[B-Greek] present participle in 1 tim 5:20

David Wright dkwbibgreek at nelmezzo.net
Fri Jan 16 12:35:55 EST 2004


I'm curious to hear opinions on the present participle TOUS hAMARTANONTAS in 1 
Tim 5:20.

1.  What is the significance of the present tense here, given that this is a substantival 
use?
A.  Does the aspect of the present tense here imply a continuous idea?  i.e., those 
who continue to sin
B.  Or if not, why not? i.e., it's merely: those who sin
C.  Or is it not possible to tell?

2.  Does anyone have any general guidance on aspect in substantival participle?
I found this in Wallace's "Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics" (I can't give the page, 
because my book is at home and I getting the quote online, but it's from Wallace's 
chapter on participles):

    In particular when a participle is substantival, its aspectual force is more 
    susceptible to reduction in force.

    Secondly, many substantival participles in the NT are used in generic 
    utterances. The pa'" oJ ajkouvwn (or ajgapw'n, poiw'n, etc.) formula is always 
    or almost always generic. As such it is expected to involve a gnomic idea.7 
    Most of these instances involve the present participle.8 But if they are already 
    gnomic, we would be 

    616

    hard-pressed to make something more out of them-such as a progressive 
    idea. Thus, for example, in Matt 5:28, "everyone who looks at a woman" (pa'" 
    oJ blevpwn gunai'ka) with lust in his heart does not mean "continually 
    looking" or "habitually looking," any more than four verses later "everyone 
    who divorces his wife" (pa'" oJ ajpoluvwn thVn gunai'ka aujtou') means 
    "repeatedly divorces"! This is not to deny a habitual Aktionsart in such 
    gnomic statements. But it is to say that caution must be exercised. In the 
    least, we should be careful not to make statements such as, "The present 
    participle blevpwn [in Matt 5:28] characterizes the man by his act of 
    continued looking." This may well be the meaning of the evangelist, but the 
    present participle, by itself, can hardly be forced into this mold.

Does anyone care to elaborate or comment?

Thank you!
==========================
David Wright
dkwbibgreek at nelmezzo.net




More information about the B-Greek mailing list