John 20:31
I am looking at the textual basis of John 20:31 I have read a few commentaries. About this verse, Bruce Metzger's commentary states:
[quote]
Both πιστεύητε and πιστεύσητε have notable early support. The aorist tense, strictly interpreted, suggests that the Fourth Gospel was addressed to non-Christians so that they might come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah; the present tense suggests that the aim of the writer was to strengthen the faith of those who already believe (“that you may continue to believe”). In view of the difficulty of choosing between the readings by assessing the supposed purpose of the evangelist (assuming that he used the tenses of the subjunctive strictly), the Committee considered it preferable to represent both readings by enclosing σ within square brackets.
Bruce Manning Metzger, United Bible Societies, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition a Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (4th Rev. Ed.) (London; New York: United Bible Societies, 1994), 219–220.
The revised addition states similarly:
[quote]
Both the present tense πιστεύητε and the aorist tense πιστεύσητε have notable early support. The aorist tense, strictly interpreted, suggests that the Fourth Gospel was addressed to non-Christians so that they might come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah. The present tense suggests that the aim of the writer was to strengthen the faith of those who already believe (“that you may continue to believe”). Since it is difficult to decide between the readings by considering the supposed purpose of the writer, both readings are included by putting the letter sigma in brackets. Whether the distinction between the present subjunctive and the aorist subjunctive here can be maintained is debated. Carson (The Gospel According to John, p. 662), for example, writes that “it can easily be shown that John elsewhere in his Gospel can use either tense to refer to both coming to faith and continuing in the faith.” Translators, however, may have to choose between the two readings. NRSV follows the aorist tense: “so that you may come to believe,” and states in a footnote “Other ancient authorities read may continue to believe.” It is not clear which reading is the basis for the REB translation “in order that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ.” The footnote in REB states: “witnesses read different tenses, some implying continue to believe, others come to believe.”
Roger L. Omanson and Bruce Manning Metzger, A Textual Guide to the Greek New Testament: An Adaptation of Bruce M. Metzger’s Textual Commentary for the Needs of Translators (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2006), 211–212.
Neither of these commentaries mentions the Aorist participle in verse 29, μακάριοι οἱ μὴ ἰδόντες καὶ πιστεύσαντες.. Why is that the case? I did not notice anything by Carson (PNTC), Haenchen (Hermeneia), Brown (Anchor Yale Bible Commentary), Beasley-Murray (WBC), C.K, Barrett, Ramsey-Michaels (NICNT), or ICC. Am I missing anything here?
Comments
-
Christian Alexander said:
Neither of these commentaries mentions the Aorist participle in verse 29, μακάριοι οἱ μὴ ἰδόντες καὶ πιστεύσαντες.. Why is that the case?
Why do you think they should? What were you expecting them to say?
0 -
I think you are expecting something profound in Greek that might not be there. The blessing of belief which leads to eternal life is functionally a theological perfect tense. It doesn't get any more blessed than that.
The mind of man is the mill of God, not to grind chaff, but wheat. Thomas Manton | Study hard, for the well is deep, and our brains are shallow. Richard Baxter
0 -
Christian Alexander said:
Neither of these commentaries mentions the Aorist participle in verse 29, μακάριοι οἱ μὴ ἰδόντες καὶ πιστεύσαντες.. Why is that the case?
Point one: what makes you think that your peers on the forums will know why the author of a particular commentary chose to mention/not mention a particular piece of grammar.
Christian Alexander said:The aorist tense, strictly interpreted,
Point two: As Greek grammar is descriptive not prescriptive trying to apply it strictly is nonsense. The grammars reflect what grammarians noted to be patterns across the corpus; they do not try to capture all cases that fall outside that pattern (typo's, dialect, idiolect, minor undocumented grammatical/morphological rule???)
When you read Roger L. Omanson and Bruce Manning Metzger, A Textual Guide to the Greek New Testament: An Adaptation of Bruce M. Metzger’s Textual Commentary for the Needs of Translators (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2006), do you parse all the grammar looking for subtle meaning? I hope not. Why do you think that same exercise suddenly if useful when applied to the Bible? Guess what. The authors and scribes of the Bible did not read Metzger nor edit their manuscript against his grammar.
When you start to follow a rabbit trail you need to consider whether or not the answer serves any useful purpose. How many absolutely meaningless "statistics" have you seen used to support ridiculous arguments?
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
How many absolutely meaningless "statistics" have you seen used to support ridiculous arguments?
MJ—I realize the forum isn’t the place to inquire or discuss this topic, but, in brief, I find this statement very interesting. Though not a statistical work, I’m currently reading an academic work that‘s appealing to syntactical parallels of the passage under consideration in the LXX & early writers like Josephus, etc.—and I’m finding myself consistently thinking “Does it reallyyyyy take all of this just to understand the plainly written scriptures?”
(Disclaimer: As someone who’s had both Hebrew & Greek I’m obviously *NOT* decrying the need for serious exegetical analyses—or I wouldn’t even be reading the book. But, I do catch myself wondering how much is too much & your post above goes straight to the heart of the dilemma IMO [incidentally, for me, stats don’t catch the fluidity of context—but that’s just me].)
0 -
Puddin’ said:
I’m finding myself consistently thinking “Does it reallyyyyy take all of this just to understand the plainly written scriptures?”
And, the answer is, yes.
First, you weren't there. Even in english, and listening to someone who was at an event, you're having to clarify meaning. Second, it's a language(s) in use 2,000 years ago ... and at the time, the writers were struggling with it (eg Josephus). Multiple overlapping languages. And finally, religious language is not everyday language. Never is. And so, a theological conumdrum ... did the Diety assume understanding ... across culture, language, and time?
Modern OL tools answer, why yes! Just get a stronger magnifying glass.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
DMB said:
And, the answer is, yes.Puddin’ said:I’m finding myself consistently thinking “Does it reallyyyyy take all of this just to understand the plainly written scriptures?”
First, you weren't there. Even in english, and listening to someone who was at an event, you're having to clarify meaning. Second, it's a language(s) in use 2,000 years ago ... and at the time, the writers were struggling with it (eg Josephus). Multiple overlapping languages. And finally, religious language is not everyday language. Never is. And so, a theological conumdrum ... did the Diety assume understanding ... across culture, language, and time?
Modern OL tools answer, why yes! Just get a stronger magnifying glass.Yes, ultimately I certainly do agree D. Indeed (pardon the personal reference), but within my particular movement I’m quite known for taking my fellow pastor’s to task for sloppy academics. It drives me insane & deeply troubles me for future generations if something doesn’t change.
And, taking Hebrew & Greek only made it far worse. So, as stated earlier, I’m *NEVER* suggesting that we shouldn’t do our due-diligence. I recall a pastor told me once, “I just don’t have the mind that you do!”—at which I thought, “Umm, I’ve got a mere GED—He’s lazy!”
However, like MJ’s post above, I think we’ve all seen stat-charts (which often involves a lot of work) that don’t prove a single theological point relative to a particular pericope of scripture. Perhaps I still don’t have a good grasp on how much is too much. But, I also understand that this is where we must “prove all things” for ourselves—and not just throw the baby out with the bath water.
0 -
I may not understand the argument, if so, please forgive me. But...
I'm reminded of some verses... like..
“17 Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth.” - John 17:17
“35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away.” - Matthew 24:35
“6 “For I am the LORD, I do not change; Therefore you are not consumed, O sons of Jacob.” - Malachi 3:6
“8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.” - Hebrews 13:8
I have never thought the bible should fit the times but the times should fit the bible. [8-|]
xn = Christan man=man -- Acts 11:26 "....and the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch".
Barney Fife is my hero! He only uses an abacus with 14 rows!
0 -
xnman said:
I may not understand the argument, if so, please forgive me. But...
There's no argument ... simply discussing. And your quotes are not what the Holy Spirit wrote. Smiling.
I agree with MJ's point, but from a different perspective. Doing detailed morph/tag searches often ignores (1) very small samples, across (2) centuries of potential change, and (3) personal/religious usage. At best, one must examine each usage ... one by one. And not make excuses, when 'there's not much there'.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
xnman said:
I have never thought the bible should fit the times but the times should fit the bible.
Nor do I. The discussion is what is productive Bible study, what is filler so one can fill the prescribed Bible study time, and what is generating meaningless data to be called "evidence".?
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
DMB said:xnman said:
I may not understand the argument, if so, please forgive me. But...
There's no argument ... simply discussing. And your quotes are not what the Holy Spirit wrote. Smiling.
Verrry Interrreeesssting! ([:D]
xn = Christan man=man -- Acts 11:26 "....and the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch".
Barney Fife is my hero! He only uses an abacus with 14 rows!
0 -
xnman said:
I have never thought the bible should fit the times but the times should fit the bible.
As stated above—there’s zero argument here, just discussion.
And, I don’t think anyone on this thread thinks that “the bible should fit the times.” So, I do think that perhaps you’re misunderstanding our dialogue (which, of course, can be easy to do on a forum😊).
Oh, and I could be wrong about this one, but I suspect that DMB is saying something to the point of the Holy Spirit didn’t inspire English translations of the original languages—but *DID* inspire the original languages of the autographic scriptures (not that she believes that the original scriptures themselves aren’t inspired—because she certainly does believe in plenary inspiration…I think🥴).
But—I shouldn’t be speaking for her & am already on thin ice—so I’ll now run for the hills & put on the whole armor of God😳!
0 -
Puddin’ said:
... am already on thin ice—so I’ll now run for the hills & put on the whole armor of God😳!
I'm on thin ice here, too (forum guidelines). But folks sometimes forget, if the Holy Spirit inspired at least one of the original texts (as most do), then one is translating the Holy Spirit (and in our Logosian world, using Logos for that purpose). I'd assume, one should do so, with a heavy heart.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
Christian Alexander said:
... The aorist tense, strictly interpreted, suggests that the Fourth Gospel was addressed to non-Christians so that they might come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah; the present tense suggests that the aim of the writer was to strengthen the faith of those who already believe (“that you may continue to believe”).
The most recent scholarship on NT Greek suggests that this approach is on the way out. Read Constantine Cambell, Basics of Verbal Aspect in Biblical Greek, for an introduction (or the grammars by Stanley Porter, or Buist Fanning, or K. L. McKay). When read from the perspective of verbal aspect, the debate in the excerpt above does not even materialize.
0 -
Thanks everyone. This forum gives me some good leads.
0
