Re: πέμψαντός in J. 6.38?
Posted: January 14th, 2018, 11:46 pm
Thank you all very much. Will take some time to digest this, and, I'm not attempting to drag this out, but am really trying to grapple w. this text. I actually just read a supposed exegetical refutation to some of the grammatical assertions made here that - if okay - I would like to glean your response on (?). There are just so many differing views of the participle in relation of the verb (esp. the aorist it seems?) that it can honestly be confusing. The response is below:
To begin, this verse (John 6.38) is comprised of three clauses: an independent clause (A), and the two dependent clauses of (B) and (C). From the perspective of text linguistics and discourse analysis, clauses (B) and (C) are tied in with (A) and both flow from (A).
(A) ὅτι καταβέβηκα ἀπὸ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ
(B) οὐχ ἵνα ποιῶ τὸ θέλημα τὸ ἐμὸν
(C) ἀλλὰ τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πέμψαντός με
To say “You could expand the phrase ἀλλὰ τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πέμψαντός με to say ἀλλὰ ἵνα ποιῶ τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πέμψαντός με, it's the implied ποιῶ that should be understood in relation to καταβέβηκα.” With this line of argumentation, you can just as well make καταβέβηκα in (A) the main verb of (B), for in the same manner one can easily expand the phrase οὐχ ἵνα ποιῶ τὸ θέλημα τὸ ἐμὸν to say οὐχ καταβέβηκα ἀπὸ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἵνα ποιῶ τὸ θέλημα τὸ ἐμὸν, and you can just as well argue that the verb καταβέβηκα is “implied” in (B).
Just because someone can plug in what they say is implicit in a text that does not mean that it is something that was intended by the author as his communicative intent. Now I can easily expand on this from the perspective of Relevance Theory but I know I will lose people here so I will leave it at that. Whatever the case, if you take your line of argumentation to its logical conclusion then for the very same reason, and by logical consistency in your hermeneutical method, you would have to result in automatically making καταβέβηκα the main verb of (B), AND since (C) is dependent on (B) then you have just refuted yourself, for then you would have made the present participle πέμψαντός of (C) actually dependent on the “implied” καταβέβηκα of (B) after all, and of the linguistically encoded καταβέβηκα at (A). The interesting thing here is that in fact πέμψαντός in (C) IS dependent on the main verb of καταβέβηκα in (A) but I will show this in a bit, I want to cover a few more things first.
A few things to note here. One thing we know from linguistics is that linguistically encoded information is much more explicit than implicit information. Second, ποιῶ WAS linguistically encoded by the author in (B) but WAS NOT linguistically encoded in (C) by the same author. Third, each clause has its own linguistically encoded verb for a reason, (A) has καταβέβηκα (perfect active indicative), (B) has ποιῶ (present active subjective) and (C) has πέμψαντός (aorist active participle). Fourth, the linguistically encoded information in (B) and (C) is made explicit for a specific purpose, to highlight the rhetorical contrast between (B) and (C) and is linguistically primed by the contrastive phrase οὐχ ἵνα. The set of (B) and (C) is dependent on (A), so the main verb of this text in discourse is the καταβέβηκα. Clauses (A), (B) and (C) are one unit as a cohesive whole, with (B) and (C) dependent of the independent clause (A) with the head verb of καταβέβηκα.
The claim, “The participle πέμψαντός is part of a nominal construction τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πέμψαντός με, and does not have a direct relationship to καταβέβηκα."
Actually, it does, and in more ways than one. First of all, the linguistic items of (B) ποιῶ and (C) πέμψαντός cannot stand on their own, because (B) and (C) are dependent clauses that flow and expand from the independent clause (A). Thus (B) and (C) express incomplete thoughts and are not designed to stand alone ripped apart from their discourse context. In contrast clause (A) can stand on its own and can express a complete thought, and this clause in turn itself flows from the previous text because it is interwoven to the previous text by ὅτι. With this being the case, no matter how you look at it, (B) and (C) rely on (A) just from the simple perspective of discourse analysis. This is important because in (A) we have the head verb καταβέβηκα (perfect active indicative) which has been linguistically encoded in an independent clause in its linguistic and discourse context. Just from this perspective alone, from discourse analysis, I have already demonstrated that the head verb here is καταβέβηκα (perfect active indicative).
However, there are more reasons to show why the active participle πέμψαντός in (C) has a very clear relation to the head verb καταβέβηκα in (A)...Consider what some grammars say about the aorist participle: “The aorist participle is normally, though by no means always, antecedent in time to the action of the main verb. But when the aorist participle is related to an aorist main verb, the participle will often be contemporaneous (or simultaneous) to the action of the main verb.” (Wallace, Greek Grammar, p. 624) Notice the part: “The aorist participle is normally, though by no means always, antecedent in time to the action of the main verb.” This is something that you will see often in the grammars.
Here is another example: “The Aorist Participle of Antecedent Action. The Aorist Participle is most frequently used of an action antecedent in time to the action of the principal verb.” (Burton’s NT Greek Moods & Tenses, sec. 134)
“The aorist participle indicates an action occurring prior to the time of the main verb.” (Mounce’s Basics of Biblical Greek, p. 237)
“The aorist participle, for example, usually denotes antecedent time to that of the controlling verb” (Wallace, 614)
Under section 202 “The Tense of the Participle” Dana & Mantey reads: “(1) Antecedent action relative to the main verb is ordinarily expressed by the aorist or perfect. . .” (Dana & Mantey, p. 230) There are a few things I want to say here, the participle in (C); whether the participle πέμψαντός is used as a verb, or adjective, or substantively, the fact is that it nonetheless always remains linguistically encoded as an aorist. The linguistically encoded morphological tense and its verbal semantic value is not canceled out by its pragmatic use, and hence always retains a verbal property linguistically encoded. If we look at this from a purely linguistic perspective then we see that the semantic verbal property of the participle remains. Wallace says: “. . . because the participle has embodied two natures, neither one acts completely independently of the other. Hence, the verbal nature of participles has a permanent grammatical intrusion from the adjectival nature. . .” (Wallace p. 615) This is why the translation of τοῦ πέμψαντός με is translated as “the one who SENT ME.”
So even if it is used substantively you cannot cancel out the verbal semantic property of the same linguistic item because it still retains it, and it also retains its aspect which may be dimensioned, but it’s still there nonetheless. Wallace says: “Second, with reference to its verbal nature: Just because a participle is adjectival or substantial, this does not mean that its verbal aspect is entirely diminished. Most substantial participles still retain something of their aspect. A general rule of thumb is that the more particular (as opposed to generic) the referent, the more of the verbal aspect is still seen. (See the introduction for detailed discussion.)” (Wallace 620)
Continued (if allowed )...
To begin, this verse (John 6.38) is comprised of three clauses: an independent clause (A), and the two dependent clauses of (B) and (C). From the perspective of text linguistics and discourse analysis, clauses (B) and (C) are tied in with (A) and both flow from (A).
(A) ὅτι καταβέβηκα ἀπὸ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ
(B) οὐχ ἵνα ποιῶ τὸ θέλημα τὸ ἐμὸν
(C) ἀλλὰ τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πέμψαντός με
To say “You could expand the phrase ἀλλὰ τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πέμψαντός με to say ἀλλὰ ἵνα ποιῶ τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πέμψαντός με, it's the implied ποιῶ that should be understood in relation to καταβέβηκα.” With this line of argumentation, you can just as well make καταβέβηκα in (A) the main verb of (B), for in the same manner one can easily expand the phrase οὐχ ἵνα ποιῶ τὸ θέλημα τὸ ἐμὸν to say οὐχ καταβέβηκα ἀπὸ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἵνα ποιῶ τὸ θέλημα τὸ ἐμὸν, and you can just as well argue that the verb καταβέβηκα is “implied” in (B).
Just because someone can plug in what they say is implicit in a text that does not mean that it is something that was intended by the author as his communicative intent. Now I can easily expand on this from the perspective of Relevance Theory but I know I will lose people here so I will leave it at that. Whatever the case, if you take your line of argumentation to its logical conclusion then for the very same reason, and by logical consistency in your hermeneutical method, you would have to result in automatically making καταβέβηκα the main verb of (B), AND since (C) is dependent on (B) then you have just refuted yourself, for then you would have made the present participle πέμψαντός of (C) actually dependent on the “implied” καταβέβηκα of (B) after all, and of the linguistically encoded καταβέβηκα at (A). The interesting thing here is that in fact πέμψαντός in (C) IS dependent on the main verb of καταβέβηκα in (A) but I will show this in a bit, I want to cover a few more things first.
A few things to note here. One thing we know from linguistics is that linguistically encoded information is much more explicit than implicit information. Second, ποιῶ WAS linguistically encoded by the author in (B) but WAS NOT linguistically encoded in (C) by the same author. Third, each clause has its own linguistically encoded verb for a reason, (A) has καταβέβηκα (perfect active indicative), (B) has ποιῶ (present active subjective) and (C) has πέμψαντός (aorist active participle). Fourth, the linguistically encoded information in (B) and (C) is made explicit for a specific purpose, to highlight the rhetorical contrast between (B) and (C) and is linguistically primed by the contrastive phrase οὐχ ἵνα. The set of (B) and (C) is dependent on (A), so the main verb of this text in discourse is the καταβέβηκα. Clauses (A), (B) and (C) are one unit as a cohesive whole, with (B) and (C) dependent of the independent clause (A) with the head verb of καταβέβηκα.
The claim, “The participle πέμψαντός is part of a nominal construction τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πέμψαντός με, and does not have a direct relationship to καταβέβηκα."
Actually, it does, and in more ways than one. First of all, the linguistic items of (B) ποιῶ and (C) πέμψαντός cannot stand on their own, because (B) and (C) are dependent clauses that flow and expand from the independent clause (A). Thus (B) and (C) express incomplete thoughts and are not designed to stand alone ripped apart from their discourse context. In contrast clause (A) can stand on its own and can express a complete thought, and this clause in turn itself flows from the previous text because it is interwoven to the previous text by ὅτι. With this being the case, no matter how you look at it, (B) and (C) rely on (A) just from the simple perspective of discourse analysis. This is important because in (A) we have the head verb καταβέβηκα (perfect active indicative) which has been linguistically encoded in an independent clause in its linguistic and discourse context. Just from this perspective alone, from discourse analysis, I have already demonstrated that the head verb here is καταβέβηκα (perfect active indicative).
However, there are more reasons to show why the active participle πέμψαντός in (C) has a very clear relation to the head verb καταβέβηκα in (A)...Consider what some grammars say about the aorist participle: “The aorist participle is normally, though by no means always, antecedent in time to the action of the main verb. But when the aorist participle is related to an aorist main verb, the participle will often be contemporaneous (or simultaneous) to the action of the main verb.” (Wallace, Greek Grammar, p. 624) Notice the part: “The aorist participle is normally, though by no means always, antecedent in time to the action of the main verb.” This is something that you will see often in the grammars.
Here is another example: “The Aorist Participle of Antecedent Action. The Aorist Participle is most frequently used of an action antecedent in time to the action of the principal verb.” (Burton’s NT Greek Moods & Tenses, sec. 134)
“The aorist participle indicates an action occurring prior to the time of the main verb.” (Mounce’s Basics of Biblical Greek, p. 237)
“The aorist participle, for example, usually denotes antecedent time to that of the controlling verb” (Wallace, 614)
Under section 202 “The Tense of the Participle” Dana & Mantey reads: “(1) Antecedent action relative to the main verb is ordinarily expressed by the aorist or perfect. . .” (Dana & Mantey, p. 230) There are a few things I want to say here, the participle in (C); whether the participle πέμψαντός is used as a verb, or adjective, or substantively, the fact is that it nonetheless always remains linguistically encoded as an aorist. The linguistically encoded morphological tense and its verbal semantic value is not canceled out by its pragmatic use, and hence always retains a verbal property linguistically encoded. If we look at this from a purely linguistic perspective then we see that the semantic verbal property of the participle remains. Wallace says: “. . . because the participle has embodied two natures, neither one acts completely independently of the other. Hence, the verbal nature of participles has a permanent grammatical intrusion from the adjectival nature. . .” (Wallace p. 615) This is why the translation of τοῦ πέμψαντός με is translated as “the one who SENT ME.”
So even if it is used substantively you cannot cancel out the verbal semantic property of the same linguistic item because it still retains it, and it also retains its aspect which may be dimensioned, but it’s still there nonetheless. Wallace says: “Second, with reference to its verbal nature: Just because a participle is adjectival or substantial, this does not mean that its verbal aspect is entirely diminished. Most substantial participles still retain something of their aspect. A general rule of thumb is that the more particular (as opposed to generic) the referent, the more of the verbal aspect is still seen. (See the introduction for detailed discussion.)” (Wallace 620)
Continued (if allowed )...