Mathewson on Verbal Aspect and Revelation 5
Posted By asbandy on October 8, 2009
Occasionally, I come across journal articles that trigger a pavlovian response of salivation in excitement as what I read ignites the flames of a new perspective that alters my previously held views. A recent article by David Mathewson, “Verbal Aspect in the Apocalypse of John: An Analysis of Revelation 5″ (NovT 50 [2008]: 58-77), suggests that verbal aspect theory may solve the problem of John’s apparent grammatical infelicities and radical shifts of tense-forms in the visionary sections of the Apocalypse.
Scholars have long observed the seemingly random shift in tense-forms (present, imperfect, aorist, perfect and future) in the visionary narratives of the Apocalypse (4:1-11; 5:1-14; 11:1-13; 13:1-18). This has prompted Stephen Thompson, author of The Apocalypse and Semitic Syntax, to comment on the “sudden and seemingly inexplicable shifts among aorist/present/future tenses of verbs . .. without a corresponding shift in time during which the action being described takes place.” To this, Mathewson posits that the problem is exacerbated when one tries to maintain a temporal sense in the verbal tense-forms. In other words, if one views aorist as grammaticalizing a past-time event, the present as a contemporary event, and the future as a future-time event, then the shifts in tense forms in the visionary narratives of the Apocalypse are quite confusing indeed.
Mathewson’s article provides an excellent example of appropriating Verbal Aspect Theory for the exegetical task. He follows the conception of verbal aspect as defined by Stanley E. Porter who avers that it is “a synthetic, semantic category (realized in the forms of verbs) used of meaning oppositions in a network of tense systems to grammaticalize the author’s reasoned subjective choice of conception of a process.” And that aspect pertains to “the focus of the speaker with reference to the action or state which the verb describes, his way of viewing the occurrence and its make-up. . .” What is significant about this understanding of verbal aspect is that the tense-forms, then, have nothing to do with time, but rather they have to do with the way the author conceives of the action as a process.
Instead of viewing the tense-forms as past, present, and future, they grammaticalize three aspects:
- Perfective aspect (the function of Aorist forms) – it is an external viewpoint that does not necessarily distinguish internal structure or progress of a process.
- Imperfective aspect (the function of Present and Imperfect forms) – is an internal viewpoint that focuses on the process itself and its internal structure.
- Stative aspect (the function of the Perfect and Pluperfect forms) – another external viewpoint but more remote than the perfective that grammaticalizes reference to a condition or state that depends upon the process.
Verbal aspect helps to elucidate the various levels of prominence in the discourse. Prominence is how certain lexical and syntactical features highlight what is significant in the flow of discourse. The perfective aspect or aorist tense-form is not only the most frequent, but it is also the least marked so it serves as the background in narrative contexts. The imperfective aspect or present and imperfect tense-forms bring features, events, and persons to the foreground, which highlights these features as more important for the author’s purpose. The stative aspect or perfect and pluperfect tense forms are the most marked of all the tense-forms and therefore function to frontground those items that are most significant to the author.
Mathewson masterfully applies this theory to the text of Revelation 5 to demonstrate how the tense-forms are not intended to convey the timing of the events, but rather it expresses John’s perception of those events and what is most significant for the readers to grasp.
The Aorist in Revelation 5
The aorist tense-forms occur frequently in discourse to introduces the vision (ειδον), shifts within the vision, and to summarize new scenes as a means to mark out the main units of the vision (Rev 5:1, 2-5, 6-10, 11-14). The aorist also frequently occurs to provide background narrative to move the story along (Rev 5:2-4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14).
The Present and Imperfect in Revelation 5
These tense-forms also occur with some measured frequency, but they tend to had descriptive features and highlights certain characters and actions: the one seated on the throne (Rev 5:1, 7, 13; cf. 4:2, 3, 9); the angel cries out (Rev 5:2); the speeches and hymns of the living creatures (Rev 5:5, 9, 12, 13); the lambs reception of the scroll (Rev 5:7, 9-10, 11-12, 13-14); the lamb having seven horns (5:6); the elders having lyres and golden bowls (Rev 5:8-9); the redeemed are made priest and kings (Rev 5:10; cf. 20:4; 22:5). While the imperfect is not as frequent, it does occur three times as a means to foreground certain elements.
The Perfect in Revelation 5
Mathewson writes, “Except for its occurrence in an indicative verb in v. 7 . . ., the perfect occurs with participles which cluster around the two most significant features of the vision introduced in two discreet units (vv.1, 6): the scroll and the Lamb.”
I have to admit that this article is quite convincing and he seems to provide the best solution, so far, to the strange grammar of the visionary narratives in the Apocalypse. The task is now to see if his observations/thesis proves consistent in other passages. I would like to offer a hearty thank you to David Mathewson for this intriguing and stimulating article!
Comments