From: Dale M. Wheeler (dalemw@teleport.com)
Date: Tue Aug 22 1995 - 13:55:42 EDT
>Carl Conrad wrote:
>
>I think it should be noted
>that the text of John 20:30 actually shows the sigma of PISTEU[S]HTE in
>brackets, meaning, unless I have misunderstood the editorial procedures,
>that the editorial committee deemed the aorist-tense form less likely and
>indicated this by bracketing the sigma, but left the bracketed sigma in
>the text because it has almost as good MS support as the present-tense
>form. Therefore, it may very well be that the original text DID have both
>subjunctive verbs in the present tense.
The introductions to both UBS4 and NA27 are not well-written on this point
of brackets in the text, but, unless I have misunderstood them, the intent
of the brackets is exactly opposite of what you suggest, Carl. UBS4 is a
little clearer than NA27, and it says: "Brackets in the text indicate that
the enclosed word, words, or parts of words may be regarded as part of the
text, but that in the present state of New Testament textual shcolarship
this cannot be taken as completely certain. Such passages have a C-rating
in the critical apparatus...." I think that means that they prefer, at a
"C" level the bracketed reading; in this case the Aorist over the Present.
This seems to be the same point from NA27, which says: "...The reading given
in the text shows the preference of the editors..."
On the tenses of the verbs, I would suggest that both you and Carlton are
pushing the tenses a bit too hard. It seems to me, pace Fanning, that the
tense is chosen because of the implicit state/type of action of the verb,
not independently of it. Thus present is the most appropriate for exw since
it has the semantic nuance of either "state" ("He is alive." "He possesses
life.") or possibly "unbounded activity" ("He possesses life."). While I
agree, theologically and exegetically elsewhere, that once one possesses
eternal life they cannot lose it (please don't flame me if you don't agree),
I don't think the present tense here can be pressed to indicate that. If
you do then you run into the problem Carlton felt, namely that you must
"keep on believing" if you want to keep on possessing life. The really
interesting problem here is the switch from aorist to present for pistuew.
What makes this even more interesting is John's use of pisteuw in both the
present and aorist in the Gospel; this can especially be seen in the
substantival participles (you can find them all with one of the GRAMCORD
computer products in about 5 seconds). pistuew is probably best understood
as an "unbounded activity" (which doesn't mean its linear or progressive in
the traditional sense), and thus the present is more natural to it,
especially in the non-indicative moods. In English it would be translated
by "he believes," making no comment on the initiation, completion, etc., of
the action. However, as I think we all realize, pisteuw is not that easy to
define either linguistically or theologically. And John's use of it in the
Aorist makes it even more intruiging. It may be that the aorist (even the
non-indicatives) simply indicate a prior-to-something-else activity; in this
case belief is prior to having life. As you can see, I'm not trying to
solve this problem here, just making some suggestions.
**************************************************************
Dale M. Wheeler, Th.D.
Chair, Biblical Languages Dept. Multnomah Bible College
8435 NE Glisan Street Portland, OR 97220
Voice:503-251-6416 FAX:503-254-1268 E-Mail:dalemw@teleport.com
**************************************************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:25 EDT