[B-Greek] RE: Jn 3:16 pas ho pisteuOn

Alexander Hopkins alexali at surf.net.au
Sun Apr 27 07:34:32 EDT 2003


Bob Evans wrote

>>I was told that pas ho pisteuOn is a present participle signifying
continuous believing.  The gentleman said that if a moment of believing
were in view it should have been aorist participle.  Any comments?

And Jerker Karlsson replied,

>The same difference is born out in the active verb. If you say EGW
EPISTEUON AUTWI you are saying that you was (and possibly still are)
believing in him, but if you say EGW EPISTEUSA AUTWI you are saying that
you believed in him in that particular case or in that situation. The
English language resembles the Greek fairly well in matters of aspect,
in matters of participles standing alone however the difference between
Greek aorist and present maybe is best represented in, for present "The
one believing", for aorist "The one that believes/ed". 

>The context in which the aorist and present are used are however much
more important than the grammatical forms taken by themselves. In the
sentence ho prwton pisteuwn alla ouk eti, it doesn't matter that the
participle is durative cause its continuation in the present is negated
by ouk eti. And the similar modifiers can of cause also be applied on
the aorist so that its punctiliar aspect doesn't limit it to one
singular incident.

I'd like briefly to express a different perspective from Jerker's.
First of all, there is the perennial question of terminology.  I would
not link the terms 'punctiliar' and 'aspect' as Jerker has, for to me it
is clearest to understand 'punctiliar' as a category of 'Aktionsart', a
view of the verb which has the verb expressing something about the
nature of the action (a view which I believe is erroneous);  whereas
'aspect' is a term which speaks of the tense of the verb as being chosen
according to that 'aspect' to which the author/speaker wishes to bring
attention, whether viewing it as action in-process or globally, for
example.

I think problems do arise when we polarize the uses of the tenses
(especially when that is connected with an Aktionsart approach to the
verb), as when "a moment of believing" is polarized against "continuous
believing".  When we read, for example, MHKETI hAMARTANE it doesn't mean
"Do not continuously sin" in the sense of approving the occasional,
one-off sin.  Positing the difference between "a moment of believing"
and "continuous believing" in such an either-or way tends to obscure
rather than help.

A good many examples could be cited where the aorist does *not* refer to
a specific instance;  I give just one.  When the young man asked what he
must do to inherit eternal life, and was told to observe the
commandments, LEGEI AUTWi hO NEANISKOS, PANTA TAUTA EFULAXA.   The
EFULAXA refers to a continuing observance;  the aorist is used because
his observance is here *viewed* globally rather than in-process.

The next point I'll adumbrate is that the present participle used
substantivally with the article has a variety of uses, a not uncommon
one being to express a general truth;  I take PAS hO PISTEUWN to mean
not 'anyone who continuously believes' (as if there is some implicit
opposition to 'anyone who believes in a non-continuing manner'), not
'anyone who is believing' (as opposed to was believing or at some future
time may believe), but simply 'anyone who believes'.

It might also be of interest to note John 13:11 - HiDEI GAR TON
PARADIDONTA AUTON. DIA TOUTO EIPEN hOTI OUCI PANTES KAQAROI ESTE.
Robertson (Word Pictures) says, "The articular present participle of
PARADIDWMI, 'the betraying one,' for Judas was already engaged in the
process. Did Judas wince at this thrust from Jesus?" This seems to
assume that the tense of the participle reflects a temporal value;  at
this point I would not follow Robertson's understanding.

Regards,

Alex Hopkins
Melbourne, Australia



More information about the B-Greek mailing list