Present Participial ὑπάρχων of Phil. 2.6?
Posted: April 20th, 2016, 2:12 am
(Phil. 2.6; NA28): ὃς ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ,
It's my understanding that this present participle receives it's "time-ness" from that of the main verb. That is, participles are kind of like someone who never wears a watch & is always asking others "What time is it?" The participle has to ask the main verb of the sentence "What time do I receive?" Below are some quotes that were sent to me:
Dana and Mantey, page 229-230, The Tense of The Participle, 202. Though the tense of the participle never conveys an independent expression of time, yet its relation to its context usually involves a temporal significance. That is, the time relations of the participle do not belong to its tense, but to the sense of the context.
“Time with the participle is purely relative” (R-S. 197).
Essentials Of New Testament Greek, Ray Summers, Page 97, Tense in participles has to do with kind of action in the same manner as verbs. The time of action in participles is different from a verb in that it is determined by the time of the main verb.
Learn To Read New Testament Greek, David Alan Black, Page 150, It is important to understand that participles do not, properly speaking, have “tense.” That is, they do not refer to past, present, or future time.
A Primer Of Biblical Greek, N. Clayton Croy, Page 105, The tense of the participle has nothing to do with the time of the action, but only with the “kind” of action. A present tense participle does not necessarily denote action occurring in present time; it denotes linear or ongoing action. In actual practice, present participles usually denote action simultaneous with that of the main verb, but this tendency derives from context, not the nature of the tense. The participle is fundamentally nontemporal.
New Testament Greek, James Allen Hewett, Page 146, The participle itself is timeless; it does not have inherent time value. Nevertheless, one speaks of it as present, aorist, future, or perfect. It takes on temporal value in relation to the main verb of a given context. What is denoted by tense per se in participles is kind of action.
A Basic Grammar Of New Testament Greek, George Aristotle Hadjiantiniou, Page 170, The tenses in the participle are devoid of the time element in the sense with which we are familiar in the indicative. The time element in the participle depends strictly on that of the principle verb in the sentence.
Robertson (LG) Page 342, “The Term Tense. It is from the French word temps, ‘time,’ and is a misnomer and a hindrance to the understanding of this aspect of the verb form. Time does come finally to enter relatively into the indicative and in a limited way affects the optative, infinitive and participle. But it is not the original nor the general idea of what we call tense. Indeed it cannot be shown of any verb-form that it had originally any reference to time. We must therefore dismiss time from our minds in the study of the forms of the tenses as well as in the matter of syntax. It is too late to get a new name, however.”
Robertson (LG) Page 891, “Participle. The present participle, like the present inf., is timeless and durative. (a) The Time Of The Present Participle Relative. The time comes from the principle verb. Thus in Ac. 4:34, 37 the time is past; in Mt. 6:27 the time is present; in Mt. 10:22, 6:18, 24:30 it is future.”
If my understanding here is correct, the participle ὑπάρχων would derive it's "time-ness" from the aorist ἡγήσατο, indicating simple past time (i.e., to the writing of Paul's letter to the Philippians). Is this correct, or am I missing something in The Carmen Christi?
Greatly appreciate this forum & count it a blessing to be able to come here to learn !
It's my understanding that this present participle receives it's "time-ness" from that of the main verb. That is, participles are kind of like someone who never wears a watch & is always asking others "What time is it?" The participle has to ask the main verb of the sentence "What time do I receive?" Below are some quotes that were sent to me:
Dana and Mantey, page 229-230, The Tense of The Participle, 202. Though the tense of the participle never conveys an independent expression of time, yet its relation to its context usually involves a temporal significance. That is, the time relations of the participle do not belong to its tense, but to the sense of the context.
“Time with the participle is purely relative” (R-S. 197).
Essentials Of New Testament Greek, Ray Summers, Page 97, Tense in participles has to do with kind of action in the same manner as verbs. The time of action in participles is different from a verb in that it is determined by the time of the main verb.
Learn To Read New Testament Greek, David Alan Black, Page 150, It is important to understand that participles do not, properly speaking, have “tense.” That is, they do not refer to past, present, or future time.
A Primer Of Biblical Greek, N. Clayton Croy, Page 105, The tense of the participle has nothing to do with the time of the action, but only with the “kind” of action. A present tense participle does not necessarily denote action occurring in present time; it denotes linear or ongoing action. In actual practice, present participles usually denote action simultaneous with that of the main verb, but this tendency derives from context, not the nature of the tense. The participle is fundamentally nontemporal.
New Testament Greek, James Allen Hewett, Page 146, The participle itself is timeless; it does not have inherent time value. Nevertheless, one speaks of it as present, aorist, future, or perfect. It takes on temporal value in relation to the main verb of a given context. What is denoted by tense per se in participles is kind of action.
A Basic Grammar Of New Testament Greek, George Aristotle Hadjiantiniou, Page 170, The tenses in the participle are devoid of the time element in the sense with which we are familiar in the indicative. The time element in the participle depends strictly on that of the principle verb in the sentence.
Robertson (LG) Page 342, “The Term Tense. It is from the French word temps, ‘time,’ and is a misnomer and a hindrance to the understanding of this aspect of the verb form. Time does come finally to enter relatively into the indicative and in a limited way affects the optative, infinitive and participle. But it is not the original nor the general idea of what we call tense. Indeed it cannot be shown of any verb-form that it had originally any reference to time. We must therefore dismiss time from our minds in the study of the forms of the tenses as well as in the matter of syntax. It is too late to get a new name, however.”
Robertson (LG) Page 891, “Participle. The present participle, like the present inf., is timeless and durative. (a) The Time Of The Present Participle Relative. The time comes from the principle verb. Thus in Ac. 4:34, 37 the time is past; in Mt. 6:27 the time is present; in Mt. 10:22, 6:18, 24:30 it is future.”
If my understanding here is correct, the participle ὑπάρχων would derive it's "time-ness" from the aorist ἡγήσατο, indicating simple past time (i.e., to the writing of Paul's letter to the Philippians). Is this correct, or am I missing something in The Carmen Christi?
Greatly appreciate this forum & count it a blessing to be able to come here to learn !