John 3:13 and perfect typology

Biblical Greek morphology and syntax, aspect, linguistics, discourse analysis, and related topics
Post Reply
Matthew Longhorn
Posts: 756
Joined: November 10th, 2017, 2:48 pm
Contact:

John 3:13 and perfect typology

Post by Matthew Longhorn »

It has been a week of questions on various forums for me, but here is another one
In John 3:13 we have a perfect tense which seems to imply that Jesus has already gone into heaven
καὶ οὐδεὶς ἀναβέβηκεν εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν εἰ μὴ ὁ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καταβάς
I am aware that the aorist indicative can depart from its prototypical use and convey gnomic and present nuances due to aspect being primary. I am also aware that typologically this is not seen as something deviant from the use across languages. So I am wondering whether the typological literature can shed any light on John 3:13 with a departure from the nuance of having ascended in the past and now in a state of either still being there, or having the experience of having done so? I guess
This may ultimately be a theological issue with the grammar and wider context possibly suggesting that this ascension happened in the past, such as the OT and he is now descended again?
Eeli Kaikkonen
Posts: 611
Joined: June 2nd, 2011, 7:49 am
Location: Finland
Contact:

Re: John 3:13 and perfect typology

Post by Eeli Kaikkonen »

In the context, it may be part of John's comment, not part of direct discourse of Jesus.

EDIT: after reading the whole passage, this doesn't feel very plausible.
MAubrey
Posts: 1090
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 8:52 pm
Contact:

Re: John 3:13 and perfect typology

Post by MAubrey »

This is *the* hard example for everyone.

Two possible readings that I have floating around my head, but haven't done any of the grunt work to evaluate are:

A hard subject-state reading something like:
"Nobody is an ascender to heaven, except the one who descended from heaven, the Son of Man."

A thetic reading of the exceptive half:
"Nobody has ascended to heaven, but there is one who descended from heaven, the Son of Man."

I don't think the first is probable given how ἀναβέβηκεν is used in other texts.
I'm also apprehensive about whether or not you can have a thetic/presentational in this format.
Mike Aubrey, Linguist
SIL International
Koine-Greek.com
Matthew Longhorn
Posts: 756
Joined: November 10th, 2017, 2:48 pm
Contact:

Re: John 3:13 and perfect typology

Post by Matthew Longhorn »

Thanks Mike. I shall park it in my “someday I might understand” category for now.

Porter, arguing against Pierce in BAGL vol 6, using his tenseless view argues the following, but I can’t quite see it
In light of all three levels of contextual analysis considered above, we propose that the semantics of the entire conditional structure of John 3:13 can be rendered as indicating something like: “except for there being one who is a coming-down-from-heaven one, the Son of Man, there is no one in an ascended-into-heaven state”—though, again, a range of translational renderings of the semantics may be possible. In other words, the descending one is the logically posited supposition for the consequent implication regarding ascension. Except for such a one as the Son of Man (note that the conditional conjunction can be rendered as “if there is not one who …”), there is no one who is in an ascended state.
Pierce in NTS 60:1 says.
Previous discussions of the Son of Man’s descent and ascent in John have relied upon a traditional grammatical understanding of the perfect ἀναβέβηκεν. This perspective has caused some scholars to conclude that Jesus ascended prior to his descent. Many other scholars have attempted to find a way around the assumption that the perfect tense-form must refer to past action. When the verbal aspect of ἀναβέβηκεν is considered primary (and not the time value), the ‘problem’ of the perfect is removed. The grammatical arguments of verbal aspect and the relative time value of the participle καταβάς make it reasonable to translate ἀναβέβηκεν with a present time value and thus conclude that Jesus, the Son of Man, did not ascend prior to his descent nor must ἀναβέβηκεν indicate a past ascent
MAubrey
Posts: 1090
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 8:52 pm
Contact:

Re: John 3:13 and perfect typology

Post by MAubrey »

Matthew Longhorn wrote: May 23rd, 2021, 9:17 am Thanks Mike. I shall park it in my “someday I might understand” category for now.
Well, I'm not sure I understand it either, so we can both put it in that category for now! :D
Matthew Longhorn wrote: May 23rd, 2021, 9:17 amPorter, arguing against Pierce in BAGL vol 6, using his tenseless view argues the following, but I can’t quite see it
In light of all three levels of contextual analysis considered above, we propose that the semantics of the entire conditional structure of John 3:13 can be rendered as indicating something like: “except for there being one who is a coming-down-from-heaven one, the Son of Man, there is no one in an ascended-into-heaven state”—though, again, a range of translational renderings of the semantics may be possible. In other words, the descending one is the logically posited supposition for the consequent implication regarding ascension. Except for such a one as the Son of Man (note that the conditional conjunction can be rendered as “if there is not one who …”), there is no one who is in an ascended state.

Yeah...that seems super problematic. Not the least because Porter's rendering (translation?) glosses an aorist participle with an English progressive ("who is a coming down...one). The suggestion for the εἰ μή is more interesting, but I'm not entirely sure that you can split out conditional from the μή so easily. I'm inclined to view εἰ μή as a fixed construction.
Matthew Longhorn wrote: May 23rd, 2021, 9:17 am Pierce in NTS 60:1 says.
Previous discussions of the Son of Man’s descent and ascent in John have relied upon a traditional grammatical understanding of the perfect ἀναβέβηκεν. This perspective has caused some scholars to conclude that Jesus ascended prior to his descent. Many other scholars have attempted to find a way around the assumption that the perfect tense-form must refer to past action. When the verbal aspect of ἀναβέβηκεν is considered primary (and not the time value), the ‘problem’ of the perfect is removed. The grammatical arguments of verbal aspect and the relative time value of the participle καταβάς make it reasonable to translate ἀναβέβηκεν with a present time value and thus conclude that Jesus, the Son of Man, did not ascend prior to his descent nor must ἀναβέβηκεν indicate a past ascent
I haven't read Pierce in a while, but I'm apprehensive that this represents a good understanding of the aspectual distinctions...
Mike Aubrey, Linguist
SIL International
Koine-Greek.com
Scott Lawson
Posts: 450
Joined: June 9th, 2011, 6:36 pm

Re: John 3:13 and perfect typology

Post by Scott Lawson »

I’ve found it almost too coincidental that in speaking about his ascent to heaven at John 16:28 that πάλιν could signal a return to heaven rather than a discourse marker.

It seems to me John 3:13 is a polemic against Enoch as the son of man figure and implies that Jesus was the Word of God (Memra) who was the embodied Yhwh who appeared to Abraham and other prophets. Moses was physically picked up by the embodied Yhwh and placed in a crevice of the mountain as Yhwh passed by and showed his backside to Moses.

See 1 Sam 3:1-21 for the appearance of the Word of Yhwh to Samuel and Jeremiah 1:2, 9. The Word of God stretches out his hand and touches Jeremiah’s lips.

ἐξῆλθον παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ ἐλήλυθα εἰς τὸν κόσμον· πάλιν ἀφίημι τὸν κόσμον καὶ πορεύομαι πρὸς τὸν πατέρα.
(John 16:28 GNT28-T)

ὃς ἐγενήθη λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ πρὸς αὐτὸν ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις Ιωσια υἱοῦ Αμως βασιλέως Ιουδα ἔτους τρισκαιδεκάτου ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ αὐτοῦ·
(Jeremiah 1:2 LXX1)

καὶ ἐξέτεινεν κύριος τὴν χεῖρα αὐτοῦ πρός με καὶ ἥψατο τοῦ στόματός μου, καὶ εἶπεν κύριος πρός με Ἰδοὺ δέδωκα τοὺς λόγους μου εἰς τὸ στόμα σου·
(Jeremiah 1:9 LXX1)
Scott Lawson
Post Reply

Return to “Greek Language and Linguistics”