[B-Greek] Historical Present? John 5:2

Eddie Mishoe edmishoe at yahoo.com
Tue Aug 18 11:31:36 EDT 2009


Here's is Dr. Wallace on this very verse:



















John
5:2 and the Date of the Fourth Gospel… again

Daniel B. Wallace, Ph.D.

Nov 6, 2006

J. C. Hawkins, Horae
Synopticae: Contributions to the Study of the Synoptic Problem, 2d ed. rev.
(Oxford: Clarendon, 1909) 143-49, lists all 253 historical presents in the
synoptics and Acts. I have found an additional 162 in John, bringing the total
to 415. All are in the third person, in narrative, surrounded by secondary
tenses, and εἰμί is
not on the list. These are four features that are not found in Rom 7:14-25,
rendering any arguments for historical presents in that passage suspect on the
grounds of lack of sufficient parallels. Cf. also R. L. Shive, “The Use of the
Historical Present and Its Theological Significance” (Th.M. thesis, Dallas
Theological Seminary, 1982) 67-70, 74, for a critique of the historical present
view in Rom 7:14-25. C. E. B. Cranfield, A
Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (ICC), vol.
1: Introduction and Commentary on Romans
I-VIII, 344-45, has the right instincts against these verbs being
historical presents, but his argument could have been strengthened had he been
aware of the semantic situation.

It is equally surprising to see some exegetes call ἔστιν in John 5:2 a
historical present (so R. Schnackenburg, The
Gospel according to St John [New York: Crossroad, 1982] 2.460, n. 9; D. A.
Carson, The Gospel according to John
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991] 241; I. Knabenbauer, Commentarius in Quatuor S. Evangelia, vol. 4.: Evangelium Secundum Ioannem [Paris: Lethielleux, 1898] 188; A. J.
Köstenberger, John [ECNT] [Grand
Rapids: Baker, 2004] 178), since the equative verb is never used as such in the
NT and perhaps not anywhere else either, because it apparently does not fit the
semantic requirements of the historical present (D. B. Wallace, “John 5,2 and
the Date of the Fourth Gospel,” Bib
71 [1990] 197-205). Köstenberger objects to this pattern, arguing that in John
10:8 and 19:40 the present tense of εἰμί
is used as a historical present. Köstenberger is to be applauded for marshaling
evidence in behalf of this view, rather than just dismissing the alternative
cavalierly (which most exegetes seem wont to do), but he does not make out a
sound case. In John 10:8 we read πάντες ὅσοι ἦλθον [πρὸ ἐμοῦ] κλέπται εἰσὶν καὶ… λῃσταί.
Surely this better fits the category of “extending from past present.” Those
who were thieves are still thieves, even if they can perhaps best be described
in English as those who “were thieves
and robbers” precisely because πάντες ὅσοι ἦλθον governs the
passage and shows that their behavior was no different in the past. Fanning
suggests that every extending-from-past present “always includes an adverbial phrase or other time-indication”
(B. M. Fanning, Verbal Aspect in
New Testament Greek [Oxford: Clarendon, 1990], Verbal Aspect, 217). The πάντες ὅσοι ἦλθον even without
the textually disputed πρὸ ἐμοῦ is a sufficient time
indicator to show that an extending-from-past present is in view. In John 19:40
we read ἔλαβον
οὖν τὸ σῶμα τοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ καὶ ἔδησαν αὐτὸ ὀθονίοις μετὰ τῶν ἀρωμάτων, καθὼς ἔθος ἐστὶν τοῖς
᾿Ιουδαίοις ἐνταφιάζειν. But Köstenberger finds
English translations that render the ἐστίν with a simple past tense as
sufficient grounds for arguing that it, too, is a historical present. Such
translations are unnecessary, of course, unless the practice was no longer true
at the end of the first century (when Köstenberger dates John). Further, the
Vg, ASV, KJV, RSV, NKJV, NLT, and ESV explicitly retain the present tense,
while other translations render the clause without supplying a temporal marker
(NAB, NET [though the NET note on literal translation gives the present tense],
NJB, NRSV, REB, TEV). His two exceptions to the rule that ἐστίν is never a historical present thus remain unconvincing.
Most likely, the reasons for the “was” in some translations in John 19:40 is
more due to stylistic considerations to link the burial of Jesus with a custom
that was then in place. But the
present tense argues that it continued to John’s day, as many translations
recognize. At bottom, neither text adduced by Köstenberger is really parallel
to John 5:2, and thus, neither text dislodges the grammatical argument that ἐστίν is
other than a historical present. Further, if we were to apply the same criteria
that Köstenberger used to see historical presents in John 10:8 and 19:2 to John
5:2 (viz., the citation of translations), we would note that ἐστίν there
is translated as a present tense in the vast majority of translations,
including Vg, KJV, NKJV, ASV, Luther, NAB, NET, NIV, TNIV, NJB, RSV, NRSV, REB,
SEGR, and TEV. Of the many translations I checked, only the NLT (which is more
a paraphrase than a translation) had a past tense here. But, of course,
translations only give us a hint; they are not final arbiters in the matter,
especially since they are not written to resolve disputes of this nature. Thus,
that Köstenberger could produce some translations that render the present
tenses in a couple of verses as past tenses really does not do anything to
prove that they are historical presents. The context, semantic situation, and
other factors must be weighed. In the end, our judgment seems (for now, at
least) to be unshaken: “Since εἰμί is nowhere else clearly used
as a historical present, the present tense [in John 5:2] should be taken as
indicating present time from the viewpoint of the speaker” (D. B. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An
Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996]
531). To sum up: Köstenberger’s method of trying to find exceptions to the rule
is essential if one is going to overthrow the prima facie meaning of John 5:2. But until genuine examples of this
sort are produced, I believe that exegetes would do well to not neglect what
seems to be the obvious indication as to the time of writing of this Gospel. In
the least, it will not do to argue, as many have, that too much weight cannot
be put on the present tense. That is a judgment that can only have force if it
is demonstrated that the present tense here could have a variety of forces, any
one of which could plausibly view it as referring to past time. Until that
happens, I would urge exegetes to take the ἐστίν
more seriously in John 5:2 as a significant factor in the dating of John’s
Gospel.




Eddie Mishoe

Pastor

--- On Mon, 8/17/09, Daniel Buck <bucksburg at yahoo.com> wrote:

From: Daniel Buck <bucksburg at yahoo.com>
Subject: [B-Greek] Historical Present? John 5:2
To: b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
Date: Monday, August 17, 2009, 7:41 PM

John 5:2 estin de en toiV ierosolumoiV epi th probatikh kolumbhqra h epilegomenh ebraisti bhqesda ESTIN DE EN TOIS IEROSOLUMOIS EPI TH PROBATIKH 
there Now is in Jerusalem at the sheep(s) a pool, the-one being-referred-to hebraically as-bethesda.
 
We are well aware that the author of John likes to use the 'historical present' in his narratives. Is there any reason to believe that this is such a case, depriving the verse from any usefulness in dating the writing of the gospel?
 
Daniel BuckKOLUMBHQRA H EPILEGOMENH EBRAISTI BHQESDA


      
---
B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek
B-Greek mailing list
B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek



      


More information about the B-Greek mailing list