[B-Greek] Aorist Future - Jn 13:31-32
Elizabeth Kline
kline_dekooning at earthlink.net
Sun Oct 5 14:40:27 EDT 2008
Iver,
Thank you for the long post. On DOXAZW Danker's 3rd ed. still lists
all of the John citations under definition #2 which has been reworded.
On Oct 4, 2008, at 11:57 PM, Iver Larsen wrote:
>>
>> In like manner NUN EDOXASQH JOHN 13:31, not a past event, separate
>> and
>> distinct from the future DOXASEI, but a single event which is just
>> starting and stretching into the future.
>
>>> JOHN 13:31 hOTE OUN EXHLQEN, LEGEI IHSOUS: NUN EDOXASQH hO hUIOS TOU
>>> ANQRWPOU KAI hO QEOS EDOXASQH EN AUTWi: 32 EI hO QEOS EDOXASQH EN
>>> AUTWi, KAI hO QEOS DOXASEI AUTON EN AUTWi, KAI EUQUS DOXASEI AUTON.
>
> It certainly is a past since it is an indicative aorist, but it is
> not separated from the future in
> v. 32. The betrayal by Judas was a crucial step in the process and
> that step was decided when he
> left the group. Many languages use a past tense and/or completive
> aspect to indicate that an event
> is as good as done, even if not fully implemented.
> John makes that connection explicit at the beginning of v. 31, and
> we cannot ignore his intention in
> doing so.
> Notice that are two futures in v. 32, one is the immediate future
> (EUQUS) of Gethsemane, the other
> the more distant future of the cross and resurrection.
You wrote: "It certainly is a past since it is an indicative aorist ..."
Another quote from Carson (John 1991, Additional notes on jn13:31-32
p486) "... The aorists , which many grammarians judge must refer to
something in the past (if the are in the indicative mood, as
here) ... However, it can easily be shown that verbs in the aorist
tense, even when in the indicative mood, can be past-referring,
present-referring, and even future-referring, as well as omnitemporal,
and atemporal (cf. Porter [Verb Aspect] pp. 75-76, 233)."
I know this is old news, twenty years old and people are tired of
hearing about it, myself included. I would not be surprised if Carson
has changed his mind on this since 1991.
G.B.Caird, who forty years ago published an often cited study on this
topic [1], in a later work "The Language and Imagery of the Bible"
1980, pp. 29-30, has this to say about DOXAZW in Jn13:31-32 "It will
be obvious that, in this five fold repetition of a single verb, that
the first instance cannot be equal in all respects to the second and
third. The first is a true passive: the Son of man is to be glorified
by God in the bestowal of a new access of glory which he is to share
with those who will be united with him through his death (cf. 12:32,
17:22)."
It would appear that G.B.Caird considered the first DOXAZW in Jn13:31
to be future-referring from the standpoint of the speaker, Jesus, in
John's narrative. Caird doesn't really focus on this issue but it is
seems clear enough that he doesn't view the first DOXAZW in Jn13:31 as
something complete and in the past.
You wrote: "Many languages use a past tense and/or completive aspect
to indicate that an event is as good as done, even if not fully
implemented."
This is a point well taken. I might be willing to concede that Jesus
is using a figure of speech where DOXAZW appears in the narrative
tense-aspect, perhaps framing it as a completed event but the referent
is still future from the standpoint of the speaker, Jesus, in John's
narrative. Beasly-Murray 1999:246 cites G.B.Caird[1] "With the
departure of Judas all the actors in the drama, and Jesus in
particular, are committed to their courses of action, which make [sic]
the crucifixion virtually accomplished."
Note the word "virtually", what is still future is viewed as if it
were already completed.
Elizabeth Kline
[1] G. B. Caird, "The Glory of God in the Fourth Gospel: An Exercise
in Biblical Semantics," NTS 15 (1968/69) 265-77
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list