πέμψαντός in J. 6.38?

How do I work out the meaning of a Greek text? How can I best understand the forms and vocabulary in this particular text?
Forum rules
This is a beginner's forum - see the Koine Greek forum for more advanced discussion of Greek texts. 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.

When answering questions in this forum, keep it simple, and aim your responses to the level of the person asking the question.
R. Perkins
Posts: 57
Joined: January 18th, 2013, 9:55 pm

πέμψαντός in J. 6.38?

Post by R. Perkins » January 9th, 2018, 5:40 am

Not sure where to place this, but, just have a question about this verse if allowed.

ὅτι καταβέβηκα ἀπὸ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ οὐχ ἵνα ⸁ποιῶ τὸ θέλημα τὸ ἐμὸν ἀλλὰ τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πέμψαντός με (NA28).

After hearing an assertion made about the aorist participle in this passage, I have spent a couple of hours tonight working through this Greek text. My question is regarding the time of the action of the aorist participle πέμψαντός in relation to the perfect indicative (main) verb καταβέβηκα.

Wondering if it's accurate to say that the action of the participle πέμψαντός is antecedent in action to that of καταβέβηκα :?:? It was my understanding that "time" was only relative in the indicative mood - which, obviously πέμψαντός does not have. Unless, the participle is deriving it's "time" from that of καταβέβηκα which is indicative (?).

I have always heard that participles & infinitives are tricky little fella's - and now I am learning why :cry:! Thank you much in advance. Have learned a lot from this forum.

Jonathan Robie
Posts: 3282
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: πέμψαντός in J. 6.38?

Post by Jonathan Robie » January 9th, 2018, 10:16 am

R. Perkins wrote:
January 9th, 2018, 5:40 am
Not sure where to place this, but, just have a question about this verse if allowed.
Good question!
R. Perkins wrote:
January 9th, 2018, 5:40 am
ὅτι καταβέβηκα ἀπὸ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ οὐχ ἵνα ⸁ποιῶ τὸ θέλημα τὸ ἐμὸν ἀλλὰ τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πέμψαντός με (NA28).

After hearing an assertion made about the aorist participle in this passage, I have spent a couple of hours tonight working through this Greek text. My question is regarding the time of the action of the aorist participle πέμψαντός in relation to the perfect indicative (main) verb καταβέβηκα.
The time of action of ποιῶ should be understood in relation to the main verb καταβέβηκα. You could expand the phrase ἀλλὰ τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πέμψαντός με to say ἀλλὰ ἵνα ποιῶ τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πέμψαντός με, it's the implied ποιῶ that should be understood in relation to καταβέβηκα.

So ... what about the participle πέμψαντός? It's part of a nominal construction τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πέμψαντός με, and does not have a direct relationship to καταβέβηκα. So we know that Jesus καταβέβηκα and we know that he considers the Father to be the one who sent him, but I don't think the sentence tells us the relative time between καταβέβηκα and πέμψαντός. I do think there is an implied time relation between ποιῶ and τοῦ πέμψαντός με.
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/

Barry Hofstetter
Posts: 1091
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 1:48 pm

Re: πέμψαντός in J. 6.38?

Post by Barry Hofstetter » January 9th, 2018, 2:03 pm

It's important to remember that in substantive uses of the participle, the idea of time or even aspect is rather in the background. The emphasis is on describing the referent in terms of the action of the verb, "the one having sent" or "the one who sent." If you think about it, though, logically, the action the sending is antecedent to the action of coming down, but that's not the focus of the grammar.
N.E. Barry Hofstetter
Instructor of Latin
Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
ἐγὼ δὲ διδάσκω τε καὶ γράφω ἵνα τὰ ἀξιώτερα μανθάνω

Jonathan Robie
Posts: 3282
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: πέμψαντός in J. 6.38?

Post by Jonathan Robie » January 9th, 2018, 2:55 pm

Barry Hofstetter wrote:
January 9th, 2018, 2:03 pm
It's important to remember that in substantive uses of the participle, the idea of time or even aspect is rather in the background.
Yes - but I suspect there's still a difference between τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πέμψαντός με (the will of the one who sent me) and τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πέμποντός με (the will of the one who sends me).
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/

Barry Hofstetter
Posts: 1091
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 1:48 pm

Re: πέμψαντός in J. 6.38?

Post by Barry Hofstetter » January 9th, 2018, 4:02 pm

Jonathan Robie wrote:
January 9th, 2018, 2:55 pm
Barry Hofstetter wrote:
January 9th, 2018, 2:03 pm
It's important to remember that in substantive uses of the participle, the idea of time or even aspect is rather in the background.
Yes - but I suspect there's still a difference between τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πέμψαντός με (the will of the one who sent me) and τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πέμποντός με (the will of the one who sends me).
Of course. I said in the background, not invisible!
N.E. Barry Hofstetter
Instructor of Latin
Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
ἐγὼ δὲ διδάσκω τε καὶ γράφω ἵνα τὰ ἀξιώτερα μανθάνω

R. Perkins
Posts: 57
Joined: January 18th, 2013, 9:55 pm

Re: πέμψαντός in J. 6.38?

Post by R. Perkins » January 10th, 2018, 1:55 am

Jonathan Robie wrote:
January 9th, 2018, 10:16 am
R. Perkins wrote:
January 9th, 2018, 5:40 am
Not sure where to place this, but, just have a question about this verse if allowed.
Good question!
R. Perkins wrote:
January 9th, 2018, 5:40 am
ὅτι καταβέβηκα ἀπὸ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ οὐχ ἵνα ⸁ποιῶ τὸ θέλημα τὸ ἐμὸν ἀλλὰ τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πέμψαντός με (NA28).

After hearing an assertion made about the aorist participle in this passage, I have spent a couple of hours tonight working through this Greek text. My question is regarding the time of the action of the aorist participle πέμψαντός in relation to the perfect indicative (main) verb καταβέβηκα.
The time of action of ποιῶ should be understood in relation to the main verb καταβέβηκα. You could expand the phrase ἀλλὰ τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πέμψαντός με to say ἀλλὰ ἵνα ποιῶ τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πέμψαντός με, it's the implied ποιῶ that should be understood in relation to καταβέβηκα.

So ... what about the participle πέμψαντός? It's part of a nominal construction τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πέμψαντός με, and does not have a direct relationship to καταβέβηκα. So we know that Jesus καταβέβηκα and we know that he considers the Father to be the one who sent him, but I don't think the sentence tells us the relative time between καταβέβηκα and πέμψαντός. I do think there is an implied time relation between ποιῶ and τοῦ πέμψαντός με.
If I'm trekking along w. you then you're saying that πέμψαντός is explicating ποιῶ - not καταβέβηκα - in this passage (?).

If my understanding is correct, doesn't the participle derive it's time (in the indic. mood) or aktionsart from that of the main verb (which in this v. is καταβέβηκα)? I realize there's much debate on the nature of participles.

My apologies if I'm a bit slow in grasping this (not meaning to drag it out :oops:).

R. Perkins
Posts: 57
Joined: January 18th, 2013, 9:55 pm

Re: πέμψαντός in J. 6.38?

Post by R. Perkins » January 10th, 2018, 2:02 am

Barry Hofstetter wrote:
January 9th, 2018, 2:03 pm
It's important to remember that in substantive uses of the participle, the idea of time or even aspect is rather in the background. The emphasis is on describing the referent in terms of the action of the verb, "the one having sent" or "the who sent." If you think about it, though, logically, the action the sending is antecedent to the action of coming down, but that's not the focus of the grammar.
Interesting point about the substantival use of the participle. I tend to categorize participles in the sense of the participle of means (i.e., instrumental usage) - a beginners mistake no doubt :oops:. But, I am wondering if the instrumental force would mostly be applicable when coupled w. present, actives?

Barry Hofstetter
Posts: 1091
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 1:48 pm

Re: πέμψαντός in J. 6.38?

Post by Barry Hofstetter » January 10th, 2018, 6:37 am

R. Perkins wrote:
January 10th, 2018, 2:02 am

Interesting point about the substantival use of the participle. I tend to categorize participles in the sense of the participle of means (i.e., instrumental usage) - a beginners mistake no doubt :oops:. But, I am wondering if the instrumental force would mostly be applicable when coupled w. present, actives?
Substantive participles are inherently adjectival, describing their referents in terms of the action of the verb. Yes, that would be a mistake -- any participle in the predicative may be used as an instrumental, whether present or aorist. There are of course other adverbial uses of the participle besides instrumental.
N.E. Barry Hofstetter
Instructor of Latin
Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
ἐγὼ δὲ διδάσκω τε καὶ γράφω ἵνα τὰ ἀξιώτερα μανθάνω

Jonathan Robie
Posts: 3282
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: πέμψαντός in J. 6.38?

Post by Jonathan Robie » January 10th, 2018, 8:51 am

R. Perkins wrote:
January 10th, 2018, 1:55 am
If I'm trekking along w. you then you're saying that πέμψαντός is explicating ποιῶ - not καταβέβηκα - in this passage (?).
Yes.
R. Perkins wrote:
January 10th, 2018, 1:55 am
If my understanding is correct, doesn't the participle derive it's time (in the indic. mood) or aktionsart from that of the main verb (which in this v. is καταβέβηκα)? I realize there's much debate on the nature of participles.
Barry explained this well - this is a substantival participle, functioning as a noun, and that's really all it does. It isn't acting like a verb that derives its time from that of the main verb. I wouldn't really describe it as adjectival, as he did, there are also adjectival participles that modify nominals such as nouns.

Paul-Nitz gave a very helpful summary of the different kinds of participles here:

viewtopic.php?f=40&t=3955&p=26925#p26925

If a participle is functioning as a noun or an adjective, it doesn't have the same relationship to the main verb that a participle functioning as a verb would (e.g. circumstantial or supplementary participles).
R. Perkins wrote:
January 10th, 2018, 1:55 am
My apologies if I'm a bit slow in grasping this (not meaning to drag it out :oops:).
This is B-Greek - and the beginner's forum. These threads aren't instant, and you aren't being slow to grasp this. You're doing fine, and there's nothing to apologize for.
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/

R. Perkins
Posts: 57
Joined: January 18th, 2013, 9:55 pm

Re: πέμψαντός in J. 6.38?

Post by R. Perkins » January 11th, 2018, 12:39 am

Jonathan Robie wrote:
January 10th, 2018, 8:51 am
R. Perkins wrote:
January 10th, 2018, 1:55 am
If I'm trekking along w. you then you're saying that πέμψαντός is explicating ποιῶ - not καταβέβηκα - in this passage (?).
Yes.
R. Perkins wrote:
January 10th, 2018, 1:55 am
If my understanding is correct, doesn't the participle derive it's time (in the indic. mood) or aktionsart from that of the main verb (which in this v. is καταβέβηκα)? I realize there's much debate on the nature of participles.
Barry explained this well - this is a substantival participle, functioning as a noun, and that's really all it does. It isn't acting like a verb that derives its time from that of the main verb. I wouldn't really describe it as adjectival, as he did, there are also adjectival participles that modify nominals such as nouns.

Paul-Nitz gave a very helpful summary of the different kinds of participles here:

viewtopic.php?f=40&t=3955&p=26925#p26925

If a participle is functioning as a noun or an adjective, it doesn't have the same relationship to the main verb that a participle functioning as a verb would (e.g. circumstantial or supplementary participles).
R. Perkins wrote:
January 10th, 2018, 1:55 am
My apologies if I'm a bit slow in grasping this (not meaning to drag it out :oops:).
This is B-Greek - and the beginner's forum. These threads aren't instant, and you aren't being slow to grasp this. You're doing fine, and there's nothing to apologize for.
Tremendous information in these responses Gents. Trying to work through it all in my mind. The question that keeps rolling through my mind is:

On what textual basis are y'all asserting that the aorist participle πέμψαντός is modifying ποιῶ and not καταβέβηκα? That is, when I come to a specific text how would I tell if the participle is functioning substantivally or verbally?

And, specifically in this text, I am just attempting to ascertain the linguistic reasoning behind y'all's assertions (not in any place to really deny it :oops:!).

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest