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

Polycarp66 at aol.com Polycarp66 at aol.com
Fri Jan 16 13:48:38 EST 2004


In a message dated 1/16/2004 12:36:49 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
dkwbibgreek at nelmezzo.net writes:

> 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?
> 

____

Firstly for informational purposes:  The 616 in the middle of the text you 
quoted is a page number so the passage is found on pp. 615-616.

I don't always agree with Wallace though I usually find him quite reliable.  
In this case, however, I think he states the case fairly well.  All I would 
add (and I think he mentions this in his own way elsewhere in his book) is that 
the Aktionsart of the verb refers to the manner in which the writer / speaker 
VIEWS the action not to the REALITY of the action.  The writer may view 
something which happens once as an action in process and therefore use a present.  
He may also view a repeated action as a typical action (probably not the best 
term) and speak of it as a completed act -- this is where the gnomic aorist 
fits.  Don't try to equate the writer's view of an event with the way in which 
the event actually occurs.

gfsomsel



More information about the B-Greek mailing list