Perfect ἀναβέβηκεν in John 3:13

Forum rules
Please quote the Greek text you are discussing directly in your post if it is reasonably short - do not ask people to look it up. This is not a beginner's forum, competence in Greek is assumed.
David Lim
Posts: 901
Joined: June 6th, 2011, 6:55 am

Re: Perfect ἀναβέβηκεν in John 3:18

Post by David Lim »

Stephen Hughes wrote:
David Lim wrote:calling one another fools and nonsensical
Ha ha. I see. Well, if you have taken them as personally applicable to yourself, let me clarify that I didn't mean for "tomfoolery and nonsense" to be mistaken by someone for "tom fools and nonsensical" (people) - they were put forward in a reductio ad absurdum asserting that due to the difference in speaker's time and narrative time, the two propositions (the ideas of accepting the perfect as I explain it & taking these words as those of Jesus) couldn't be taken together.
The point is that I gave an explanation of how to take those two together, and so far I don't see a problem with that way of taking it. Iver's is another way that is similar to mine (like Iver I too read the verse as not focusing on going up or coming down but on being from heaven as in John 6:62), and I would consider his to be viable as well. You, however, seem to assert that it is absolutely incompatible to take it as intended by the author to be Jesus' words if the perfect had the usual meaning of denoting a present state, specifically "in the state of having gone up into the heaven". I also gave my reasoning for why I think your consideration of the change in person is not enough to conclude anything. Finally, I was reminding you that theology should not be used to infer what the text means.
Stephen Hughes wrote:Now, Mr Lim, apart from the two words that have caught your attention, what do think of the ideas I have put forward about the perfect as the next logical step in a sequence of mutually understood (socially / technologically defined) actions?
"πλανωμενον" is not a perfect, so why is it on your list?

"εξηρανται" literally means "has { dried up (undergone something) }" which of course implies "is { dried (state) }" and usually "is { withered (state) }". Likewise for "κεκρικατε" and "ηγαπημενην" and "συνεσταυρωμαι". I agree with your descriptions of the states resulting from the completion verb, but in my opinion it is misleading to call it a "logical step" when it is really a state. Also, since this is a natural outcome of the (normal) intrinsic meaning of the perfect, it doesn't need any special consideration.
δαυιδ λιμ
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: Perfect ἀναβέβηκεν in John 3:18

Post by Stephen Hughes »

David Lim wrote:"πλανωμενον" is not a perfect, so why is it on your list?
I'm sorry about that. It was a mistake then. My knowledge of Greek is a bit limited, I'm often reminded of how little I actually know about this language - thank you for being part of the reminder process. Such a sheep taking itself off the path to wander in the imperfective aspect would still be looked as walking, not be primarily looked at as being in danger yet, I guess.
David Lim wrote:it is misleading to call it a "logical step" when it is really a state
"Logical" in the sense that you would need to cogitate logically to get to an understanding of it. Perhaps you have a different understanding of "logical" that left you misled. If you feel unhappy about some word(s), don't get stuck on the word(s), try to deduce the sense of the words from the wider context.
David Lim wrote:"in the state of having gone up into the heaven"
Also, since this is a natural outcome of the (normal) intrinsic meaning of the perfect, it doesn't need any special consideration.
This what you have written in un-natural English doesn't mean Jesus is there now. In fact, unless one is very patient with such a construction, is doesn't clearly mean much at all. "I am in the state of havinig gone to Siam Reap", but now I am in Benalla. I was impressed by the city of Siam Reap, and its people and I thought that the main tourist attraction there was a remarkable feat of human industry, I'm a (slightly) changed person but I'm not there now. What I am saying is that Jesus is in heaven, and that is expressed by using a perfect of the verb by which He got there. "I δε-drive-κα to Benalla" is another more expressive and meaningful way of saying "I am in Benalla" (I realise that drive would probably have a vowel gradation, but I can't remember enough IE comparative linguistics to make a sensible guess).
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
David Lim
Posts: 901
Joined: June 6th, 2011, 6:55 am

Re: Perfect ἀναβέβηκεν in John 3:18

Post by David Lim »

Stephen Hughes wrote:
David Lim wrote:it is misleading to call it a "logical step" when it is really a state
"Logical" in the sense that you would need to cogitate logically to get to an understanding of it. Perhaps you have a different understanding of "logical" that left you misled. If you feel unhappy about some word(s), don't get stuck on the word(s), try to deduce the sense of the words from the wider context.
Frankly I really found your phrasing confusing. Okay if you meant a logical step on the part of the reader then I'm okay with what you describe, except that the "logical step" may no longer be true.
Stephen Hughes wrote:
David Lim wrote:"in the state of having gone up into the heaven"
Also, since this is a natural outcome of the (normal) intrinsic meaning of the perfect, it doesn't need any special consideration.
This what you have written in un-natural English doesn't mean Jesus is there now. In fact, unless one is very patient with such a construction, is doesn't clearly mean much at all. "I am in the state of havinig gone to Siam Reap", but now I am in Benalla. I was impressed by the city of Siam Reap, and its people and I thought that the main tourist attraction there was a remarkable feat of human industry, I'm a (slightly) changed person but I'm not there now. [...] "I δε-drive-κα to Benalla" is another more expressive and meaningful way of saying "I am in Benalla" (I realise that drive would probably have a vowel gradation, but I can't remember enough IE comparative linguistics to make a sensible guess).
Honestly I didn't realize this is what you were getting it. So you are saying that the perfect here denotes that Jesus is (at the time of writing) in the heaven? I would have to disagree with that, because the perfect often does not mean anything beyond the state of having completed the verb. In the examples you mention, if the perfect is used, whether "you are still in Siam Reap" depends entirely on the context. The perfect merely calls attention to the state, but does not imply anything about whether the logical result of the verb still remains the same.

Here are some examples where the implied "logical step" is no longer true from the writer's viewpoint or is not intended to remain true:

[Matt 13:19] παντος ακουοντος τον λογον της βασιλειας και μη συνιεντος ερχεται ο πονηρος και αρπαζει το εσπαρμενον εν τη καρδια αυτου ουτος εστιν ο παρα την οδον σπαρεις (it had been sown, but was taken away)
[Matt 13:35] οπως πληρωθη το ρηθεν δια του προφητου λεγοντος ανοιξω εν παραβολαις το στομα μου ερευξομαι κεκρυμμενα απο καταβολης κοσμου (things had been hidden, but were revealed by Jesus)
[Matt 13:44] παλιν ομοια εστιν η βασιλεια των ουρανων θησαυρω κεκρυμμενω εν τω αγρω ον ευρων ανθρωπος εκρυψεν και απο της χαρας αυτου υπαγει και παντα οσα εχει πωλει και αγοραζει τον αγρον εκεινον (it had been hidden, but was found by someone)
[Matt 27:52] και τα μνημεια ανεωχθησαν και πολλα σωματα των κεκοιμημενων αγιων ηγερθη (they had died, but were raised)
[Matt 28:5] αποκριθεις δε ο αγγελος ειπεν ταις γυναιξιν μη φοβεισθε υμεις οιδα γαρ οτι ιησουν τον εσταυρωμενον ζητειτε (he has been crucified, but is no longer on the cross)
[Mark 3:1-2] και εισηλθεν παλιν εις την συναγωγην και ην εκει ανθρωπος εξηραμμενην εχων την χειρα και λεγει τω ανθρωπω τω εξηραμμενην εχοντι την χειρα εγειραι εις το μεσον (his hand had been withered, but was healed by Jesus)
[Mark 5:4] δια το αυτον πολλακις πεδαις και αλυσεσιν δεδεσθαι και διεσπασθαι υπ αυτου τας αλυσεις και τας πεδας συντετριφθαι και ουδεις αυτον ισχυεν δαμασαι (he had often been bound, but had broken out of them)
[Mark 5:15] και ερχονται προς τον ιησουν και θεωρουσιν τον δαιμονιζομενον καθημενον και ιματισμενον και σωφρονουντα τον εσχηκοτα τον λεγεωνα και εφοβηθησαν (he had the legion, but no longer)
[Mark 11:2] και λεγει αυτοις υπαγετε εις την κωμην την κατεναντι υμων και ευθεως εισπορευομενοι εις αυτην ευρησετε πωλον δεδεμενον εφ ον ουδεις ανθρωπων κεκαθικεν λυσαντες αυτον αγαγετε (no man had sat on it, but Jesus would sit on it)
[Mark 11:4] απηλθον δε και ευρον [τον] πωλον δεδεμενον προς την θυραν εξω επι του αμφοδου και λυουσιν αυτον (it had been bound to the door outside, but they loosed it)
[Mark 15:7] ην δε ο λεγομενος βαραββας μετα των συστασιαστων δεδεμενος οιτινες εν τη στασει φονον πεποιηκεισαν (he had been bound, but would be released)
[Acts 25:7] παραγενομενου δε αυτου περιεστησαν οι απο ιεροσολυμων καταβεβηκοτες ιουδαιοι πολλα και βαρεα αιτιωματα φεροντες κατα του παυλου α ουκ ισχυον αποδειξαι (they had come down from Jerusalem, but their being there is only valid within the context and not relevant anymore after that)

As you can see, Matt 28:5 shows that "εσταυρωσθαι" does not imply "to be dead" but merely "to have died" ("to be in a state of having died").
And Acts 25:7 shows that you can say "καταβεβηκα εις σιεμ ριπ εις το ιδειν την πολιν" ("I have gone to Siam Reap to ...") even if you are not there now. Naturally, though, since the perfect calls attention to the state, it causes one to conceive of the point at which the state is attained and thus may result in an assumption of the continued relevance of that point unless the context wraps it up somehow. So if you say just "καταβεβηκα εις σιεμ ριπ" and stop there, the hearer might of course get the impression that you are there now. But that meaning is not intrinsic to the perfect, and arises from the context.
Stephen Hughes wrote:What I am saying is that Jesus is in heaven, and that is expressed by using a perfect of the verb by which He got there.
Well, as I said before, whether Jesus is supposed to be in heaven doesn't determine what the verse means. Both I and Iver have given two related ways of interpreting the verse which we think are more natural than to assume that it refers to Jesus' ascension after his death, and therefore you cannot draw your conclusion without eliminating our interpretations or giving reasons why they are unlikely first.
δαυιδ λιμ
RandallButh
Posts: 1105
Joined: May 13th, 2011, 4:01 am

Re: Perfect ἀναβέβακεν in John 3:18

Post by RandallButh »

Would someone please correct the Greek word in the thread title from the incorrect *ἀναβέβακεν to the correct form ἀναβέβηκεν?
Thank you.
צורם לי באוזניים
Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3351
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Perfect ἀναβέβηκεν in John 3:13

Post by Stephen Carlson »

RandallButh wrote:Would someone please correct the Greek word in the thread title from the incorrect *ἀναβέβακεν to the correct form ἀναβέβηκεν?
Fixed! Sorry about the Doric form. Also got the verse wrong--must not have been a good day for me to be posting.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3351
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Perfect ἀναβέβηκεν in John 3:13

Post by Stephen Carlson »

Thanks for all your comments on this, where the comments came faster than I could get to them.

In the timeless view of the Greek verbal system that Pierce and Reynolds endorse, it is important to understand that the cues for understanding the time reference of the entire statement (not just the verb form) come from the context. Porter and Campbell claim that the verb form itself does not indicate the time, so it must be inferred from the context. I don't quite agree with this, but I do recognize that there is a certain amount of redundacy in language and that time references can be discerned in the context as well as the morphosyntax. If one is unwilling to consider the time reference encoded in the verb, as per Porter and Campbell, then there is a real premium in scrutinizing the context.

Unfortunately, the short study hardly examines the context. It assumes that Jesus rather than the author of the Fourth Gospel makes the statement, even though some of the scholars they cite argue otherwise. Since context is king under their timeless approach, they have to do the work and put it on paper showing exactly what temporal context and reference they can establish for the statement based on the context. (Now, I am generally satisfied that Jesus is still speaking in v.13, though I recognize that it can be difficult to tell in this section.) So Stephen Hughes is right to bring up this issue, even if one does not ultimately agree with the assignment of persona to the various statements in chapter 3.

More troubling, they seem to assume that οὐδείς + verb + εἰ μή + person (no one does X except Y) is equivalent to person + verb (only Y does X), when I think that is at best a defeasible implicature (in other words, it could imply that in some contexts or even out of context, but the context could say otherwise). In the context, esp. v.12, as David and Iver point out, it is fairly clear that the question under discussion is not the ascension at all but about who on earth can talk about heavenly things. The point of v. 13 is that no other than Jesus can because they have not gone up there.

The authors of the short study criticize the traditional formulation of the perfect, "past action with present results," as being too temporal for the aspectual Greek. Well, fine, but it is fairly simple to recast the formulation into aspectual terms (as does Bhat) as "complete action with continuing results." The authors don't go this way, however, and it is not clear why. Perhaps, they would still find the aspectual reformulation objectionable, because they assume that v.13 is about Jesus's ascension and at that point in the story Jesus has neither the complete action of ascending into heaven or the continuing results (either in still being there or in having the experience of being there). I'm not exactly sure what Stephen is arguing with the "next logical step," but it seems that "continuing results" of a possible aspectual reformation can be either strictly the result entailed by the verb (i.e, still in heaven) or more loosely as having the experience of being there. (I think the context favors the latter.)

Now the authors of the short study really do not interpret the perfect as an aspectual perfect. Rather, they take Campbell's suggestion that is equivalent to an imperfective, and it is here that argument loses me. In asserting that it is an imperfective, they immediately recast it as a simple English present, but as Stephen correctly points out, the simple English present is hardly so simple. The most common, or even prototypical meaning, of the imperfective is ongoing action or state, but the English simple present with dynamic (i.e. non-state) verbs, such as ascend, does not encode ongoing action except in "play-by-play" and related context. Rather, the most common meaning for the English present of dynamic verbs is that it encodes habitual action, and for that, one needs the present progressive (no one is ascending). Unfortunately, the authors don't even discuss that option even to reject it, despite the fact that ἀναβαίνω is a dynamic verb. There are other senses compatible with an imperfective that could be considered, but aren't in the short study. For example, Porter views the perfect as a stative, but the authors do not expounded upon a natural stative sense (no one is ascended) either.

For me, Campbell's claim that the Greek perfect is imperfective makes the most (yet partial) sense in that the results of the complete action are still continuing. It is the continuation of the results (in an appropriate sense) that makes the perfect look imperfective. (And it is the completeness of the action producing the results that makes the perfect look perfective to Fanning.) But Pierce and Reynolds do not consider the continuing results of the perfect ἀναβέβηκεν. In fact, those results of this verb (either still being up in heaven or having the experience of having gone up into heaven) don't make sense when applied to Jesus in accordance with their interpretation of the εἰ μή implicature. So they take Campbell's claim that the Greek perfect is really an imperfective (which is only helpful in a limited sense) and use that recast it into the English present (a tense, not an aspect), and from there, wriggle out of an apparent contradiction occasioned by not reading the context carefully enough. This step, I think, is fallacious. Just because the perfect can be considered to be an imperfective in some sense (per Campbell) and just because the English present tense can be considered to be an imperfective in other senses, it does not mean that all imperfectives senses of the Greek perfect and the English present are mutually available. That's the fallacy of the undistributed middles. It's like arguing, well, this Greek dog is a mammal, and so is this English cat, therefore this dog is a cat.

What I find frustrating about this short study is that for all this talk about needing to understand the perfect aspectually and not temporally, the authors really do not seem interested in the aspectual meaning of the perfect. Place in time is central to their analysis and the whole goal is to eliminate any temporal reference--as if disposing of the temporal reference in the verb form is sufficient to answer the question. It's not however, for the context also contributes (in fact, Porter's view strongly emphasizes the role of context). As a result, they come up with the interpretation that "no one goes up into heaven except ... the Son of Man," as if the author of John thinks that the only person who can ever ascend into heaven is Jesus.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Post Reply

Return to “New Testament”