요한복음 3:13의 번역에 대한 재고

Abstract

This study investigates three main issues of John 3:13. The first is the issue of textual criticism. There are two major readings of this text: reading with the expression ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ (in heaven) and reading without it. Regarding this issue, I judge that the short reading without this expression is closer to the original text, after applying the external and internal criteria of textual criticism. The conclusive ground for this judgment is that manuscripts containing the short reading (PSUP66/SUP PSUP75/SUP א B) are dated much earlier than manuscripts containing the longer reading. In terms of the geographical distribution of manuscripts, PSUP66/SUP and W among manuscripts including the short reading can be judged to have relatively wider geographical distribution as they are a mixture of Alexandrian and Western text-types.BR The second issue is the interpretation of ϵἰ μή. Of the two meanings of this expression (except and but), I find the latter to be more convincing. As a ground for this judgment, I take a fresh approach to this issue by analyzing the speaker of 3:10-13. Beasley-Murray argues that Jesus is the speaker in 3:10-12 and the author of John’s Gospel is the speaker in 3:13-21. Contrary to this argument, I argue that the speaker in 3:13 is Jesus. There are two grounds for this argument. First is that the expression the Son of Man applied to Jesus is used in 3:13-14. Second, verse 3:12 and 3:13 are closely connected by the conjunction καί.BR The third issue is the interpretation of the perfect tense ἀναβέβηκϵν. Recently, Pierce and Reynolds interpreted this word by applying verbal aspect theory. To this interpretation of Pierce and Reynolds, I raise doubt based on the usage of ἀναβέβηκα in 20:17a where another verb in perfect tense form is used according to the traditional verb theory. Through this study, I finally propose to translate this verse as follows: And no one has ascended into heaven, but he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.