[B-Greek] 1 John 5:18: different tense indicates different persons?
Carl W. Conrad
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sun Mar 14 08:59:36 EST 2004
At 6:36 AM -0500 3/14/04, Carl W. Conrad wrote:
>(I am forwarding the following message with minor editorial changes
>(transliteration corrected {S = final sigma, C = chi, h = rough-breathing},
>full-name signature supplied in accordance with B-Greek protocol--cwc)
>
>From: "Rijk van den Hengel" <rijk at vandenhengel.info>
>To: <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
>Subject: 1 John 5:18: different tense indicates different persons?
>Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2004 12:20:53 +0100
>
>1 John 5:18 reads: 'OIDAMEN hOTI PAS hO GEGENNHMENOS EK TOU QEOU OUC
>hAMARTANEI ALL' hO GENNHQEIS EK TOU QEOU THREI [hE]AUTON KAI hO PONHROS
>OUC HAPTETAI AUTOU'.
>
>It is NOT my intention to discuss the text-critical issue about
>[hE]AUTON. I would like to hear your opinion about the use of the
>difference in tense in both participles.
>
>The International Critical Commentary writes about the two participles:
>'But no explanation of the change from the perfect to the aorist
>participle is altogether satisfactory, if both are referred to the same
>person, i.e. the man who has experienced the new birth'.
>
>Questions:
>
>1. Does the fact that the first participle is a perfect and the second
>participle is an aorist really indicate that the second participle does
>not refer to PAS hO GEGENNHMENOS EK TOU QEOU?
I doubt it, for my part. It's worth noting that (a) with certain exceptions
(OIDA and hESTHKA and its compounds)the perfect tense is increasingly being
replaced by the aorist in standard use in the Hellenistic era; (b) in the
case of substantive (articular) participles I think that the distinction
between perfect and aorist is negligible. The NET commentator on this verse
appears to ignore the tense of GEGENNHMENOS and GENNHQEIS as a factor in
the endeavor to understand the verse, which has enough problems apart from
that:
NET note on the phrase in question: "The meaning of the phrase hO GENNHQEIS
EK TOU QEOU THREI AUTON in 5:18 is extraordinarily difficult. Again the
author's capacity for making obscure statements results in several possible
meanings for this phrase: (1) "The fathering by God protects him [the
Christian]." Here a textual variant for hO GENNHQEIS (hH GENNHSIS) has
suggested to some that the passive participle should be understood as a
noun ("fathering" or perhaps "birth"), but the ms evidence is extremely
slight (1505 1852 2138 latt [syh] bo). This almost certainly represents a
scribal attempt to clarify an obscure phrase. (2) "The One fathered by God
[Jesus] protects him [the Christian]." This is a popular interpretation,
and is certainly possible grammatically. Yet the introduction of a
reference to Jesus in this context is sudden; to be unambiguous the author
could have mentioned the "Son of God" here, or used the pronoun EKEINOS as
a reference to Jesus as he consistently does elsewhere in 1 John. This
interpretation, while possible, seems in context highly unlikely. (3) "The
one fathered by God [the Christian] protects himself." Again a textual
problem is behind this alternative, since a number of mss (Sinaiticus Ac P
Y 33 1739 Ï) supply the reflexive pronoun hEAUTON in place of AUTON in
5:18. On the basis of the external evidence this has a good possibility of
being the original reading, but internal evidence favors AUTON as the more
difficult reading, since hEAUTON may be explained as a scribal attempt at
grammatical smoothness. From a logical standpoint, however, it is difficult
to make much more sense out of hEAUTON; to say what "the Christian protects
himself" means in the context is far from clear. (4) "The one fathered by
God [the Christian] holds on to him [God]." This results in further
awkwardness, because the third person pronoun AUTOU in the following clause
must refer to the Christian, not God. Furthermore, although THREW can mean
"hold on to" (BDAG 1002 s.v. 2.c), this is not a common meaning for the
verb in Johannine usage, occurring elsewhere only in Rev 3:3. (5) "The one
fathered by God [the Christian], he [God] protects him [the Christian]."
This involves a pendant nominative construction hO GENNHQEIS EK TOU QEOU
where a description of something within the clause is placed in the
nominative case and moved forward ahead of the clause for emphatic reasons.
This may be influenced by Semitic style; such a construction is also
present in John 17:2 (in order that everyone whom You have given to him, he
may give to them eternal life"). This view is defended by K. Beyer
(Semitische Syntax im Neuen Testament [SUNT], 1:216ff.) and appears to be
the most probable in terms both of syntax and of sense. It makes God the
protector of the Christian (rather than the Christian himself), which fits
the context much better, and there is precedent in Johannine literature for
such syntactical structure."
>
>2. Do the following combinations of participles give rise to the
>opposite assumption that the second participle refers to PAS hO
>GEGENNHMENOV EK TOU QEOU?
> a. 1 Peter 1:20: PROEGNWSMENOU and FANERWQENTOS
This is different; the ptcs. refer to CRISTOU at the end of 1:19; the
participles are circumstantial rather than articular; PROEGNWSMENOU refers
to Christ's STATE before creation, while FANERWQENTOS points to Christ's
incarnation at a particular time.
> b. 1 Peter 2:10: HLEHMENOI and ELEHQENTES
Here too the participles are articular; I think there's not an ounce of
difference between the perfect passive and aorist passive here; clearly the
allusion is to Hosea 1 and the second child by Lo-Ruhamah who becomes
Ruhamah in chapter 2.
> c. 1 Peter 3:18: QANATWQEIS and ZWOPOIHQEIS
Here both participles are aorist.
> d. John 12:29: hESTWS and AKOUSAS
hESTWS is a stative participle; there's no contrast here: the crowd "was
standing" and "did hear."
> e. 2 Corinthians 12:21: PROHMARTHKOTWN and METANOHSANTWN
This seems different to me. The text: PENQHSW POLLOUS TWN PROHMARTHKOTWN
KAI MH METANOHSANTWN EPI THi AKAQARSIAi KAI PORNEIAi KAI ASELGEIAi ... TWN
PROHMARTHKOTWN KAI MH METANOHSANTWN indicates persons who have not repented
(aor) and who NOW (still) stand in their prior sinful state. We could say
that the aorist indicates the failure to repent is subsequent to the sins
committed but the focus of the phrase seems rather to lie upon the twofold
fact that these persons ARE now guilty of previous sins, and HAVE NOT
repented for them.
--
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)
1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
WWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list