Law: The Goal of Romans 10:4,” CBQ 56 (1994): 295; Arland J. Hultgren, Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011), 379; Käsemann, Romans, 278–79; Osborne, Romans, 262; Moo, Romans, 628–30; Thomas R. Schreiner, “Israel’s Failure to Attain Righteousness in Romans 9:30–10:3,” TrinJ 12 (1991): 214; Schreiner, Romans, 376. For some the reference is the gospel of Jesus, so Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, Anchor Bible 33 (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 579. 26. Hultgren, Romans, 379. Dietrich-Alex Koch suggests it could be drawn from a Greek manuscript already corrected towards the Hebrew text: Dietrich-Alex Koch, “The Quotations of Isaiah 8,14 and 28,16 in Romans 9,33 and 1 Peter 2,6.8 as Test Case for Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament,” ZNW 101 (2010): 230–31. 27. Moo, Romans, 629 n. 54; Schreiner, Romans, 651.

180 | Aspectual

Substitution

(with an Aorist subjunctive) substituted with the negated Future indicative οὐ καταισχυνθήσεται.28 The emphatic negation μή is omitted in both Romans 9:33 and 10:11. The shorter quotation in Romans 10:11 makes the same verbal substitution for καταισχύνω. In 10:11 Paul also adds πας, which is not found in the Isaiah 28:16, but is used by Paul to stress the universality of the gospel. This combination of Isaiah 8:14 and 28:26 also appears in 1 Peter 2:6, albeit without any aspectual substitution, leading a number of commentators to suppose an early Christian tradition of combined “stone” passages.29 This conclusion is not the only possibility, however: Hultgren suggests that Paul’s modified quotation could have taken root in the Roman church, where his christological reading would later have influenced Peter’s composition even in the absence of any other dependence of 1 Peter on Romans.30 Both Isaiah passages describe the Assyrian threat.31 “Shame” is often linked with judgement, and in Isaiah 28:16 the promise “will not be put to shame” refers to the deliverance from judgement the Lord will bring to those who believe (cf. Isa 28:17, “I will turn judgement into hope”).32 The emphatic negative construction with the Aorist subjunctive καταισχυνθῇ presents the removal of a prospective 28. Although Romans 9:33 reads καταισχυνθῇ as per Isaiah 28:16 in a handful of codices (D F G), the majority of witnesses change the Aorist subjunctive καταισχυνθῇ to the Future indicative καταισχυνθήσεται. 29. Notably C. H. Dodd, According to the Scriptures: The Sub-Structure of New Testament Theology (London: Nisbet, 1953), 41–43; Barnabas Lindars, New Testament Apologetic: The Doctrinal Significance of the Old Testament Quotations, 2nd ed. (London: SCM, 1973), 177–79. Stanley does not decide definitively between a written source and a common oral tradition, but terms the common source possibility “a virtual certainty”: Stanley, Language of Scripture, 122. Stanley also argues this thirdparty source must also be the locus of the two changes to the LXX: dropping μή; and changing καταισχυνθῇ to καταισχυνθήσεται. He outlines how Dietrich-Alex Koch suggests Paul intended to remove the emphatic element from the text, and cites other similar Pauline usage. Stanley finds this argument wanting, and because no manuscripts exist that have these changes separately he concludes the changes are not Paul’s but existed in the common source. Stanley, Language of Scripture, 125; cf. DietrichAlex Koch, Die Schrift als Zeuge des Evangeliums (Tübingen: Mohr, 1986), 115. 30. Hultgren, Romans, 380. Cf. also Seifrid, “Romans,” 652. Moo acknowledges the “stone testamonium” as a significant likelihood, but argues the particular way in which they are combined is probably Paul’s work: Moo, Romans, 629–30. 31. Osborne, Romans, 263. 32. Cf. Bultmann, TDNT, I, 189–90.

Epistolary Material | 181 judgement from the realm of possibility. “Shame” or “being put to shame” often refers to an eschatological judgement, and this is certainly Paul’s use of the term (cf. Rom 1:16; 5:5).33 When Paul employs this verb he alters the Aorist subjunctive to a Future indicative, and removes the emphatic μή from the clause. We have seen a change similar to this twice before: within a final ὅπως clause in Romans 3:4 (in the preceding section); and a closer parallel with the citation of the Decalogue in Matthew 19:18–19, Mark 10:19, Luke 18:20, and James 2:11. The Decalogue quotation is a closer parallel because there, as in Romans 9:33 and 10:11, negated Aorist subjunctives appear to function identically to negated Future indicatives. For those Gospel instances we concluded that both the Future and Aorist prohibitions were presented in summary form, generalized, and non-specific—practically identical in function. The Aorist subjunctive in this construction is future-referring, as is the Future indicative.34 This too appears to be the case for Isaiah 28:16 and Romans 9:33; 10:11 (and 1 Peter 2:6). Each of the envisioned situations—in which the believer(s) will not be put to shame—is prospective. Seifrid suggests that the LXX language ties this promise “to the larger theology of conflict and vindication in the book of Isaiah”—if this is the case then all these descriptions are −distinctive.35 Each clause represents the same event or situation with no semantic difference evident. Paul’s removal of the emphatic μή from the clause also does not appear to alter the sense—because the verb is in the passive voice, the negated Future indicative rules out the possibility of this situation from occurring. In this way the (passive) negated Future indicative operates just as an οὐ μή + Aorist subjunctive construction. In other quotations we have seen the addition or removal of a Future tenseform result in a change to future temporal reference of the clause. In Romans 9:33 (and/or 10:11) does the Future indicative result in a stronger future-referring statement? While the future judgement is in view in Romans 9:33 (so Dunn, Käsemann), it is not because Paul has chosen to use a Future indicative over an 33. Osborne, Romans, 263, citing Käsemann, Romans. Seifrid notes the end-times interpretation of Isaiah 8:14; 28:16 within Jewish tradition (although only separately; their combination appears to be unique to the early church): Seifrid, “Romans,” 652. Cf. b. Sanh. 38a; 1Q22 I, 5–11; 1QHa X, 8–10; 1QS VIII, 1–10. 34. Robertson approves terming instances of emphatic denial (οὐ μή + Aorist subjunctive) “as instances of the futuristic subjunctive”; Robertson, Grammar, 930. 35. Seifrid, “Romans,” 652. Cf. Isa 1:29; 20:4–5; 41:11; 42:17; 44:9–11; 45:16; 50:6–7; 54:4.

182 | Aspectual

Substitution

Aorist Subjunctive.36 In such constructions both refer to a future temporal frame, and depict the event perfectively. Future reference is inherent in both phrases, and is not created or added due to aspectual substitution. Because neither Isaiah 28:16 nor Romans 9:33 are commands, but rather promises, there is a distinction we can draw with the quotations of the Decalogue considered earlier. Aubrey noted that generalized injunctions normally require an imperfective prohibition, but negated Aorists can serve in non-specific or non-referential contexts.37 Isaiah 28:16 and Romans 9:33, by contrast, refer to a specific event: the future (eschatological) judgement. This demonstrates a common implicature of perfective aspect: that future event will not come to pass for believers in the “stone.” Both the Aorist subjunctive and the Future indicative refer to a particular event (albeit one that is promised never to occur). Given the constructions are not exactly identical—the emphatic future negative subjunctive from Isaiah is transformed to a negated Future in Romans—there is a possibility of the Future indicative form providing a certain level of emphasis. When considering the future this emphasis would effect a delicate underlining of the eschatological nature of the topic at hand. However this temporal frame is not created by the aspectual substitution, so if there is indeed a difference here it must be, if anything, extraordinarily subtle. In all other respects the Aorist subjunctive and Future indicative function equivalently in Isaiah 28:16 and Romans 9:33; 10:11. The Future indicative is an entirely appropriate conjugation to employ in order to depict a situation perfectively, with future temporal reference. These two tense-forms operate similarly not because the Future is modal in some sense like the subjunctive mood, but because the emphatic negative Aorist subjunctive is a future-referring construction.

Romans 11:2 1 Kingdoms 12:22 ὅτι οὐκ ἀπώσεται κύριος τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ διὰ τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ τὸ μέγα, ὅτι ἐπιεικέως κύριος προσελάβετο ὑμᾶς αὑτῷ εἰς λαόν. For the Lord will not reject his people because of his great name, for the Lord kindly took you to him for a people. 36. James D. G. Dunn, Romans 9–16, WBC 38B, 2nd ed. (Nashville: Nelson, 1988), 585; Käsemann, Romans. 37. Aubrey, “Greek Prohibitions,” 519. Cf. “Matthew 19:18 -19 || Mark 10:19 || Luke 18:20 || James 2:11,” p. 96.

Epistolary Material | 183

Psalm 93:14 (MT 94:14) ὅτι οὐκ ἀπώσεται κύριος τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ καὶ τὴν κληρονομίαν αὐτοῦ οὐκ ἐγκαταλείψει, For the Lord will not reject his people and his his heritage he will not abandon,

Romans 11:1–2 Λέγω οὖν, μὴ ἀπώσατο ὁ θεὸς τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ; μὴ γένοιτο· καὶ γὰρ ἐγὼ Ἰσραηλίτης εἰμί, ἐκ σπέρματος Ἀβραάμ, φυλῆς Βενιαμίν. 2 οὐκ ἀπώσατο ὁ θεὸς τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ ὃν προέγνω. 1

So I ask, “Has God rejected his people?” By no means! For I too am an Israelite, descended from Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin: 2 God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew. 1

Table 6.3 1 Kingdoms 12:22; Psalm 93:14; Romans 11:2

Paul draws on a number of scriptural passages in the opening verses of Romans 11 as part of considering God’s faithfulness to his covenant people. That not all of Israel has obeyed the gospel (Rom 10:11; 16) leads Paul to apply Isaiah 65:2—regarding a disobedient defiant people—to the nation of Israel (Rom 10:21). This

184 | Aspectual

Substitution

leads to the question, “Will God reject his people?” (11:1).38 Paul’s reply to this question—framed with μή and expecting a negative answer—is his characteristic strongly negated optative μὴ γένοιτο, backed up with a verse from the heritage he shares with Israel as an Israelite himself. Two verses form the background to Paul’s assurance of God’s care for his people: 1 Kingdoms 12:22 (1 Sam 12:22), and Psalm 93:14 (MT 94:14).39 The correspondence of Psalm 93:14 to 1 Kingdoms 12:22 is exact in both the LXX and MT; there is also no difference evident in translation from Hebrew to Greek. In particular the Future ἀπώσεται is, while rare, a natural choice for expressing the Yiqtol ‫יִטֹּ שׁ‬.40 Rahlfs lists no variants for Psalm 93:14.41 Given Paul’s common use of the LXX in quotations there is no reason to suppose that the altered verb form ἀπώσατο in Romans 11:2 derives from a unique translation of the Hebrew; more likely it is either a differently worded source text or a change introduced by Paul. An alternate source is in this case also unlikely, because there are no extant witnesses to any LXX variation. We have, therefore, an aspectual substitution in Romans 11:2: the Future active indicative ἀπώσεται (1 Kgdms 12:22; Ps 93:14) is replaced by an Aorist middle indicative ἀπώσατο (Rom 11:2). Samuel’s statement in 1 Kingdoms 12:22 is one of assurance of God’s faithfulness in the context of great wickedness (ἡ κακία ὑμῶν μεγάλη, 1 Kgdms 12:17; τὴν πᾶσαν κακίαν ταύτην, 12:20). The people sinned by asking for a king καθὰ καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ ἔθνη (8:5), and when confronted by Samuel in ­chapter 12 ask him to pray on their behalf so they would not be destroyed (Πρόσευξαι ὑπὲρ τῶν δούλων σου πρὸς κύριον θεόν σου, καὶ οὐ μὴ ἀποθάνωμεν, 12:19). Samuel’s response is one of assurance of God’s faithfulness: he will not reject them (οὐκ ἀπώσεται, 12:22) on account of his own name; his choice of his people will stand firm. The identical statement in Psalm 93:14 LXX conveys the same sentiment, but is addressed to a different audience. The recipient of this encouragement is one who is trying to be faithful to the Lord, who is “blessed” (μακάριος [‫]אַשׁ ֵרי‬, ְ Ps 93:12) in receiving the Lord’s discipline and instruction.42 Faced with opposition from the 38. Moo notes Paul’s common use of rhetorical questions in Romans to launch a new section: Moo, Romans, 671. Morris acknowledges the discussion about how these verses relate to the preceding material—whether it connects to reprobation in Romans 9; Romans 9:6 specifically; Romans 10:14–21; or elsewhere—and suggests that taking it as a general consequence of what he has said to this point is acceptable: Morris, Romans, 398. 39. Verse references below are to the LXX versification, except for when cited materials use the English/Hebrew numbering scheme. 40. Moo, Romans, 674. 41. Rahlfs, ed., Psalmi cum Odis, 244. 42. Tate, Psalms 51–100, 494.

Epistolary Material | 185 wicked (93:16–19) and their prosperity (93:3–7), the psalmist takes solace in the judge of the earth knowing all (93:2, 9–11), being faithful to his own people (93:14), being steadfast in his justice (93:15), and providing comfort in affliction (93:19). As Paul takes this verse and quotes it in Romans 11:2, the shared background between the two antecedent verses of God’s faithfulness and steadfastness is crucial. “Did God reject his people?” is the question prompted by the faithlessness and blindness of Israel in rejecting Jesus, but Paul assures his readers that God is the same faithful, knowing, comforting God. As Paul quotes this phrase, he substitutes the original Future tense-form with an Aorist tense-form. The Future indicative ἀπώσεται in the LXX verses functions as we have repeatedly seen the Future indicative function: it is perfective in aspect, and future in temporal reference. There is no sense of process about the future assurance of God. The possibility of him rejecting his people is considered in summary form, and ruled out as a possibility. In this instance the Future indicative has perfective aspect. The Future indicative ἀπώσεται also most certainly has future temporal reference, being a prediction of what is to come. This is clearest considering 1 Kingdoms 12:20–23, in which there are few temporal deictic markers. The prospective frame is created by Samuel’s commands to the people in 12:20–21 (negated Aorist subjunctives μὴ ἐκκλίνητε and μὴ παραβῆτε), and the definite future temporal reference of the promise οὐκ ἀπώσεται κύριος is mirrored by Samuel’s promise of what he will do in 12:23 (an infinitive oath formula combined with the Future indicatives δουλεύσω and δείξω). As negative injunctions these Aorist subjunctives in 12:20–21 have a prospective temporal frame, and the Future indicatives are also required to have inherent future temporal reference to suit the context already created. Paul, therefore, removes the explicit future temporal reference in this quotation by the Future–Aorist aspectual substitution. The effect in Romans 11:1–2 is to demonstrate that God was in fact faithful to this promise given in 1 Kingdoms 12:22/Psalm 93:14. Despite Israel’s history as a rebellious, stubborn people—who consistently failed to live by the covenant and had, in Paul’s day, largely rejected the gospel of the Messiah Jesus—God “has not rejected” (ἀπώσατο, Rom 11:2) his people. This is not an unexpected response of the Lord, as Paul’s following quotation from 3 Kingdoms demonstrates (Rom 11:3–4; see the following section). But Paul’s aspectual substitution means that he can look back on God’s interaction with Israel and declare that he has not rejected them, for a faithful remnant remains as chosen by grace at the present time (Rom 11:5).43 Despite 43. Michael Bird argues that the “present time” (ἐν τῷ νῦν καιρῷ, Rom 11:5) is essentially a theological era, the eschatological moment of salvation, “where grace invades the world to set free those enslaved to sin and death”: Bird, Romans, 382. This definition

186 | Aspectual

Substitution

the nation as a whole rejecting God, he has not rejected the nation of Israel. As Moo notes, “He changes the future ἀπώσεται to the aorist ἀπώσατο because he is thinking of the situation of Israel’s rejection of Christ that he has just depicted.”44 Paul himself is part of the nation to whom this promise was made, and his faith in Christ is demonstration of the faithfulness of God to his promise (cf. Rom 11:1). Paul’s Aorist–Future aspectual substitution allows him to efficiently speak of divine faithfulness and fulfillment of prophecy.

Romans 11:3–4 3 Kingdoms 19:10, 14, 18 καὶ εἶπεν Ηλιου Ζηλῶν ἐζήλωκα τῷ κυρίῳ παντοκράτορι, ὅτι ἐγκατέλιπόν σε οἱ υἱοὶ Ισραηλ· τὰ θυσιαστήριά σου κατέσκαψαν καὶ τοὺς προφήτας σου ἀπέκτειναν ἐν ῥομφαίᾳ, καὶ ὑπολέλειμμαι ἐγὼ μονώτατος, καὶ ζητοῦσι τὴν ψυχήν μου λαβεῖν αὐτήν […] 14 καὶ εἶπεν Ηλιου Ζηλῶν ἐζήλωκα τῷ κυρίῳ παντοκράτορι, ὅτι ἐγκατέλιπον τὴν διαθήκην σου οἱ υἱοὶ Ισραηλ· τὰ θυσιαστήριά σου καθεῖλαν καὶ τοὺς προφήτας σου ἀπέκτειναν ἐν ῥομφαίᾳ, καὶ ὑπολέλειμμαι ἐγὼ μονώτατος, καὶ ζητοῦσι τὴν ψυχήν μου λαβεῖν αὐτήν [… 15 καὶ εἶπεν κύριος πρὸς αὐτόν …] 18 καὶ καταλείψεις ἐν Ισραηλ ἑπτὰ χιλιάδας ἀνδρῶν, πάντα γόνατα, ἃ οὐκ ὤκλασαν γόνυ τῷ Βααλ, καὶ πᾶν στόμα, ὃ οὐ προσεκύνησεν αὐτῷ. 10

And Elijah said, “Being zealous, I was zealous for the Lord Almighty, because the sons of Israel forsook you. They destroyed your altars and killed your prophets with the sword, and I alone am left, and they seek my life to take it.” […] 14 And Elijah said, “Being zealous, I was zealous for the Lord Almighty, because the sons of Israel forsook your covenant. They tore down your altars and killed your prophets with the sword, and I alone am left, and they seek my life to take it.” […15 And the Lord said to him …] 18 “Leave seven thousand in Israel, all the knees which did not bend the knee to Baal, and all the mouths which did not revere him.” 10

neatly combines the prospective temporal frame of the original promise in the LXX, which rules out a perpetual, eschatological rejection, and how Paul can “look back” to the fulfillment of this promise in Israel’s history despite not yet being at the final judgement. 44. Moo, Romans, 674.

Epistolary Material | 187

Romans 11:2–4 ἢ οὐκ οἴδατε ἐν Ἠλίᾳ τί λέγει ἡ γραφή, ὡς ἐντυγχάνει τῷ θεῷ κατὰ τοῦ Ἰσραήλ; κύριε, τοὺς προφήτας σου ἀπέκτειναν, τὰ θυσιαστήριά σου κατέσκαψαν, κἀγὼ ὑπελείφθην μόνος καὶ ζητοῦσιν τὴν ψυχήν μου. 4 ἀλλὰ τί λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ χρηματισμός; κατέλιπον ἐμαυτῷ ἑπτακισχιλίους ἄνδρας, οἵτινες οὐκ ἔκαμψαν γόνυ τῇ Βάαλ. 2 3

Or do you not know what the Scripture says in [the passage about] Elijah, as he appeals to God against Israel? 3 “Lord, they killed your prophets, destroyed your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life.” 4 But what is the divine reply? “I have kept for myself seven thousand who did not bow the knee to Baal.” 2

Table 6.4 3 Kingdoms 19:10, 14, 18; Romans 11:2–4

188 | Aspectual

Substitution

Paul continues from his assertion that God has not rejected his people (Rom 11:1–2) by drawing together quotations from the example of Elijah (Rom 11:3–4). By this he cements his assertion that God remains faithful. Paul draws on Elijah’s narrative (cf. the elliptical phrase ἐν Ἠλίᾳ, 11:2) wherein Elijah complains to God about the faithlessness of the nation of Israel. A sentence that appears in almost identical form in 3 Kingdoms 19:10, 14 is quoted in Romans 11:3, and a much less direct quotation of 3 Kingdoms 19:18 appears in Romans 11:4. Paul employs this episode from the Elijah narrative to draw attention to the notion of a remnant of Israel as a proof of God’s faithfulness. As Byrne says, “Elijah hardly serves as a type for Paul vis-à-vis the Israel of his own day; Paul cites the Elijah episode to introduce the motif of the “remnant,” which is the principal support at this point for the principle that God has not rejected his people (vv 1a; 2a).”45 The relationship of the LXX 3–4 Kingdoms to its Hebrew Vorlage is complicated, with 3 Kingdoms especially showing a great deal of textual variation, and significant recensional activity obscuring the textual history further.46 Scholars have proposed a number of solutions, yet have largely concluded that LXX 3 Kingdoms is a witness to a proto-MT. The section of Kingdoms with which we are concerned is commonly termed γγ (3 Kgdms 2:12–21:43), a section “that by all accounts escaped the hand of the so-called proto-Theodotionic reviser.”47 In a study concerning the Elijah narrative, however, Hugo argued the MT is not only a later edition than the Hebrew Vorlage of 3 Kingdoms LXX, but the MT is an intentionally edited version of this proto-MT along the same lines that recensions of

4 5. Byrne, Romans, 334. 46. Timothy Michael Law, “3–4 Kingdoms (1–2 Kings),” in T&T Clark Companion to the Septuagint, ed. James K. Aitken (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015), 148; Timothy Michael Law, “How Not to Use 3 Reigns: A Plea to Scholars of the Books of Kings,” VT 61 (2011): 280–97. 47. Christopher D. Stanley, “The Significance of Romans 11:3–4 for the Text History of the LXX Book of Kingdoms,” JBL 112 (1993): 48; cf. H. St. J. Thackeray, “The Greek Translators of the Four Books of Kings,” JTS 8 (1907): 262–78. Proto-Theodotion refers to the theoretical revised Septuagint apparently used in the recensional work of Theodotion: cf. Jan Joosten, “New Light on Proto-Theodotion: The Psalms of Solomon and the Milieu of the Kaige Recension,” in Die Septuaginta: Geschichte, Wirkung, Relevanz, eds. Martin Meiser et al. (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018), 304–15.

Epistolary Material | 189 the LXX were made in later centuries.48 The textual issues are many and complex, and the above brief excursus aims simply to highlight the particular difficulties associated with determining textual relationships and history in 3–4 Kingdoms, and how simple appeal to translation technique is insufficient.49 In light of such considerations scholars conclude that Paul quotes the LXX in Romans 11:3–4, or a related revised Greek text,50 albeit with some peculiarities of his own. Paul’s quotation of 3 Kingdoms 19:10, 14 in Romans 11:3 is introduced formally, albeit unusually, by the phrase ἢ οὐκ οἴδατε ἐν Ἠλίᾳ τί λέγει ἡ γραφή (Rom 11:2). This serves to situate what follows as a scriptural citation. The differences in wording are numerous, but not significant in altering the sense of the quotation. Paul adds the vocative κύριε in Romans 11:3, an address not found in any OT text of Elijah’s speech. He then reverses the order of the following phrases, abbreviating the line concerning τοὺς προφήτας σου in such a way that it mirrors the following line about altars. It is unclear why the lines are reversed,51 but Stanley reasonably argues that ἐν ῥομφαίᾳ was unnecessary in Paul’s context and its elimination produces a neat verbal parallelism.52 The only difference between 3 Kingdoms 19:10 and 19:14 is the reference to altars: 19:10 reads τὰ θυσιαστήριά σου κατέσκαψαν, 19:14 reads καθεῖλαν. Paul adopts the former verb in his quotation. Moo calls the LXX in these verses an “overly literal Greek reading,” and says Paul removed some of its awkwardness.53 This is likely the reason for removing the complementary infinitive λαβεῖν from the end of the verse in Romans 11:3—this is a Semitic construction, with the pronoun αὐτήν referring back past the infinitive to τὴν ψυχήν μου (i.e., a very “literal” translation of the common Hebrew ‫לְ קַ חְ ָ ֽתה‬, an unnecessary construction in Greek). In Romans 11:3 the remaining differences between the LXX and Paul’s quotation concern the verb ὑπολείπω: the Perfect passive indicative ὑπολέλειμμαι in 3 Kingdoms 19:10, 14; and an Aorist passive indicative ὑπελείφθην in Romans 9:33. The Perfect tense-form is hotly contested in contemporary Koine Greek 48. Law, “3–4 Kingdoms (1–2 Kings),” 158; P. Hugo, Les deux visages d’Élie: Texte massorétique et Septante dans l’historie la plus ancienne de 1 Rois 17–18, OBO 217 (Göttingen: Vanderhoeck & Ruprecht, 2006). 49. Law, “How Not to Use 3 Reigns,” 281. 50. So Stanley, Language of Scripture, 147–58. 51. The reversal is possibly for emphasis concerning a more relevant example in Paul’s day: Koch, Die Schrift, 74 n. 83; Moo, Romans, 676 n. 26. 52. Stanley, Language of Scripture, 150. 53. Moo, Romans, 676 n. 26.

190 | Aspectual

Substitution

studies, and an investigation into just one instance will not provide significant conclusions one way or another. All of the currently proposed aspectual models for the Perfect provide, in this instance, some explanatory power. The view that the Perfect tense-form has a combinative aspect and essentially operates according to the traditional temporal understanding (i.e., a past action with continuing effects) works well in this instance.54 Elijah confronts God with the demonstrated actions of Israel, in that they tore down the altars and killed the (rest of the) prophets (i.e., a past action) and only he remains (the continuing consequence). Stanley Porter’s argument that the Perfect tense-form expresses stative aspect also explains this instance: Elijah is the very expression of the state of affairs of being the only remaining prophet.55 Finally Campbell’s proposal that the Perfect is imperfective in aspect, and heightened in prominence also offers explanatory power. The description of his state of affairs, Campbell says, is a natural implicature of imperfective aspect; furthermore the heightened prominence of the Perfect tenseform mirrors the superlative μονώτατος, highlighting what Elijah considers to be the most personally significant element of Israel’s apostasy.56 What then can we make of the aspectual substitution here, in which a Perfect tense-form is replaced by an Aorist?57 The various proposals for the Perfect tense-form have in common their recognition of the prominence of this form, due to its semantic value (Campbell), morphological and distributional markedness (Porter), or discourse function (Runge, et al.). Shifting to a bare Aorist tense-form, therefore, appears to alter the prominence of this situation, subtly moving our focus elsewhere. The significance in Paul’s account of Elijah as he quotes this verse is not the personal 54. For example, Ellis, Aubrey and Dubis, “The Greek Verbal System,” 60–61; Ellis, “Aspect-Prominence.” 55. Porter, Verbal Aspect, 257–58. 56. Campbell, Non-Indicative Verbs, 210. 57. This change may or may not be a motivated alteration to the quotation by Paul. He could deliberately alter and abbreviate, as Moo acknowledges; or, as Stanley argues, he could be using an alternative Vorlage that either ante-dates, or reflects a revision of, the LXX: Stanley, Language of Scripture, 151. If Stanley is correct and the Aorist ὑπελείφθην is found in Paul’s Vorlage, then Paul does not perform the aspectual substitution but faithfully quotes it: Stanley, “Significance of Romans 11:3–4,” 49. Paul does, however (in this supposed version of the textual history), diverge from the “Lucianic” tradition that follows καὶ … ἐγὼ μονώματος and instead reads κἀγὼ … μόνος. This alteration mirrors the aspectual substitution from Perfect to Aorist as described below. In either case, then, we can assess the rhetorical impact of the aspectual substitution on the 3 Kingdoms and Romans contexts, regardless of who it was that made the substitution originally.

Epistolary Material | 191 situation of Elijah; Paul’s focus, rather, is on God’s sovereign care and his reservation of a remnant. The change from the superlative μονώτατος to the plain μόνος echoes this reduction in prominence. This reservation of a remnant is what Paul turns to in what commentators refer to as his rather free quotation of 3 Kingdoms 19:18 in Romans 11:4.58 Stanley’s argument concerning the textual history of this verse is quite compelling, and has implications for our study of the verb κατέλιπον. He notes the discussion amongst textual historians of 3–4 Kingdoms regarding the “Lucianic” minuscules (b o c2 e2)—manuscripts in which a different textual tradition is most evident— and how they relate to the proto-Theodotionic recension activity.59 Importantly for our discussion, these “Lucianic” texts have some differences from the LXX version, but have those differences in common with Paul. The second-person to first-person change in the verb καταλείπω is common to Paul and these other textual witnesses, as is the substitution of ἔκαμψαν for ὤκλασαν. They diverge at other points in the verse. Stanley judges these changes—especially the latter change to ὤκλασαν—as unlikely to occur in the same way in isolation from one another, and so he argues that both Paul and the “Lucianic” texts drew from a common Greek Vorlage tradition.60 This tradition apparently opted for a first-person verb (so κατέλιπον over καταλείψεις) as a better translation for the first-person Hiphil ‫אַר ִתּי‬ ְ ‫וְ הִ ְשׁ‬. The textual issues remain very complicated, but Stanley concludes, However the textual issue is resolved, it seems clear that deviations from the majority reading of the LXX in Rom 11.4 should be attributed to Paul only when there is reason to believe that the wording in question cannot be traced to the use of a minority tradition. This is clearly not the case with the substitution of κατέλιπον for καταλείψεις in the first line of the citation. Since the “Lucianic” manuscripts b c2 e2 show the same first-person singular reading as Rom 11.4, this much at least should be attributed to the developing manuscript tradition.61

The change in aspect, however, is unique to Paul.62 For our purposes in this verse, investigating verbal changes in quotation, Paul is doing one of two things: either he 58. For example, Byrne states Romans 11:4 “is based upon 1 Kgs 19:18 but in fact bears little resemblance to the expression of the LXX”: Byrne, Romans, 334. 59. The exact textual relationship and ensuing scholarly discussion is beyond the scope of this section, but for details see Stanley, “Significance of Romans 11:3–4,” esp. 44–46. 60. Stanley, Language of Scripture, 153–56. 61. Stanley, Language of Scripture, 154. 62. Textual witnesses are divided between the Present and Aorist forms here, although the significant manuscripts ‫ א‬B D Ψ 1881 in addition to the Majority Text leans

192 | Aspectual

Substitution

quotes from the LXX and makes all of the above changes to the Future καταλείψεις resulting in the Aorist κατέλιπον of Romans 11:4; or he quotes from the “developing manuscript tradition” and changes a Future καταλείψω to the Aorist κατέλιπον.63 In either case we have aspectual substitution. This Future–Aorist substitution is of the same order as the similar substitution already seen in Romans 11:2. The Lord’s statement to Elijah is prospective and in summary form: the Future, again, displays perfective aspect and definite future temporal reference. The Future tense-form is a contrast to Elijah’s own assessment of his situation that he is the only remaining prophet, and arguably the only ­remaining faithful Israelite. Paul—as he stands at his point in history and reflects on E ­ lijah’s story as a whole—can make summary statements about what for Elijah were ­future events. Similarly to his assertion that God will not reject his people, Paul’s change from the Future καταλείψεις to the Aorist κατέλιπον is a comment on God’s fulfillment of his promises. The same perfective aspectual value is retained, but explicit tense is removed to make a broader statement appropriate to his time. God’s promise of reserving people faithful to him was accomplished, and ultimately pointed forward to the present time (Rom 11:5) where a faithful remnant remains, chosen by God’s grace.

1 Corinthians 5:13 Deuteronomy 17:7 καὶ ἡ χεὶρ τῶν μαρτύρων ἔσται ἐπ᾿ αὐτῷ ἐν πρώτοις θανατῶσαι αὐτόν, καὶ ἡ χεὶρ παντὸς τοῦ λαοῦ ἐπ᾿ ἐσχάτων· ἐξαρεῖς τὸν πονηρὸν ἐξ ὑμῶν αὐτῶν. The hand of the witnesses will be the first against him to put him to death, and the hand of all the people last. Remove the evil one from among you.

slightly in favor of the Aorist reading adopted by the Nestle-Aland editors. As they note, the transmission of the Present κατέλειπον in the other major codices could easily have occurred through itacism (the substitution of letters with the same phonetic value). See NA28, Rom 11:4. 63. Only one manuscript in the “Lucianic” tradition agrees with Paul in κατέλιπον over καταλείψω, MS 1, and it follows the majority tradition for the remainder of the verse save for also substituting ἔκαμψαν for ὤκλασαν: Stanley, “Significance of Romans 11:3–4,” 48.

Epistolary Material | 193

Deuteronomy 19:19 καὶ ποιήσετε αὐτῷ ὃν τρόπον ἐπονηρεύσατο ποιῆσαι κατὰ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐξαρεῖς τὸν πονηρὸν ἐξ ὑμῶν αὐτῶν. You must do to him what he plotted to do against his brother, and remove the evil one from among you.

Deuteronomy 21:21 καὶ λιθοβολήσουσιν αὐτὸν οἱ ἄνδρες τῆς πόλεως αὐτοῦ ἐν λίθοις, καὶ ἀποθανεῖται· καὶ ἐξαρεῖς τὸν πονηρὸν ἐξ ὑμῶν αὐτῶν, καὶ οἱ ἐπίλοιποι ἀκούσαντες φοβηθήσονται. The men of his city will stone him with stones, and he will die. Remove the evil one from among you, and the others will be afraid when they hear.

Deuteronomy 22:21 καὶ ἐξάξουσιν τὴν νεᾶνιν ἐπὶ τὰς θύρας οἴκου πατρὸς αὐτῆς, καὶ λιθοβολήσουσιν αὐτὴν οἱ ἄνδρες τῆς πόλεως αὐτῆς ἐν λίθοις, καὶ ἀποθανεῖται, ὅτι ἐποίησεν ἀφροσύνην ἐν υἱοῖς Ισραηλ ἐκπορνεῦσαι τὸν οἶκον τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτῆς· καὶ ἐξαρεῖς τὸν πονηρὸν ἐξ ὑμῶν αὐτῶν. They will bring the young woman to her father’s doors, and the men of her city will stone her with stones, and she will die, for she acted foolishly in Israel in prostituting her father’s house. Remove the evil one from among you.

Deuteronomy 22:24 ἐξάξετε ἀμφοτέρους ἐπὶ τὴν πύλην τῆς πόλεως αὐτῶν, καὶ λιθοβοληθήσονται ἐν λίθοις καὶ ἀποθανοῦνται· τὴν νεᾶνιν, ὅτι οὐκ ἐβόησεν ἐν τῇ πόλει, καὶ τὸν ἄνθρωπον, ὅτι ἐταπείνωσεν τὴν γυναῖκα τοῦ πλησίον· καὶ ἐξαρεῖς τὸν πονηρὸν ἐξ ὑμῶν αὐτῶν. Bring both of them to the gate of their city, and stone them with stones and they will die: the young woman, because she did not cry out in the city, and the man, because he humiliated his neighbor’s woman. Remove the evil one from among you.

Deuteronomy 24:7 Ἐὰν δὲ ἁλῷ ἄνθρωπος κλέπτων ψυχὴν τῶν ἀδελφῶν αὐτοῦ τῶν υἱῶν Ισραηλ καὶ καταδυναστεύσας αὐτὸν ἀποδῶται, ἀποθανεῖται ὁ κλέπτης ἐκεῖνος· καὶ ἐξαρεῖς τὸν πονηρὸν ἐξ ὑμῶν αὐτῶν.

194 | Aspectual

Substitution

If a man is caught kidnapping one of his fellow Israelites and, having overpowered him then sells him, that thief must die. Remove the evil one from among you.

1 Corinthians 5:13 τί γάρ μοι τοὺς ἔξω κρίνειν; οὐχὶ τοὺς ἔσω ὑμεῖς κρίνετε; 13 τοὺς δὲ ἔξω ὁ θεὸς κρινεῖ. ἐξάρατε τὸν πονηρὸν ἐξ ὑμῶν αὐτῶν. 12

What is it to me to judge those outside? Do you not judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside. Remove the evil one from among you. 12

Table 6.5 Deuteronomy 17:7; 19:19; 21:21; 22:21; 22:24; 24:7; 1 Corinthians 5:13

Paul concludes his chapter on how the church ought to deal with a man engaged in an egregious example of πορνεία (καὶ τοιαύτη πορνεία ἥτις οὐδὲ ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, 1 Cor 5:1) with a scriptural injunction drawn from Deuteronomy: ἐξάρατε τὸν πονηρὸν ἐξ ὑμῶν αὐτῶν (1 Cor 5:13). The quotation is not marked with an introductory formula, leading some to deny that it is a scriptural quotation.64 The citation is, however, essentially a word-perfect quotation for a phrase that appears several times in Deuteronomy, leading Hays to write that “the scriptural command is treated as a self-evidently valid word addressed immediately to these Gentiles.”65 In the law code of Deuteronomy this phrase is an “expulsion

64. Cf. Brian S. Rosner, Paul, Scripture and Ethics: A Study of 1 Corinthians 5–7 (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 61–64, against Longenecker, Ulonska, and Zaas who term it an allusion: Richard N. Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis, 94; Herbert Ulonska, “Die Funktion der alttestamentlichen Zitate und Anspielungen in den paulinischen Briefen” (PhD diss., University of Münster, 1963); Peter Stuart Zaas, “ ‘Cast Out the Evil Man from your Midst’ (1 Cor 5:13b),” JBL 103 (1984): 259–61. 65. Hays, Echoes, 97; cf. Richard B. Hays, First Corinthians (Westminster: John Knox, 2011), 91.

Epistolary Material | 195 formula”66 that comes at the end of several sections describing punishment designated for breaking the covenant. Several antecedent texts are possible: the phrase ἐξαρεῖς τὸν πονηρὸν ἐξ ὑμῶν αὐτῶν appears identically in Deuteronomy 17:7;19:19; 21:21; 22:21; 22:24; 24:7.67 Uncertainty regarding the exact antecedent is common,68 so many commentators cite Deuteronomy 17:7 as the source and note the repetition throughout the book.69 Two of the examples of this formula in Deuteronomy concern the expulsion of a sexual offender from the people of Israel, making the Deuteronomy 22:21; 22:24 references marginally more likely than the others to be the antecedent context at the forefront of Paul’s mind.70 It is probably best, however, to simply note that Paul draws on a common formula from the LXX of Deuteronomy.71 That 1 Corinthians 5:13 quotes the LXX is likely due to the use of ἐξαίρω, which is a NT hapax legomenon.72

66. “Die biblish-sakralrechtliche Exkommunikationsformel”: Peter Artz-Grabner et al., 1. Korinther: Papyrologische Kommentare zum Neuen Testament, Band 2 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2006), 221. 67. Deuteronomy 13:5 reads καὶ ἀφανιεῖς τὸν πονηρὸν ἐξ ὑμῶν αὐτῶν. 68. See for example Stanley’s questions arising from multiple possible texts: Christopher D. Stanley, “Paul’s ‘Use’ of Scripture: Why the Audience Matters,” in As it is Written: Studying Paul’s Use of Scripture, eds. Stanley E. Porter and Christopher D. Stanley (Atlanta: SBL, 2008), 126. 69. For example, Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 417; David E. Garland, First Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003), 191; Hans Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians: A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), 102. 70. Guy Prentiss Waters, “Curse Redux? 1 Corinthians 5:13, Deuteronomy, and Identity in Corinth,” WTJ 77 (2015): 239–40. 71. The texts of the LXX read ἐξαρεῖς in most manuscripts. A handful of texts read alternative conjugations, for example, Deut 17:7 has witnesses to εξαιρειτε (83 59); εξαιρειται (319); εξαρειτε (19 30,—ρηται 707). The number of variants is different for each of these verses in Deuteronomy, but in every case they are definitely minority witnesses. For all cases of this formula in Deuteronomy the only witness to εξαρατε is 1 Corinthians 5:13. Some variation is evident in the NT manuscript tradition, with minor variants reading as the Present εξαιρετε or Future εξαρειτε. The strongest manuscript support—‫ א‬A B C D* F G P Ψ 33. 81. 104. 365. 1175. 2464—is for the Aorist imperative ἐξάρατε as given in NA28. 72. Rosner, Paul, Scripture and Ethics, 63; cf. also Artz-Grabner et al., 1 Korinther, 221.

196 | Aspectual

Substitution

Rosner argues that Paul teaches the Corinthian church that they should exclude the man from their community, on the basis of relevant OT texts on exclusion: “Breach of the covenant, guilt by association, and the maintenance of holiness are thus three major reasons for exclusion from the community taught in Scripture.”73 He argues that the ethical imperative of 1 Corinthians 5 rests on these same bases in a Christian ecclesiological context: the covenant obligations find a point of contact with the vice list (1 Cor 5:11); corporate responsibility is emphasized in Paul’s instructions to the group (1 Cor 5:2, 4, 6, 7; second-person plural address passim.); and holiness is a recurrent theme in 1 Corinthians, with the holiness of the church as God’s temple (1 Cor 3:16–17) forming the basis of handing the man over to Satan (1 Cor 5:5).74 David Smith, in an exhaustive study of curse and exclusion formulae (focussed especially on 1 Cor 5:5), concludes that Paul is calling for both excluding and cursing the man: The contention of this present study is that in 1 Corinthians 5, Paul calls for the cursing and exclusion of a sexually immoral Corinthian. Furthermore, the phrase παραδοῦναι τὸν τοιοῦτον τῷ σατανᾷ contains an implicit curse, due to its resonance with the cross-cultural tradition of cursing, and because of Satan’s role in causing physical suffering and death; while Paul’s words εἰς ὄλεθρον τῆς σαρκός make this curse explicit. The errant Corinthian is a threat to the purity, or holiness, of the community, and his sin must cease—or it will place the whole community in peril.75

With the exception of Deuteronomy 19:19, each of the antecedent texts that contain the phrase ἐξαρεῖς τὸν πονηρὸν ἐξ ὑμῶν αὐτῶν include the death penalty as a response. Waters understands Paul to connect the death penalty typologically to its fulfillment in cursing Christ on the cross;76 contemporaries of Paul applied the command to put the sinner to death by simply excluding them from the 73. Rosner, Paul, Scripture and Ethics, 68. Exclusion as an interpretation of Paul’s teaching is also found in Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014), 227, Garland, First Corinthians, 191, and Thiselton, 1 Corinthians, 418. 74. Rosner, Paul, Scripture and Ethics, 68–75. This argument is also made in shorter form in Roy E. Ciampa and Brian S. Rosner, The First Letter to the Corinthians, PNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010); Roy E. Ciampa and Brian S. Rosner, “1 Corinthians,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, 695–752. 75. David Raymond Smith, “Hand This Man Over to Satan”: Curse, Exclusion and Salvation in 1 Corinthians 5, LNTS 386 (London: T&T Clark, 2009), 118. 76. Waters, “Curse Redux,” 249.

Epistolary Material | 197 community.77 Whether Paul commands a transformation of the death penalty to the eschatological community or a mere representative expulsion, the action is to be a communal one. The plural verb signifies that “excommunication is not an apostolic prerogative; if it is to be exercised at all, it must be exercised by the whole community, in whose hands (under Christ) authority lies.”78 The substitution that Paul makes, then, is from a Future indicative ἐξαρεῖς in Deuteronomy 17:7 (and parallels) to the Aorist imperative ἐξάρατε in 1 Corinthians 5:13. We have seen this transformation in reverse in the preceding chapter: the Aorist imperative levirate marriage commands (γάμβρευσαι; ἀνάστησον) in Genesis 38:8 are reframed by the Sadducees as Future indicatives (ἐπιγαμβρεύσει; ἀναστήσει) in Matthew 22:24. For that instance we concluded that the Future indicative had the same imperatival force of the Aorist imperative of Genesis 38:8, and retained the same perfective aspect. Both forms are equivalent ways of expressing a command relating to a prospective event. 1 Corinthians 5:13 displays the opposite change, from a Future indicative to an Aorist imperative. The Future indicative throughout Deuteronomy is certainly imperatival in sense, and therefore necessarily prospective—it refers to the action the community must then take consequent on the judgement rendered against the covenant breaker. The action is also specific, relating to a particular individual who broke the covenant in a certain way. This is a common pragmatic usage for perfective imperatival constructions: the scope of the command relates to a certain situation, reflecting a complete view of the envisaged action. The deuteronomic expulsion formula operates just as we would expect a perfective imperative to operate elsewhere. The Future indicative has imperatival force. Does substitution of this imperatival Future indicative with an Aorist imperative have any other shade of significance? Rosner suggests that the change is “to suit the epistolary context,” although it is not entirely clear why such a context would better suit an Aorist imperative.79 It does not appear in this case that there is any significance to removing the future temporal reference in substituting another form for the Future indicative, because the Aorist imperative naturally has a prospective outlook given its volitional nature. A command to act, especially in a particular situation envisaged by the perfective aspect of the Aorist, is necessarily something that lies in the future for the recipient of the command. It is conceivable that the Aorist imperative 7 7. See Ciampa and Rosner, “1 Corinthians,” 709. 78. C. K. Barrett, 1 Corinthians, BNTC, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1971), 133. 79. Ciampa and Rosner, “1 Corinthians,” 220.

198 | Aspectual

Substitution

in 1 Corinthians 5:13 is a more immediate command for the church than the prescriptions in Deuteronomy, which outlined what future steps must be taken when confronted with a particular legal case. Given the manner in which we have seen future temporal reference added or removed from the depiction of an event by aspectual substitution elsewhere, this subtle shift in focus is possible. It should not be pressed though, and the primary point of connection between the tense-forms ought to remain. The Future indicative in Deuteronomy’s expulsion formula is imperatival in sense, prospective in temporal orientation, perfective in aspect, and constitutes a command to act in a particular set of circumstances to exclude a sinful person from the covenant community, just as the Aorist imperative does.

Hebrews 8:5 Exodus 25:40 ὅρα ποιήσεις κατὰ τὸν τύπον τὸν δεδειγμένον σοι ἐν τῷ ὄρει. Be sure that you make them according to the pattern shown to you on the mountain.

Hebrews 8:5 οἵτινες ὑποδείγματι καὶ σκιᾷ λατρεύουσιν τῶν ἐπουρανίων, καθὼς κεχρημάτισται Μωϋσῆς μέλλων ἐπιτελεῖν τὴν σκηνήν· ὅρα γάρ φησιν, ποιήσεις πάντα κατὰ τὸν τύπον τὸν δειχθέντα σοι ἐν τῷ ὄρει. These serve as an example and shadow of the heavenly things, just as Moses was warned when he was about to complete the tabernacle: “Be sure”, he said, “that you make them according to the pattern shown to you on the mountain.”

Table 6.6 Exodus 25:40; Hebrews 8:5

Epistolary Material | 199 The author of the Letter to the Hebrews uses the first few verses of ­chapter 8 to summarize his argument thus far for the superiority of Jesus’s high priesthood over the Levitical order. The main thing (κεφάλαιον, Heb 8:1) he wants to outline is that Jesus is a high priest not constrained by mortality, who serves in the heavenly sanctuary and sits at the right hand of the Lord God (8:1–2, cf. 7:23–24). The author quotes from Exodus 25:40 to reinforce his assertion that the earthly gifts and offerings made by priests on earth (ἐπὶ γῆς, 8:4) are a copy and shadow of the heavenly things (οἵτινες ὑποδείγματι καὶ σκιᾷ λατρεύουσιν τῶν ἐπουρανίων, 8:5). The quotation from Exodus 25:40 is a warning from God to Moses as he is shown how he is to build and furnish the tabernacle. It concerns the immediately preceding items—the lampstand and associated utensils—but could also refer to the wider set of instructions.80 The author of Hebrews evidently took this warning in this wider sense, as he quotes Exodus 25:40 as a summary in the context of comparing an man-made tabernacle with the heavenly tabernacle.81 The textual evidence shows Hebrews 8:5 to be secure in its reading. Exodus 25:40 does read δειχθέντα (as in Hebrews 8:5) in some recension groups, primarily the Origenic recension, and some individual manuscripts.82 It is difficult to determine whether the author of Hebrews would have access to a text from this recensional tradition or from the majority LXX tradition, so this instance of aspectual substitution perhaps ought to be taken lightly as its provenance is less clear than other instances. Aside from the verbal change (δεδειγμένον to δειχθέντα) the only variation in Hebrews 8:5 is the addition of πάντα.83 Philo also makes this change

80. Durham, Exodus, 365; Alan C. Mitchell, Hebrews, SP 13 (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2009), 162. 81. David Peterson, Hebrews and Perfection: An Examination of the Concept of Perfection in the Epistle to the Hebrews, SNTSMS 47 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 130–31. 82. Wevers, ed., Exodus, 293. On one other occasion Hebrews references Exodus and arguably follows the Origenic recension—Hebrews 4:4, referring to Exodus 20:11— but deriving any pattern from a quotation as free as this one is unwise. Hebrews 4:4 reads κατέπαυσεν ὁ θεὸς ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ ἑβδόμῃ; the Göttingen LXX reads κατέπαυσεν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ ἑβδόμῃ at Exodus 20:11. The Origenic recension inserts ἐν, which the Hebrews quotation follows, although this is also a natural alteration for the author of Hebrews to make. The author of Hebrews also makes other changes to this quotation. Cf. Wevers, ed., Exodus, 242. 83. Luke Timothy Johnson, Hebrews: A Commentary, NTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2006), 200.

200 | Aspectual

Substitution

when he quotes this verse in Alleg. Interp. 3.102; QE 2.52.84 While this leads some to suggest that both writers may have used the same variant LXX text, it could be a natural addition given πάντα is included in the similar command of Exodus 25:9, and Philo does not include it when he quotes it elsewhere in QE 2.83, 90.85 This connection to Philo and the platonic-sounding language of a heavenly τύπος is what exercises many scholars in their interpretation of this passage. Philo, unsurprisingly, interprets this passage from Exodus in a thoroughly platonic way. For Philo, Moses was “the recipient not of shadows but of the actual archetypes” for he “saw with the soul’s eye the immaterial forms of the material objects about to be made.”86 This earthly tent would allow the contemplation of the ideal form—it is thus a useful means of accessing the world of ideas rather than an inferior version of a heavenly reality.87 While the language of Hebrews 8:5 superficially corresponds to Platonic idealism,88 the author of Hebrews does not employ these terms in a thoroughgoing philosophical way. For the author, the connection between the earthly sanctuary and the heavenly is a temporal one: as Bruce says, the earthly tabernacle is a “shadow” (σκιᾷ, 8:5) because “the whole Levitical order foreshadowed the spiritual order of the new age.”89 Peterson argues similarly, contending that the connection between the heavenly model and the earthly copy is “eschatologically controlled, rather than philosophically inspired.”90 This perspective helps to understand the aspectual substitution made by the author of Hebrews. The aspectual substitution made in Hebrews 8:5 is the replacement of one participial form of δειχνύμι for another. The passive Perfect participle δεδειγμένον in Exodus 25:40 is exchanged for a passive Aorist participle δειχθέντα in Hebrews 84. Regarding the source discussion just above, note that Philo quotes the LXX tradition that includes the Perfect participle, but agrees with the author of Hebrews on πάντα. 85. Craig R. Koester, Hebrews: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (New York: Doubleday, 2001), 378; James P. Thompson, Hebrews, Paideia (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 174. 86. Philo, Moses 2.72; Planting 27; Alleg. Interp. 3.102; cf. Philip Edgcumbe Hughes, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977). 87. Gareth Lee Cockerill, The Epistle to the Hebrews, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 361–62. 88. In Attic Greek the heavenly exemplars are the παραδείγματα, while their earthly copies are the υποδείγματα: F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), 165 n. 25. 89. Bruce, Hebrews, 166. 90. Peterson, Hebrews and Perfection, 132.

Epistolary Material | 201 8:5. The quotation is made to express the exact same event, so these uses are −distinctive in Bache’s terms. What is the effect of this change? On occasions where commentators reflect on this substitution at all, they tend to suggest it is either a temporal shift in perspective or an elimination of the continuing significance of the event. Neither suggestion satisfactorily explains why the author of Hebrews quotes this verse in the manner in which he does. A temporal explanation derives from a traditional view of the Perfect, or the temporal implications of the “combinative aspect” position.91 This understanding of the Perfect as representing a past event with continuing relevance extends to both the indicative and the participle—Campbell notes that this is one area in which the “no tense outside the indicative mood” rule is traditionally bent.92 Taking the perfect participle this way, and acknowledging its adjectival function specifying τὸν τύπον, two options are possible. First, a purely temporal relationship exists: the plan was shown to Moses on the mountain, and still has an effect at the time of this warning in Exodus 25:40.93 A second possibility is closely related, but pictures the present contingent effect in slightly less stark terms: the plan was shown to Moses, and continues to have relevance at the time of the warning.94 Following this model and noting the shift to an Aorist participle in Hebrews 8:5 (an participle which commonly provides antecedent temporal information) the conclusion made by some is either that (1) the whole tabernacle-building exercise for Moses is a wholly past event for the author of Hebrews, or that (2) the continuing effect, or relevance, of the τύπος shown to Moses at Horeb no longer applies. Attridge, for example, suggests that this aspectual substitution means “that the heavenly temple was understood to have served as a model for the earthly tabernacle at the start, but that this relationship is not permanent.”95 Similarly, 91. Cf. Wallace, Greek Grammar, 372–73; Ellis, Aubrey and Dubis, “The Greek Verbal System and Aspectual Prominence,” 60–61. 92. Campbell, Non-Indicative Verbs, 29. 93. The “combinative aspect” model results in the same temporal relationship: the plan was shown (perfective aspect) and continues to affect the present (imperfective aspect). 94. Cf. Wallace’s description of the “Perfect of Allegory”: Wallace, Greek Grammar, 581– 82. Wallace points to Perfect verb in Hebrews 8:5, κεχρημάτισται, and terms it a “Perfect of Allegory” because of the continuing “applicational value” of the action. While this is an account of how the Perfect indicative functions, the usage described with respect to the participle δεδειγμένον is similar. 95. Harold W. Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989), 220.

202 | Aspectual

Substitution

Ellingworth states, “The change may be understood as a shift in temporal perspective (for Hebrews, the setting up of the Mosaic tabernacle is a wholly past event), or as a delicate indication that ‘the “tent” has no continuing significance today.’ ”96 Because such a view of the Perfect relates to the nature of the action itself, an interpretation of the shift from Perfect to Aorist requires such an interpretation. But this interpretation misfires, because it refers to the wrong temporal frame. The temporal relationship between Horeb and the later warning given to Moses is exactly the same in Exodus 25:40 as it is in Hebrews 8:5, because it is this very relationship to which the author is pointing. The writer to the Hebrews includes this quotation precisely because the plan shown to Moses related to his situation at that time. Moses needed to follow the plan closely in order to make a copy—a shadow—of the heavenly sanctuary. That the tabernacle built according to this plan is no longer relevant to the role of the high priest Jesus in Hebrews 8 is due to other factors, and is demonstrated by the contrast to the trappings of the earthly priesthood. That is, the continuing relevance of the plan shown to Moses is exactly the argument the author of Hebrews is making; the fact that the soteriological significance of the earthly tabernacle is removed because of the new high priest is irrelevant to the temporal interpretation of the verb δεικνύμι. Overall, the traditional temporal explanation of the Perfect participle does provide a useful model for these constructions in isolation, but it does not offer a good explanation for what effect the aspectual substitution produces. Stanley Porter argues that the Perfect participle semantically encodes stative aspect, and he specifically points out this type of participle usage where it functions as a modifier “without reference to the temporal sphere in most instances.”97 He also points to instances where a Perfect participle and an Aorist participle are used in parallel, which he says demonstrate the stative character of the participle clearly.98 Under this model the τύπος in Exodus 25:40 is depicted as in the state of having been revealed to Moses, and is marked as prominent in the discourse because of its morphological/distributional characteristics. Shifting to the representation in Hebrews 8:5 we now have the basic, unmarked, Aorist form, depicting the revelation in simple form (and contextually as a past event). The difficulty 96. He continues, “The second explanation, while containing an element of speculation, is not impossible; and in any case the two explanations are not incompatible.” Paul Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 407. 97. Porter, Verbal Aspect, 395. 98. For example, Rom 16:25–26; 2 Cor 12:21: Porter, Verbal Aspect, 396.

Epistolary Material | 203 with this interpretation is it is unclear how the specificity of the described event— ἐν τῷ ὄρει—relates initially to the depicted state of the event in Exodus 25:40, and then to the event in toto in Hebrews 8:5. Campbell argues the Perfect is imperfective in aspect, and conveys heightened proximity in its spatial reference.99 The prominence of the Perfect form in this construction—and to Porter as a marked element of discourse—does provide some explanatory power for this instance of aspectual substitution. As Bruce and Peterson argued, the connection between the earthly and heavenly tabernacles is a temporal one, controlled by eschatology and not philosophical strictures. The argument in Hebrews 8:1–6 is that the high priest with the superior ministry, Jesus (διαφορωτέρας λειτουργίας, 8:6), serves in the true tabernacle (τῆς σκηνῆς τῆς ἀληθινῆς, 8:2) set up by the Lord, not by human hands. This is in direct contrast to the tabernacle set up by human hands under Moses, a mere copy of the true tabernacle. This means that in Exodus 25, the most significant part of the process of setting up the tabernacle is the τύπος on which it is patterned. A prominent, marked, enhanced participle δεδειγμένον underscores this thematic prominence on a syntactical level. In Hebrews 8:5, however, the author’s focus is on the true tabernacle itself, no longer accessed by seeing a shadow of what was revealed to Moses but through the high priest who serves in this heavenly sanctuary. Thus a subtle removal of emphasis in Hebrews 8:5 means that the reference to Moses assists in the contrast between the earthly and the heavenly, but does not distract from the thematic prominence that properly lies elsewhere in the paragraph. Perfect–Aorist aspectual substitution aids in subtly flattening the emphasis of the original, so that the author can point the reader elsewhere.

Hebrews 8:8–12; 10:16–17 Jeremiah 38:33–34 (MT 31:33–34) Ἰδοὺ ἡμέραι ἔρχονται, φησὶν κύριος, καὶ διαθήσομαι τῷ οἴκῳ Ισραηλ καὶ τῷ οἴκῳ Ιουδα διαθήκην καινήν, 32 οὐ κατὰ τὴν διαθήκην, ἣν διεθέμην τοῖς πατράσιν αὐτῶν ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ἐπιλαβομένου μου τῆς χειρὸς αὐτῶν ἐξαγαγεῖν αὐτοὺς ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου, ὅτι αὐτοὶ οὐκ ἐνέμειναν ἐν τῇ διαθήκῃ μου, καὶ ἐγὼ ἠμέλησα αὐτῶν, φησὶν κύριος· 31

99. This spatial reference also applies in some sense to the participle in an analogous way to the manner in which temporal reference in the traditional model bleeds over from the indicative to the participle: Campbell, Non-Indicative Verbs, 29.

204 | Aspectual

Substitution

ὅτι αὕτη ἡ διαθήκη, ἣν διαθήσομαι τῷ οἴκῳ Ισραηλ μετὰ τὰς ἡμέρας ἐκείνας, φησὶν κύριος Διδοὺς δώσω νόμους μου εἰς τὴν διάνοιαν αὐτῶν καὶ ἐπὶ καρδίας αὐτῶν γράψω αὐτούς· καὶ ἔσομαι αὐτοῖς εἰς θεόν, καὶ αὐτοὶ ἔσονταί μοι εἰς λαόν· 34 καὶ οὐ μὴ διδάξωσιν ἕκαστος τὸν πολίτην αὐτοῦ καὶ ἕκαστος τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ λέγων Γνῶθι τὸν κύριον· ὅτι πάντες εἰδήσουσίν με ἀπὸ μικροῦ αὐτῶν καὶ ἕως μεγάλου αὐτῶν, ὅτι ἵλεως ἔσομαι ταῖς ἀδικίαις αὐτῶν καὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν αὐτῶν οὐ μὴ μνησθῶ ἔτι. 33

“The days are coming,” says the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant which I made with their fathers on the day I took them by their hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, for they did not remain in my covenant, and I was unconcerned for them” says the Lord. 33 “For this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” says the Lord. “I will put my laws in their mind and I will write them on their hearts. And I will be God to them, and they will be a people to me. 34 And no longer will each one teach his fellow citizen or his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord.’ For all will know me, from their small to their great, for I will be gracious regarding their unrighteousness, and I will remember their sins no more.” 31

Hebrews 8:8–12 8

μεμφόμενος γὰρ αὐτοὺς λέγει· ἰδοὺ ἡμέραι ἔρχονται, λέγει κύριος, καὶ συντελέσω ἐπὶ τὸν οἶκον Ἰσραὴλ καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν οἶκον Ἰούδα διαθήκην καινήν, 9 οὐ κατὰ τὴν διαθήκην, ἣν ἐποίησα τοῖς πατράσιν αὐτῶν ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ἐπιλαβομένου μου τῆς χειρὸς αὐτῶν ἐξαγαγεῖν αὐτοὺς ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου, ὅτι αὐτοὶ οὐκ ἐνέμειναν ἐν τῇ διαθήκῃ μου, κἀγὼ ἠμέλησα αὐτῶν, λέγει κύριος· 10 ὅτι αὕτη ἡ διαθήκη, ἣν διαθήσομαι τῷ οἴκῳ Ἰσραὴλ μετὰ τὰς ἡμέρας ἐκείνας, λέγει κύριος· διδοὺς νόμους μου εἰς τὴν διάνοιαν αὐτῶν καὶ ἐπὶ καρδίας αὐτῶν ἐπιγράψω αὐτούς, καὶ ἔσομαι αὐτοῖς εἰς θεόν, καὶ αὐτοὶ ἔσονταί μοι εἰς λαόν· 11 καὶ οὐ μὴ διδάξωσιν ἕκαστος τὸν πολίτην αὐτοῦ καὶ ἕκαστος τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ λέγων· γνῶθι τὸν κύριον,

Epistolary Material | 205 ὅτι πάντες εἰδήσουσίν με ἀπὸ μικροῦ ἕως μεγάλου αὐτῶν, 12 ὅτι ἵλεως ἔσομαι ταῖς ἀδικίαις αὐτῶν καὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν αὐτῶν οὐ μὴ μνησθῶ ἔτι. Finding fault with them he said, “The days are coming,” says the Lord, “when I will accomplish a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 9 not like the covenant which I made with their fathers on the day I took them by their hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, for they did not remain in my covenant, and I was unconcerned for them,” says the Lord. 10 “For this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” says the Lord. “I will put my laws in their mind and I will write them on their hearts. And I will be God to them, and they will be a people to me. 11 And no longer will each one teach his fellow citizen or his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord.’ For all will know me, from their small to their great, 12 for I will be gracious regarding their unrighteousness, and I will remember their sins no more.” 8

Hebrews 10:16–17 αὕτη ἡ διαθήκη ἣν διαθήσομαι πρὸς αὐτοὺς μετὰ τὰς ἡμέρας ἐκείνας, λέγει κύριος· διδοὺς νόμους μου ἐπὶ καρδίας αὐτῶν καὶ ἐπὶ τὴν διάνοιαν αὐτῶν ἐπιγράψω αὐτούς, 17 καὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν αὐτῶν καὶ τῶν ἀνομιῶν αὐτῶν οὐ μὴ μνησθήσομαι ἔτι. 16 “This is the covenant I will make with them after those days,” says the Lord. “I will put my laws on their hearts and I will write them in their minds, 17 and I will remember their sins and their lawlessness no more.” 16

206 | Aspectual

Substitution

Table 6.7 Jeremiah 38:31–34; Hebrews 8:8–12

Epistolary Material | 207 Table 6.8 Jeremiah 38:31–34; Hebrews 10:16–17

208 | Aspectual

Substitution

In Hebrews 8:6 the author transitions from speaking of the superiority of Jesus’s high priesthood to engaging with the superiority of the covenant of which he is the mediator. To demonstrate that the prior covenant required a replacement, the author quotes Jeremiah 38:31–34 LXX (MT 31:31–34) with minimal changes.100 While this runs counter to contemporary interpretations that understood the Sinai covenant as everlasting,101 the quotation from Jeremiah concerning a promised new covenant serves to underline the superiority of Jesus’s ministry in all of its aspects.102 The changes that are evident in Hebrews 8:8–12 as compared to the LXX text, while numerous (albeit over several lines), are merely stylistic in almost all cases and do not affect the meaning.103 Hebrews consistently reads λέγει instead of 100. The significant differences between the Greek and Hebrew traditions of Jeremiah ought to be noted here, along with apparent evidence of multiple translators within the Greek texts, although a discussion on how the versions relate to one another is tangential to our purposes here. See Andrew G. Shead, “Jeremiah,” in T&T Clark Companion to the Septuagint, ed. James K. Aitken (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015), 469–86. In what follows verse references will be made following the LXX versification, except for where citations use the Hebrew/English numbering scheme. 101. Koester points to Jewish sources that considered the Sinai covenant to be eternal: Sir 17:12; cf. 4 Ezra 9:36–37; 2 Bar. 77:15; Philo, Moses 2.14–15; Josephus, Ag. Ap. 2.272; cf. also other covenants that were considered eternal: Gen 17:7; 1 Chr 16:15–18; Ps 104:10; Sir 44:18; 45:7, 15; 2 Esdr 3:11. He notes the contrast to the argument of Hebrews at this juncture: God, being the one who made the first covenant, is the one who can replace it: Koester, Hebrews: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, 388. 102. Cynthia Long Westfall takes this quotation to be narrow in its focus—“a citation that is used as a proof is always support material”—and considers its purpose as “not to change the subject, but to give extended support for v. 6”: Cynthia Long Westfall, A Discourse Analysis of the Letter to the Hebrews: The Relationship Between Form and Meaning, LNTS 297 (London: T&T Clark, 2005), 196. Stanley takes Hebrews 8 to be an introduction to chs. 9–10, the “theological heart and paraenetic core of the book or homily,” with this quotation from Jeremiah forming a crucial part of the exposition of the priestly work of Christ: Stanley, “New Covenant Hermeneutic,” 11. 103. Georg Walser makes the case that Hebrews quotes the LXX textual tradition, not the MT. He argues two distinct text forms were in existence when Hebrews was composed, and “that the variety of Hebrew texts makes if very likely that the LXX version of it was based on a different Vorlage from a text like the MT”: Georg

Epistolary Material | 209 φησίν, and employs the crasis κἀγώ for καὶ ἐγώ in 8:9. Three lexical substitutions are made (with no change to tense-form) in 8:8–10: συντελέσω for διαθήσομαι in 8:8; ἐποίησα for διεθέμην in 8:9; ἐπιγράψω for γράψω in 8:10. None of these have significantly different meaning associated with the alternative lexical options.104 The elimination of the Future δώσω in 8:10 (i.e., διδούς for διδοὺς δώσω) is possibly smoothing over a Semitism.105 When this passage is selectively quoted for a second time in Hebrews 10:16–17 some of these changes occur again (λέγει; διδούς). In 10:16 τῷ οἴκῳ Ισραηλ is replaced by πρὸς αὐτοὺς, and διάνοιαν is swapped with καρδίας. In the final clause of the quotation τῶν ἀνομιῶν αὐτῶν is added to Jeremiah’s τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν αὐτῶν. Finally, the rendering of μιμνῄσκομαι is of interest: Hebrews 8:10 matches the LXX Aorist passive subjunctive μνησθῶ, but Hebrews 10:17 reads as a Future passive indicative μνησθήσομαι.106With the exception of this last change to μιμνῄσκομαι—the only change that is properly aspectual substitution—opinions vary as to whether the author modifies the source text, or relies on a variant text.107 The textual history is complicated and arguably not conclusive, especially given the ways in which the author of Hebrews appears to A. Walser, Old Testament Quotations in Hebrews, WUNT II.356 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), 184–85. 104. Koester notes that συντελέω is used elsewhere in Jeremiah for covenants (Jer 41:8, 15 LXX) and echoes the use of τελειόω elsewhere in the epistle (Heb 2:10; 5:9; 7:28): Koester, Hebrews: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, 385. 105. George Wesley Buchanan, To the Hebrews: Translation, Comment and Conclusions, Anchor Bible 36 (New York: Doubleday, 1972), 138. This semitism, if it is indeed such a construction, does not correspond to any construction in the MT, further lending credence to the theory that the author quoted from the LXX (which likely had a slightly variant Vorlage at this point) than the MT. 106. The Göttingen edition notes Jeremiah 38:34 reads μνησθήσομαι in Cyr.X 861, but refers readers to this form in Hebrews 10:17. See Joseph Ziegler, ed., Jeremias, Baruch, Threni, Epistula Jeremie, 2nd ed. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976), 364. Hebrews 10:17 reads μνησθῶ in line with Jeremiah 38:34 in 𝔓46, corrected versions of ‫ א‬and D, Ψvid, and the Majority Text. However, the original versions of the major uncials, 𝔓13, and a number of minuscules have the Future form. This evidence, taken together with the future orientation of the selected lines in this quotation, leads us to take the Future form as the best reading. 107. Stanley, “New Covenant Hermeneutic,” 93–102; Koester, Hebrews: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, 385; cf. John C. McCullough, “The Old Testament Quotations in Hebrews,” NTS 26 (1980): 363–79; Kenneth J. Thomas, “Old Testament Citations in Hebrews,” NTS 11 (1965): 303–25.

210 | Aspectual

Substitution

have a preference for the LXX over the Hebrew, yet often cites texts with differences from the majority LXX tradition.108 For our purposes this argument can be set aside, for we have both an unchanged quotation of μιμνῄσκομαι (μνησθῶ, Heb 8:10, cf. Jer 38:34) and a changed version (μνησθήσομαι, Heb 10:17). Because it is unlikely that the author used different LXX texts for these two quotations, we may consider this an instance of aspectual substitution even if the source text is indeterminate.109 Both forms of this verb occur in an emphatic negative construction: καὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν αὐτῶν οὐ μὴ μνησθῶ ἔτι in Jeremiah 38:34/Hebrews 8:12; καὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν αὐτῶν καὶ τῶν ἀνομιῶν αὐτῶν οὐ μὴ μνησθήσομαι ἔτι in Hebrews 10:17. In both ­chapter 8 and ­chapter 10 this verse is quoted for the same larger purpose: to demonstrate that a previous promise is fulfilled in the ministry of the superior high priest Jesus. Chapter 8 negatively refers to finding fault with the people under the old covenant (Heb 8:7), while ­chapter 10 refers to the perfection of his people through the new (Heb 10:14).110 Yet these differences do not negate the fact that both quotations are employed to evoke the same consequences of the new covenant—these are −distinctive constructions. We have seen elsewhere that an emphatically negated Aorist subjunctive verb functions equivalently to a negated Future indicative in a −distinctive context.111 Both constructions convey perfective aspect and display future temporal reference. Both constructions refer to a future event that is promised (or commanded) to never occur, considering it—or its absence—in summary terms. So too here: “the removal of sins from the divine memory is the strongest possible way of affirming their total abolition.”112 Both constructions in Hebrews 8:10; 10:17 have perfective aspect; both have future temporal reference.

108. Gheorghita, for example, maintains that the author depends solely on the LXX, which one can identify from the places in which the OT is quoted and LXX and MT traditions diverge: Gheorghita, Role of the Septuagint, 225–26. 109. Buchanan, Hebrews, 138. 110. Bruce says, “In Ch. 8 the oracle of Jer. 31:31–34 was quoted in order to prove the obsolescence of the old economy; now it is quoted again in order to establish the permanence of the era of ‘perfection’ inaugurated under the new covenant”: Bruce, Hebrews, 242. 111. Cf. “Matthew 19:18–19 || Mark 10:19 || Luke 18:20 || James 2:11,” p. 96; “Romans 9:33; 10:11,” p. 177. 112. Cockerill, Hebrews, 458. Note here Cockerill is arguing that these constructions are different because of the Future and Aorist subjunctive conjugations—with which we

Epistolary Material | 211 Yet many interpreters take the substitution of the Future tense-form for the Aorist subjunctive as intentional, emphatic, or otherwise significant.113 Is there any validity to this interpretation of this particular aspectual substitution? Given the dual quotation and the context of the second, changed, instance, it is certainly plausible.114 The second time this Jeremiah passage is mentioned in c­ hapter 10, only a small portion is quoted. The author signals that only a truncated portion is cited here by his quotation formulae: μετὰ γὰρ τὸ εἰρηκέναι …, λέγει κύριος· … (Heb 10:16). The portions of Jeremiah’s original that spoke of the Sinai covenant and the people’s knowledge of God are excised, and only the elements that were at that time future promises are included.115 Forgiveness of sins and lawlessness (cf. 9:26–28) is promised for this new covenant, with several temporal markers pointing to a future frame (e.g., Future tense-form διαθήσομαι; deictic marker μετὰ τὰς ἡμέρας ἐκείνας). The author extracts from the original text and his prior citation the elements that are most important for his argument at that point—as Stanley argues, the promise of a new covenant, the internalization of the law, and, climactically, the forgiveness of sin.116 It is possible, in this light, to conceive of the negated Future as underlining the future temporal will engage shortly—but his description of the effect of the emphatic future negative is nevertheless apt. 113. For example, Vaughan says, “The two constructions are equally correct: the οὐ μὴ μνησθῶ giving the thought of the single act of forgetting, and the οὐ μὴ μνησθήσομαι carrying the forgetfulness into an endless futurity. I will never in the furthest future remember their sins against them”: Charles John Vaughan, ΠΡΟΣ ΕΒΡΑΙΟΥΣ: The Epistle to the Hebrews (London: Macmillan, 1891), 196, emphasis original. So too Attridge, who states, “the future μνησθήσομαι for the subjunctive μνησθῶ makes that promise more vivid and emphatic”: Attridge, Hebrews, 281. Cockerill similarly argues the author “exchanges [the aorist subjunctive] for the equivalent but stronger future indicative”: Cockerill, Hebrews, 458. Guthrie states, “the aorist subjunctive form of mimnēskomai (“remember”) has now become a future indicative, making the idea of the decisive eradication of sins more emphatic”: George H. Guthrie, “Hebrews,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, 979. 114. This possibility has been raised earlier in relation to Romans 9:33; 10:11, however the contrast here in Hebrews within the same book provides a stronger ground to consider the possibility. 115. Johnson, Hebrews, 254. Johnson notes that only 32 of the 131 words of Jeremiah quoted in Hebrews 8:8–12 are included in 10:16–17. 116. Stanley, “New Covenant Hermeneutic,” 181–82. He notes that extraction, summarization, and even paraphrase of material is “not necessarily manipulation”; cf. Attridge, Hebrews, 281; William A. Lane, Hebrews 9–13, WBC 47B (Dallas: Word Books, 1991), 268.

212 | Aspectual

Substitution

reference of the forgiveness of sin to some degree.117 Even Ellingworth, who follows the grammars’ syntactical explanation—that the two constructions display “no apparent difference in meaning”—concedes that this change to μιμνῄσκομαι, in combination with four other minor changes made to this quotation of Jeremiah 38:31–34 (compared with that in Hebrews 8:8–12), contributes to “increased emphasis … but no radical change in meaning.”118 This is not to suggest that the change from Aorist subjunctive to Future indicative should be over-interpreted. If there is any distinction, it is a subtle one—a highlighting function at most. A similar construction in English might be to include a wholly superfluous adjective119 in a clause—the meaning is not altered, but there is an emphasis that underlines one component of the communication. We have not seen any reason thus far to deny that the Future tense-form has explicit future temporal reference, and perhaps it would not be surprising that a context focussed on the prospective nature of a promise would attract a tense-form that appears to always connote explicit future reference. In any case, whether or not this speculation is borne out through comparable uses in other passages, the promise of Jeremiah is cast as prospective in all Hebrews quotations. A future situation is envisaged in which sin and lawlessness is forgiven. Both the Aorist subjunctive and Future indicative operate equivalently, with perfective aspect and future temporal reference as part of an emphatic negative future construction.

James 2:11 See “Matthew 19:18–19 || Mark 10:19 || Luke 18:20 || James 2:11” in Chapter 4, p. 96.

Revelation 2:27 Psalm 2:9 ποιμανεῖς αὐτοὺς ἐν ῥάβδῳ σιδηρᾷ, ὡς σκεῦος κεραμέως συντρίψεις αὐτούς. You shall shepherd them with an iron scepter, like a potter’s jar you will break them. 1 17. Future temporal reference with respect to the time of Jeremiah, that is. 118. Ellingworth, Hebrews, 514. 119. For example, “wholly.”

Epistolary Material | 213

Revelation 2:27 Καὶ ὁ νικῶν καὶ ὁ τηρῶν ἄχρι τέλους τὰ ἔργα μου, δώσω αὐτῷ ἐξουσίαν ἐπὶ τῶν ἐθνῶν καὶ ποιμανεῖ αὐτοὺς ἐν ῥάβδῳ σιδηρᾷ ὡς τὰ σκεύη τὰ κεραμικὰ συντρίβεται, 28 ὡς κἀγὼ εἴληφα παρὰ τοῦ πατρός μου, καὶ δώσω αὐτῷ τὸν ἀστέρα τὸν πρωϊνόν. 26 27

And the one who conquers and keeps my works to the end: I will give to him authority over the nations 27 And he will shepherd them with an iron scepter, like a potter’s jar he will break them, 28 just as I have received from my father I will also give to him the morning star. 26

Table 6.9 Psalm 2:9; Revelation 2:27

At the end of the portion of the letter addressed to Thyatira a verse from Psalm 2 is quoted to encourage the church to continue to in faithfulness. Those who overcome compromise and persevere to the end—ὁ νικῶν καὶ ὁ τηρῶν ἄχρι τέλους τὰ ἔργα μου, Rev 2:26—will share in the messianic kingdom.120 This quotation is altered from its original form, in which these words from Psalm 2:9 addresses the psalmist, called the son of God (Κύριος εἶπεν πρός με Υἱός μου εἶ σύ, ἐγὼ σήμερον γεγέννηκά σε, Ps 2:7). As this quotation appears in Revelation 2:27 it is applied to believers in Thyatira, identified in the third person (ὁ νικῶν καὶ ὁ τηρῶν, 2:26). The verbs from Psalm 2:9 (ποιμανεῖς, συντρίψεις) are thus altered from their original second-person forms to the third-person forms in Revelation 2:27 (ποιμανεῖ, συντρίβεται). 120. Greg K. Beale, The Book of Revelation, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 266.

214 | Aspectual

Substitution

No variants are listed for συντρίψεις in Psalm 2:9 in the Göttingen LXX.121 Some manuscripts of Revelation 2:27 read a 2nd-Future form συντριβησεται, likely from assimilation to the LXX and/or the preceding Future verb. The weight of external evidence and the change in conjugation in these manuscripts from the well-attested LXX alternative Future tense-form pushes strongly to the reading in NA28: συντρίβεται. The quotation is likely drawn from the LXX rather than Hebrew because of the agreement between the two on reading ποιμανεῖς. This is the LXX equivalent for the somewhat different Hebrew term ‫תּרֹ עֵם‬, ְ “smite”—although ποιμανεῖς is possible as a translation of the unpointed text (ποιμαίνω derives from ‫רעה‬, “to shepherd,” rather than from ‫)רעע‬.122 Alongside the change in person, an aspectual substitution is made here: the Future συντρίψεις of Psalm 2:9 is exchanged for the Present συντρίβεται in Revelation 2:27. This must be a +distinctive substitution, for the subject of the verb in Revelation 2:27 is not the Messiah (as in 2:9) but the victor who remains steadfast.123 As we have noted the change in person creates this shift, and no other verbal changes impact on the verb’s propositional content. Acknowledging the shift in application of this verse we can, therefore, investigate the aspectual substitution that occurs here. A temporal understanding of the Future and Present verb forms used in this quotation creates some apparent difficulties for commentators. Osborne, for example, calls συντρίβεται a “futuristic present parallel with the future ‘will destroy,’ ” adopting an atypical future-referring expression of the “Present tense.”124 Because of other temporal indicators and an eschatological setting for this quotation (e.g., πλὴν ὃ ἔχετε κρατήσατε ἄχρι οὗ ἂν ἥξω, Rev 2:25; ὁ τηρῶν ἄχρι τέλους, 2:26) the normal present temporal reference of the Present tense-form must be adjusted to the

121. Rahlfs, ed., Psalmi cum Odis, 82. Some minor variants read καί for ὡς, and σκεύη for σκεῦος. 122. Beale and McDonough detail the relevant arguments for this translation issue, suggesting John may have had both meanings in mind: “compare 19:15 (12:5?), where he uses poimainō to mean ‘judge’ or ‘destroy’ (cf. the parallelism of ‘strike’ in 19:15); in 7:17 it has the positive nuance of ‘shepherd.’ Accordingly, the ‘authority’ that Jesus received in fulfillment of the psalm is understood to be the authority that a king wields in protecting his subjects and defeating his enemies.” Greg K. Beale and Sean M. McDonough, “Revelation,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, 1095; cf. also Beale, The Book of Revelation, 266–67. 123. Cf. David E. Aune, Revelation 1–5, WBC 52A (Dallas: Word Books, 1997), 211. 124. Grant R. Osborne, Revelation, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), 167.

Epistolary Material | 215 future. Theological frameworks come into play: Osborne notes Caird and Sweet who argue this promise must take place in the present because in the “millennial kingdom” there will be no nations left to destroy.125 Osborne argues against this interpretation on the basis of the context and the Psalm’s context, but also crucially on the “future event in which the saints take part, the final war.” Due to the nature of apocalyptic literature and the history of interpretation of the Book of Revelation, any temporal interpretation of events is subject to a host of accompanying theological suppositions and interpretive frameworks. This study will not take a position on chronology in Revelation, and limit discussion to how a temporal interpretation requires overriding the Present tense-form’s typical usage. A non-temporal, aspect-prominent understanding of the Present tense-form offers explanatory power. The future temporal frame is established elsewhere in Revelation 2:26–27 through deictic markers (see above) and Future tense forms (δώσω, 2:26, 28; ποιμανεῖ, 2:27). The parallelism of the Psalm quotation as it is employed in Revelation 2:27 suggests the two lines are similar in function. While we would assume in other circumstances that a replacement of the Future tenseform with a Present would involve both an aspectual and a temporal shift, there is no indication that this substitution alters the future temporal reference. Osborne’s descriptor “futuristic Present” is correct—but under a non-temporal, aspectual, view of the Present tense-form this is not something contrary to the meaning of the form. Previous sections of this study have demonstrated perfective aspect is operative in the Future tense-form; similarly, Psalm 2:9 depicts the event in summary terms and the verb is considered to be perfective in aspect. Imperfective aspect for the Present tense-form is widely accepted. This aspectual substitution, therefore, demonstrates a change from perfective to imperfective aspect. Other instances of substituting an imperfective verb for a Future tense-form have underlined the involvement of the relevant party in the action.126 This substitution results in a certain slowing down of the depicted situation, with focus drawn to the actor being part of the depicted event(s). This was the case in Jesus’s 125. That is, the temporal frame of this action is not based solely on the tense-form but on other temporal and theological indicators, which make allowance for the possibility of a “futuristic Present” before ruling it out. See Osborne, Revelation, 170; cf. G. B. Caird, A Commentary on the Revelation of St. John the Divine, BNTC (New York: Harper and Row, 1966), 45–46; J. P. M. Sweet, Revelation (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1979), 96. 126. Cf. “Matthew 13:14 || Mark 4:12 || Luke 8:10 || Acts 28:26,” p. 85; “Matthew 24:29 || Mark 13:25,” p. 108; “Luke 23:46,” p. 137.

216 | Aspectual

Substitution

entrusting himself to God on the cross (Luke 23:46), where the aspectual substitution focussed the reader on Jesus’s experience as a typological fulfillment of David’s trust in the Lord. Jesus’s quotation of Isaiah 34:4 in Mark 13:25, using a periphrastic participle to create an imperfective-future context, invited the hearers/readers to consider themselves involved in the action. Mark’s change from perfective to imperfective verb forms in the Parable of the Sower (Mark 4:12) had the rhetorical effect of applying the quoted text quite directly to the disciples. There is no reason to suspect anything different is happening here: the action is being applied more directly to those involved, that is, the Christians at Thyatira. The imperfective verb συντρίβεται invites the reader to consider the action as in process before them—to “see” the events around them. John applies the messianic Psalm directly to the conquering Christian in Revelation 2:27. This conclusion is apparent from the context, along with other alterations such as the change in person.127 The Future–Present aspectual substitution serves to underscore, confirm, and sustain this individuated (rather than messianic) application of Psalm 2:9.

127. Aune, Revelation 1–5, 210; Beale, The Book of Revelation.

7

Synthesis

This study has investigated instances where New Testament authors have quoted the Septuagint and modified one or more verbs in that quotation by changing its tense-form. As we draw some of the threads of the preceding exegetical work together in this chapter, and examine some general patterns that have emerged, it is useful to revisit some broad characteristics of the texts we have considered. Recall that we defined a quotation as where (1) the NT text provides a quotation formula or another contextual identifier to reveal a citation of an OT text, or (2) clear, direct parallels to an OT text over at least four words are evident in the NT with minimal variation in word order or other alterations.1 This definition of a quotation is important for drawing conclusions on verbal use, because we have necessarily examined a small, tightly-defined set of clauses in order to restrict the number of variables.2 To identify any shift in nuance from one text to another, only quotations that appeared to follow the LXX were included. This ensured that the context could be appreciated in Greek at both ends of the quotation, rather than being produced by the process of translation. At the same time, in order to identify a shift in nuance only quotations that had a change in tense-form were 1. See “Criteria for Quotation,” p. 53. 2. See “A Modified Contrastive Substitution,” p. 74.

218 | Aspectual

Substitution

included. Yet in order to isolate the effect of the change in tense-form, the associated changes could not be too drastic, so we could isolate the aspectual shift. Thus the set of quotations we considered in some detail in the main body of this study are relatively few in number compared to the broader body of verbal usage across the NT or LXX—we can only realistically analyze those quotations that fall in the “Goldilocks” zone of not too much change, and not too little.3 Therefore, any conclusions drawn here are provisional on the model being applicable to a broader set of uses than the previous three chapters. Yet the reverse is also true: the best model(s) of the Greek verbal system will not only explain the usage of tense-forms in general, they ought also to be those that best explain the specific cases we have considered here. In that light, this chapter will take the preceding sets of data (from the Synoptic Gospels, Narrative, and Epistolary portions of the NT) and make some general observations on: (1) the effects evident in various kinds of aspectual substitution in quotations; (2) the quotation technique of NT authors and the implications this has for their use of source material; and (3) some specific conclusions regarding the Future tense-form.

Aspectual Substitution In what follows we will take the quotations considered earlier in detail, and group them according to some common patterns.

Perfective–Imperfective Substitution Change from a perfective verb tense-form to an imperfective form, or vice versa, occurs almost exclusively in narrative (Rev 2:27 is an exception). Clear cases of Future–Present substitution include: Mark 4:12 || Luke 8:10 (the parable of the sower; two substitutions of this kind each); Mark 9:48 (Jesus speaking of Gehenna); Luke 23:46 (Jesus’s cry on the cross); Revelation 2:27 (encouragement to the Laodiceans). Aorist–Present substitutions are of a similar number: Mark 4:12 (parable of the sower); Matthew 27:35 || Mark 15:24 || Luke 23:34 (soldiers dividing Jesus’s clothes); John 15:25 (hated without cause); Acts 7:40 (Aaron and the golden calf; a historical present in this case). I also argued above that the 3. Many more quotations exist in the NT but either do not make any substantial change, or do not make any aspectual substitution.

Synthesis | 219 Future–Future substitution in Mark 13:25 (stars falling from heaven), involving a periphrastic participle, was a change by which imperfective aspect was conveyed. Considering the Aorist–Present substitutions first, the usage of the Present tense-form appears to highlight the contemporary applicability of the depicted event in contrast to the plain, more neutral, Aorist tense-form. This is true both in cases of substitution of an Aorist tense-form with a Present, and vice versa. Mark 15:24—Mark’s depiction of the soldiers casting lots for Jesus’s clothing— employed a “historical present” in place of the original Aorist indicative, and used this form in the midst of a run of several other similar Present tense-forms.4 We saw that this substitution enabled Mark to include the imagery of the righteous sufferer at the hands of God’s enemies and integrate it into a marked, prominent section of discourse. This heightened prominence in the narrative draws attention to the typological connection back to the pattern of the righteous sufferer of Psalm 21 LXX. The converse is true for two instances in which a Present tenseform is replaced by an Aorist in the NT context. Both John 15:25 and Acts 7:40 are instances in which an internal perception of the action gives emphasis to the people performing that action, so the NT shift to Aorist tense-forms is a subtle way of redirecting the reader’s focus to the broader argument. In John 15:25, rather than focussing on the people who hate the righteous sufferer, attention is drawn to the action itself and the object of that action, namely Jesus.5 In Stephen’s historical narrative in Acts 7:40 aspectual substitution is accompanied by a change from the indicative mood to a participial form.6 Both of these changes to Stephen’s εἰπόντες combine to subordinate the request made to Aaron by the p ­ eople to an antecedent rebellious attitude, thereby granting less significance to the people’s stated reasoning for their idolatrous action and more significance to Stephen’s reasoning. These examples suggest the Present tense-form, in contrast to a perfective aspectual form, functions to subtly highlight the focus or contemporaneous applicability of an event. This is not to say that the Present has a necessary semantic tense value—none of these examples is a truly clear example of present temporal reference, and certainly not necessarily so. Both Porter’s markedness identification and Campbell’s spatial proximity value for the Present tense-form provide explanatory power for these changes. 4. Ps 21:19 LXX: διεμερίσαντο τὰ ἱμάτιά μου ἑαυτοῖς καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν ἱματισμόν μου ἔβαλον κλῆρον. Matt 27:35: διεμερίσαντο … βάλλοντες. Mark 15:24: διαμερίζονται … βάλλοντες. Luke 23:34: διαμεριζόμενοι … ἔβαλον. 5. Ps 34:19 LXX/68:5 LXX: οἱ μισοῦντές με δωρεὰν. John 15:25: ἐμίσησαν. 6. Exod 32:1: καὶ λέγουσιν αὐτῷ. Acts 7:40: εἰπόντες.

220 | Aspectual

Substitution

The contrast between perfective and imperfective aspect is just as clear when considering the Future–Present instances in NT quotations. Jesus’s appropriation of Psalm 30 LXX in Luke 23:46, for example, places the psalmist’s original confession of faith (Future tense-form) into a narrative situation that is entirely focussed on Jesus’s moment of trust in the face of death (Present tense-form).7 As concluded above, the aspectual substitution creates both an aspectual (perfective–imperfective) and a temporal (future–present) shift that effectively focuses the reader on Jesus’s fulfillment of the pattern of David’s trust in the Lord for deliverance.8 While the Present tense-form in Luke 23:46 is amenable to a temporal explanation (i.e. semantically encoding present temporal reference), Jesus’s comments about eternal punishment in Mark 9:48 are less so.9 Both instances of aspectual substitution in Mark 9:48 demonstrate the removal of explicit future temporal reference in moving away from the Future tense-form, but this does not necessarily mean that the Present tense-forms refer (semantically) to a contemporaneous situation. As outlined in the more detailed comments above, the application to and internalization of the warning of Gehenna comes from the explicit shift to imperfective aspect in the NT quotation, rhetorically placing the hearers at the temple and looking out at the destruction wrought outside. The evocative language is not concerned with the temporal value of the action—that is Jesus is not claiming that this destruction is related temporally to the disciples in that moment—but it is a vivid image related to the proximity to the hearers such that the warning is intensified. Similarly, Mark’s complex set of changes in his version of the parable of the sower (Mark 4:12) have a rhetorical effect.10 Substitution of imperfective aspect in Mark (and Luke 8:10) shifts the application of Jesus’s teaching on his parables to those in his presence, rather as something construed as a broad external situation. Future temporal reference from the original is removed, and imperfective aspect allows Mark and Luke to efficiently communicate the immediacy of hearing and responding. That this short, efficient communication mirrors the lengthier commentary of Matthew strengthens the case that this sort of aspectual substitution serves to grammatically underscore the theological point made more broadly. 7. Ps 30:6 LXX: εἰς χεῖράς σου παραθήσομαι τὸ πνεῦμά μου. Luke 23:46: παρατίθεμαι. 8. Cf. “Luke 23:46,” p. 137. 9. Isa 66:24: ὁ γὰρ σκώληξ αὐτῶν οὐ τελευτήσει, καὶ τὸ πῦρ αὐτῶν οὐ σβεσθήσεται. Mark 9:48: τελευτᾷ … σβέννυται. 10. Isa 6:9: Ἀκοῇ ἀκούσετε καὶ οὐ μὴ συνῆτε καὶ βλέποντες βλέψετε καὶ οὐ μὴ ἴδητε. Mark 4:12: βλέποντες βλέπωσιν … ἴδωσιν … ἀκούοντες ἀκούωσιν … συνιῶσιν. Luke 8:10: βλέπωσιν … ἀκούοντες … συνιῶσιν.

Synthesis | 221 In summary, perfective–imperfective aspectual substitution in NT quotations highlights a narrative focus brought about by imperfective depictions of a situation or an event. The contrast of Present tense-forms to Aorist and Future forms demonstrates their narrative function, and also demonstrates the consistency of future temporal reference for the Future form.

Perfective–Perfective Substitution Two categories of perfective–perfective substitution are present in the cases we have surveyed, and both categories occur more often than perfective–imperfective substitution. One set of quotations switches a Future indicative with a volitional Aorist tense-form (i.e. Aorist imperative or subjunctive) in either direction (i.e. LXX Future to NT Aorist, or LXX Aorist to NT Future); the other set concerns substitution of a Future indicative with an Aorist indicative, again in either direction. The examples of Future indicative/Aorist indicative change include: Matthew 4:16 (a light has dawned); John 2:17 (zeal for God’s house); Acts 2:27–31 || 13:35– 37 (the Messiah’s bones were not broken; the holy one did not see decay); Romans 11:2–4 (Israel was not rejected; God reserved 7000 for himself). In each case of substitution, it was concluded above that the same aspect was adopted in the original and NT context. Both the Aorist indicative and the Future indicative depicted the events or situations externally: in summary form, as a whole, and undifferentiated. The Future tense-form appears to be fully aspectual, displaying perfective aspect without any distinction (in aspect) from the Aorist indicative. The Future does, however, show distinction from the Aorist indicative in its consistent future temporal reference. One of two situations occurs, and both are linked by the NT authors explicitly to fulfillment of prophecy or typology. Either the LXX verse had future temporal reference, and this is removed by the NT author in substituting an Aorist tense-form (e.g. Acts 2:31), or the LXX verse was not explicitly prospective and the quotation gives it a view to the future (e.g. John 2:17). In the former pattern (Future-to-Aorist), the quotation is altered in order to make a claim about that OT prediction. Acts 2:31 is the clearest example of this as the aspectual substitution is explicitly part of the argument: the prophetic utterance of David must have been about a future κύριος, which given the resurrection of Jesus (and his concomitant non-decay) has been fulfilled and is no longer future-referring.11 A similar interpretive stance is adopted in both cases of 11. Ps 15:10 LXX: ὅτι οὐκ ἐγκαταλείψεις τὴν ψυχήν μου εἰς ᾅδην οὐδὲ δώσεις τὸν ὅσιόν σου ἰδεῖν διαφθοράν. Acts 2:31: ἐγκατελείφθη … εἶδεν. Acts 13:37: εἶδεν.

222 | Aspectual

Substitution

Paul’s quotation in Romans 11, where he states simply and definitively that God has not abandoned his people (11:2),12 evidenced by his reservation of a faithful remnant for himself (11:4).13 The opposite case serves to make the same connection between texts—John 2:17 reads Psalm 30 LXX as pointing towards Jesus, giving a future temporal frame to the Psalm’s statement that John shows, in his new context, to be fulfilled by Jesus.14 Each of these verses reads well translating the Aorist indicative as an English past tense. This is not unexpected according to any model of the Aorist tense-form: it is either prototypically past-referring (so, e.g., Fresch),15 or is commonly past-referring in its pragmatic usage the majority of the time (so Porter, Campbell).16 In each of these cases the argument of the NT context is one of typology, prophecy, or promise-fulfillment. Matthew introduces his quotation with “so that the word of the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled” (ἵνα πληρωθῇ τὸ ῥηθὲν διὰ Ἠσαΐου τοῦ προφήτου λέγοντος, Matt 4:14). Peter calls David a prophet (προφήτης οὖν ὑπάρχων, Acts 2:30). Paul is in the middle of a long argument about the salvation history of the nation of Israel. The aspectual substitution, therefore, does not carry the weight of the argument—typological connections between the LXX and NT texts are not created by such substitution. Each of these connections is an argument made more broadly by each author, and the aspectual substitution is an efficient means of supporting that argument on a grammatical level. When we turn to the parallels between the Future indicative and the oblique Aorist moods (imperative, subjunctive), a number of quotations are present for examination. Substitutions made within negative constructions include Mark 10:19 || Luke 18:20 || James 2:11 (the Decalogue; several separate examples); Romans 9:33 || 10:11 (the believer will not be put to shame); Hebrews 10:17 (sins will not be remembered; contrast Heb 8:12). These negative injunctions are constructions that are widely acknowledged to have a significant, if not total, semantic overlap. Certainly there is no evident difference in the listing of the Decalogue—both Future indicative and Aorist subjunctive commands carry the same prospective, prohibitive force.17 When discussing Romans 9:33/10:11 and 1 2. 1 Kgdms 12:22/Ps 93:14 LXX: οὐκ ἀπώσεται κύριος τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ. Rom 11:2: ἀπώσατο. 13. 3 Kgdms 19:18: καὶ καταλείψεις ἐν Ισραηλ ἑπτὰ χιλιάδας ἀνδρῶν. Rom 11:4: κατέλιπον. 14. Ps 68:10 LXX: ὁ ζῆλος τοῦ οἴκου σου κατέφαγεν με. John 2:17: καταφάγεται. 15. Fresch, “Typology, Polysemy, and Prototypes”. 16. Porter, Verbal Aspect; Campbell, Indicative Mood. 17. Exod 20:12–16/Deut 5:16–20 LXX: οὐ μοιχεύσεις, οὐ κλέψεις, etc. Mark 10:19/Luke 18:20: μοιχεύσῃς, φονεύσῃς, etc.

Synthesis | 223 Hebrews 8:12/10:17 above,18 I noted that commentators often pick on the future temporal reference of the Future form and see significance in that component in contrast to the Aorist tense-form.19 While this is more likely an implication of the eschatological reference frame of the quotations in question, we did see it is at least plausible that the Future contributes a subtle additional emphasis to this prospective outlook. This is because the constructions are not identical—while in the listing of the Decalogue both Aorist subjunctives and Future indicatives occur with οὐ μή, Romans 9:33/10:11 has οὐ καταισχυνθήσεται in place of Isaiah’s οὐ μὴ κ αταισχυνθῇ. The author of Hebrews quotes the same passage twice in 8:12; 10:17, but the second time changes the Aorist subjunctive to a Future indicative.20 If extant at all such future emphasis must be subtle, but the possibility is in line with the function of the Future that we have witnessed elsewhere. In cases of Future–Aorist aspectual substitution outside emphatic future negations, the volitional, intentional, potential, or modal nature of the oblique ­Aorist moods appears to overlap with the future temporal reference of the Future indicative. Substitutions of this type are found in Matthew 22:24 (levirate marriage; cf. the parallel but different volitional substitution in Mark 12:19 || Luke 20:28); Matthew 26:31 || Mark 14:27 (strike the shepherd); Romans 3:4 (conquering in judgement); 1 Corinthians 5:13 (expel the immoral person). Romans 3:4 displays functional overlap between an Aorist subjunctive and a Future indicative.21 These verb forms are constrained in their use, similar to the emphatic negative οὐ μή above, as they are part of a final ὅπως ἄν clause. There is no discernible difference between these clauses, with the Future demonstrating overlap with the prospective potentiality of the Aorist subjunctive. Matthew 22:24 transforms Aorist imperatives to Future indicatives, retaining the imperatival force of the original Genesis 38:8 commands.22 Unlike most other aspectual transformations of this type, there is no eschatological or prophecy-fulfillment significance here. Perfective aspect remains constant across the uses, and the future temporal reference has the same rhetorical power as the original imperative. Paul’s command in 1 Corinthians 5:13, echoing Deuteronomy’s 1 8. Cf. “Romans 9:33; 10:11,” p. 177; “Hebrews 8:8–12; 10:16–17,” p. 203. 19. Isa 28:16: ὁ πιστεύων ἐπ᾿ αὐτῷ οὐ μὴ καταισχυνθῇ. Rom 9:33/10:11: καταισχυνθήσεται. 20. Jer 38:34 LXX/Heb 8:12: καὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν αὐτῶν οὐ μὴ μνησθῶ ἔτι. Heb 10:17: μνησ θήσομαι. 21. Ps 50:6 LXX: καὶ νικήσῃς ἐν τῷ κρίνεσθαί σε. Rom 3:4: νικήσεις. 22. Gen 38:8: καὶ γάμβρευσαι αὐτὴν καὶ ἀνάστησον σπέρμα τῷ ἀδελφῷ σου. Matt 22:24: ἐπιγαμβρεύσει … ἀναστήσει.

224 | Aspectual

Substitution

repeated exclusion formula, displays the same correspondence between the Future indicative and Aorist imperative, although this time performed in reverse.23 What is a Future form in Deuteronomy is transformed to an Aorist imperative in 1 Corinthians 5:13, without any significant change in function. Both texts convey commands to expel a covenant breaker. It is possible that the Future forms in Matthew 22:24 and Deuteronomy 17:7 (and parallels) emphasize a future that is more remote than the situation envisaged by the Aorist imperatives. For the question of marriage the Sadducees bring a hypothetical question set off in the future, as opposed to a current familial obligation. Similarly Paul is concerned with the direct action required of the church in Corinth, while Deuteronomy lays out the law which is to be followed in future situations. Like the potential of such a shade in meaning in negative uses above, this slight emphasis is possible and consonant with other observed usage of the Future indicative, but if extant is subtle. In contrast, Matthew 26:31/Mark 14:27 substitutes a Future indicative for an Aorist imperative but does not use the Future as an imperative.24 The Future tense-form in Jesus’s prediction of betrayal gathers up the temporal frame of the entire Zechariah 13 context and applies its predictive scope to the events about to unfold. Here the Future form is just that: a temporal future, and does not overlap in function with a modal Aorist conjugation. In summary, the Aorist–Future substitutions found in NT quotations of the LXX are explained well by taking the Future to have perfective aspect and future temporal reference. At points the Future indicative has either similar or identical function to either an Aorist subjunctive or Aorist imperative, but this is because the Aorist modal forms are naturally prospective. These Aorist tense-forms are found in constructions that are future-referring, and so can be replaced by another future-referring form, namely the Future indicative.

Other Substitutions Some other substitutions examined above are of a different order, and either do not clearly show an aspectual substitution or, in making a substitution, demonstrate something else instructive. I outlined above how John depicts Jesus’s quotation (John 1:51) of the episode in Genesis about Jacob’s ladder with an imperfective–imperfective verbal substitution that is effectively no aspectual substitution 2 3. Deut 17:7, etc.: ἐξαρεῖς τὸν πονηρὸν ἐξ ὑμῶν αὐτῶν. 1 Cor 5:13: ἐξάρατε. 24. Zechariah 13:7: πατάξατε τοὺς ποιμένας καὶ ἐκσπάσατε τὰ πρόβατα. Matt 26:31/Mark 14:27: πατάξω … διασκορπισθήσονται.

Synthesis | 225 at all, for Imperfect finite verbs and Present participles convey the same aspectual value.25 However, this pointed us to the broader narrative contexts of the texts in question, and demonstrated a shift from a frame governed by the Aorist indicative ἐνυπνιάσθη to one centered on the Future indicative ὄψεσθε. This broader context then is one more example of an Aorist–Future aspectual substitution in which perfective aspect is maintained, but the Future context is given explicit future temporal reference. The various quotations of Daniel 7:13 in apocalyptic portions of the Gospels is another example of a different sort of substitution (Matthew 24:30 || Mark 13:26 || Luke 21:27; Matthew 26:64 || Mark 14:62).26 We saw in the above discussion of this passage that a shift from ἰδού to ὄψονται/ὄψεσθε cannot properly be termed aspectual substitution because of the ossification of ἰδού as an interjection.27 However, these Future tense-forms in the NT contexts, being part of a string of other Future tense-forms, created an aspectual contrast to the imperfective narrative frame of Daniel created by the prior verb ἐθεώρουν. This contrast served to demonstrate what is evident in other instances of the Future tense-form in NT quotations: the explanation that it conveys perfective aspect and future temporal reference best explains the usage in these passages. Stephen’s comment on God’s promise to Abraham in Acts 7:5 offers a similar case of non-substitution, but demonstrates the Future indicative’s function.28 The Genesis texts that underlie Stephen’s account are all prospective, relating to a promise to Abraham that is yet to come. Stephen alters the aspect but also refers to the event of promise itself, rendering the clauses as non-substitutable. At the same time this removal of future temporal reference allows him to emphasize the retrospective fact of the promise of God, which was believed on yet not fully received by Abraham. The Future tense-forms in all of these contexts convey future temporal reference. Relatively few instances of the Perfect tense-form have appeared in this study, and they are mostly, arguably, atypical. Hebrews 8:5 has a perfect participle,29 25. Cf. “John 1:51,” p. 142. Gen 28:12: καὶ οἱ ἄγγελοι τοῦ θεοῦ ἀνέβαινον καὶ κατέβαινον ἐπ᾿ αὐτῆς. John 1:51: ἀναβαίνοντας … καταβαίνοντας. 26. Dan 7:13: ἐθεώρουν ἐν ὁράματι τῆς νυκτὸς καὶ ἰδοὺ ἐπὶ/μετὰ τῶν νεφελῶν …. Matt 24:30/Mark 13:26/Luke 21:27: ὄψονται. Matt 26:64/Mark 14:62: ὄψεσθε. 27. Cf. “Matthew 24:30 || Mark 13:26 || Luke 21:27; Matthew 26:64 || Mark 14:62,” p. 115. 28. Gen 17:8, etc.: καὶ δώσω σοι καὶ τῷ σπέρματί σου μετὰ σὲ τὴν γῆν …. Acts 7:5: ἐπηγγεί λατο δοῦναι. 29. Cf. “Hebrews 8:5,” p. 198. Exod 25:40: ὅρα ποιήσεις κατὰ τὸν τύπον τὸν δεδειγμένον σοι ἐν τῷ ὄρει. Heb 8:5: δειχθέντα.

226 | Aspectual

Substitution

and a historical Perfect occurs in Acts 7:40.30 The only clear change involving a Perfect indicative is found in Paul’s quotation regarding Elijah in Romans 11:3.31 In every case, an Aorist tense-form is the counterpart for the Perfect in quotation substitutions. In our discussion of these texts above there was not a great deal of evidence to adjudicate between various proposals for the Perfect, but those models that highlight the Perfect as prominent in discourse (for varying reasons) provide explanatory power for these substitutions. In each case, it was argued, prominence is removed when shifting from a Perfect tense-form to an Aorist, resulting in the reader’s focus being directed elsewhere. Once again this demonstrates the rhetorical use of quotation modifications: focus is drawn to the reader’s or speaker’s main idea, rather than the prominent feature of the quotation in its original context. To sum up, all of the aspectual substitutions we have considered function to underscore the rhetorical or theological argument made elsewhere. With the notable exceptions of Acts 2:31 and 13:37 (and, arguably, Hebrews 10:17) the aspectual changes do not carry the argument—and even in these cases such substitutions are only one component of a larger train of logic. The argument and connections made more broadly are underscored by the grammatical changes to the verb’s tense-form. As the NT authors quote Scripture, they draw on their grammatical freedom to depict an event from a certain perspective, or to make a temporal frame explicit, in order to underline the purpose for which they have adduced their scriptural evidence. The form of the quoted verb fits the function of the clause within which it sits.

Quotation Technique The quotations of the LXX considered in this study shed some interesting light on the ways that the NT authors use Scripture. In modern understandings of “quotation,” anything that lies between quote marks is expected to be a wordfor-word copy of the original, with no change whatsoever. If any sentence or part thereof placed within quotation marks in this study (for example) were found to differ from the source of the quotation, readers would rightly question the academic integrity of the work as a whole. Under modern quotation conventions, a quotation means faithful reproduction with no changes.32 It is tempting 3 0. Cf. “Acts 7:40,” p. 167. Exod 32:1: οὐκ οἴδαμεν, τί γέγονεν αὐτῷ. Acts 7:40: ἐγένετο. 31. Cf. “Romans 11:3–4,” p. 186. 3 Kgdms 19:14: καὶ ὑπολέλειμμαι ἐγὼ μονώτατος. Rom 11:3: ὑπελείφθην. 32. One interesting modern exception includes “pull quotes” in magazines, newspapers, and the like. A pull quote is a graphic design element, often in larger text and/or

Synthesis | 227 for modern readers, therefore, to wonder what boundaries govern NT authors’ quotation practice given the changes they make.33 In contrast to modern conventions, NT authors ascribe authority to a text they cite, while retaining freedom in the wording of the quote.34 In the quotations we have analyzed above, we have noted a number of different types of changes made to texts: variation in word order; synonymous (or near-synonymous) lexeme substitution; grammatically constrained variation in syntax; verbal change to person, mood, etc.; and aspectual substitution.35

1. Variation in word order is routine.36 Even in passages explicitly marked as a scriptural citation through a quotation formula, the words are often not exactly the same as the source text.37 There is no indication, however, that this kind of change is to be considered in any way “inaccurate.”

contrasting color, that stands out as a piece of text that draws the reader into the page. The text is generally “pulled” from the body (hence the name), but under many style guides the text can be abbreviated or summarized provided the meaning is not altered. For example, the National Geographic guide says of pull quotes, “Words pulled from the author’s narrative and used as display type do not need quotation marks and may be altered as long as the meaning is not changed. Attribution is not necessary. Direct quotations pulled from the text and used as display type retain quotation marks and should be exact, although words may be omitted without the use of ellipses as long as the meaning is not altered.” See David Brindley et al., eds., “National Geographic Style Manual,” (2014) https://sites.google.com/a/ngs.org/ngsstyle-manual/home/P/pull-quotes, “P: Pull Quotes.” 33. Stephen Moyise points out the anachronism in judging ancient authors by modern publishing standards, and suggests the equivalent converse charge would be to characterize modern quotation technique as slavishly imitating the source: Steve Moyise, “Does Paul Respect the Context of his Quotations?,” in Paul and Scripture: Extending the Conversation, ed. Christopher D. Stanley (Atlanta: SBL, 2012), 98. 34. Again, it is necessary to stress that NT authors do not always quote Scripture in the manner given above—sometimes it is entirely unchanged, other times there is considerable freedom in wording. Our data set is skewed in that there is always a change of some kind, by definition of its inclusion in this study. 35. See also the non-aspectual substitutions detailed in Appendix A. 36. Cf. Paul’s reordering of lines in Romans 11:3: The order of τοὺς προφήτας σου ἀπέκτειναν and ὰ θυσιαστήριά σου κατέσκαψαν is switched. 37. Other changes below also have this proviso: a quotation formula does not guarantee an un-changed or less-changed quotation.

228 | Aspectual









Substitution

2. Synonyms are often substituted, sometimes with a slightly different shade in meaning, but not necessarily.38 The substitution of λέγει for φησὶν in Hebrews 8:8–12 produces no shift in meaning and is entirely stylistic. Similarly, Luke 4:19 reads κηρύξαι in place of καλέσαι in Isaiah 61:2, with no change in meaning. A number of lexemes are altered to a compound form (and vice versa), for example, ἐξαποστέλλω from Malachi 3:1 is altered to its essential equivalent ἀποστέλλω in Matthew 11:10; Mark 1:2; Luke 7:27. 3. Some changes result from a quotation being placed into a different syntactical relationship to other elements in the clause, and some items are thus constrained to a different form. For example, because John changes σκεῦος in Psalm 2:9 to (the equivalent) τὰ σκεύη in Revelation 2:27, the accompanying adjective κεραμέως is also modified to τὰ κεραμικά to suit. Similarly, when Paul quotes Psalm 8:7 LXX in 1 Corinthians 15:27 he describes the action of God rather than address him directly, so he changes the second-person ὑπέταξας to the third-person ὑπέταξεν. 4. When we consider changes to the verb alone, on occasion we observe a change that helps mirror the surrounding context but does not involve a change in aspect. For example, Acts 1:20 quotes Psalm 108:8 LXX and changes the mood of the optative λάβοι to an imperative λαβέτω.39 Befitting the change from a petition in the original context to a scriptural warrant for replacing Judas, this mood substitution mirrors the rhetorical force of the inclusion of this quotation. 5. The bulk of this study has been concerned with aspectual substitution for verbs in quotations. Sometimes no difference is apparent due to the substitution; for example, the equivalent function of οὐ μοιχεύσεις and μὴ μοιχεύσῃς in the Decalogue and Mark 10:19. In other instances, however, we noted significance in the substitution that underscored the author’s broader argument. John’s typological connection back to Psalm 68:10 LXX in John 2:17 is strengthened by his substitution of the Future καταφάγεται for David’s κατέφαγεν. By this aspectual substitution John

38. For example, in Matthew 2:15 and 2:18 there is substitution of τὰ τέκνα and τὸν υἱόν, and vice versa. This has a possible shift in nuance from a general relationship to a very specific filial relationship, which mirrors Matthew’s theological point that Jesus, specifically, fulfills the typological pattern established by Israel in general. 39. See Appendix, “Acts 1:20,” p. 259.

Synthesis | 229 portrays David not only as a type of righteous sufferer for the Lord but also as a prophet who points predictively and typologically to Christ. Michael Licona’s work was noted earlier for its comparison of the Synoptic Gospel writers and Plutarch’s Nine Lives in terms of their quotation devices, technique, and conventions.40 He found that while the Gospel writers followed similar patterns of editing within quotations to their contemporaries (as described in compositional textbooks), their changes and paraphrases were minimal by ancient standards. This minimal approach to paraphrase and alteration given the conventions of the time, alongside the manner in which Scripture is quoted as an authoritative basis or support for their argument, demonstrates a very high regard for Scripture. This observation fits well with the data we have surveyed above. Changes made to a text when adduced as an authoritative source are mostly unremarkable: this practice is widespread, and understood by the audience. Subtle shifts in interpretation brought about by intentional verbal changes to a source—such as many of the aspectual substitutions considered in the preceding chapters—often serve to underline the divine authority of the source text in more strongly pointing to the typological or prophetic nature of that text. Picking on John’s example in 2:17 once more, for example, it is reasonable to conclude that John does not radically change the original text in changing the Psalm’s Aorist verb to a Future tenseform.41 Interpretation of David as a type of the Messiah to come was widespread, and is a dominant theme in the prophetic material and writings of the OT even before contemporary interpretation. The aspectual substitution in John 2:17 is an example of enabling the reader to connect this well-known understanding of the Messiah to the argument that he makes in his Gospel. In this way the grammatical changes made in quotations fit naturally into their new contexts without diminishing the directness or faithfulness of the quotation. This assertion of the authority of Scripture (cf. the frequent high regard for the OT texts by the use of “it is written”, “the Scripture says,” etc.) also creates a new vista for interpretation of the original context in light of the new. Luke’s account of Peter’s speech provides an explicit example of this: the referent of κύριος in Psalm 15 LXX is originally understood to be David. Throughout Peter’s exegesis and contemporary illustration of David’s tomb, the quotation of this Psalm allows his audience to reinterpret David’s statement about the Lord to point instead

4 0. Licona, Differences in the Gospels; cf. “Criteria for Quotation,” p. 53. 41. Cf. “John 2:17,” p. 146.

230 | Aspectual

Substitution

to Jesus. Peter’s quotation therefore allows his hearers, and Luke’s readers, to once again draw a typological/prophetic connection between the two texts. Paul’s use of Scripture provides a different set of examples, and the quotations in his letters often go beyond the narrow criteria for inclusion in this study, but Greenspoon’s comment on Paul’s quotation technique is illuminating: Paul’s reliance on an existing text in Greek was the starting, not the ending point for his citation of Scripture. Whether or not we wish to allow for inadvertent mistakes on Paul’s part, it should now be clear that we must allow for Paul’s rewording of earlier texts on the basis of the experience of Jesus’ life and death.42

Because of the new context in which quotations are placed, a stronger interpretation of the original context can be created. Grammatical changes made by NT authors do not abolish the setting of the original text, or reduce its authority as Scripture by rewording it.43 The authors making such changes may not assume that readers will be closely studying the source material and noticing the subtle differences in the quotation,44 but the differences in the texts invite reflection on contextual, typological, or prophetic connections between the contexts. Because they tie the source into a new interpretive context NT authors can help readers make new connections with prior texts even without a close examination of the fine details, since the manner in which the source is tied into the new context is a grammatical underscoring of their wider argument. This form of (scriptural) quotation is not limited to the Gospel writers: it was common practice in the ancient world.45 While an examination of extra-biblical texts is beyond the scope of this study, we can briefly examine two other instances of aspectual substitution found in similar literature. The first is from a non-Christian Jewish author, Philo; the second from an anti-Jewish Christian 42. Leonard Greenspoon, “By the Letter? Word for Word? Scriptural Citation in Paul,” in Paul and Scripture: Extending the Conversation, ed. Christopher D. Stanley (Atlanta: SBL, 2012), 22, emphasis added. 43. That is, if one were to bring the charge that the NT authors do disrespect or abolish the original setting of a text they quote, one would have to do this on other grounds than the types of grammatical modification we have surveyed in this study. 44. Cf. Stanley, “Paul’s ‘Use’ of Scripture.” 45. Christopher D. Stanley, “The Social Environment of ‘Free’ Biblical Quotations in the New Testament,” in Early Christian Interpretation of the Scriptures of Israel: Investigations and Proposals, eds. Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1997), 18.

Synthesis | 231 author, Barnabas. Both quote from the Septuagint. These instances are instructive in terms of the same method of quotation because, as will be clear, I believe both authors are incorrect in their interpretation of the Scripture they quote. However, given their assumptions and their overall argument, it is also clear that both authors (1) adduce these quotations as proofs from an authoritative source, (2) make some changes in line with their interpretation of the passage, and (3) those changes do not substantially alter the source text meaning. While I disagree with their interpretation of the quotation, it is evident their quotation technique is in line with both their source and their argument.

Philo, Plant. 29 Psalm 93:9 LXX (MT 94:9) ὁ φυτεύσας τὸ οὖς οὐχὶ ἀκούει, ἢ ὁ πλάσας τὸν ὀφθαλμὸν οὐ κατανοεῖ; The one who shaped [planted] the ear—does he not hear? Or the one who formed the eye—does he not perceive?

Plant. 29 ὁ φυτεύων οὖς οὐκ ἀκούει; ὁ πλάσσων ὀφθαλμούς ούκ ἐπιβλέψει; The one who plants the ear—does he not hear? The one who forms the eyes—will he not behold?

Table 7.1 Psalm 93:9; Plant. 29

In Philo’s consideration of Noah’s work as a “planter” he quotes Psalm 93:9 LXX using the word φυτεύω as a point of connection. Three verbal changes are made: Aorist participles are changed to Present participles (φυτεύσας → φυτεύων; πλάσας → πλάσσων) and ἐπιβλέπω is substituted for κατανοέω. Leonhardt-Balzer

232 | Aspectual

Substitution

makes the case that the change in aspect for the participles is related to the broader case that Philo is arguing, for “the change from the past participle to the present simply denotes a change in perspective: creation did not only happen in the past.”46 Philo’s purpose is to parallel God’s planting of trees with the ongoing “planting” of our bodies—in so doing he ignores the Psalm’s emphasis on God’s ability to listen to and understand his creatures—thus the shift to an imperfective form suits him better.47 As Philo goes on to state, “The One Grower of them all is the Uncreate Artificer, Who not only has made these plants once for all, but is ever making them in the case of each man who is from time to time begotten.”48 This change in aspect in the participles of the quotation does not change the meaning of the verse (although one might reasonably argue Philo’s emphasis is perhaps not in line with the Psalm as he ignores a key component). This aspectual substitution underscores the wider argument to which Philo adduces this quotation yet does not alter the meaning of the source, nor diminish the authority he places on it.

Epistle of Barnabas 5:12 Zechariah 13:7 πατάξατε τοὺς ποιμένας καὶ ἐκσπάσατε τὰ πρόβατα, καὶ ἐπάξω τὴν χεῖρά μου ἐπὶ τοὺς ποιμένας. Strike the shepherds and draw off the sheep, and I will bring my hand against the shepherds.

Matthew 26:31 Τότε λέγει αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς· πάντες ὑμεῖς σκανδαλισθήσεσθε ἐν ἐμοὶ ἐν τῇ νυκτὶ ταύτῃ, γέγραπται γάρ· πατάξω τὸν ποιμένα, καὶ διασκορπισθήσονται τὰ πρόβατα τῆς ποίμνης. Then Jesus said to them, “Tonight all of you will fall away because of me, for it is written: ‘strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered.’ ”

46. Jutta Leonhardt, Jewish Worship in Philo of Alexandria, Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 84 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), 152 n. 37. 47. Leonhardt, Jewish Worship, 152. 48. Philo, Plant. 30, Coulson’s translation, emphasis added.

Synthesis | 233 Mark 14:27 καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς ὅτι πάντες σκανδαλισθήσεσθε, ὅτι γέγραπται· πατάξω τὸν ποιμένα, καὶ τὰ πρόβατα διασκορπισθήσονται. Jesus said to them, “All of you will fall away, for it is written: ‘strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered.’ ”

Barnabas 5:12 λέγει γὰρ ὁ θεὸς τὴν πληγὴν τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ ὅτι ἐξ αὐτῶν: Ὅταν πατάξωσιν τὸν ποιμένα ἑαυτῶν, τότε ἀπολεῖται τὰ πρόβατα τῆς ποίμνης.49 For God says that the wounds of his flesh came from them: “When they strike their own shepherd, then the sheep of the flock will be lost.”

Table 7.2 Zechariah 13:7; Matthew 26:31; Barnabas 5:12

49. Michael W. Holmes, Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007)

234 | Aspectual

Substitution

The Epistle of Barnabas quotes the LXX very frequently indeed. Even counting only those instances prefaced with quotation formulae, Barnabas cites the OT over 100 times in ­chapters 1–17.50 While most of his quotations derive from Isaiah and the Psalms,51 in 5:12 Barnabas quotes Zechariah 13:7 in a different form from both the LXX and the NT witnesses.52 The relationship between Barnabas and his sources is complicated and not settled, but Menken argues that Barnabas not only drew on his LXX source but was also influenced by the NT readings because he preserves editorial changes made by Matthew to Zechariah’s original.53 Several differences between the NT versions and Barnabas are evident: the phrases are placed in a contingent temporal sequence; the verb πατάξωσιν is plural (cf. πατάξω in Matt 26:31; Mark 14:27); the genitive ἑαυτῶν is added to τὸν ποιμένα; and the stronger ἀπολεῖται is used in place of the NT’s διασκορπισθήσονται. The reasoning for these changes is evident when the surrounding verses are examined. In Barnabas 5:11, he states that Jesus came in order to bring about the “full measure” of sins of the Jews who persecuted God’s prophets. The changes to πατάξωσιν and the addition of ἑαυτῶν shift the actor from God (divine action is implicit in Zechariah; explicit in the first-person verb πατάξω of the NT passages) to the Jews who killed Jesus. These “bands of evil men” (Barnabas 5:13) are the ones who take the place of the sword, enacting the judgement against the shepherd so that he can be the savior. This results in their condemnation. The changes Barnabas makes to his original are, in his estimation, both true to his source and to the argument he advances. While I maintain that his interpretation of Judaism as fundamentally and necessarily opposed to Christianity is incorrect (and therefore his appropriation of this verse is tendentious), one can see how he draws this argument from his source. Zechariah maintains that God uses foreign armies—enemies of himself and his people—to judge Israel; Jesus identifies the events of betrayal as both the Lord’s sovereignty and the wickedness of the Jews.54 Menken concludes, “the 50. Robert Alan Kraft, “The Epistle of Barnabas: Its Quotations and their Sources” (PhD diss., Harvard University, 1961), 2. 51. James Carleton Paget, The Epistle of Barnabas: Outlook and Background, WUNT II.64 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994), 88. 52. Cf. the above analysis for the NT quotations of this passage: “Matthew 26:31 || Mark 14:27,” p. 121. 53. Menken, “Striking the Shepherd,” 309. For more on Barnabas and his sources see Kraft, “The Epistle of Barnabas: Its Quotations and their Sources”; Paget, Epistle of Barnabas; Klaus Wengst, Didache (Apostellehre), Barnabasbrief, Schriften des Urchristentums 2 (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2006). 54. Cf. “Matthew 26:31 || Mark 14:27,” p. 121.

Synthesis | 235 anti-Judaism of Barnabas has determined his rewriting and rereading of Matthew.” Yet in this anti-Jewish interpretation of Jesus’s role, Barnabas intends to give all authority to the Scriptures to make his case, and the changes made to support his broader case do not do intrinsic violence to the source text itself. In summary, considering the NT and other contemporary evidence, making grammatical modifications in quotations was commonly practiced. This ancient citation technique allows for minor changes that fit their new context, either matching syntactical relationships, or subtly supporting the argument, or both.

The Future Tense-Form Our final gathering of data concerns the model of the Future tense-form. To briefly recap the positions on the Future tense-form outlined earlier:55 Fanning and Olson contend that the Future is a tense, but unmarked for aspect;56 McKay labels it an anomalous aspect expressing [+intention];57 Porter argues it is aspectually vague with an attitude of [+expectation];58 Campbell argues for its perfective aspect and future temporal reference as semantic features.59

Temporality In the aspectual contrasts we have considered above, the Future tense-form appears to always have future temporal reference. In some cases it aligns with a naturally prospective function of the imperative or subjunctive mood, but in a substantial number of other cases the Future tense-form acts to explicitly delineate future temporal reference. Replacing the Future with another tense-form, such as an Aorist indicative or a Present tense-form, removes the future temporal reference (e.g., Acts 2:31; Luke 23:46). Use of the Future as a replacement for another tense-form creates explicit future temporal reference (e.g., John 2:17). That many of these changes are made in eschatological or prophecy-fulfillment contexts is not surprising, as the future temporal reference frame assists in creating these theological contexts and connections between texts.

5 5. Cf. “The Future Form,” p. 45. 56. Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 120; Olsen, Semantic and Pragmatic Model, 260. 57. McKay, New Syntax, 34. 58. Porter, Verbal Aspect, 413–15. 59. Campbell, Indicative Mood, 159.

236 | Aspectual

Substitution

Some critiques of the understanding that the Future tense-form consistently conveys future temporal reference have drawn attention to instances in which the Future is used in non-future contexts. For example, Porter says, “The Future is recognizably used in distinctly non-future contexts (gnomically [Rom 5:7; 7:3], as a command [Matt 21:3], as a supposition in conditional and conditional-like statements [Mark 14:29; Matt 10:32], and as parallel in function to various uses of the Subjunctive, like the relative clause), as even the most stringently timebased grammars admit.”60 Pang chooses different references but says similarly, “Virtually all treatments of the Future have to deal with the fact that the form itself is used in distinctly non-future and non-Indicative contexts, such as timeless expression (Matt 6:14–15; 15:14; etc.), command (Matt 5:21; 6:5; 7:7; etc.), or parallel with the Subjunctive (Matt 18:6).”61 Detailed examination of such passages that do not involve quotations is beyond the scope of this study, but it appears that the objection raised here is more to do with labelling it a Future indicative than with future temporal reference. The so-called “gnomic” or “timeless” contexts (e.g., “if you do not forgive others, neither will your Father forgive your offenses,” Matt 6:15; “for a good person perhaps someone might be willing to die”) are necessarily future-referring events from the perspective of the agent involved. That they are potential or hypothetical situations does not change the necessary temporal relationship between the agent and the event. So too for conditions, commands, and (as we have already noted) overlap with the imperative and subjunctive. The Future tense-form conveys future temporal reference both in independent uses as a Future indicative (e.g., John 2:17; Acts 2:27) and in other more contingent situations. While depiction of hypothetical consequences may affect how we describe the modality of the Future tense-form (more on this below), temporal reference appears to be consistent. Use of the Future tense-form in conditional or volitional statements does not undermine its future temporal reference—it is a natural expression of it.

Mood Because the Future tense-form is arguably anomalous within the Greek verbal system, there is little consensus on how it relates to the oblique moods. Given its likely diachronic development from the Aorist subjunctive, some theorists question its designation as “indicative.” Porter opts for the term [+expectation] because 6 0. Porter, Verbal Aspect, 441. 61. Pang, “Aspect, Aktionsart, and Abduction,” 153.

Synthesis | 237 it does not have a full paradigm and is therefore “not fully aspectual,” it frequently mirrors the function of the Aorist subjunctive and imperative, and is found in contexts that he describes as “distinctly non-future.”62 As Porter describes mood in the Koine verbal system, he labels the indicative the “assertive attitude,” as an epistemic feature (+assertion), and the oblique moods as “deontic,” expressing the will of the speaker (–assertion).63 He notes that, while the subjunctive projects a potential situation, and many uses of the subjunctive are indeed prospective or future-referring, this does not constitute a temporal category—the subjunctive can be used for non-temporal and non-future expressions. Porter points to instances of the non-future subjunctive, e.g., John 9:2 (ῥαββί, τίς ἥμαρτεν, οὗτος ἢ οἱ γονεῖς αὐτοῦ, ἵνα τυφλὸς γεννηθῇ;, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, so that he was born blind?”) and Mark 11:28 (τίς σοι ἔδωκεν τὴν ἐξουσίαν ταύτην ἵνα ταῦτα ποιῇς;, “who gave you this authority to do these things?”). While the subjunctive conveys a latter action within a temporal sequence in these examples, this is driven by the logical conjunction ἵνα rather than the subjunctive itself. Regarding the imperative, Porter argues it is not a time-based tense category because a command can always be rejected, and therefore “does not refer to a future event but merely a posited one.”64 He further argues that imperatives can refer to an event that is impossible, for example, John 4:16 (ὕπαγε φώνησον τὸν ἄνδρα σου καὶ ἐλθὲ ἐνθάδε, “Go get your husband and come back here”), or express an assumption, for example Matt 6:9 or Rom 3:4 (ἁγιασθήτω τὸ ὄνομά σου, “hallowed be your name”; γινέσθω δὲ ὁ θεὸς ἀληθής, “Let God be true”). Imperatives therefore, Porter argues, have “no necessary relation to a future world.”65 Yet this appears to be mixing realis/irrealis categories with mood—a position he was careful to avoid when describing the indicative mood as the assertive attitude rather

6 2. Porter, Verbal Aspect, 441. 63. Wallace, for example, has similar language: “Mood is the morphological feature of a verb that a speaker uses to portray his or her affirmation as to the certainty of the verbal action or state (whether an actuality or potentiality)”: Wallace, Greek Grammar, 445, emphasis original. These definitions are expressly in contrast to less-clear definitions that blur “assertion” with “certainty” or “factuality,” for example Roberts, “In general, the subjunctive in Greek as in English is less positive in meaning than the indicative, being used to express constructions which are in the realm of supposal, possibility, or conception, rather than in fact”: J. T. Roberts, “The Independent Subjunctive,” ResQ 6 (1962): 98. 64. Porter, Verbal Aspect, 168. 65. Porter, Verbal Aspect, 168.

238 | Aspectual

Substitution

than conveying statements corresponding to reality. While it may follow that the imperative “is not to be considered a time-based tense,” it should be noted that the imperative in these situations is nevertheless prospective in outlook (Porter does not deny this). I do not wish to argue here against what Porter and others have outlined in general with respect to the functions of these moods. Comparing the functions of these moods to the Future tense-form, however, it is notable that the overlap we have observed in this study corresponds to the prospective function of the subjunctive and imperative, and not to other uses (e.g. certain functions in dependent clauses, for example). That is, the subjunctive and imperative moods do not always refer to future situations, but they may do so. When they have this prospective outlook they depict a series of events that the speaker desires to bring about or to have happen. In these cases the oblique moods are future-referring in their expression—not semantically, but functionally. When the Future tense-form overlaps in function with the volitional categories, it is always in this prospective sense. There is some difficulty in delineating the Future indicative tense-form from the prospective volitional categories because of the conceptual question of how language can express temporal relationships. Descriptions of the future are necessarily different from those of the past because our knowledge of the future is speculative, limited, indefinite, and provisional.66 Nevertheless, the distinction between indicative and subjunctive that holds generally—an attitude of assertion versus an attitude of the speaker’s will—still holds across the instances of the Future tense-form that we have observed, albeit with more crossover than other tense-forms. The oblique moods convey a sense of projection through which they depict a possible or desired situation with respect to the speaker that may or may not be future-referring. The Future tense-form depicts a situation in the future, but the extent to which it is potential or volitional may vary. The instances in which the Future indicative appears to function similarly to an Aorist modal form are due to its overlap in the prospective, future-referring functions of these moods. It is not necessary to conclude that the Future tense-form is itself volitional and therefore not a properly defined form within the verbal network.

Perfective Aspect Finally, the issue of the aspectual value of the Future tense-form remains. Our observations of the use to which the Future tense-form is put, and the contrast 66. Cf. Bernard Comrie, Tense (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 43–44.

Synthesis | 239 (or lack of contrast) with other tense-forms in quotation changes, has consistently led us to identify the Future tense-form as having perfective aspect. In instances where it is contrasted to the Aorist there is evident continuity in perfective aspect across the substitution. Campbell’s model of the Future explains this parallel outlook, as it is derived in part from a general observation of similarity between the Aorist and Future tense-forms and their patterns of usage.67 Porter describes the Future as “not fully aspectual” because no paradigmatic choice is offered—that is, if one labels it “indicative” there is no way to express the subjunctive, optative, or imperative; conversely if it is a mood there is no indicative form.68 However, if consistent perfective aspect and consistent temporal reference are accepted for the Future tense-form, then it does in fact fit neatly into the Koine verbal system. Lack of a full paradigm is no obstacle to the Future form being “fully aspectual.” Consider the Imperfect tense-form: both Porter and Campbell argue it expresses imperfective aspect, and is also morphologically marked for remoteness. (Remoteness is often, but not always, expressed pragmatically as past temporal reference.) That the Imperfect has only an indicative form is no obstacle for most theorists to recognize that it fully expresses imperfective aspect. If, for example, an imperfective imperative form is desired, then the Present imperative is an available paradigmatic choice. So too for the Future tense-form— if a perfective subjunctive form is desired, the Aorist subjunctive is an available choice. Just as the Imperfect tense-form has a spatial/remoteness opposition to the Present and an aspectual opposition to the Aorist, the Future has a temporal opposition to the Aorist and, as Campbell argues, an aspectual opposition to the Future periphrastic. Both the Future and Aorist semantically encode perfective aspect. The Future tense-form has morphological markings that (in most cases) distinguish it from other conjugations, and provide a marked contrast in terms of explicit future temporal reference. So Porter is correct that the Future tense-form conveys expectation of a future event or process, but his terminology does not cover enough ground. Justin Long is right to conclude that the Future’s rhetorical function is to create expectation of an event’s fulfillment, with the Future providing a stronger statement of certainty than the subjunctive or optative moods.69 Porter’s [+expectation] term is an intentionally flexible one, capable of covering a variety of uses of the Future

6 7. Campbell, Indicative Mood, 139–51. 68. Porter, Verbal Aspect, 409, 413. 69. Long, “Discourse Function of the Greek Future,” 273–75.

240 | Aspectual

Substitution

form, including future temporal reference, a speaker’s intention, or prediction.70 It is also, however, an intentionally limiting one, intended to identify the Future as a unique form in Greek—as neither fully aspectual nor fully attitudinal. But constraining the Future tense-form to a semantic value of [+expectation] falls short of the consistent usage of the Future, indicated clearly in instances of direct contrast to other aspectual forms. This study is limited in the instances of the Future tense-form that are available, and is thus not conclusive in its findings. Yet on the basis of the substitutions studied, the Future tense-form presents as perfective in aspect, future in temporal reference, and thus provides a meaningful contrast to the Aorist within the Koine verbal network.

70. Porter, Verbal Aspect, 414–27.

8

Conclusions

This study has investigated NT quotations of the LXX in which the verb has been altered, considering especially the phenomenon of aspectual substitution. I defined quotations as instances where:

1. there is a quotation formula or contextual indicators that reveal a direct citation, or 2. there are clear, direct parallels over at least four words of an OT text, with minimal variation (e.g., word order, or other minor alterations).

Given the set of NT quotations defined in this way, the list of verses was further refined by looking for quotations that followed the wording of the LXX closely (as opposed to agreeing with the Hebrew against the Greek), but also changed the verb form. In so doing I found a set of quotations that allowed for direct verbal comparison from the source text to the NT quotation: some change is made to the original, but not too much. Examining quotations of this kind—and seeking to discern what effect substitution of one tense-form for another has on the use of quotations in their new context—is a study at the center of several different fields of scholarship, including, but not limited to: Septuagintal studies, including examination of translation

242 | Aspectual

Substitution

technique and Semitic interference; NT use of the OT; and Koine Greek linguistics. We saw first that not only is the Septuagint written in standard, contemporary, Koine Greek, but NT texts also demonstrate significant influence of the language of the LXX in terms of vocabulary, technical terminology, theological foundations, and direct quotations. There is adequate warrant to compare NT passages with the Septuagint at the level of syntax, vocabulary, and verbal morphology. Second, I sketched several different proposals for how the NT employs the OT, with arguments for NT usage ranging from a form of midrashic exegesis or atomistic quotation without regard to context, to typological schemes that develop interpretive grids from Old to New Testaments. We saw that there was a variety of ways in which NT authors use OT texts to develop their theology and their particular arguments, and I argued that there are good grounds to suggest that both the New and Old Testament contexts ought to be considered when teasing out the use of Scripture in a new context. The manner of interaction varies between the original and new literary contexts (e.g., typological connections, promise-fulfillment patterns, salvation-historical connections, etc.) but both interpretive contexts are necessary for understanding the use to which a quotation is put. Thirdly, several proposals for what the verbal morphology indicates at a semantic level were outlined, from a temporal view through Aktionsart models to the present debate between proponents of aspect-only (i.e. no semantic temporal component) and aspect-prominent (i.e. aspect is primary, and tense present secondarily in the indicative mood) models. Models proposed by Porter, Fanning, Campbell, and the aspect-prominent proponents are the primary candidates for understanding the Greek verb, albeit with some variation especially when considering the Future tense-form and the Historical Present. These three broad areas of scholarly enquiry impacted this study in different ways. First, the consensus that the character of Greek is consistent across the LXX and NT gave warrant to compare quotations in the NT with their source text(s). Second, the plurality of interpretive NT uses of Scripture invited us to consider verbal changes in quotations in terms of their rhetorical effect in both old and new contexts. Third, the ongoing debates about aspect set the scene for one of the contributions of this study: what light do these instances of instantiated aspectual choice throw on this discussion? In order to discern this, I applied a method derived from Carl Bache’s contrastive substitution, with necessary modifications to the procedure to account for the particularities of quotation. Two intersecting levels of analysis enabled us together to deal with complex examples of quotation in

Conclusions | 243 subsequent chapters: contextual transformation of meaning (i.e. the referents of a quotation are at times necessarily altered because of the new context into which it is inserted); and semantic shift due to contrastive substitution (i.e. substitution of one tense-form for another can alter the semantic content of the clause). There is therefore a two-step process: first, we can consider how the NT passage would read if the quotation were inserted but unaltered. This fixes the extralinguistic factors of interpretation. (In other words, look for cases where quotations are “saying something different, but in the same way”—the opposite to Bache’s terms of contrastive substitution.) Second, we can consider the semantic shift that results from substituting the verb form, and whether it results in a +distinctive or −distinctive contrast. (In other words, look for cases where quotations are, in Bache’s terms, “saying the same thing but in different ways.”) In applying this analysis to instances of quotations in the NT, several patterns emerged. NT authors quote the OT authoritatively, treating it as divine Scripture. While according these texts authority, they demonstrate some freedom in altering these quoted verses in several ways:









1. Variation in word order is routine. This is true even in passages explicitly marked as a scriptural citation through a quotation formula. There is no indication, however, that this kind of change is to be considered in any way “inaccurate.” 2. Synonyms are often substituted, sometimes with a slightly different shade in meaning, but not necessarily. A number of lexemes are altered to a compound form (and vice versa). 3. Some changes result from a quotation being placed into a different syntactical relationship to other elements in the clause, and some items are thus constrained to a different form. 4. When we consider changes to the verb alone, on occasion we observe a change that helps mirror the surrounding context but does not involve a change in aspect. Several instances demonstrate changes to mood, person, or voice. 5. When considering tense-form changes, sometimes no difference is apparent due to the substitution. In other instances, however, we noted significance in the substitution that underscored the author’s broader argument. New Testament authors transform texts without substantially altering the original, but frequently the observed changes support the argument being made in the quotation’s new context.

244 | Aspectual

Substitution

Perfective–Imperfective substitution occurs almost exclusively in narrative (Matthew 27:35; Mark 4:12; 9:48; 13:25 15:24; Luke 8:10; 23:34, 46; John 15:25; Acts 7:40; Rev 2:27). Usage of the Present tense-form in place of an original Aorist tense-form generally appears to highlight the contemporary applicability of the depicted event in contrast to the plain, more neutral, Aorist tense-form. The internal viewpoint of the imperfective aspect is used for its rhetorical effect, highlighting the significance of the situation in some fashion. The opposite case—substituting an Aorist for a Present—demonstrates the same effect only in reverse, removing what shade of significance is carried by the imperfective aspect and reverting to a further-removed depiction of the event. This rhetorical effect is also demonstrated in several Future–Present substitutions. In these instances the aspectual substitution creates both an aspectual (perfective–imperfective) and a temporal (future–present) shift. These are frequently used not only to create the kind of contemporary applicability demonstrated in Aorist–Present substitutions, but also a prophecy-fulfillment or typological connection from an OT context to a situation envisaged in the NT and applied to the hearers/readers. Perfective– imperfective aspectual substitution in NT quotations highlights a narrative focus brought about by imperfective depictions of a situation or an event. The contrast of Present tense-forms to Aorist and Future forms demonstrates their narrative function, and also demonstrates the consistency of future temporal reference for the Future form. Perfective–Perfective substitution is a tense-form change found in a wider variety of contexts (Matt 4:16; 22:24; 26:31; Mark 10:19; 12:19; 14:27; Luke 18:20; 20:28; John 2:17; Acts 2:27–31; 13:35–37; Rom 3:4; 9:33; 10:11; 11:2–4; 1 Cor 5:13; Heb 10:17; Jas 2:11), and demonstrates the Future tense-form’s relationship to the Aorist indicative and the oblique moods. Rhetorically some of these Aorist–Future substitutions are identical (or near-identical), with the forms demonstrating significant overlap in function. In other cases, however, the explicit future temporal reference in the Future form (and its consequent addition or cancellation depending on the nature of the substitution) serves to make a prophetic or typological connection explicit (e.g. John 2:17). Aorist–Future substitutions of this sort are explained well by taking the Future to have perfective aspect and future temporal reference. At points the Future indicative has either similar or identical function to either an Aorist subjunctive or Aorist imperative, but this is because the Aorist modal forms are naturally prospective. These Aorist tense-forms in the oblique moods are found in constructions that are future-referring, and so can be replaced by another future-referring form, namely the Future indicative.

Conclusions | 245 We observed certain verbal substitutions that were not clearly aspectual substitution or, in making a substitution, demonstrated something else instructive (Matt 24:30; 26:64; Mark 13:26; 14:62; Luke 21:27; John 1:51; Acts 7:5, 40; Rom 11:3; Heb 8:5). Substitutions that involved casting events into a broader temporal frame controlled by a Future tense-form demonstrate further the future temporal reference of that tense-form and its consistent perfective aspect. A handful of (somewhat anomalous) contrasts between the Perfect tense-form and the Aorist functioned rhetorically to draw the reader’s focus to one idea in place of another. Each of these changes demonstrate again that NT authors make motivated changes to quotations in order to quote accurately and honor the context of the original, but at the same time put those quotations to work in building the argument established elsewhere in their new context. Aspectual substitution in quotation thus helps to grammatically underscore the argument being made in its wider NT context. Such changes prompt readers of the NT to make careful contextual, typological, and prophetic connections back to the original, and then shift focus to take into account the new use to which this quotation is put. Aspectual substitution can provide subtle emphasis that assists the author in demonstrating the applicability of the argument being established in the NT context. Internal or external depictions can change the pace of a narrative or highlight an event as proximate to the hearers. Explicit temporal reference can be added or removed in a similar fashion to draw definite connections between the Old and New Testament contexts. Finally, because the Future tense-form featured prominently in instances of aspectual substitution in NT quotations, I drew some conclusions about the nature of this tense-form. Looking at this form in direct contrast to other tenseforms—that is, as an instantiated choice within the verbal network—I argued it depicts events perfectively and always has future temporal reference. Just as the Imperfect tense-form has a spatial/remoteness opposition to the Present and an aspectual opposition to the Aorist, the Future has a temporal opposition to the Aorist and, as Campbell argues, an aspectual opposition to the Future periphrastic participle. Both the Future and Aorist semantically encode perfective aspect. The Future tense-form has morphological markings that (in most cases) distinguish it from other conjugations, and provide a contrast in terms of explicit future temporal reference. The Future tense-form therefore provides a meaningful opposition to the Aorist within the Koine verbal network, encoding perfective aspect and marked for future temporal reference.

Appendix: Non-aspectual Changes

Three chapters in the main body of this study outlined in some detail instances of aspectual substitution in quotations of the LXX. Some of these quotations involved additional changes, such as person or mood; others were accompanied by changes to the surrounding text. There was a range of significance detected in these substitutions, with some cases being functionally identical, and others supporting the author’s interpretation of Scripture through the substitution. Following the criteria for a quotation outlined early in this study,1 there exists a second set of quotations that display verbal alteration, but do not show any aspectual substitution. That is, they have a clear parallel to the LXX text over four words or more (whether introduced formally as a quotation or not), change the verb in some fashion, but the change is to something other than aspect. For example, Matthew 2:15 changes μετεκάλεσα τὰ τέκνα in Hosea 11:1 to ἐκάλεσα τὸν υἱόν—both verbs are Aorist, but μετακαλέω has a slightly different nuance to καλέω. Both Matthew 4:10 and Luke 4:8 change κύριον τὸν θεόν σου φοβηθήσῃ from Deuteronomy 6:13 to κύριον τὸν θεόν σου προσκυνήσεις—this is a change in lexeme, and a change from a (lexically) passive form to the active voice. Acts 1:20 quotes Psalm 108:8 LXX, and changes the Aorist optative λάβοι

1. See “Selecting the Data,” p. 53.

248 | Appendix:

Non-aspectual Changes

to an imperative λαβέτω. This section briefly considers this second set of quotations that do not display aspectual substitution, but do show evidence of altering verbs from the source text.

A.1  Matthew 2:15 Hosea 11:1 Διότι νήπιος Ισραηλ, καὶ ἐγὼ ἠγάπησα αὐτὸν καὶ ἐξ Αἰγύπτου μετεκάλεσα τὰ τέκνα αὐτοῦ. Because Israel was an infant and I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my child.

Matthew 2:15 καὶ ἦν ἐκεῖ ἕως τῆς τελευτῆς Ἡρῴδου· ἵνα πληρωθῇ τὸ ῥηθὲν ὑπὸ κυρίου διὰ τοῦ προφήτου λέγοντος· ἐξ Αἰγύπτου ἐκάλεσα τὸν υἱόν μου. He stayed there until Herod’s death, so that what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet might be fulfilled: “Out of Egypt I called my son.”

Matthew 2:15 is one of the evangelist’s many “fulfillment quotations” introduced with the formula ἵνα πληρωθῇ τὸ ῥηθὲν ὑπὸ κυρίου (or similar). He quotes Hosea 11:1 to demonstrate that Jesus fulfills Scriptures that had their original reference to Israel. The original μετακαλέω is altered to the non-compound form καλέω.2 These two related lexemes are similar in what they connote, but not identical. Καλέω is “to call, invite,” while μετακαλέω has the nuance of “to call together.”3 The difference between these terms is slight, but the basic form of καλέω fits more naturally in application to one particular person (Jesus). This change to the verb mirrors another modification of the source text: the change from τέκνον to υἱός is from general endearment to a specific (spiritual or physical) father-son

2. One manuscript in the LXX tradition reads καλέω, 233, so it is possible Matthew read a different source text. That manuscript does not, however, read τὸν υἱόν for τὰ τέκνα. Cf. Ziegler, ed., Duodecim Prophetae, 172. 3. Louw and Nida, eds., Greek-English Lexicon, 33.307, 33.310; Danker, Bauer and Arndt, eds., Dictionary, καλέω, μετακαλέω.

Appendix: Non-aspectual Changes | 249 relationship. Arguably this use of “son” makes a strong claim about Israel’s covenant relationship with God, which Matthew points to as typologically fulfilled in the person and work of Jesus. Neither of these changes makes a great difference to the quoted verse, but does demonstrate comfort with slightly altering the words of Scripture in order to fit better in their new context.

A.2  Matthew 2:18 Jeremiah 38:15 LXX (31:15 MT) Οὕτως εἶπεν κύριος Φωνὴ ἐν Ραμα ἠκούσθη θρήνου καὶ κλαυθμοῦ καὶ ὀδυρμοῦ· Ραχηλ ἀποκλαιομένη οὐκ ἤθελεν παύσασθαι ἐπὶ τοῖς υἱοῖς αὐτῆς, ὅτι οὐκ εἰσίν. Thus said the Lord, “A voice of lamentation and weeping and mourning was heard in Rama; Rachel did not want to stop weeping for her sons, because they are no more.”

Matthew 2:18 φωνὴ ἐν Ῥαμὰ ἠκούσθη, κλαυθμὸς καὶ ὀδυρμὸς πολύς· Ῥαχὴλ κλαίουσα τὰ τέκνα αὐτῆς, καὶ οὐκ ἤθελεν παρακληθῆναι, ὅτι οὐκ εἰσίν. A voice was heard in Rama, weeping and great mourning; Rachel weeping for her children, and she refused to be consoled, because they are no more.

As in the prior quotation (Matt 2:15) there is a change from τέκνον to υἱός, albeit in the opposite direction. Again, this is likely to be from a specific father-son relationship, either spiritual and/or physical, to a general term of endearment. In addition, changes to two verbs are evident. The participle form of κλαίω has both a voice change (middle to active) and from a compound form ἀποκλαίω to

250 | Appendix:

Non-aspectual Changes

the simple form κλαίω.4 Neither of these affects the sense. The infinitive Aorist παύσασθαι has a middle-to-passive voice change, along with a lexical substitution—from παύω to παρακαλέω—possibly as a corrective translation from a Hebrew source.5

A.3  Matthew 3:3 || Mark 1:3 || Luke 3:5 || John 1:23 Isaiah 40:3 φωνὴ βοῶντος ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ Ἑτοιμάσατε τὴν ὁδὸν κυρίου, εὐθείας ποιεῖτε τὰς τρίβους τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν· A voice crying out in the wilderness, “Prepare the way of the Lord, make straight the paths of our God.”

Matthew 3:3 φωνὴ βοῶντος ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ· ἑτοιμάσατε τὴν ὁδὸν κυρίου, εὐθείας ποιεῖτε τὰς τρίβους αὐτοῦ. A voice crying out in the wilderness: “Prepare the way of the Lord, make straight his paths.”

Mark 1:3 φωνὴ βοῶντος ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ· ἑτοιμάσατε τὴν ὁδὸν κυρίου, εὐθείας ποιεῖτε τὰς τρίβους αὐτοῦ, A voice crying out in the wilderness: “Prepare the way of the Lord, make straight his paths.” 4. Blomberg calls the voice change “a stylistic improvement”: Blomberg, “Matthew,” 10. 5. Soares Prabhu, Formula Quotations, 253. Morris states, “In this verb Matthew is closer to the Hebrew than is LXX, but elsewhere LXX has the advantage”: Morris, Matthew, 46.

Appendix: Non-aspectual Changes | 251

Luke 3:5 φωνὴ βοῶντος ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ· ἑτοιμάσατε τὴν ὁδὸν κυρίου, εὐθείας ποιεῖτε τὰς τρίβους αὐτοῦ· A voice crying out in the wilderness: “Prepare the way of the Lord, make straight his paths.”

John 1:23 ἔφη· ἐγὼ φωνὴ βοῶντος ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ· εὐθύνατε τὴν ὁδὸν κυρίου, καθὼς εἶπεν Ἠσαΐας ὁ προφήτης. He said, “I am a voice crying out in the wilderness: ‘Make straight the way of the Lord,’ just as the prophet Isaiah said.”

Isaiah’s words from ­chapter 40 are adopted by all four Gospels to speak of the ministry of John the Baptist, although there are differences between the Synoptics and the fourth evangelist. The Synoptics—in these verses, at least—follow Isaiah’s LXX text closely, aside from a final implicit identification of κυρίος with ὁ θέος ἡμῶν.6 Matthew, Mark, and Luke identify John the Baptist as the one crying out, but John goes a step further in giving these words to the Baptist for his own self-identification.7 John’s claim that he is the voice crying in the wilderness accompanies his denial that he is the Messiah (οὐκ εἰμί, John 1:21). This in turn creates space for Jesus to declare ἐγώ εἰμι (4:26).8

6. Variant texts exist for Mark that agree with the wording given in Isaiah 40:3. Variants for Luke only read ημων, and do not include θεός. The Matthew text is secure. 7. Cf. Brown, John I–XII, 50; Keener, John, 438; J. Ramsey Michaels NICNT 100. 8. Cf. Moloney, John, 52; Edwin D. Freed, “Egō Eimi in John 1:20 and 4:25,” CBQ 41 (1979): 288–89.

252 | Appendix:

Non-aspectual Changes

Some suggest that John may have cited inaccurately from memory, or was influenced by the occurrence of εὐθύνειν with ὁδὸς in other contemporary texts.9 In a careful study Menken, however, concludes that “John quoted from the LXX or from a pre-Aquila recension of it, and that he replaced ἑτοιμάσατε by εὐθύνατε, derived directly or indirectly from the next line of Isa 40,3.”10 This theory of the text form is echoed by Michaels, who states that John “appears to have telescoped Isaiah 40:3a with v. 3b.”11 As to John’s reason for this change, Menken argues that the connotations that often accompany ἑτοιμάσατε—of a well demarcated temporal sequence—were incompatible with John’s desired picture of John the Baptist.12 Carson finds this explanation unconvincing, and argues instead for John’s depiction being firmly in line with a typological connection to the return of the Lord to Jerusalem, and that there is no necessary separation between the coming of the Messiah and the ministry of John the Baptist.13 John’s identification of his own role in announcing the Messiah perhaps explains his condensing of the two lines of Isaiah into one Aorist imperative. The original prophecy called “for a (metaphorical) improvement in the road system of the desert to the east, a levelling of hills and valleys and a straightening of the curves, to accommodate the return of the covenant people from exile.”14 But John’s role is to prepare a road for God himself to come to his people, not for people to return to the land.15 John’s strengthening of the verbal ideas into a single Aorist imperative thus depicts this preparatory work as specific to these circumstances—relevant, that is, to the coming of the Messiah.

9. Cf. McHugh, John 1–4. McHugh notes Barrett’s suggestion of influence from Sir 2:6; 37:15; 49:9. 10. Menken, “Quotation from Isa 40:3,” 194–95. 11. J. Ramsey Michaels, The Gospel of John, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 101 n. 27. 12. Menken, “Quotation from Isa 40:3,” 195–96. 13. Carson, John, 144, esp. n. 1. 14. Carson, John, 144. 15. Brown, John I–XII, 50.

Appendix: Non-aspectual Changes | 253

A.4  Matthew 4:10 || Luke 4:8 Deuteronomy 6:13 κύριον τὸν θεόν σου φοβηθήσῃ καὶ αὐτῷ λατρεύσεις καὶ πρὸς αὐτὸν κολληθήσῃ καὶ τῷ ὀνόματι αὐτοῦ ὀμῇ. You shall fear the Lord your God, and serve him, and cling to him, and swear by his name.

Matthew 4:10 τότε λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς· ὕπαγε, σατανᾶ· γέγραπται γάρ· κύριον τὸν θεόν σου προσκυνήσεις καὶ αὐτῷ μόνῳ λατρεύσεις. Then Jesus said to him, “Go away, Satan! For it is written: ‘You will worship the Lord your God and serve him only.’ ”

Luke 4:8 καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτῷ· γέγραπται· κύριον τὸν θεόν σου προσκυνήσεις καὶ αὐτῷ μόνῳ λατρεύσεις. And Jesus answered him, “It is written: ‘You will worship the Lord your God and serve him only.’ ”

In Matthew’s and Luke’s citation of Deuteronomy 6:13, both change the lexically passive φοβηθήσῃ to an active προσκυνήσεις.16 The change in voice here is immaterial for comparison purposes as it is automatic once the lexical change is made from φοβέομαι to προσκυνέω.17 “Fear,” as it relates to God, is an adjacent term to “worship”—both concepts are closely aligned in the history of Israel’s Scripture. The choice of προσκυνέω here is appropriate to the context, as it matches the vocabulary of the temptation itself: καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ· ταῦτά σοι πάντα δώσω, ἐὰν πεσὼν 16. This change is reflected in the LXX A text and manuscript 82, but could well be due to harmonization with the Gospel readings. John William Wevers, ed., Deuterono mium, Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graeca III,2 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977), 122. 17. φοβέω is “in our lit. only pass.”: Danker, Bauer and Arndt, eds., Dictionary, φοβέω.

254 | Appendix:

Non-aspectual Changes

προσκυνήσῃς μοι (Matt 4:10; cf. Luke 4:7). Lexical substitution therefore fits both the quotation and the new context without changing the substance of the Scripture evoked through citation.

A.5  Matthew 16:27 || Romans 2:6 Psalm 61:13 LXX (MT 62:13) ὅτι τὸ κράτος τοῦ θεοῦ, καὶ σοί, κύριε, τὸ ἔλεος, ὅτι σὺ ἀποδώσεις ἑκάστῳ κατὰ τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ. For the power is God’s, and to you, Lord, belongs mercy, For you will repay each person according to their works.

Proverbs 24:12 ἐὰν δὲ εἴπῃς Οὐκ οἶδα τοῦτον, γίνωσκε ὅτι κύριος καρδίας πάντων γινώσκει, καὶ ὁ πλάσας πνοὴν πᾶσιν αὐτὸς οἶδεν πάντα, ὃς ἀποδίδωσιν ἑκάστῳ κατὰ τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ. If you say, “I don’t know this person,” Know that the Lord knows all hearts, and the one who formed breath for all knows everything, he will repay each person according to their works.

Matthew 16:27 μέλλει γὰρ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἔρχεσθαι ἐν τῇ δόξῃ τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ μετὰ τῶν ἀγγέλων αὐτοῦ, καὶ τότε ἀποδώσει ἑκάστῳ κατὰ τὴν πρᾶξιν αὐτοῦ. For the son of man is going to come in the glory of his father with his angels, and then he will repay each person according to their deeds.

Romans 2:5–6 κατὰ δὲ τὴν σκληρότητά σου καὶ ἀμετανόητον καρδίαν θησαυρίζεις σεαυτῷ ὀργὴν ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ὀργῆς καὶ ἀποκαλύψεως δικαιοκρισίας τοῦ θεοῦ 6 ὃς ἀποδώσει ἑκάστῳ κατὰ τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ· 5

Appendix: Non-aspectual Changes | 255 Because of your hardened and unrepentant hearts you are storing up wrath for yourself for the day of anger and the revelation of the righteousness of God, 6 who will repay each person according to their works. 5

Both Matthew and Paul quote Psalm 61:13 LXX and alter the person of ἀποδίδωμι from second-person to third-person. (A similar phrase is found in Proverbs 24:12, but the form of Psalm 61:13 is closer to the instances in the NT.) The Psalm is an address directly to God—note the vocative κύριε amidst the second-person pronouns—and the declaration ἀποδώσεις is appropriately about the one addressed. In both Matthew and Romans the context describes what God does in the third-person, so the verb is changed naturally. Both instances refer to the same actor performing the same action, so the sense is not altered by this change.

A.6  Matthew 19:4–5 || Mark 10:6–8 Genesis 2:24 ἕνεκεν τούτου καταλείψει ἄνθρωπος τὸν πατέρα αὐτοῦ καὶ τὴν μητέρα αὐτοῦ καὶ προσκολληθήσεται πρὸς τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἔσονται οἱ δύο εἰς σάρκα μίαν. Because of this a man will leave his father and his mother and he will be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.

Matthew 19:4–5 ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν· οὐκ ἀνέγνωτε ὅτι ὁ κτίσας ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ ἐποίησεν αὐτούς; 5 καὶ εἶπεν· ἕνεκα τούτου καταλείψει ἄνθρωπος τὸν πατέρα καὶ τὴν μητέρα καὶ κολληθήσεται τῇ γυναικὶ αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἔσονται οἱ δύο εἰς σάρκα μίαν. 4

He answered, “Haven’t you read that he who created them in the beginning made them male and female? 5 He said, ‘Because of this a man will leave his father and mother and he will be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’ ” 4

256 | Appendix:

Non-aspectual Changes

Mark 10:6–8 ἀπὸ δὲ ἀρχῆς κτίσεως ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ ἐποίησεν αὐτούς· 7 ἕνεκεν τούτου καταλείψει ἄνθρωπος τὸν πατέρα αὐτοῦ καὶ τὴν μητέρα [καὶ προσκολληθήσεται πρὸς τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ], 8 καὶ ἔσονται οἱ δύο εἰς σάρκα μίαν· ὥστε οὐκέτι εἰσὶν δύο ἀλλὰ μία σάρξ.

6

From the beginning of creation he made them male and female: 7 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and he will be united to his wife, 8 and the two will become one flesh. Therefore they are no longer two, but one flesh. 6

Matthew’s quotation of Genesis 2:24 contains some minor changes to the text, and the parallel in Mark has some textual uncertainty. Nolland capably explains these changes: In Mk. 10:7 καὶ προσκολληθήσεται πρὸς τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ (‘and be joined to his wife’) is insecure in the text since it is absent from ℵ B Ψ 892* 2427 etc. sys. If it is original, Matthew’s changes amount to preferring the form ἕνεκα to Mark’s ἕνεκεν, dropping αὐτοῦ from after πατέρα (‘father’), and replacing προσκολληθήσεται πρός + acc. with κολληθήσεται + dat. (without change of meaning). If it is not original, then Matthew has filled in the gap, but with some variation from the LXX wording.18

The verbal change is therefore only one of minor lexical substitution, with the compound form προσκολλάω replaced with the simple form κολλάω. While Louw and Nida raise the possibility that “προσκολλάομαι may very well differ from κολλάομαι by suggesting a more permanent association, with focus upon reciprocal relations,” this is not a distinction that is pertinent to Matthew’s use of the quotation.19 Certainly Matthew’s context does not allow for the simple version being less permanent, given the following command in 19:6: ὃ οὖν ὁ θεὸς συνέζευξεν ἄνθρωπος μὴ χωριζέτω, “therefore what God has joined together let noone separate.”

1 8. Nolland, Matthew, 771 n. 18. 19. Louw and Nida, eds., Greek-English Lexicon, 34.22, προσκλίνομαι; κολλάομαιa; προσκολλάομαι; προσκληρόομαι.

Appendix: Non-aspectual Changes | 257

A.7  Luke 4:19 Isaiah 58:6 οὐχὶ τοιαύτην νηστείαν ἐγὼ ἐξελεξάμην, λέγει κύριος, ἀλλὰ λῦε πάντα σύνδεσμον ἀδικίας, διάλυε στραγγαλιὰς βιαίων συναλλαγμάτων, ἀπόστελλε τεθραυσμένους ἐν ἀφέσει καὶ πᾶσαν συγγραφὴν ἄδικον διάσπα· “I have not chosen such a fast,” says the Lord, “rather loose every bond of injustice, loose the knots of forced contracts, set the oppressed free and tear up every unjust document.”

Isaiah 61:1–2 Πνεῦμα κυρίου ἐπ᾿ ἐμέ, οὗ εἵνεκεν ἔχρισέν με· εὐαγγελίσασθαι πτωχοῖς ἀπέσταλκέν με, ἰάσασθαι τοὺς συντετριμμένους τῇ καρδίᾳ, κηρύξαι αἰχμαλώτοις ἄφεσιν καὶ τυφλοῖς ἀνάβλεψιν, 2 καλέσαι ἐνιαυτὸν κυρίου δεκτὸν καὶ ἡμέραν ἀνταποδόσεως, παρακαλέσαι πάντας τοὺς πενθοῦντας, … 1

The spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me: he has sent me to bring good news to the poor, to heal the brokenhearted, to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, 2 to call on the year of the Lord’s favor and the day of retribution, to comfort all those who mourn, … 1

Luke 4:18–19 πνεῦμα κυρίου ἐπ᾿ ἐμὲ οὗ εἵνεκεν ἔχρισέν με εὐαγγελίσασθαι πτωχοῖς, ἀπέσταλκέν με, κηρύξαι αἰχμαλώτοις ἄφεσιν καὶ τυφλοῖς ἀνάβλεψιν, ἀποστεῖλαι τεθραυσμένους ἐν ἀφέσει, 19 κηρύξαι ἐνιαυτὸν κυρίου δεκτόν. 18

The spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me: he has sent me to bring good news to the poor, to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, 18

258 | Appendix:

Non-aspectual Changes

to set the oppressed free, 19 to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.

In Luke’s account of Jesus reading from the scroll of Isaiah, some differences are evident between the LXX of Isaiah 61:1–2 and the text form given in the NT.20 Two clauses from the LXX are missing in Luke 4:18–19—ἰάσασθαι τοὺς συντετριμμένους τῇ καρδίᾳ, and καὶ ἡμέραν ἀνταποδόσεως—possibly intentionally to focus the quotation for Luke’s purposes, or possibly because the scroll Jesus read from was missing those phrases.21 One clause is inserted—ἀποστεῖλαι τεθραυσμένους ἐν ἀφέσει—assimilated from Isaiah 58:6. This composite text in Luke 4:18–19 therefore displays two verbal alterations. The Aorist imperative ἀπόστελλε is altered to an infinitive ἀποστεῖλαι—this is readily explained by Luke fitting it into the syntax of the rest of the quotation from Isaiah 61:1–2.22 The Aorist infinitive καλέσαι from Isaiah 61:1–2 is substituted with another infinitive form, κηρύξαι. The latter term conveys the same concept as the former, but is a common Christian term—a synonym “which is more suited for expressing the preaching of the gospel and which is ready to hand earlier in the quotation.”23 The difference between these two lexemes is minimal, so while Luke’s term may be linked to his broader use of κηρύσσω there is little reason to apportion great significance to this change.24

20. Nolland claims that “The Isaianic text quoted in vv 18–19 is clearly Septuagintal”: Nolland, Luke 18:35–24:53, 193. 21. Marshall, Luke, 182–83; cf. Pao and Schnabel, “Luke,” 289. 22. Nolland, Luke 18:35–24:53, 193. The corresponding Hebrew form is also an infinitive. 23. Nolland, Luke 18:35–24:53, 193. 24. Pao and Schnabel write, “Although Luke may be following the MT here, the semantic fields of these two Greek words are too close to establish this point”: Pao and Schnabel, “Luke,” 289.

Appendix: Non-aspectual Changes | 259

A.8 Acts 1:20 Psalm 68:26 LXX (MT 69:25) γενηθήτω ἡ ἔπαυλις αὐτῶν ἠρημωμένη, καὶ ἐν τοῖς σκηνώμασιν αὐτῶν μὴ ἔστω ὁ κατοικῶν· May their home become desolate, and may no-one live in their tents.

Psalm 108:8 LXX (MT 109:8) γενηθήτωσαν αἱ ἡμέραι αὐτοῦ ὀλίγαι, καὶ τὴν ἐπισκοπὴν αὐτοῦ λάβοι ἕτερος· May his days become few, and may another take his position.

Acts 1:20 γέγραπται γὰρ ἐν βίβλῳ ψαλμῶν· γενηθήτω ἡ ἔπαυλις αὐτοῦ ἔρημος καὶ μὴ ἔστω ὁ κατοικῶν ἐν αὐτῇ, καί·

τὴν ἐπισκοπὴν αὐτοῦ λαβέτω ἕτερος. For it is written in the Book of Psalms:

May their home become desolate and no-one dwell in it, and:

Let another take his position. Luke’s quotation of Psalm 108:8 LXX in Acts 1:20 accompanies another Psalm quotation (68:26 LXX), prefaced by an introductory formula. This composite quotation concludes Peter’s account of the fate of Judas, completing the opening line in Acts 1:16, ἔδει πληρωθῆναι τὴν γραφὴν. This then forms the basis for his exhortation to choose another to be counted among the twelve apostles (1:21–22).

260 | Appendix:

Non-aspectual Changes

The first quotation contains some changes, but not to the verb;25 the second quotation from Psalm 108:8 shows a change to the mood of λαμβάνω, altering it from optative to imperative. Manns contends that these changes are best explained by an oral, Aramaic tradition, with the verses combined by a midrashic exegesis.26 Marshall, however, shows the verse follows the LXX text closely enough to assume this is the source.27 The Göttingen edition of the Psalms shows λαβετω existing in R, the 6th-century Verona Greek-Latin diglot, but determines this is due to the NT reading.28 Peter’s account of Judas’s death (Acts 1:17–19) differs from Matthew’s account (Matt 27:3–10), and both biblical accounts also differ from Papias’s version in the ecclesiastical tradition.29 The Psalm quotations that Peter draws on as commentary on Judas’s fate were originally imprecatory prayers against the tormentors of the psalmist. David was seen as a prophet in early Christian and contemporary Jewish tradition (cf. Acts 2:27–31; John 2:17 above), and this Davidic psalm is similarly taken to be prophetic.30 The request made to God (optative λάβοι) is altered by Peter/Luke to an imperative: “a disposition from God.”31 This change in mood could be assimilation to the previous citation from Psalm 68:26 (γενηθήτω), a possibility strengthened by the use to which Peter puts this quotation. The more forceful imperative form assumes divine foreknowledge of the present situation, and demonstrates fulfillment of Scripture in that another ought to take Judas’s place.32 This mood change therefore suits Peter’s purposes well as he calls the other apostles to choose one more to complete their number.

25. The most important change is “from plural to singular so that the curse is directed against one individual”: Marshall, “Acts,” 530. 26. Frédéric Manns, “Un midrash chrétien: Le récit de la mort de Judas,” RevScRel 54 (1980): 200. 27. Marshall, “Acts,” 530. 28. Rahlfs, ed., Psalmi cum Odis, 274. 29. Papias’s Logiōn kyriakōn exēgēsis is quoted in partial form by Apollinarius of Laodicea. Fitzmyer labels all of these as “folkloric elaborations” of a common tradition: Fitzmyer, Acts, 219–20. 30. Fitzmyer, “David,” 339. 31. Conzelmann, Acts, 12. 32. He does this without suggesting that Judas was the primary reference of the Psalm: Peterson, Acts, 124.

Appendix: Non-aspectual Changes | 261

A.9 Acts 4:24 Psalm 145:6 (MT 146:6) τὸν ποιήσαντα τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν, τὴν θάλασσαν καὶ πάντα τὰ ἐν αὐτοῖς, τὸν φυλάσσοντα ἀλήθειαν εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, The maker of heaven and earth, the sea and all that is in it, the one who guards truth forever,

Acts 4:24 οἱ δὲ ἀκούσαντες ὁμοθυμαδὸν ἦραν φωνὴν πρὸς τὸν θεὸν καὶ εἶπαν· δέσποτα, σὺ ὁ ποιήσας τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν καὶ τὴν θάλασσαν καὶ πάντα τὰ ἐν αὐτοῖς, Having heard this they raised their voices together to God and said, “Master, you are the maker of heaven and hearth and the sea and all that is in it,”

The alteration made in Acts 4:24 from the quoted Psalm 145:6 LXX is negligible. Both verses have an Aorist participle of ποιέω, but the case of the participle in both contexts is constrained by its position in the clause.33 Psalm 145:6 is in the accusative, in apposition to the object κύριον τὸν θεὸν αὐτοῦ in the preceding verse. Acts 4:24 has the nominative ὁ ποιήσας, in subject-predicate relation to σύ. There is no sense of change to this verse; the alteration is syntactically necessary because of the context in which it is quoted.

33. Exodus 20:11, Isaiah 37:16 and Nehemiah 9:6 all have similar phrases, but use indicative forms of ποιέω.

262 | Appendix:

Non-aspectual Changes

A.10  Romans 2:6 See Matthew 16:27.

A.11  Romans 9:9 Genesis 18:10 εἶπεν δέ Ἐπαναστρέφων ἥξω πρὸς σὲ κατὰ τὸν καιρὸν τοῦτον εἰς ὥρας, καὶ ἕξει υἱὸν Σαρρα ἡ γυνή σου. Σαρρα δὲ ἤκουσεν πρὸς τῇ θύρᾳ τῆς σκηνῆς, οὖσα ὄπισθεν αὐτοῦ. He said, I will return to you at this time next year, and Sarah your wife will have a son. Sarah heard him through the door of the tent, which was behind him.

Genesis 18:14 μὴ ἀδυνατεῖ παρὰ τῷ θεῷ ῥῆμα; εἰς τὸν καιρὸν τοῦτον ἀναστρέψω πρὸς σὲ εἰς ὥρας, καὶ ἔσται τῇ Σαρρα υἱός. Is such a thing impossible with God? At this time I will return to you, and Sarah will have a son.

Romans 9:9 ἐπαγγελίας γὰρ ὁ λόγος οὗτος· κατὰ τὸν καιρὸν τοῦτον ἐλεύσομαι καὶ ἔσται τῇ Σάρρᾳ υἱός. For this is the statement of promise: At this time I will come and Sarah will have a son.

Pauls’ quotation of God’s promise to divinely intervene in providing Abraham and Sarah with offspring draws primarily on Genesis 18:14. That verse is, however, a restatement of Genesis 18:10, and Paul’s quotation perhaps conflates the form of both verses, using some of the shorter statement of 18:10 alongside the form of 18:14. Paul omits the temporal reference εἰς ὥρας (extant in both 18:10 and 18:14); πρὸς σέ is also omitted.34 The Future ἀναστρέψω is replaced by ἐλεύσομαι.

34. On the shortening of the timing phrase, Seifrid notes, “Early Jewish references to the wonder of Isaac’s birth approximate Paul’s use of the text in varying measures (L.A.B.

Appendix: Non-aspectual Changes | 263 The latter lexeme is conjugated identically, and its semantic domain overlaps with ἀναστρέφω. Dunn suggests the removal of the temporal restriction and the use this lexeme may both be intentional “to resonate with eschatological overtones … the fulfillment of the promise depends on a divine act or epiphany in the future.”35 It is unclear, however, what eschatological or divine nuance is carried by ἔρχομαι that is not also extant in a Future form of ἀναστέφω, which concentrates on the promised return to Abraham and Sarah. In this context these terms appear to be synonyms, and Paul is free to substitute one for the other without changing the meaning of the source text.

A.12  Romans 9:27 Hosea 2:1 LXX Καὶ ἦν ὁ ἀριθμὸς τῶν υἱῶν Ισραηλ ὡς ἡ ἄμμος τῆς θαλάσσης, ἣ οὐκ ἐκμετρηθήσεται οὐδὲ ἐξαριθμηθήσεται· καὶ ἔσται ἐν τῷ τόπῳ, οὗ ἐρρέθη αὐτοῖς Οὐ λαός μου ὑμεῖς, ἐκεῖ κληθήσονται υἱοὶ θεοῦ ζῶντος. And the number of the Israelites was like the sand of the sea, which shall not be measured or counted; and it will be in the place where it was said to them “You are not my people” they will be called “sons of the living God.”

Isaiah 10:22 καὶ ἐὰν γένηται ὁ λαὸς Ισραηλ ὡς ἡ ἄμμος τῆς θαλάσσης, τὸ κατάλειμμα αὐτῶν σωθήσεται· And even if the people of Israel become like the sand of the sea, the remnant will be saved.

Romans 9:27 Ἠσαΐας δὲ κράζει ὑπὲρ τοῦ Ἰσραήλ· ἐὰν ᾖ ὁ ἀριθμὸς τῶν υἱῶν Ἰσραὴλ ὡς ἡ ἄμμος τῆς θαλάσσης, τὸ ὑπόλειμμα σωθήσεται·

8:1–3; Jub. 16:1–4; T. Ab. [A]‌8:6; Gen. Rab. 47:3–5; 48:16–20; 53:3–5; b. B. Meṣiʿa 87a)”: Seifrid, “Romans,” 640. 35. Dunn, Romans 9–16, 541–42.

264 | Appendix:

Non-aspectual Changes

Isaiah cries out over Israel: “Even if the number of Israelites becomes like the sand of the sea, the remnant will be saved.”

Romans 9:27 contains a conflation of Hosea 2:1 LXX with Isaiah 10:22. The textual issues here are relatively complex,36 but the verbal substitution is both straightforward and inconsequential for interpretation. Hosea contains an Imperfect conjugation of εἰμί, while Isaiah has the conditional construction ἐὰν with the subjunctive γένηται. Romans 9:27 looks like a combination of these, with a subjunctive ᾖ taking the place of γένηται, which then matches the vocabulary of Hosea 2:1 to the conditional construction of Isaiah 10:22 that concerns the remnant, which proves crucial for Paul’s argument. The change in meaning brought about by using γίνομαι rather than εἰμί in this context is negligible, and is an alteration that does not significantly alter either source text.

A.13  Romans 12:20 Proverbs 25:21–22 ἐὰν πεινᾷ ὁ ἐχθρός σου, τρέφε αὐτόν, ἐὰν διψᾷ, πότιζε αὐτόν· 22 τοῦτο γὰρ ποιῶν ἄνθρακας πυρὸς σωρεύσεις ἐπὶ τὴν κεφαλὴν αὐτοῦ, ὁ δὲ κύριος ἀνταποδώσει σοι ἀγαθά. 21

If your enemy is hungry, feed them, if they are thirsty, give them something to drink, 22 For by doing this you will heap burning coals on their head, and the Lord will repay you with good things. 21

Romans 12:20 ἀλλ᾿ ἐὰν πεινᾷ ὁ ἐχθρός σου, ψώμιζε αὐτόν· ἐὰν διψᾷ, πότιζε αὐτόν· τοῦτο γὰρ ποιῶν ἄνθρακας πυρὸς σωρεύσεις ἐπὶ τὴν κεφαλὴν αὐτοῦ. But if your enemy is hungry, feed them; if they are thirsty, give them something to drink. For by doing this you will heap burning coals on their head.

36. James G. D. Dunn has a good overview of the contributing language from the likely source texts: Dunn, Romans 9–16, 573.

Appendix: Non-aspectual Changes | 265 The change in this quotation is nothing more than substitution of one synonym for another. Both τρέφω and ψωμίζω mean “to feed.”37 No significance accompanies this lexical substitution.

A.14  1 Corinthians 1:19 Isaiah 29:14 διὰ τοῦτο ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ προσθήσω τοῦ μεταθεῖναι τὸν λαὸν τοῦτον καὶ μεταθήσω αὐτοὺς καὶ ἀπολῶ τὴν σοφίαν τῶν σοφῶν καὶ τὴν σύνεσιν τῶν συνετῶν κρύψω. Therefore I will proceed to remove this people. I will remove them and I will destroy the wisdom of the wise and the intelligence of the intelligent I will hide.

1 Corinthians 1:19 γέγραπται γάρ· ἀπολῶ τὴν σοφίαν τῶν σοφῶν καὶ τὴν σύνεσιν τῶν συνετῶν ἀθετήσω. For it is written: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise and the intelligence of the intelligent I will nullify.”

As Paul quotes Isaiah 29:14 his citation is almost identical to the source but for the substitution of ἀθετέω for κρύπτω. This substitution does not substantially alter the original, and enables both halves of the verse to parallel one another well. It is likely he avoided κρύπτω in this 1 Corinthians passage because of his development of the concepts of mystery and revelation—having something else “hidden” in this context would be potentially confusing.

37. Louw and Nida place these terms adjacent to one another, with little distinction in their respective meanings. Cf. Louw and Nida, eds., Greek-English Lexicon, 23.5, 23.6.

266 | Appendix:

Non-aspectual Changes

A.15  1 Corinthians 15:27 Psalm 8:7 καὶ κατέστησας αὐτὸν ἐπὶ τὰ ἔργα τῶν χειρῶν σου, πάντα ὑπέταξας ὑποκάτω τῶν ποδῶν αὐτοῦ, You set him over all the works of your hands, you subjected everything under his feet,

1 Corinthians 15:27 πάντα γὰρ ὑπέταξεν ὑπὸ τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ. ὅταν δὲ εἴπῃ ὅτι πάντα ὑποτέτακται, δῆλον ὅτι ἐκτὸς τοῦ ὑποτάξαντος αὐτῷ τὰ πάντα. For he subjected everything under his feet. When he says that everything is subjected, it is clear that the one who subjects everything to him is excepted.

In Psalm 8:7 the psalmist uses the second-person form ὑπέταξας to address God. Paul, however, describes the action of God in the third person, and in so doing alters the verb conjugation to appropriately fit the syntactical context.38 As in other cases above this is a change enforced by the grammar of the clause rather than a change made freely by the author, and therefore no significance ought to be attached to this instance of verbal alteration.

A.16  1 Corinthians 15:54 Isaiah 25:8 κατέπιεν ὁ θάνατος ἰσχύσας, καὶ πάλιν ἀφεῖλεν ὁ θεὸς πᾶν δάκρυον ἀπὸ παντὸς προσώπου· τὸ ὄνειδος τοῦ λαοῦ ἀφεῖλεν ἀπὸ πάσης τῆς γῆς, τὸ γὰρ στόμα κυρίου ἐλάλησεν. Death, having prevailed, swallowed them, and God has again taken every tear from every face, the disgrace of the people he has taken from all the earth, for the mouth of the Lord has spoken.

38. Stanley, Language of Scripture, 206.

Appendix: Non-aspectual Changes | 267

1 Corinthians 15:54 ὅταν δὲ τὸ φθαρτὸν τοῦτο ἐνδύσηται ἀφθαρσίαν καὶ τὸ θνητὸν τοῦτο ἐνδύσηται ἀθανασίαν, τότε γενήσεται ὁ λόγος ὁ γεγραμμένος· κατεπόθη ὁ θάνατος εἰς νῖκος. When this corruptible body is clothed with incorruptibility, and this mortal body is clothed with immortality, then the written saying will take place, “Death has been swallowed up in victory.”

Paul’s quotation of Isaiah 25:8 in 1 Corinthians 15:54 diverges from the LXX, changing the voice of καταπίνω from active to passive, and substituting εἰς νῖκος in place of ἰσχύσας. The manuscript evidence for both LXX and NT readings is quite secure,39 but later recensions of the LXX show a different tradition. Theodotion, in particular, reads Isaiah 25:8 as κατεπόθη ὁ θάνατος εἰς νῖκος, identically to Paul. Stanley notes that there is uncertainty regarding the text-form of κατεπόθη in the Theodotionic tradition, with the Syrohexapla presupposing the active κατέπιεν while a marginal note in the uncial Q gives κατεπόθη.40 Stanley argues that because another passive form, καταποθῆναι, is found in another quite distinct recension (Symmachus), the reading found here in Paul is based on “a pre-existing Greek text at this point, one that may have exercised at least a measure of influence over the subsequent translations of Aquila, Symmachus, and (possibly) Theodotion.”41 The rationale for this change is to better render the Hebrew at this point. Paul has either rendered the LXX to reflect the original source context in the same manner as the Greek recensions, or has chosen a text-form that did so.

A.17  Hebrews 2:12 Psalm 21:23 LXX (MT 22:23) διηγήσομαι τὸ ὄνομά σου τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς μου, ἐν μέσῳ ἐκκλησίας ὑμνήσω σε I will tell of your name to my brothers and sisters, in the middle of the assembly I will praise you. 3 9. Cf. Rahlfs, ed., Isaias, 208. 40. Stanley, Language of Scripture, 210–11. 41. Stanley, Language of Scripture, 211.

268 | Appendix:

Non-aspectual Changes

Hebrews 2:12 ἀπαγγελῶ τὸ ὄνομά σου τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς μου, ἐν μέσῳ ἐκκλησίας ὑμνήσω σε, I will proclaim your name to my brothers and sisters, in the middle of the assembly I will praise you.

The author of Hebrews marshals a quotation from Psalm 21:23 to verify his assertion that Jesus is not ashamed to identify with his people. The Future verb διηγήσομαι from Psalm 21:23 is altered to a different lexeme but the same conjugation: ἀπαγγελῶ in Hebrews 2:12. These lexemes are very closely related and have almost identical connotations.42 Lane suggests these are translation variants;43 Attridge contends that the overlap between the terms is so great that Hebrew source material cannot be determined on this basis;44 and Guthrie concludes, “The meaning, however, is not altered by the change in terminology.”45

A.18  Hebrews 13:5 Deuteronomy 31:6 ἀνδρίζου καὶ ἴσχυε, μὴ φοβοῦ μηδὲ δειλία μηδὲ πτοηθῇς ἀπὸ προσώπου αὐτῶν, ὅτι κύριος ὁ θεός σου ὁ προπορευόμενος μεθ᾿ ὑμῶν ἐν ὑμῖν οὐ μή σε ἀνῇ οὔτε μή σε ἐγκαταλίπῃ. Be brave and strong, do not be afraid or fearful or terrified before them, for the Lord your God is the one who goes with you; he will not leave you or abandon you.

42. Cf. Danker, Bauer and Arndt, eds., Dictionary, ἀπαγγέλλω, διηγέομαι; Louw and Nida, eds., Greek-English Lexicon, 33.198, 33.201. 43. “Apart from the translation variant ἀπαγγελῶ for διηγήσομαι (both of which mean ‘I will proclaim’), the form of the text is identical with the LXX”: William A. Lane, Hebrews 1–8, WBC 47A (Dallas: Word Books, 1991), 59. 44. Attridge, Hebrews, 90. 45. Guthrie, “Hebrews,” 949.

Appendix: Non-aspectual Changes | 269

Hebrew 13:5 αὐτὸς γὰρ εἴρηκεν· οὐ μή σε ἀνῶ οὐδ᾿ οὐ μή σε ἐγκαταλίπω, For he has said, I will not leave you or abandon you.

Hebrews 13:5 quotes Deuteronomy 31:6 and changes both verbs from third-person to first-person. Moses’s words to Israel in Deuteronomy 31 are an assurance that the Lord will never leave or forsake them (third-person ἀνῇ and ἐγκαταλί πῃ). The writer to the Hebrews, however, assures his readers that this is what God himself has promised: “I” will never leave or forsake them (first-person ἀνῶ and ἐ γκαταλίπω). Unlike some other changes of person, this is not a change of indirect to direct speech (or vice versa), but rather this is a theological inference. For the writer to the Hebrews, Moses’s words to Israel are what God himself has said. This is therefore a minor verbal change, and one that does not alter the meaning of the source text, but nevertheless supports the argument of the author in the NT context.

A.19  1 Peter 2:3 Psalm 33:9 (MT 34:9) γεύσασθε καὶ ἴδετε ὅτι χρηστὸς ὁ κύριος· μακάριος ἀνήρ, ὃς ἐλπίζει ἐπ᾿ αὐτόν. Taste and see that the Lord is good: happy is the person who hopes in him.

1 Peter 2:2–3 ὡς ἀρτιγέννητα βρέφη τὸ λογικὸν ἄδολον γάλα ἐπιποθήσατε, ἵνα ἐν αὐτῷ αὐξηθῆτε εἰς σωτηρίαν, 3 εἰ ἐγεύσασθε ὅτι χρηστὸς ὁ κύριος. 2

As newborn infants desire pure spiritual milk, that in it you might grow into salvation, 3 since you have tasted that the Lord is good. 2

When Peter quotes Psalm 33:9 in 1 Peter 2:3, he alters the mood of the original Aorist imperative γεύσασθε to the Aorist indicative ἐγεύσασθε. He also omits the

270 | Appendix:

Non-aspectual Changes

second verb ἴδετε. Omitting this “see” verb could be simply to reduce confusion as he relates this instruction to the previous image of “spiritual milk.”46 In changing the mood of γεύομαι, Peter adopts a different temporal perspective on the experience of God’s goodness. Rather than exhorting his audience to “taste and see” that the Lord is good and take their refuge in him (as Michaels puts it, to “learn by experience”), Peter acknowledges that they have already done so (cf. 1 Peter 1:2, 18; 2:2).47 The placement within a first-class conditional construction “does not necessarily assume the reality of the protasis, but clearly does in this case,” and deftly brings the context of Psalm 34 to bear on Christian experience—there is enjoyment in the goodness of the Lord.48 In this way the mood change to this verb allows for Peter to include the original context of trust in the goodness of God, and apply it to ongoing life in the knowledge of Christ.

A.20  1 Peter 3:10–12 Psalm 33:13–17 τίς ἐστιν ἄνθρωπος ὁ θέλων ζωὴν ἀγαπῶν ἡμέρας ἰδεῖν ἀγαθάς; 14 παῦσον τὴν γλῶσσάν σου ἀπὸ κακοῦ καὶ χείλη σου τοῦ μὴ λαλῆσαι δόλον. 15 ἔκκλινον ἀπὸ κακοῦ καὶ ποίησον ἀγαθόν, ζήτησον εἰρήνην καὶ δίωξον αὐτήν. 16 ὀφθαλμοὶ κυρίου ἐπὶ δικαίους, καὶ ὦτα αὐτοῦ εἰς δέησιν αὐτῶν. 17 πρόσωπον δὲ κυρίου ἐπὶ ποιοῦντας κακὰ τοῦ ἐξολεθρεῦσαι ἐκ γῆς τὸ μνημόσυνον αὐτῶν. 13

Who is someone who desires life loving to see good days? 14 Keep your tongue from evil and your lips from speaking deceit. 15 Turn away from evil and do good, 13

46. D. A. Carson, “1 Peter,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, 1023. 47. J. Ramsey Michaels, 1 Peter, WBC 49 (Waco: Word, 1988), 90. 48. Carson, “1 Peter,” 1023.

Appendix: Non-aspectual Changes | 271 Seek peace and pursue it. 16 The Lord’s eyes are on the righteous, and his ears open to their prayer. 17 But the Lord’s face is against evildoers to destroy from the earth any memory of them.

1 Peter 3:10–12 ὁ γὰρ θέλων ζωὴν ἀγαπᾶν καὶ ἰδεῖν ἡμέρας ἀγαθὰς παυσάτω τὴν γλῶσσαν ἀπὸ κακοῦ καὶ χείλη τοῦ μὴ λαλῆσαι δόλον, 11 ἐκκλινάτω δὲ ἀπὸ κακοῦ καὶ ποιησάτω ἀγαθόν, ζητησάτω εἰρήνην καὶ διωξάτω αὐτήν· 12 ὅτι ὀφθαλμοὶ κυρίου ἐπὶ δικαίους καὶ ὦτα αὐτοῦ εἰς δέησιν αὐτῶν, πρόσωπον δὲ κυρίου ἐπὶ ποιοῦντας κακά. 10

For the one who wants to love life and see good days, he must keep his tongue from evil and his lips from speaking deceit, 11 he must turn away from evil and do good, he must seek peace and pursue it. 12 For the Lord’s eyes are on the righteous and his ears open to their prayer, But the Lord’s face is against evildoers. 10

Peter’s extended inclusion of Psalm 33:13–17 LXX in 1 Peter 3:10–12 forms a critical component of his paranaesis. The quotation follows the LXX closely, with three minor changes: (1) the participle ἀγαπῶν shifts to the infinitive form ἀγαπᾶν, thereby modifying “life” rather than “good days”;49 (2) the verb forms consistently read as third-person imperatives rather than second-person; and 49. Karen Jobes suspects textual corruption is the source of this change of only one letter: Karen H. Jobes, “The Septuagint Textual Tradition in 1 Peter,” in Septuagint Research: Issues and Challenges in the Study of the Greek Jewish Scriptures, eds. Wolfgang Kraus and R. Glenn Wooden (Atlanta: SBL, 2006), 327. Patrick Egan points out the substitution of α for ω is very rare, and finds no evidence of such a spelling error in any of the Bodmer papyri, but argues by analogy that such a change could occur as the result of a spelling error: Patrick T. Egan, “Did Peter Change Scripture?

272 | Appendix:

Non-aspectual Changes

(3) ὅτι is inserted in 1 Peter 3:12 to provide a stronger theological emphasis for the preceding instructions.50 On the second group of changes—the consistent alteration of verbs from second- to third-person—Egan argues that “analogous” changes found in papyri demonstrates these changes are not authorial changes, but are from a (non-extant) manuscript tradition: Because the internal evidence is not compelling for the five changed verbs in 1 Pet 3:10–11, and because there are analogous changes in the manuscript-tradition, the case for authorial editing of the Psalm text in 1 Peter is tenuous. Manuscript evidence for the exact variants found in 1 Peter cannot be supplied; but, by expanding the scope of investigation to include the Psalms surrounding the quotation, variants have been found that offer insights into the kinds of changes that occur in the manuscript tradition.51

Given quotation technique we have seen elsewhere, this evidence more likely demonstrates the opposite: changes in person to suit the context of the quotation is a common authorial and scribal practice. In the absence of any external evidence, ascribing this set of changes to Peter is reasonable. As Christensen points out, Peter’s change eliminates the hypothetical third-person opening statement to the Psalm, and rather than shift to second-person as the psalmist does Peter retains third-person endings throughout: “It is difficult to see this adaptation, as well as the subsequent loss of the second-person personal pronouns from LXX Ps 33:14, as more than stylistic changes for the flow of the text apart from evidence of another form of the Greek text.”52

The Manuscript Tradition of Greek Psalms 33–34 and 1 Peter 3:10–12,” in Die Septuaginta—Entstehung, Sprache, Geschichte, eds. Siegfried Kreuzer, Martin Meiser and Marcus Sigismund (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012), 512, 525. 50. Sean M. Christensen, “Solidarity in Suffering and Glory: The Unifying Role of Psalm 34 in 1 Peter 3:10–12,” JETS 58 (2015): 340–41. 51. Egan, “Did Peter Change Scripture?” 526. 52. Christensen, “Solidarity in Suffering and Glory,” 340. In this Christensen argues that Piper’s explanation for this change as being non-imperative is wanting, and agrees with Elliot, Michaels, and Achtemeier that the changes are for grammatical smoothness: John Piper, “Hope as the Motivation of Love: 1 Peter 3:9–12,” NTS 26 (1980): 226; John H. Elliott, “Rehabilitation of an Exegetical Step-Child: 1 Peter in Recent Research,” JBL 95 (1976): 612; Michaels, 1 Peter, 179; Paul J. Achtemeier, 1 Peter: A Commentary on First Peter, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), 225.

Appendix: Non-aspectual Changes | 273

A.21  Revelation 7:17 || Revelation 21:4 Isaiah 25:8 κατέπιεν ὁ θάνατος ἰσχύσας, καὶ πάλιν ἀφεῖλεν ὁ θεὸς πᾶν δάκρυον ἀπὸ παντὸς προσώπου· τὸ ὄνειδος τοῦ λαοῦ ἀφεῖλεν ἀπὸ πάσης τῆς γῆς, τὸ γὰρ στόμα κυρίου ἐλάλησεν. Death, having prevailed, swallowed them, and God has again taken every tear from every face, the disgrace of the people he has taken from all the earth, for the mouth of the Lord has spoken.

Revelation 7:17 ὅτι τὸ ἀρνίον τὸ ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ θρόνου ποιμανεῖ αὐτοὺς καὶ ὁδηγήσει αὐτοὺς ἐπὶ ζωῆς πηγὰς ὑδάτων, καὶ ἐξαλείψει ὁ θεὸς πᾶν δάκρυον ἐκ τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν αὐτῶν. For the lamb at the centre of the throne will shepherd them, and he will guide them to springs of the waters of life, and God will wipe away every tear from their eyes.

Revelation 21:4 καὶ ἐξαλείψει πᾶν δάκρυον ἐκ τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν αὐτῶν, καὶ ὁ θάνατος οὐκ ἔσται ἔτι οὔτε πένθος οὔτε κραυγὴ οὔτε πόνος οὐκ ἔσται ἔτι, [ὅτι] τὰ πρῶτα ἀπῆλθαν. He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more; nor will grief nor crying nor pain, for the previous things have passed away.

This quotation is arguably a case of aspectual substitution, but it does not quite meet the standards of quotation for inclusion in the main study. It is included here merely as corroboration for the main study. Revelation 7:17; 21:4 are further towards what we would term an “allusion,” with the parallel language involving few more changes than was deemed acceptable in the previous sections. Commentators agree this is a “clear allusion.”53 The reference in Revelation 7:17 is 53. Aune, Revelation 6–16, 479; Cf. Beale and McDonough, “Revelation,” 1109; Beale, The Book of Revelation, 443.

274 | Appendix:

Non-aspectual Changes

closer to the wording of Isaiah 25:8, while Revelation 21:4 includes the reason for the end of mourning (that death is swallowed up). The verb ἀφαιρέω in Isaiah 25:8 is changed to ἐξαλείφω. While these terms have overlapping connotations, the latter term’s closeness to ‫ מחה‬leads Aune to suggest this is perhaps a translation from the Hebrew,54 although given the similarity in spelling between the lexemes it is difficult to be certain. John’s version is a Future indicative, and therefore is an aspectual substitution from Isaiah’s Aorist. In performing this aspectual change, future temporal reference is made explicit in the NT texts. This is extant in the context of Isaiah 25:8—for example in the following verse, the future reference frame is reiterated: καὶ ἐροῦσιν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκείνῃ (Isa 25:9). Thus John takes the promissory context of Isaiah and mirrors that in his own use of the verse in future-referring contexts in both Revelation 7:17 and 21:4.

54. Aune, Revelation 6–16, 479.

Bibliography

Achtemeier, Paul J. 1 Peter: A Commentary on First Peter. Hermeneia, Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996. Agrell, Sigurd. Aspekteränderung und Aktionsartbildung beim polnischen Zeitworte: Ein Beitrag zum Studium der indogermanischen Praeverbia und ihrer Bedeutungsfunktionen. Lunds Universitets Årsskrift. Lund: Håkan Ohlssons, 1908. Aitken, James K., ed. T&T Clark Companion to the Septuagint. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015. Allan, Rutger J. “Tense and Aspect in Classical Greek: Two Historical Developments; Augment and Perfect.” Pages 81–121 in The Greek Verb Revisited. Edited by Steven E. Runge and Christopher J. Fresch. Bellingham, WA: Lexham, 2016. Allen, David M. “Introduction: The Study of the Use of the Old Testament in the New.” JSNT 38 (2015): 3–16. Alter, Robert. The Book of Psalms: A Translation with Commentary. New York: W. W. Norton, 2007. Anderson, Roger W. and Yasuhiro Shirai. “The Primacy of Aspect in First and Second Language Acquisition: The Pidgin–Creole Connection.” Pages 527–70 in Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Edited by W. C. Ritchie and T. K. Bhatia. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 1996. Andrason, Alexander and Christian Locatell. “The Perfect Wave: A Cognitive Approach to the Greek Verbal System.” BAGL 5 (2016): 7–121. Archer, G. and G. Chinichigno. Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament: A Complete Survey. Chicago: Moody, 1983. Artz-Grabner, Peter, Ruth Elisabeth Kritzer, Amphilochios Papathomas and FranzWinter. 1. Korinther: Papyrologische Kommentare zum Neuen Testament, Band 2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2006.

276 | Bibliography

Attridge, Harold W. The Epistle to the Hebrews. Hermeneia, Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989. Aubrey, Michael. “Greek Prohibitions.” Pages 486–538 in The Greek Verb Revisited. Edited by Steven E. Runge and Christopher J. Fresch. Bellingham, WA: Lexham, 2016. Aubrey, Michael G. “The Greek Perfect and the Categorization of Tense and Aspect: Toward a Descriptive Apparatus for Operators in Role and Reference Grammar.” MA diss., Trinity Western University, 2014. Augustine. Translated by George E. McCracken et al. 7 vols. Cambridge, MA: LCL. Harvard University Press, 1957. Aune, David E. Revelation 1–5. WBC 52A. Dallas: Word Books, 1997. ———. Revelation 6–16. WBC 52B. Nashville: Nelson, 1998. Ausloos, Hans and Bénédicte Lemmelijn. “Content-Related Criteria in Characterising the LXX Translation Technique.” Pages 357–76 in Die Septuaginta—Texte, Theologien, Einflüsse. Edited by Wolfgang Kraus and Martin Karrer. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. Bache, Carl. “Aspect and Aktionsart: Towards a Semantic Distinction.” JL 18 (1982): 57–72. ———. “The Semantics of Grammatical Categories: A Dialectical Approach.” Journal of Linguistics 21 (1985a): 51–77. ———. Verbal Aspect: A General Theory and Its Application to Present-Day English. Odense: Odense University Press, 1985b. ———. The Study of Aspect, Tense and Action: Towards a Theory of the Semantics of Grammatical Categories. 2nd ed. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1997. Baker, David L. Two Testaments, One Bible: The Theological Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments. 3rd ed. Nottingham: Apollos, 2010. Bakker, Egbert J. “Verbal Aspect and Mimetic Description in Thucydides.” Pages 7–54 in Grammar as Interpretation: Greek Literature in Its Linguistic Contexts. Edited by Egbert J. Bakker. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Bardovi-Harlig, K. Tense and Aspect in Second Language Acquisition: Form, Meaning, and Use. Oxford: Blackwell, 2000. Barnea, Aharon. “Reference to Time, Space and Other Types of Quantification in the City Dialect of Gaza.” Afroasiatic Linguistics 2, no. 3 (1975): 1–17. Barrett, C. K. 1 Corinthians. BNTC. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1971. ———. The Gospel According to St John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978. ———. The Epistle to the Romans. BNTC. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1993. ———. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles: Introduction and Commentary on Acts I–XIV. ICC. London: T&T Clark, 1994. Barth, Markus. “The Old Testament in Hebrews: An Essay in Biblical Hermeneutics.” Pages 53–78 in Current Issues in New Testament Interpretation: Essays in Honor of Otto A. Piper. Edited by W. Klassen and G. F. Snyder. London: SCM, 1962. Barthélemy, D. “L’enchevêtrement de l’histoire textuelle et de l’histoire littéraire dans les relations entre la Septante et le Texte Massorétique.” Pages 19–40 in De Septuaginta: Studies in Honour of John William Wevers on His Sixty-fifth Birthday. Edited by Albert Pietersma and Claude Cox. Ontario: Benben, 1984.

Bibliography | 277 Bary, Corien Liesbeth Anke. “Aspect in Ancient Greek: A Semantic Analysis of the Aorist and Imperfective.” PhD diss., Radboud Universiteit, Nijmegen, 1981. Bauckham, Richard. “James and the Jerusalem Church.” Pages 415–80 in The Book of Acts in its Palestinian Setting. Edited by Richard Bauckham. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995. Beale, Greg K. The Book of Revelation. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. ———. Handbook on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2012. Beale, Greg K. and D. A. Carson, eds. Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007. Beale, Greg K. and Benjamin L. Gladd. Hidden But Now Revealed: A Biblical Theology of Mystery. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2014. Beale, Greg K. and Sean M. McDonough. “Revelation.” Pages 1081–162 in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Edited by G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007. Beasley-Murray, George R. John. WBC 36. 2nd ed. Nashville: Nelson, 1999. Bechtler, Steven Richard. “Christ, the Τέλος of the of the Law: The Goal of Romans 10:4.” CBQ 56 (1994): 288–308. Bentein, Klaas. “Aspectual Choice and the Presentation of Narrative: An Application to Herodotus’ Histories.” Glotta 92 (2016): 24–55. Bhat, D. N. S. The Prominence of Tense, Aspect and Mood. Studies in Language Companion Series 49. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1999. Binnick, Robert I. “Aspect and Aspectuality.” Pages 244–68 in The Handbook of English Linguistics. Edited by Bas Aarts and April McMahon. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2006. ———, ed. “Project on the Bibliography of Tense, Verbal Aspect, Aktionsart, and Related Areas.” (2006) http://www.utsc.utoronto.ca/~binnick/TENSE/Bibliography.html. Bird, Michael F. An Anomalous Jew: Paul among Jews, Greeks, and Romans. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016. ———. Romans. SGBC. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2016. Black, M. An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts. Oxford: Clarendon, 1967. Blass, Friedrich and Albert Debrunner. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961. Blomberg, Craig E. “Matthew.” Pages 1–110 in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Edited by G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007. Bock, Darrell L. Proclamation from Prophecy and Pattern: Lucan Old Testament Christology. JSNTSup 12. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1987. ———. Luke 1:1–9:50. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994. ———. Luke 9:51–24:53. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994. Bolt, Peter G. The Cross from a Distance: Atonement in Mark’s Gospel. NSBT 18. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004. Boyd-Taylor, Cameron. “In a Mirror, Dimly—Reading the Septuagint as a Document of Its Times.” Pages 15–32 in Septuagint Research: Issues and Challenges in the Study of the Greek Jewish Scriptures. Edited by Wolfgang Kraus and R. Glenn Wooden. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Bratcher, R. G. Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament. London: United Bible Societies,  1983.

278 | Bibliography

Breytenbach, C. “The Minor Prophets in Mark’s Gospel.” Pages 27–37 in The Minor Prophets in the New Testament. Edited by Maarten J. J. Menken and Steve Moyise. London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2009. Brindley, David, Judy Klein, Amy Kolczak, Jennifer Thornton and Paulina Vaca, eds. “National Geographic Style Manual.” (2014) https://sites.google.com/a/ngs.org/ngs-style-manual/ home/P/pull-quotes. Brock, Sebastian. “To Revise or Not to Revise: Attitudes to Jewish Biblical Translation.” Pages 301– 38 in Septuagint, Scrolls and Cognate Writings: Papers Presented to the International Symposium on the Septuagint and Its Relations to the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Writings. Edited by George J. Brooke and Barnabas Lindars. Atlanta: Scholars, 1992. Brown, Raymond Edward. The Gospel According to John (I–XII): Introduction, Translation and Notes. Anchor Bible 29. New York: Doubleday, 1966. ———. The Gospel According to John (XII–XXI). Anchor Bible 29A. New York: Doubleday, 1970. Bruce, F. F. The Speeches in the Acts of the Apostles. London: Tyndale, 1942. ———. The Epistle to the Hebrews. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964. ———. “The Speeches in Acts—Thirty Years After.” Pages 53–68 in Reconciliation and Hope: New Testament Essays on Atonement and Eschatology: Presented to L. L. Morris on His 60th Birthday. Edited by Robert Banks. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974. ———. The Book of the Acts. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988. Brugmann, Karl and Leopold Cohn. Griechische Grammatik: Lautlehre, Stammbildungs- und Flexionslehre und Syntax. 4th ed. München: Beck, 1913. Bruner, Frederick Dale. The Gospel of John: A Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012. Bryan, Stephen M. “Consumed by Zeal: John’s Use of Psalm 69:9 and the Action in the Temple.” BBR 21 (2011): 479–94. Bubenik, Vit. “The Persistence of Dialect and the Diffusion of Koine.” Studies in Greek Linguistics 29 (2009): 315–24. ———. “Hellenistic Koine in Contact with Latin and Semitic Languages during the Roman Period.” Studies in Greek Linguistics 30 (2010): 32–54. Buchanan, George Wesley. To the Hebrews: Translation, Comment and Conclusions. Anchor Bible 36. New York: Doubleday, 1972. Bunta, Silviu. “The Likeness of the Image: Adamic Motifs and ‫ צלם‬Anthropology in Rabbinic Traditions About Jacob’s Image Enthroned in Heaven.” JSJ 37 (2006): 55–85. Burney, C. F. The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel. Oxford: Clarendon, 1922. Buth, Randall. “Mark’s Use of the Historical Present.” Note on Translation 65 (1977): 7–13. ———. “Participles as a Pragmatic Choice: Where Semantics Meets Pragmatics.” Pages 273–306 in The Greek Verb Revisited. Edited by Steven E. Runge and Christopher J. Fresch. Bellingham, WA: Lexham, 2016. ———. “Perfect Greek Morphology and Pedagogy.” Pages 416–29 in The Greek Verb Revisited. Edited by Steven E. Runge and Christopher J. Fresch. Bellingham, WA: Lexham, 2016. Byrne, Brendan. Romans. SP 6. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1996. Caird, G. B. A Commentary on the Revelation of St. John the Divine. BNTC. New York: Harper and Row, 1966.

Bibliography | 279 Campbell, Constantine R. Verbal Aspect, the Indicative Mood, and Narrative: Soundings in the Greek of the New Testament. SBG 13. New York: Peter Lang, 2007. ———. Basics of Verbal Aspect in Biblical Greek. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008. ———. Verbal Aspect and Non-indicative Verbs: Further Soundings in the Greek of the New Testament. SBG 15. New York: Peter Lang, 2008. ———. Advances in the Study of Greek. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2015. Caragounis, Chrys C. The Development of Greek and the New Testament: Morphology, Syntax, Phonology, and Textual Transmission. WUNT 167. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. Carson, D. A. The Gospel According to John. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1991. ———. “An Introduction to the Porter/Fanning Debate.” Pages 18–25 in Biblical Greek Language and Linguistics: Open Questions in Current Research. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993. ———. “1 Peter.” Pages 1015–46 in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Edited by G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007. ———. Matthew. EBC. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2017. Carter, Warren. “Evoking Isaiah: Matthew Soteriology and an Intertextual Reading of Isaiah 7–9 and Matthew 1:23 and 4:15–16.” JBL 119 (2000): 503–20. Chasioti, F. “Of Aspect and Tense: A Corpus-Based Study on the Role of Lexical Aspect in the Acquisition and Use of the English Past Tense.” Studies in Greek Linguistics 35 (2015): 156–66. Childs, Brevard S. The Book of Exodus. OTL. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1974. Christensen, Sean M. “Solidarity in Suffering and Glory: The Unifying Role of Psalm 34 in 1 Peter 3:10–12.” JETS 58 (2015): 335–52. Ciampa, Roy E. and Brian S. Rosner. “1 Corinthians.” Pages 695–752 in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Edited by G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007. ———. The First Letter to the Corinthians. PNTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. Cirafesi, Wally V. Verbal Aspect in Synoptic Parallels: On the Method and Meaning of Divergent TenseForm Usage in the Synoptic Passion Narratives. Boston: Brill, 2013. Coats, George W. Rebellion in the Wilderness. Nashville: Abingdon, 1968. Cockerill, Gareth Lee. The Epistle to the Hebrews. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012. Collins, John J. The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Comrie, Bernard. Aspect: An Introduction to the Study of Verbal Aspect and Related Problems. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1976. ———. Tense. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985. Conzelmann, Hans. Acts of the Apostles. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987. ———. 1 Corinthians: A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988. Cook, Johann. “Translating the Septuagint: Some Methodological Considerations.” Pages 9–34 in Translating a Translation: The LXX and Its Modern Translations in the Context of Early Judaism. Edited by Hans Ausloos, Johann Cook, F. Garcia Martinez, B. Lemmelijn and M. Vervenne. Leuven: Peeters, 2008. Cook, John A. Time and the Biblical Hebrew Verb: The Expression of Tense, Aspect, and Modality in Biblical Hebrew. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2012.

280 | Bibliography

Craigie, Peter C. Psalms 1–50. WBC 19. Columbia: Nelson, 1983. Crellin, Robert. “The Greek Perfect Active System: 200 BC–AD 150.” PhD diss., University of Cambridge, 2013. ———. “The Semantics of the Perfect in the Greek of the New Testament.” Pages 430–57 in The Greek Verb Revisited. Edited by Steven E. Runge and Christopher J. Fresch. Bellingham, WA: Lexham, 2016. Crystal, David. A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. 6th ed. Oxford: Blackwell, 2008. Curtius, Georg. Erläuterungen zu meiner Griechischen Schulgrammatik. Prague: F. Tempsky, 1863. ———. Elucidations of the Student’s Greek Grammar. London: John Murray, 1870. Daly-Denton, Margaret. David in the Fourth Gospel: The Johannine Reception of the Psalms. Leiden: Brill, 2000. ———. “David the Psalmist, Inspired Prophet: Jewish Antecedents of a New Testament Datum.” ABR 52 (2004): 32–47. Danker, Frederick W., Walter Bauer and William Arndt, eds. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000. Davis, Dale Ralph. “Rebellion, Presence, and Covenant: A Study in Exodus 32–34.” WTJ 44 (1982): 71–87. de Saussure, Ferdinand. Cours de Linguistique Générale. 3rd ed. Leipzig: Harrassowitz, 1967. de Vries, Johannes and Martin Karrer. “Early Christian Quotations and the Textual History of the Septuagint: A Summary of the Wuppertal Research Project and Introduction to the Volume.” Pages 3–19 in Textual History and the Reception of Scripture in Early Christianity. Edited by Johannes de Vries and Martin Karrer. Atlanta: SBL, 2014. Decker, Rodney J. Temporal Deixis of the Greek Verb in the Gospel of Mark with Reference to Verbal Aspect. SBG 10. New York: Lang, 2001. ———. Reading Koine Greek: An Introduction and Integrated Workbook. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2014. Deissmann, Adolf. Light from the Ancient East: The New Testament Illustrated by Recently Discovered Texts of the Graeco-Roman World. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1911. Deming, Mark. “Mark 9:42–10:12, Matthew 5:27–32, and B. Nid. 13b: A First Century Discussion of Male Sexuality.” NTS 36 (1990): 130–41. Dibelius, Martin. “Paul on the Areopagus.” Pages 26–77 in Studies in the Acts of the Apostles. Edited by Heinrich Greeven. London: SCM, 1956. ———. “The Speeches in Acts and Ancient Historiography.” Pages 138–91 in Studies in the Acts of the Apostles. Edited by Heinrich Greeven. London: SCM, 1956. Dittmar, W. Vetus Testamentum in Novo: Die alttestamentlichen Parallelen des Neuen Testament im Wortlaut der Urtexte und der Septuaginta. 2 vols. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1899. Docherty, Susan. “The Text Form of the OT Citations in Hebrews Chapter 1 and the Implications for the Study of the Septuagint.” NTS 55 (2009): 355–65. ———. “ ‘Do you Understand What You Are Reading?’ (Acts 8.30): Current Trends and Future Perspectives in the Study of the Use of the Old Testament in the New.” JSNT 38 (2015): 112–25. Dodd, C. H. According to the Scriptures: The Sub-structure of New Testament Theology. London: Nisbet, 1953.

Bibliography | 281 Dowty, David R. “Studies in the Logic of Verb Aspect and Time Reference in English.” PhD diss., University of Texas at Austin, 1972. ———. “The Effects of Aspectual Class on the Temporal Structure of Discourse: Semantics or Pragmatics.” Linguistics and Philosophy 9 (1986): 37–61. Dunn, James D. G. Romans 9–16. WBC 38B. 2nd ed. Nashville: Nelson, 1988. ———. The Theology of Paul the Apostle. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Dupont, Jacques. “L’Utilisation apologétique de l’ancien Testament dans les discours des Actes.” Pages 245–82 in Études sur les Actes des Apôtres. Paris: Les éditions du Cerf, 1967. Durham, John I. Exodus. WBC 3. Columbia: Nelson, 1987. Edwards, James R. The Gospel According to Mark. PNTC. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, 2002. Egan, Patrick T. “Did Peter Change Scripture? The Manuscript Tradition of Greek Psalms 33–34 and 1 Peter 3:10–12.” Pages 505–28 in Die Septuaginta—Entstehung, Sprache, Geschichte. Edited by Siegfried Kreuzer, Martin Meiser and Marcus Sigismund. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012. Ellingworth, Paul. The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Greek Text. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992. Elliott, John H. “Rehabilitation of an Exegetical Step-Child: 1 Peter in Recent Research.” JBL 95 (1976): 243–54. Ellis, Nicholas J. “Aspect-Prominence, Morpho-Syntax, and a Cognitive-Linguistic Framework for the Greek Verb.” Pages 122–60 in The Greek Verb Revisited. Edited by Steven E. Runge and Christopher J. Fresch. Bellingham, WA: Lexham, 2016. Ellis, Nicholas J., Michael G. Aubrey and Mark Dubis. “The Greek Verbal System and Aspectual Prominence: Revising our Taxonomy and Nomenclature.” JETS 59 (2016): 33–62. Evans, Craig A. Mark 8:27–16:20. WBC 34B. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988. ———. To See and Not Perceive: Isaiah 6.9–10 in Early Jewish and Christian Interpretation. JSOTSupp 64. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1989. ———. “Why Did the New Testament Writers Appeal to the Old Testament?” JSNT 38 (2015): 36–48. Evans, Trevor. “A Hebraism of Mixed Motivation.” Pages 211–28 in Helsinki Perspectives on the Translation Technique of the Septuagint. Edited by R. Sollamo and S. Sipilä. Helsinki: Finnish Exegetical Society, 2001. ———. Verbal Syntax in the Greek Pentateuch: Natural Greek Usage and Hebrew Interference. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. ———. “Future Directions for Aspect Studies in Ancient Greek.” Pages 199–206 in Biblical Greek Language and Lexicography. Edited by Bernard A. Taylor, John A. L. Lee, Peter R. Burton and Richard E. Whitaker. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004. Fanning, Buist M. Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990. ———. “Approaches to Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek: Issues in Definition and Method.” Pages 46–62 in Biblical Greek Language and Linguistics: Open Questions in Current Research. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and D. A. Carson. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993. ———. “Greek Tenses in John’s Apocalypse: Issues in Verbal Aspect, Discourse Analysis, and Diachronic Change.” Pages 328–53 in The Language and Literature of the New Testament. Edited by Lois K. Fuller Dow, Craig A. Evans and Andrew W. Pitts. Boston: Brill, 2016. Fee, Gordon D. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014.

282 | Bibliography

Filip, Hana. “Lexical Aspect.” Pages 721–51 in The Oxford Handbook of Tense and Aspect. Edited by Robert I. Binnick. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. “The Use of Explicit Old Testament Quotations in Qumran Literature and in the New Testament.” NTS 7 (1960): 297–333. ———. “David, ‘Being Therefore a Prophet’ (Acts 2:30).” CBQ 34 (1972): 332–39. ———. The Gospel According to Luke (X–XXIV). Anchor Bible 28A. New York: Doubleday, 1985. ———. Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 33. New York: Doubleday, 1992. ———. The Acts of the Apostles: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. The Anchor Bible. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998. Fleischman, Suzanne. Tense and Narrativity: From Medieval Performance to Modern Fiction. London: Routledge, 1990. Forsyth, James. A Grammar of Aspect: Usage and Meaning in the Russian Verb. Studies in the Modern Russian Language Extra Volume. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970. France, R. T. The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. ———. The Gospel of Matthew. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. Freed, Edwin D. “Egō Eimi in John 1:20 and 4:25.” CBQ 41 (1979): 288–91. Fresch, Christopher J. “Typology, Polysemy, and Protopypes: Situating Nonpast Aorist Indicatives.” Pages 379–415 in The Greek Verb Revisited. Edited by Steven E. Runge and Christopher J. Fresch. Bellingham, WA: Lexham, 2016. Fudge, Edward. “The Final End of the Wicked.” JETS 27 (1984): 325–34. Garland, David E. First Corinthians. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003. Gasque, W. Ward. A History of the Criticism of the Acts of the Apostles. Tübingen: Mohr, 1975. Gempf, Conrad. “Public Speaking and Published Accounts.” Pages 1:259–303 in The Book of Acts in Its Ancient Literary Setting. Edited by Bruce W. Winter and Andrew D. Clarke. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993. George, Coulter H. “Verbal Aspect and the Greek Future: ἕξω and σχήσω.” Mnemosyne 69 (2016): 597–627. Gheorghita, Radu. The Role of the Septuagint in Hebrews: An Investigation of Its Influence with Special Consideration to the Use of Hab 2:3–4 in Heb 10:37–38. WUNT 160. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. Gildersleeve, Basil L. “Stahl’s Syntax of the Greek Verb: Second Article.” AJP 29 (1908): 389–409. Goldsworthy, Graeme. Preaching the Whole Bible as Christian Scripture. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. ———. Gospel-Centered Hermeneutics: Foundations and Principles of Evangelical Biblical Interpretation. Downers Grove: IVP, 2007. ———. Christ-Centered Biblical Theology: Hermeneutical Foundations and Principles. Nottingham: Apollos, 2013. Goppelt, L. Typos: The Typological Interpretation of the Old Testament in the New. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982. Green, Gene. “Luke: Historian, Rhetor, and Theologian. Historiography and the Theology of the Speeches in Acts.” Pages 161–80 in New Testament Theology in Light of the Church’s

Bibliography | 283 Mission: Essays in Honor of I. Howard Marshall. Edited by Jon Laansma, Grant Osborne and Ray Van Neste. Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2011. Green, Joel B. The Death of Jesus: Tradition and Interpretation in the Passion Narrative. Repr. ed. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 1988. Greenspoon, Leonard. “By the Letter? Word for Word? Scriptural Citation in Paul.” Pages 9–24 in Paul and Scripture: Extending the Conversation. Edited by Christopher D. Stanley. Atlanta: SBL, 2012. Grice, H. Paul. “Logic and Conversation.” Pages 41–58 in Syntax and Semantics: Speech Acts. Edited by P. Cole and J. Morgan. New York: Academic Press, 1975. Guelich, Robert A. Mark 1–8:26. WBC 34A. Dallas: Word, 1989. Guéron, Jacqueline and Jacqueline Lecarme. “Introduction.” Pages 1–26 in The Syntax of Time. Edited by Jacqueline Guéron and Alexander Lecarme. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2004. Guthrie, George H. “Hebrews.” Pages 919–96 in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Edited by G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007. Hagner, Donald Alfred. Matthew 1–13. WBC 33A. Dallas: Word, 1993. ———. Matthew 14–28. WBC 33B. Dallas: Word, 1995. Halliday, M. A. K. Cohesion in English. Edited by Ruqaiya Hasan. London: Longman, 1976. ———. Explorations in the Functions of Language. New York: Elsevier, 1977. ———. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. 2nd ed. London: Arnold, 1994. ———. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. 4th ed. London: Arnold, 2014. Harl, Marguerite. “Traduire le Septante en Français: Pourquoi et Comment?” Pages 33–42 in La Langue de Japhet: Quinze Études sur la Septante et le Grec des Chrétiens. Edited by Marguerite Harl. Paris: Cerf, 1992. ———. “La Bible d’Alexandrie dans les débats actuels sur la Septante.” Pages 7–21 in La double transmission du texte biblique: Etudes d’histoire du texte offertes en hommage à Adrian Schenker. Edited by Y. Goldman and C. Uehlinger. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001. Hauspie, Katrin. “The Idiolect of the Target Language in the Translation Process.” Pages 205–13 in Die Septuaginta—Texte, Kontexte, Lebenswelten. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Hays, Richard B. Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989. ———. The Conversion of the Imagination: Paul as Interpreter of Israel’s Scripture. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. ———. First Corinthians. Westminster: John Knox, 2011. ———. Echoes of Scripture in the Gospels. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2016. Hengel, Martin. The Septuagint as Christian Scripture: Its Prehistory and the Problem of Its Canon. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004. Hermann, E. “Objective und subjektive Aktionsart.” IF 45 (1927): 207–28. Himes, Paul A. “Why Did Peter Change the Septuagint? A Reexamination of the Significance of the Use of Τίθημι in 1 Peter 2:6.” BBR 26 (2016): 227–44. Hockett, Charles F. A Course in Modern Linguistics. New York: Macmillan, 1958. Holloday, Carl R. “Luke’s Use of the LXX in Acts: A Review of the Debate and a Look at Acts 1:15–26.” Pages 233–300 in Die Septuaginta und das frühe Christentum. Edited by Thomas Scott Caulley and Hermann Lichtenberger. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011.

284 | Bibliography

Holmes, Michael W. Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007. Holtz, Traugott. Untersuchungen über die alttestamentlichen Zitate bei Lukas. Berlin: Akademie, 1968. Hooker, Morna. The Gospel According to Saint Mark. BNTC. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996. Hopper, Paul J. “Aspect between Discourse and Grammar: An Introductory Essay for the Volume.” Pages 3–18 in Tense-Aspect: Between Semantics & Pragmatics: Containing the Contributions to a Symposium on Tense and Aspect, held at UCLA, May 1979. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins, 1982. Hopper, Paul J. and Elizabeth Closs Traugott. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. Horrocks, Geoffrey and Melita Stavrou. “Grammaticalized Aspect and Spatio-Temporal Culmination.” Lingua 117 (2007): 605–44. Horsley, G. H. R. “The Fiction of ‘Jewish Greek.’ ” Pages 5–40 in New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity: Linguistic Essays. North Ryde, N.S.W.: Ancient History Documentary Research Centre, Macquarie University, 1989. Hübner, Hans. Vetus Testamentum in Novo. 2 vols. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997. Huffman, Douglas S. Verbal Aspect Theory and the Prohibitions in the Greek New Testament. SBG 16. New York: Peter Lang, 2014. Hughes, Philip Edgcumbe. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977. Hugo, P. Les deux visages d’Élie: Texte massorétique et Septante dans l’historie la plus ancienne de 1 Rois 17–18. OBO 217. Göttingen: Vanderhoeck & Ruprecht, 2006. Huizenga, Leroy A. “The Old Testament in the New, Intertextuality and Allegory.” JSNT 38 (2015): 17–35. Hultgren, Arland J. Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011. Jackson, Henry. “Prohibitions in Greek.” Classical Review 18 (1904): 262–63. Jacobsohn, H. “Wackernagel, Vorlesungen über Syntax.” Gn 2 (1927): 379–95. ———. “Aspektfragen.” IF 51 (1933): 292–318. Jakobson, Roman. “Zur Struktur der russischen Verbums.” Pages 74–84 in Charisteria: Guilelmo Mathesio Quinquagenario—A Discipulis et Circuli Linguistici Pragensis Sodalibus Oblata. Prague: Pražský Linguistický Kroužek, 1932. ———. “Beitrag zur allgemeinen Kasuslehre: Gesamtbedeutungen der russischen Kasus.” Pages 23–71 in Selected Writings: Word and Language, Vol. II. The Hague: Mouton, 1971. Jeremias, Joachim. “Das Gebetsleben Jesu.” ZNW 25 (1926): 123–40. ———. The Prayers of Jesus. SBT 2/6. Naperville, IL: Allenson, 1967. Jobes, Karen H. “The Septuagint Textual Tradition in 1 Peter.” Pages 311–34 in Septuagint Research: Issues and Challenges in the Study of the Greek Jewish Scriptures. Edited by Wolfgang Kraus and R. Glenn Wooden. Atlanta: SBL, 2006. Jobes, Karen H. and Moisés Silva. Invitation to the Septuagint. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005. Johnson, Luke Timothy. Septuagintal Midrash in the Speeches of Acts. The Père Marquette Lecture in Theology 2002. Milwaukee, WI: Marquette University Press, 2002. ———. Hebrews: A Commentary. NTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2006. Joosten, Jan. “New Light on Proto-Theodotion: The Psalms of Solomon and the Milieu of the Kaige Recension.” Pages 304–15 in Die Septuaginta: Geschichte, Wirkung, Relevanz. Edited by

Bibliography | 285 Martin Meiser, Michaela Geiger, Siegfried Kreuzer and Marcus Sigismund. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018. Juel, Donald. Messianic Exegesis: Christological Interpretation of the Old Testament in Early Christianity. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988. Kaiser, Jr., Walter C. The Uses of the Old Testament in the New. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2001. Karrer, Martin. “The Epistle to the Hebrews and the Septuagint.” Pages 335–54 in Septuagint Research: Issues and Challenges in the Study of the Greek Jewish Scriptures. Edited by Wolfgang Kraus and R. Glenn Wooden. Atlanta: SBL, 2006. ———, ed. “Datenbank Septuagintazitate im NT.” (2011) http://www.isbtf.de/datenbankseptuagintazitate-im-nt/. Käsemann, Ernst. Commentary on Romans. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromily. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980. Keener, Craig S. A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. ———. Acts: An Exegetical Commentary. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1999. ———. The Gospel of John: A Commentary. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003. Kilpatrick, George Dunbar. “Ἰδού and ἴδε in the Gospels.” JTS 18 (1967): 425–26. King, Larry D. “The Semantics of Tense, Orientation, and Aspect in English.” Lingua 59 (1983): 101–54. Kiparsky, Paul. “Tense and Mood in Indo-European Syntax.” FL 4 (1968): 30–57. Koch, Dietrich-Alex. Die Schrift als Zeuge des Evangeliums. Tübingen: Mohr, 1986. ———. “The Quotations of Isaiah 8,14 and 28,16 in Romans 9,33 and 1Peter 2,6.8 as Test Case for Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament.” ZNW 101 (2010): 223–40. Koester, Craig R. “Messianic Exegesis and the Call of Nathanael (John 1:45–51).” JSNT 39 (1990): 23–34. ———. Hebrews: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. New York: Doubleday,  2001. Koschmieder, E. “Studien zum slavischen Verbalaspekt (Part I).” Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 55 (1928): 208–304. ———. “Studien zum slavischen Verbalaspekt (Part II).” Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 56 (1929): 78–105. Köstenberger, Andreas J. “John.” Pages 415–512 in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Edited by G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007. Kraft, Robert Alan. “The Epistle of Barnabas: Its Quotations and Their Sources.” PhD diss., Harvard University, 1961. Krašovec, Jože. “Justification of God in His Word in Ps 51:6 and Rom 3:4.” VT 64 (2014): 416–33. Kraus, Wolfgang. “Contemporary Translations of the Septuagint: Problems and Perspectives.” Pages 63–83 in Septuagint Research: Issues and Challenges in the Study of the Greek Jewish Scriptures. Edited by Wolfgang Kraus and R. Glenn Wooden. Atlanta: SBL, 2006. Kroeger, Paul. Analyzing Grammar: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Kujanpää, Katja. “From Eloquence to Evading Responsibility: The Rhetorical Functions of Quotations in Paul’s Argumentation.” JBL 136 (2017): 185–202. Lampe, Peter. “Die markinische Deutung des Gleichnisses vom Sämann Markus 4,10–12.” ZNW 65 (1974): 140–50. Lane, William A. Hebrews 1–8. WBC 47A. Dallas: Word Books, 1991.

286 | Bibliography

———. Hebrews 9–13. WBC 47B. Dallas: Word Books, 1991. Law, Timothy Michael. “How Not to Use 3 Reigns: A Plea to Scholars of the Books of Kings.” VT 61 (2011): 280–97. ———. When God Spoke Greek: The Septuagint and the Making of the Christian Bible. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. ———. “3–4 Kingdoms (1–2 Kings).” Pages 147–66 in T&T Clark Companion to the Septuagint. Edited by James K. Aitken. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015. Lee, John A. L. A Lexical Study of the Septuagint Version of the Pentateuch. SBL Septuagint and Cognate Studies 14. Chico, CA: Scholars, 1983. Leonhardt, Jutta. Jewish Worship in Philo of Alexandria. Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 84. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001. Leonhardt-Balzer, Jutta. “Philo und die Septuaginta.” Pages 623–37 in Die Septuaginta—Texte, Theologien, Einflüsse. Edited by Wolfgang Kraus and Martin Karrer. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. Levinsohn, Stephen H. “Preliminary Observations on the Use of the Historic Present in Mark.” Note on Translation 65 (1977): 13–28. Licona, Michael R. Why Are There Differences in the Gospels? What We Can Learn from Ancient Biography. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017. Lightfoot, David. Natural Logic and the Greek Moods: The Nature of the Subjunctive and Optative in Classical Greek. Janua Linguarum Series Practica 230. The Hague: Mouton, 1975. Lillo, Antonio. “Sobre los usos verbales para la expresión de la prohibición.” Pages 273–90 in Word Classes and Related Topics in Ancient Greek. Edited by E. Crespo, J. de la Villa and A. R. Revuelta. Louvain-la-Neuve: Peeters, 2006. Lim, Timothy H. Holy Scripture in the Qumran Commentaries and Pauline Letters. Oxford: Clarendon, 1997. ———. “Qumran Scholarship and the Study of the Old Testament in the New Testament.” JSNT 38 (2015): 68–80. Lincoln, Andrew T. The Gospel According to Saint John. BNTC. London: Hendrickson, 2005. Lindars, Barnabas. New Testament Apologetic: The Doctrinal Significance of the Old Testament Quotations. 2nd ed. London: SCM, 1973. Loader, William R. G. “John 1:50–51 and the ‘Greater Things’ of Johannine Christology.” Pages 255–74 in Anfänge der Christologie: Festschrift für Ferdinand Hahn zum 65 Geburtstag. Edited by Cilliers Breytenbach and Henning Paulsen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991. Long, Craig M. “The Discourse Function of the Greek Future Tense-Form: A Corpus Linguistic Discourse Analysis.” PhD diss., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, IL, 2013. Longacre, Robert E. “The Dynamics of Reported Dialogue in Narrative.” Word 45, no. 2 (1994): 125–43. Longenecker, Richard N. Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. ———. The Epistle to the Romans. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016. Louw, Johannes P. and Eugene A. Nida, eds. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains. New York: UBS, 1989. Lyons, John. Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977.

Bibliography | 287 Maloney, Elliott C. Semitic Interference in Marcan Syntax. SBL Dissertation Series 51. Chico, CA: Scholars, 1981. Manns, Frédéric. “Un midrash chrétien: Le récit de la mort de Judas.” RevScRel 54 (1980): 197–203. Manson, T. W. The Teaching of Jesus: Studies of Its Form and Content. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967. Marcus, Joel. The Way of the Lord: Christological Exegesis of the Old Testament in the Gospel of Mark. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1992. ———. Mark 1–8: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000. ———. Mark 8–16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000. ———. “No More Zealots in the House of the Lord: A Note on the History of Interpretation of Zechariah 14:21.” NovT 55 (2013): 22–30. Marshall, I. Howard. The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978. ———. “Acts.” Pages 513–608 in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Edited by G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007. Mateos, Juan. El aspecto verbal en el Nuevo Testamento. Estudios de Nuevo Testamento 1. Madrid: Ediciones Cristiandad, 1977. Matera, Frank J. “The Death of Jesus According to Luke: A Question of Sources.” CBQ 47 (1985): 469–85. Mathewson, David. Verbal Aspect in the Book of Revelation: The Function of Greek Verb Tenses in John’s Apocalypse. Boston: Brill, 2010. McComiskey, Douglas S. “Exile and the Purpose of Jesus’ Parables (Mark 4:10–12; Matt 13:10–17; Luke 8:9–10).” JETS 51 (2008): 59–85. McCullough, John C. “The Old Testament Quotations in Hebrews.” NTS 26 (1980): 363–79. McHugh, John. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on John 1–4. ICC. London: T&T Clark, 2009. McKay, Kenneth L. “The Use of the Ancient Greek Perfect Down to the Second Century AD.” BICS (1965): 1–21. ———. “Further Remarks on the ‘Historical’ Present and Other Phenomena.” FL 11 (1974): 247–51. ———. “On the Perfect and Other Aspects in the Greek Non-Literary Papyri.” BICS (1980): 23–49. ———. “On the Perfect and Other Aspects in New Testament Greek.” NovT 23 (1981): 289–329. ———. “Aspect in Imperatival Constructions in New Testament Greek.” NovT 28 (1985): 201–26. ———. A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek: An Aspectual Approach. SBG 5. New York: Peter Lang, 1994. McLay, R. Timothy. The Use of the Septuagint in New Testament Research. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003. McLay, Timothy. “Why Not a Theology of the Septuagint?” Pages 607–20 in Die Septuaginta— Texte, Theologien, Einflüsse. Edited by Wolfgang Kraus, Martin Karrer and Martin Meiser. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. Mealand, David L. “Hellenistic Greek and the New Testament: A Stylometric Perspective.” JSNT 34 (2012): 323–45.

288 | Bibliography

Menken, Maarten J. J. “The Quotation from Isa 40:3 in John 1:23.” Bib 66 (1985): 190–205. ———. Old Testament Quotations in the Fourth Gospel: Studies in Textual Form. Contributions to Biblical Exegesis & Theology 15. Kampen, The Netherlands: Kok Pharos, 1996. ———. Matthew’s Bible: The Old Testament Text of the Evangelist. BETL 173. Leuven: Peeters, 2004. ———. “The Source of the Quotation from Isaiah 53:4 in Matthew 8:17.” NovT 39 (2007): 313–27. ———. “Striking the Shepherd: Early Christian Versions and Interpretations of Zechariah 13,7.” Bib 92 (2011): 39–59. Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. 2nd ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1998. Meyer, Paul W. “Romans 10:4 and the End of the Law.” Pages 59–78 in The Divine Helmsman: Studies on God’s Control of Human Events, Presented to Lou H. Silberman. New York: Ktav, 1980. Michaels, J. Ramsey. 1 Peter. WBC 49. Waco: Word, 1988. ———. The Gospel of John. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. Mitchell, Alan C. Hebrews. SP 13. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2009. Moloney, Francis J. The Johannine Son of Man. 2nd ed. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 1978. ———. The Gospel of John. SP. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1998. Montanari, Franco. The Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek. Leiden: Brill, 2015. Moo, Douglas J. The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 1983. ———. The Epistle to the Romans. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996. Morris, Leon. The Epistle to the Romans. PNTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988. ———. The Gospel According to Matthew. PNTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992. Moser, Amalia. “From Aktionsart to Aspect: Grammaticalization and Subjectification in Greek.” ALH 46 (2014): 64–84. Moulton, James H., Francis Howard and Nigel Turner. A Grammar of New Testament Greek. 4 volumes. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1908. Moyise, Steve. “Does Paul Respect the Context of his Quotations?” Pages 97–114 in Paul and Scripture: Extending the Conversation. Edited by Christopher D. Stanley. Atlanta: SBL, 2012. Muraoka, T. A Syntax of Septuagint Greek. Leuven, Belgium: Peeters, 2016. Naudé, J. A. “An Overview of Recent Developments in Translation Studies with Special Reference to the Implications for Bible Translation.” AcT Supplementum 2 (2002): 44–69. Naylor, H. Darnley. “Prohibitions in Greek.” Classical Review 19 (1905): 26–30. New, David Stewart. Old Testament Quotations in the Synoptic Gospels, and the Two-Document Hypothesis. SCS 37. Atlanta: SBL, 1993. Newman, Paul and Russel G. Schuh. “The Hausa Aspect System.” Afroasiatic Linguistics 1 (1974): 1–39. Nicole, Roger. “New Testament Use of the Old Testament.” Pages 137–51 in Revelation and the Bible. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1958. Nineham, D. E. The Gospel of St Mark. PNTC. New York: Penguin, 1963. Nolland, John. Luke 18:35–24:53. WBC 35C. Columbia: Nelson, 1993. ———. The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005.

Bibliography | 289 Nylund, Jan H. “The Prague School of Linguistics and Its Influence on New Testament Language Studies.” Pages 155–221 in The Language of the New Testament: Context, History, and Development. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and Andrew Pitts. Leiden: Brill, 2017. O’Brien, Mark B. “Verbal Aspect in the Future Tense of the Greek New Testament.” Th.M. diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 1997. Olsen, Mari Broman. A Semantic and Pragmatic Model of Lexical and Grammatical Aspect. New York: Garland, 1997. Osborne, Grant R. Revelation. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002. ———. Matthew. ZECNT. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010. ———. Romans. IVPNTCS. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2010. Paget, James Carleton. The Epistle of Barnabas: Outlook and Background. WUNT II.64. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994. Pang, Francis G. H. “Aspect, Aktionsart, and Abduction: Future Tense in the New Testament.” Filología Neotestamentaria 23 (2010): 129–59. ———. “Matthew’s Atomistic Use of Scripture? A Methodological Consideration.” Proceedings EGLBS & MWSBL 30 (2010): 47–69. ———. “Aspect and Aktionsart Once Again.” Pages 48–72 in Modeling Biblical Language. Edited by Stanley E. Porter, Gregory P. Fewster and Christopher D. Land. Leiden: Brill, 2016. Pao, David W. and Eckhard J. Schnabel. “Luke.” Pages 251–410 in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Edited by G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007. Pervo, Richard I. Profit with Delight: The Literary Genre of the Acts of the Apostles. Philadephia: Fortress, 1987. Peterson, David. Hebrews and Perfection: An Examination of the Concept of Perfection in the Epistle to the Hebrews. SNTSMS 47. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. ———. The Acts of the Apostles. PNTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. Philo. Translated by F. H. Colson and G. H. Whitaker. 10 vols. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1930. Pietersma, Albert. A New Paradigm for Addressing Old Questions: The Relevance of the Interlinear Model for the Study of the Septuagint. Brill, Leiden 2002. ———. “Exegesis in the Septuagint: Possibilities and Limits (The Psalter as a Case in Point).” Pages 33–46 in Septuagint Research: Issues and Challenges in the Study of the Greek Jewish Scriptures. Edited by Wolfgang Kraus and R. Glenn Wooden. Atlanta: SBL, 2006. Pietersma, Albert and Benjamin G. Wright, eds. A New English Translation of the Septuagint and the Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included under That Title. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. ———. “General Introduction: To the Reader of NETS.” Pages xiii–xx in A New English Translation of the Septuagint and the Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included Under That Title. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. Piper, John. “Hope as the Motivation of Love: 1 Peter 3:9–12.” NTS 26 (1980): 219–23. Porter, Stanley E. Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament: With Reference to Tense and Mood. SBG 1. New York: Lang, 1989. ———. Idioms of the Greek New Testament. Sheffield: JSOT, 1992.

290 | Bibliography

———. Studies in the Greek New Testament. SBG 6. New York: Peter Lang, 1996. ———. “Thucydides 1.22.1 and Speeches in Acts: Is There a Thucydidean View?” Pages 121–42 in Studies in the Greek New Testament: Theory and Practice. New York: Peter Lang, 1996. ———. “The Linguistic Competence of New Testament Commentaries.” Pages 33–56 in On the Writing of New Testament Commentaries: Festschrift for Grant R. Osborne on the Occasion of his 70th Birthday. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and Eckhard J. Schnabel. Leiden: Brill, 2013. ———. Linguistic Analysis of the Greek New Testament: Studies in Tools, Methods, and Practice. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2015. Porter, Stanley E. and Andrew W. Pitts. “New Testament Greek Language and Linguistics in Recent Research.” Currents in Research 6 (2008): 214–55. Porzig, W. “Zur Aktionsart indogermanischer Präsensbildungen.” IF 45 (1927): 152–67. Poutsma, Hendrik. The Characters of the English Verb and the Expanded Form: And Equivalent or Analogous Constructions of the Verb in English and Cognate Languages. Groningen: P. Noordhoff, 1921. Pryke, E. J. “Ιδε and ιδού.” NTS 14 (1968): 418–24. Rahlfs, Alfred, ed. Psalmi cum Odis. Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graeca X. 3rd ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1931. ———, ed. Isaias. Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graeca XIV. 3rd ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983. Rese, Martin. “Die Funktion der alttestamentlichen Zitate und Anspielungen in den Reden der Apostelgeschichte.” Pages 61–79 in Les Actes des Apôtres: Traditions, redaction, théologie. Louvain: Leuven University, 1979. Robar, Elizabeth. “The Historical Present in NT Greek: An Exercise in Interpreting Matthew.” Pages 329–52 in The Greek Verb Revisited. Edited by Steven E. Runge and Christopher J. Fresch. Bellingham, WA: Lexham, 2016. Roberts, J. T. “The Independent Subjunctive.” ResQ 6 (1962): 98–101. Robertson, A. T. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research. Nashville, TN: Broadman, 1934. Rosner, Brian S. Paul, Scripture and Ethics: A Study of 1 Corinthians 5–7. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Rothstein, Susan D. Structuring Events: A Study in the Semantics of Aspect. Oxford: Blackwell, 2004. ———. “Introduction.” Pages 1–10 in Theoretical and Crosslinguistic Approaches to the Semantics of Aspect. Edited by Susan D. Rothstein. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 2008. Rowland, Christopher. “John 1.51, Jewish Apocalyptic and Targumic Tradition.” NTS 30 (1984): 498–507. Rundgren, F. Intensiv und Aspektkorrelation: Studien zur athiopischen und akkadischen Verbalstammbilding. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis 5. Uppsala: A. B. Lundequistska Bokh, 1959. Runge, Steven E. Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament: A Practical Introduction for Teaching and Exegesis. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2010. ———. “Contrastive Substitution and the Greek Verb: Reassessing Porter’s Argument.” NovT 56 (2014): 154–73. ———. “Discourse Function of the Greek Perfect.” Pages 458–85 in The Greek Verb Revisited. Edited by Steven E. Runge and Christopher J. Fresch. Bellingham, WA: Lexham, 2016.

Bibliography | 291 Runge, Steven E. and Christopher J. Fresch, eds. The Greek Verb Revisited: A Fresh Approach for Biblical Exegesis. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016. Salvesen, Alison. “A Well-Watered Garden (Isaiah 58:11): Investigating the Influence of the Septuagint.” Pages 191–208 in “Translation Is Required”: The Septuagint in Retrospect and Prospect. Edited by Robert J. V. Hiebert. Atlanta: SBL, 2010. Sanders, E. P. Review of A Galilean Rabbi and His Bible: Jesus’ Use of the Interpreted Scripture of His Time, by Chilton, Bruce D. JBL 106 (1987): 333–35. Schliesser, Benjamin. “Paul and the Faithfulness of God among Pauline Theologies.” Pages 21–70 in God and the Faithfulness of Paul. Edited by Christoph Heilig, J. Thomas Hewitt and Michael F. Bird. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2017. Schmidt, Daryl. “The Study of Hellenistic Greek Grammar in the Light of Contemporary Linguistics.” PRSt 11 (1985): 27–38. Schnabel, Eckhard J. Acts. Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012. Schreiner, Thomas R. “Israel’s Failure to Attain Righteousness in Romans 9:30–10:3.” TrinJ 12 (1991): 209–20. ———. Romans. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998. Schröger, F. Der Verfasser des Hebräerbriefes als Schriftausleger. Regensburg: Pustet, 1968. Segert, Stanislav. “Verbal Categories of Some Northwest Semitic Languages: A Didactic Approach.” Afroasiatic Linguistics 2, no. 5 (1975): 1–12. Seifrid, Mark A. “Romans.” Pages 607–94 in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Edited by G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007. Shead, Andrew G. “Jeremiah.” Pages 469–86 in T&T Clark Companion to the Septuagint. Edited by James K. Aitken. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015. Shedinger, Robert F. “Must the Greek Text Always Be Preferred? Versional and Patristic Witnesses to the Text of Matthew 4:16.” JBL 123 (2004): 449–66. Shepherd, Michael B. “Daniel 7:13 and the New Testament Son of Man.” WTJ 68 (2006): 99–111. Shirai, Yasuhiro. “Primacy of Aspect in Language Acquisition: Simplified Input and Prototype.” PhD diss., University of California, Los Angeles, 1991. ———. “The Aspect Hypothesis, the Comparative Fallacy and the Validity of Obligatory Context Analysis: A Reply to Lardiere, 2003.” Second Language Research 23 (2007): 51–64. Sihler, Andrew. New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995. Silva, Moisés. “Bilingualism and the Character of Palestinian Greek.” Bib 61 (1980): 198–219. Smith, Carlota S. The Parameter of Aspect. SLP 43. 2nd ed. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1991. Smith, David Raymond. “Hand This Man Over to Satan”: Curse, Exclusion and Salvation in 1 Corinthians 5. LNTS 386. London: T&T Clark, 2009. Soares Prabhu, George M. The Formula Quotations in the Infancy Narrative of Matthew: An Enquiry Into the Tradition History of Mt 1–2. Analecta Biblica Dissertationes 63. Rome: E. Pontifico Instituto Biblico, 1976. Soderberg, Craig. “Quotation Formula and Utterance Significance in ‘A Fisherman and his Wife.’ ” JOTT 9 (1997): 35–47.

292 | Bibliography

Sørensen, H. M. “Om Definitionerne af Verbets Aspekter.” Pages 221–33 in Im Memoriam Kr. Sandfeld: udgivet paa 70-aarsdagen for hans fødsel. Copenhagen: Gyldendal, 1943. Stahl, Johann Matthias. Kritisch-historische syntax des griechischen verbums der kalssischen zeit. Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1907. Stanley, Christopher D. Paul and the Language of Scripture: Citation Technique in the Pauline Epistles and Contemporary Literature. SNTSMS 69. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. ———. “The Significance of Romans 11:3–4 for the Text History of the LXX Book of Kingdoms.” JBL 112 (1993): 43–54. ———. “The Social Environment of ‘Free’ Biblical Quotations in the New Testament.” Pages 18– 27 in Early Christian Interpretation of the Scriptures of Israel: Investigations and Proposals. Edited by Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1997. ———. “Paul’s ‘Use’ of Scripture: Why the Audience Matters.” Pages 125–55 in As It Is Written: Studying Paul’s Use of Scripture. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and Christopher D. Stanley. Atlanta: SBL, 2008. Stanley, Steven K. “A New Covenant Hermeneutic: The Use of Scripture in Hebrews 8–10.” PhD diss., University of Sheffield, Sheffield, 1994. Stanton, Graham. “Matthew.” Pages 205–19 in Scripture Citing Scripture: Essays in Honour of Barnabas Lindars, SSF. Edited by D. A. Carson and H. G. M. Williamson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. Stein, Robert H. Mark. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008. Stendahl, Krister. The School of St. Matthew, and Its Use of the Old Testament. 2nd ed. Uppsala: Gleerup, 1968. Sternberg, Meir. “Proteus in Quotation-Land: Mimesis and the Forms of Reported Discourse.” Poetics Today 3 (1982): 107–56. Steyn, Gert J. Septuagint Quotations in the Context of the Petrine and Pauline Speeches of the Acta Apostolorum. Contributions to Biblical Exegesis & Theology 12. Kampen: Pharos, 1995. ———. “Which ‘LXX’ Are We Talking about in NT Scholarship? Two Examples from Hebrews.” Pages 697–707 in Die Septuaginta—Texte, Kontexte, Lebenswelten. Edited by Martin Karrer, Wolfgang Kraus and Martin Meiser. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. ———. A Quest for the Assumed LXX Vorlage of the Explicit Quotations in Hebrews. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011. ———. “Observations on the Text Form of the Minor Prophets Quotations in Romans 9–11.” JSNT 38 (2015): 49–67. ———. “The Text Form of LXX Genesis 28:12 by Philo of Alexandria and in the Jesus-Logion of John 1:51.” IDS 49, no. 2 (2015): 1–7. Strauss, Mark L. Mark. ZECNT. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2014. Sweet, J. P. M. Revelation. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1979. Swete, H. B. The Gospel According to St Mark. 3rd ed. London: Macmillan, 1913. Tabb, Brian J. “Johannine Fulfillment of Scripture: Continuity and Escalation.” BBR 21 (2011): 495–505. Tate, Marvin E. Psalms 51–100. WBC 20. Columbia: Nelson, 1990. Thackeray, H. St. J. “The Greek Translators of the Four Books of Kings.” JTS 8 (1907): 262–78.

Bibliography | 293 Thiselton, Anthony C. The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. Thomas, Kenneth J. “Old Testament Citations in Hebrews.” NTS 11 (1965): 303–25. Thompson, James P. Hebrews. Paideia. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008. Thomson, Christopher J. “What is Aspect? Contrasting Definitions in General Linguistics and New Testament Studies.” Pages 13–80 in The Greek Verb Revisited. Edited by Steven E. Runge and Christopher J. Fresch. Bellingham, WA: Lexham, 2016. Tiittanen, M. “The Influence of Lexical Aspect on Non-target Like Uses of English Progressive Verb Forms.” The Asian Journal of Applied Linguistics 2, no. 2 (2015): 115–28. Toews, John E. Romans. BCBC. Scottdale, PA: Herald, 2004. Tov, Emanuel. “The Septuagint between Judaism and Christianity.” Pages 3–25 in Die Septuaginta und das frühe Christentum. Edited by Thomas Scott Caulley and Hermann Lichtenberger. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Trubetzkoy, Nikolai S. Grundzüge der Phonologie: Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague. Göttingen: Vanderhoek & Ruprecht, 1968. ———. Principles of Phonology. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1969. Turner, David L. Matthew. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008. Ulonska, Herbert. “Die Funktion der alttestamentlichen Zitate und Anspielungen in den paulinischen Briefen.” PhD diss., University of Münster, Münster, 1963. van der Berg, Ronald H. “ ‘Old Testament Awareness’ and the Textual Tradition of the Explicit Quotations of Isaiah in Codex Bezae’s Acts.” NovT 57 (2015): 360–78. Van Otterloo, Roger. “Towards an Understanding of ‘Lo’ and ‘Behold’: Functions of ἰδού and ἴδε in the Greek New Testament.” JTT 2 (1988): 34–64. Vanhoozer, Kevin J. Is There a Meaning in This Text?: The Bible, the Reader, and the Morality of Literary Knowledge. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009. Vaughan, Charles John. ΠΡΟΣ ΕΒΡΑΙΟΥΣ: The Epistle to the Hebrews. London: Macmillan, 1891. Vendler, Zeno. “Verbs and Times.” Philosophical Review (1957): 143–60. von Rad, Gerhard. “Typological Interpretation of the Old Testament.” Int 15 (1961): 174–92. Wagner, J. Ross. Heralds of the Good News: Isaiah and Paul in Concert in the Letter to the Romans. Leiden: Koninklijke, 2002. Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996. ———. “Greek Grammar and the Personality of the Holy Spirit.” BBR 13 (2003): 97–125. Wallace, Stephen. “Figure and Ground: The Interrelationships of Linguistic Categories.” Pages 201– 23 in Tense-Aspect: Between Semantics and Pragmatics. Edited by Paul J. Hopper. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1982. Walser, Georg A. Old Testament Quotations in Hebrews. WUNT II.356. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. Wasserstein, Abraham and David J. Wasserstein. The Legend of the Septuagint: From Classical Antiquity to Today. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Waters, Guy Prentiss. “Curse Redux? 1 Corinthians 5:13, Deuteronomy, and Identity in Corinth.” WTJ 77 (2015): 237–50.

294 | Bibliography

Watts, John D. W. Isaiah 1–33. WBC 24. Rev. ed. Columbia: Nelson, 2005. Watts, Rikk E. “Mark.” Pages 111–250 in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Edited by G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007. Wengst, Klaus. Didache (Apostellehre), Barnabasbrief. Schriften des Urchristentums 2. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2006. Wenham, Gordon J. Genesis 16–50. WBC 2. Columbia: Nelson, 1994. Westcott, Brooke Foss. The Gospel According to St. John: The Authorized Version with Introduction and Notes. London: John Murray, 1882. Westfall, Cynthia Long. A Discourse Analysis of the Letter to the Hebrews: The Relationship Between Form and Meaning. LNTS 297. London: T&T Clark, 2005. Wevers, John William, ed. Genesis. Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graeca 1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974. ———, ed. Deuteronomium. Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graeca III,2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977. ———, ed. Exodus. Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graeca II,1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991. Wilk, Florian. “The Letters of Paul as Witnesses to and for the Septuagint Text.” Pages 253–72 in Septuagint Research: Issues and Challenges in the Study of the Greek Jewish Scriptures. Edited by Wolfgang Kraus and R. Glenn Wooden. Atlanta: SBL, 2006. Wilkinson, Neal K. “ ‘Aspect’ in the Syntax of the Verb in the Poems of Homer: The Testing of a Theory.” PhD diss., Australian National University, 1980. Winer, G. B. A Treatise on the Grammar of New Testament Greek: Regarded as the Basis of New Testament Exegesis. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1882. Witherington III, Ben. The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. Wolff, Ekkehard. “Grammatical Categories of Verb Stems and the Marking of Mood, Aktionsart, and Aspect in Chadic.” Afroasiatic Linguistics 6, no. 5 (1979): 1–48. Wright, Benjamin G. “The Septuagint and Its Modern Translators.” Pages 103–14 in Die Septuaginta—Texte, Kontexte, Lebenswelten. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Wright, N. T. Paul and the Faithfulness of God. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2013. Zaas, Peter Stuart. “ ‘Cast Out the Evil Man from your Midst’ (1 Cor 5:13b).” JBL 103 (1984): 259–61. Zerwick, Maximillian. Biblical Greek: Illustrated by Examples. SubBi 41. 2nd ed. Vatican: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1963. Ziegler, Joseph, ed. Duodecim Prophetae. Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graeca XIII. 4th ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1943. ———, ed. Jeremias, Baruch, Threni, Epistula Jeremie. 2nd ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976. ———, ed. Susanna, Daniel, Bel et Draco. Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graeca XVI,2. 2nd ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999.

Topic Index

Aktionsart 23–27, 28–31, 37–38, 83, 119–120, 248 apocalyptic 109–113, 117, 119–21, 124, 127, 144–46, 179, 220, 231 aspect 22–47, 66, 83 aspect prominence 3, 42–43, 248 aspectual vagueness 39, 46, 83, 94–95, 113, 242, 245–46 combinative 194 imperfective 34–43, 94–96, 103–104, 112–114, 119–120, 127, 147–148, 208, 220–21, 224–27, 231, 238 perfective 34–43, 94–96, 103–104, 106–107, 112–114, 119–120, 127, 140, 147, 150–153, 164, 169, 180, 186–87, 189–90, 197, 203, 224–27, 227–30, 245–46, 251 stative 37–40, 53, 194–95, 207–8

authorial choice 4, 30, 51–52, 65–66

Bache, Carl 29–30, 37, 39, 66–69, 248–49 Barnabas 239–41 biblical theology 22, 248 Campbell, Constantine 3–5, 40–41, 45, 50–51, 83–84, 94–95, 100–104, 108, 112–114, 119–120, 147–148, 173, 195, 208, 225, 242–46, 248 Comrie, Bernard 29–30 contrastive substitution 65–75 +/–distinctive 67, 71–75, 78–79, 83, 94, 102, 107, 120, 126, 130, 136, 219, 249 modified 74–75

crucifixion 127, 132, 139, 140–41, 146, 150–153, 156–57, 163–65, 201, 226, 236

296

| Topic Index

death, of Jesus see crucifixion eschatology 180–81, 205, 229, 248 Fanning, Buist 3, 36–38, 83–84, 241, 248 historical Perfect 172–74, 232 historical Present 43–45, 131–33 imperative 89, 92, 99–104, 106–108, 123–127, 202–3, 228–230, 242–45, 250 intertextuality 18–20, 22, 47, 63, 82 LXX see Septuagint markedness 37–40, 41, 45, 52, 94, 173, 195, 225 Mateos, Juan 34 McKay, Kenneth 35–36, 44, 100–101, 241–42 Porter, Stanley 3–5, 35–41, 45, 50–51, 69–74, 83–84, 94, 100–101, 108, 112–114, 119–120, 147–148, 173, 194–95, 207–8, 225, 242–46, 248 Philo 156, 176, 205, 237–38 prophecy 92, 96, 150–153, 157, 163, 191, 236, 248, 251 prominence 43, 133, 173, 195, 207–8 promise 20–22, 85, 92, 191, 197, 216, 227–28, 248 proximity 41, 147, 208, 225, 246 quotation criteria 49, 53–54 definition 58, 78, 225, 247 formula 54–56, 64, 80, 123, 129, 133, 149, 162, 168, 199, 216, 239, 265

sources 11–15, 47, 58–65, 80, 90, 99, 118, 125–26, 139, 155–156, 175, 184–85, 189, 200, 204, 214–15, 233–41, 248 technique 5–6, 16, 110, 162–163, 179, 184, 232, 233–41, 248

remoteness. see proximity resurrection 1–2, 20, 107, 146, 152–153, 161–65, 227 Runge, Stephen 71–74 Septuagint Language character 7–16, 18, 208 Translation technique 9–16, 99 Modern translations 11–15 Use of 16–22, 58–59, 92, 189, 232

subjunctive 46, 63, 89, 99–104, 107, 177–181, 185–87, 214–217, 228–230, 242–45, 250 Systemic Functional Linguistics 4, 50–53, 66 temporal reference 3–4, 22–23, 84–85, 94–96, 108, 119–21, 127, 136–37, 140–41, 146–48, 150, 153, 164, 169, 180, 186–87, 189–90, 197, 203, 205, 207, 216–17, 220–21, 226, 228–30, 242–43, 250–51 tense 22, 25, 36–41, 46, 137, 219–20 tense-form Aorist 64, 81–85, 93–96, 99–104, 106–8, 125–27, 128–33, 145–48, 150–53, 156–57, 164–65, 169, 171–74, 177–81, 185–87, 189–90, 194–97, 202–3, 214–217, 225, 227–230, 250 Imperfect 117, 131, 145–48, 231, 251 Future 3–5, 35, 37, 45–47, 63, 78, 81–85, 93–96, 99–104, 106–8, 111–14, 125–27, 135–37, 139–41, 150–53, 164–65, 168–69, 177–81, 185–87,

Topic Index | 189–90, 196–97, 202–3, 214–17, 219–21, 226, 227–30, 231, 241–46, 250–51 Perfect 37, 171, 194–95, 205–8, 232, 251 Present 64, 93–96, 101, 129–31, 139–41, 145–48, 156–57, 219–21, 225–26, 250

297

typology 20–22, 133, 141, 153, 157, 163, 201, 221, 227–28, 235, 236, 248, 251, 258 viewpoint 24, 28–34, 37–39, 41, 100, 108, 112, 126, 137, 250 Zeitart 23–24

Scripture Index

LXX references follow Septuagint versification and book ordering. Genesis 2:24 255 12:7 163 13:15 163 17:7 208n.101 17:8 163n.28, 225 18:10 262 18:14 262 18:23 154–55 28:12 142n.25, 224–25 38:8 104, 197, 223–24 38:10 106n.84 48:4 163 49:17–18 154–55

Exodus 12:11 154–55 20:11 199–200n.33, 261 20:12–16 96n.17, 222–23 25:5–6 106–8

25:9 199–200 25:40 74n. 29, 171–72, 198, 225–26 32:1 167n. 30, 219, 225–26 32:22 168–69 32:23 167

Numbers 24:4, 16 173–74n.7 25:11 147n.19

Deuteronomy 5:16–20 96n.17, 222–23 6:13 247–48, 253 17:7 192, 223–24 19:19 192 21:21 192 22:21 192 22:24 192 24:7 192 31:6 268

300

| Scripture Index

1 Kingdoms (1 Samuel) 8:5 184 12:17–22 184 12:22 182n.12, 221–22

2 Kingdoms (2 Samuel) 7:12–13 159–61

3 Kingdoms (1 Kings) 19:10 147n.19, 186 19:14 147n. 31, 186, 225–26 19:18 186n.13, 221–22

1 Chronicles 16:15–18 208n.101

2 Esdras (Ezra-Nehemiah) 3:11 208n.101 19:6 (Neh 9:6) 261n.33

Judith 16:17 134–35

21:19 63n.4, 127, 219 21:23 267 30:6 137, 220 33:9 269 33:13–17 270 34:19 151n.5, 219 50:3–4 174–75 50:6 172 68:2–13 147 68:5 151 68:10 146n.14, 221–22, 228–29 68:23–30 147n.29, 149–50 68:26 259 93 184–85 93:9 231 93:14 182n.12, 221–22 104:10 208n.101 107:10 81n.11 108:8 228, 247–48, 259 110:1 158–59 115:11 173–74n.7 118:139 149–50 145:6 261

Tobit 4:12 103–4n.80

1 Maccabees 1:13 124n.120 2:24–26 147n.19 10:6, 8, 32 124n.120 11:58 124n.120

Proverbs 17:4 124n.120 24:12 254 25:21–22 264

Job 1:12 124n.121 2:6 124n.121

3 Maccabees 7:12 124n.120

Psalms 2:9 212, 228 8:7 228, 266 15:8–11 1–2, 155, 229–30 15:10 2n.11, 65, 221–22 21 16–18, 138–39, 219 21:1 132 21:7 132

Wisdom of Solomon 2:12–24 132 5:1–8 132

Sirach 7:17 134–35 17:2 124n.120 17:12 208n.101 30:11 124n.120 33:20 124n.120

Scripture Index | 44:18 208n.101 45:7, 15 208n.101

Psalms of Solomon 7:1 152, 153–54

Hosea 2:1 263 11:1 247–48

Amos 5:21–24 149–50n.29 8:9 110–11n.91

Joel 2:10 110–11n.91 2:28–32 158–59 2:31 110–11n.91

Zechariah 9:11 122–23n.114 12:10–14 117–19n.111 13:7 121n.24, 224, 232 14:4–9 122–23n.114 14:21 149–50n.31 14:28 122–23n.114

Malachi 3:1 228

Isaiah 1:12–17 149–50n.29 1:29 181n.35 6:9–10 85n.10, 112–13, 220 8:5–8 81–82 8:14 177 8:23–9:1 79 9:1–5 81–82n.12 10:22 263 13:10 108, 110 20:4–5 181n.35 25:8 266, 273 28:16 177n.19, 222–23

29:14 265 34:2 110–11 34:4 108, 215–16 37:16 261n.33 40:3 74–75, 250 41:11 181n.35 42:7 81n.11 42:17 181n.35 44:9–11 181n.35 45:16 181n.35 50:67 181n.35 53:4 57n.3 54:4 181n.35 58:6 257 61:2 228, 257 61:13 254 65:2 183–84 66:23 135–36 66:24 133n.9, 220

Jeremiah 7:1–15, 21–23 149–50n.29 26:1–24 149–50n.29 38:15 249 38:33–34 203n.20, 222–23 41:8, 15 208–10n.104

Ezekiel 32:7 110–11n.91

Daniel 3:97 124n.120 7:13 115, 225

Matthew 1:22 16–18 1:23 81–82n.27, 84–85 2:6 84–85n.27 2:8 175n.17 2:15 16–18n.38, 62, 228, 247–48 2:17 16–18 2:18 62n.38, 228, 249 2:23 16–18n.27, 84–85 3:3 74–75, 250

301

302

| Scripture Index

3:15 16–18 4:10 62, 247–48, 253 4:14–16 16–18, 62, 79, 221, 244 5:17 16–18 5:21 236 6:5 236 6:9 237–38 6:14–15 236 7:7 236 7:19 69, 71 8:17 16–18n.3, 57 8:25 69, 70, 71 10:32 236 11:10 228 12:17 16–18 12:18–21 84–85n.27 13:13 86, 91n.41 13:14–15 62, 85 13:16–17 93, 95–96 13:35 16–18n.27, 84–85 13:48 16–18 15:14 236 16:22 102 16:27 62, 254 18:6 236 19:4–5 62, 255 19:18–19 62, 96, 181 19:20 98–100n.58 19:22 98–100n.58 21:3 236 21:42 178–79 22:24 62, 104, 197, 223, 244 24:29–30 62, 108, 115, 225, 245 26:18 69, 71 26:31 62, 121, 223, 224, 232, 244 26:54 16–18 26:56 16–18 26:59 175n.17 26:64 62, 115, 225, 245 27:3–10 259–60 27:9 16–18 27:35 62n.4, 64, 127, 218–19, 244 27:50 139–40

Mark 1:1 132 1:2 228 1:3 74–75, 250 2:24 117–19n.107 3:32–34 117–19n.107 4:11–12 62, 85, 215–16, 218–19, 220, 244 5:23 175n.17 8:18 89n.31 9:43–47 134, 135–36 9:48 62, 133, 218–19, 220, 244 10:6–8 62, 255 10:15–30 135–36n.156 10:19 62, 96, 181, 222–23, 228–29, 244 10:22 98–100n.58 10:45 148–49n.24 11:27 69, 71 11:28 236–37 12:10–11 178–79 12:19 62, 104, 223, 244 13:13–19 112–13 13:25–26 62, 108, 115, 215–16, 218–19, 225, 244, 245 14:24–28 122–23n.114 14:25 135–36n.156 14:27 62, 121, 223, 224, 232, 244 14:29 236 14:62 62, 115, 225, 245 15:20 130 15:21 130 15:22 130 15:24 62, 64, 127, 218–19, 244 15:27 130 15:29 132 15:34 132 15:36 153–54n.42

Luke 3:5 74–75, 250 4:8 62, 247–48, 253 4:19 62, 228, 257

Scripture Index | 7:27 228 8:10 62, 85, 218–19, 220, 244 18:18 98–100n.58 18:20 62, 96, 181, 222–23, 244 18:23 98–100n.58 20:17–18 178–79 20:28 62, 104, 223, 244 20:41 70, 71 21:10 70, 71 21:27 62, 115, 225, 245 22:42 139–40 23:34 62n.4, 64, 127, 218–19, 244 23:46 62, 137, 215–16, 218–19, 220, 235, 244 24:18 70, 71

John 1:10 155 1:14 143–44 1:23 62, 250 1:39 145n.13 1:47 143–44 1:51 62, 142, 224–25, 245 2:13–17 147 2:16 149–50n.31 2:17 62, 146, 221, 228–29, 235, 236, 244, 259–60 2:19–21 143–44 2:22 148–49 3:36 145n.13 4:12 143–44 4:16 237–38 4:20–24 143–44 5:42 70, 71 6:35 102 7:37–39 143–44 9:2 236–37 11:40 145n.13 12:40 89n.31 14:2, 23 143–44 15:25 62, 148–49, 151, 218–19, 244 16:16–19 145n.13 19:24 62, 64, 127

19:28 19:29 19:30 21:17

148–49 153–54n.42 139–40 70, 71

Acts 1:16–20 259–60 1:20 62, 148–49, 228, 247–48, 259 2:17–21 158–59 2:25–31 2, 20–21, 62, 155, 221, 244, 259–60 2:27 2, 236 2:31 1, 2, 65, 221–22, 226, 235 2:34–36 158–59 4:11 178–79 4:24 62, 261 6:10–14 164–65 7:5 62, 163, 225, 245 7:7 165 7:31 165 7:32–33 62 7:39 168–69 7:40 165, 62, 167, 218–19, 225–26, 244, 245 7:51 165, 20–21, 169–70 13:35–37 155, 221, 226, 244 20:38 70, 71 28:17 95–96 28:25–28 95–96 28:26 62, 85

Romans 1:16 181 2:6 62, 254 3:2 173–74n.7 3:4 62, 172, 223, 237–38, 244 5 16–18 5:5 181 5:7 236 7:3 236 9:6 178–79 9:9 62, 262 9:14 178–79

303

304

| Scripture Index

9:27 62, 263 9:30–33 178–79 9:33 62, 177, 222–23, 244 10:11 62, 177, 183–84, 222–23, 244 10:16 183–84 11:1 183–84 11:2–4 245 62n.36, 182, 186, 221, 225–26, 227, 244 11:5 185–86, 191–92 11:9–10 148–49 12:20 62, 264 15:3 148–49

Hebrews 2:10 208–10n.104 2:12 62, 267 4:4 199–200n.82 5:9 208–10n.104 7:23–24 199 7:28 208–10n.104 8:1–6 199, 203 8:5 62n.3, 74, 171–72, 198, 225–26, 245 8:8–12 62, 203, 222–23, 228 10:6 62 10:16–17 62, 203, 222–23, 226, 244 13:5 62, 268

1 Corinthians 1:19 265 1:29 175n.17 3:11 178–79 3:16–17 196 5:1–13 196 5:13 62, 192, 223, 244 15:27 62, 228, 266 15:54 62, 266

2 Corinthians 9:7 69, 71

Galatians 3:6 55 3:11–12 54 3:16–13 16–18 4 16–18

Ephesians 2:20 178–79

1 Peter 1:2, 18 269–70 2:3 62, 269 2:6 177 3:10–12 62, 270

James 2:11 62, 96, 181, 222–23, 244

Revelation 2:25–26 214–15 2:27 62, 212, 218–19, 228, 244 3:5 153–54n.42 7:17 62, 273 8:8 153–54n.42 14:1 153–54n.42 14:11 62 17:8 153–54n.42 18:2 62 21:4 273