[B-Greek] John 9.25c WN ARTI

Alex Hopkins alexali at surf.net.au
Tue May 8 06:14:15 EDT 2007


Mitch Larramore asked, with regard to hEN OIDA, hOTI TUFLOS WN ARTI 
BLEPW and Carl's comment, "the present participle can take the place of 
an imperfect as well as a present indicative.  This is "That (though) I 
was blind, I now see",

       What is going on within the language that allows this 
substitution from a Present Participle WN to an Imperfect finite HMHN? 
And is it common?


A few years ago I posted the following, and it may help in regard to 
Mitch's question; it was in the context of a thread about "flashbacks" 
(Jan 2, 2003):

--

There is an aspect of the discussion on flashbacks which might be worth 
mentioning, as it has not been mentioned in the present discussion and I 
cannot recall it being mentioned in recent BGreek discussion. (Perhaps 
'change of time reference' would be a better term than 'flashback' for 
the instances that I cite below.)

Consider, first, the response of the man who had been blind, in 
answering those who for a second time were questioning him. Told that 
"this man (Jesus) is a sinner", he replies, (John 9:25), "I do not know 
whether he is a sinner. hEN OIDA hOTI TUFLOS WN ARTI BLEPW." One can 
only wonder what readers of interlinears might make of 'blind being now 
I see'?! (Berry's interlinear)

Or, Acts 4:34b-35, explaining why there was no needy person among the 
believers. hOSOI GAR KTHTORES CWRIWN H OIKIWN hUPHRCON, PWLOUNTES EFERON 
TAS TIMAS TWN PIPRASKOMENWN KAI ETIQOUN PARA TOUS PODAS TWN APOSTOLWN, 
DIEDIDETO DE hEKASTWi KAQOTI AN TIS CREIAN EICEN.

Clearly the action of the present participle PWLOUNTES precedes that of 
the imperfect indicative EFERON.

The present participles WN at John 9:25 and PWLOUNTES in Acts 4:34 
exemplify the use of the present participle in representing an imperfect 
(there being no imperfect participle). Though this usage is rare in the 
NT, it is well-known from classical times and is sometimes called 'the 
participle of the imperfect' (Smyth, 1872 a. Present, 1). (It may help 
to note that it is also well-documented, e.g. Burton p127; Goodwin, 
1289; Zerwick, 274 p92; BDF 339.3; Robertson, p892).

(Note, incidentally, how the NRS translation fails to justice to the 
(iterative) force of the imperfects of Acts 4:34-35: "There was not a 
needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses *sold* 
them and *brought* the proceeds of what was sold. 35 They *laid* it at 
the apostles' feet, and it *was distributed* to each as any had need." 
Far better is the NAS: "For there was not a needy person among them, for 
all who were owners of land or houses *would* sell them and bring the 
proceeds of the sales, 35 and lay them at the apostles' feet; and they 
*would* be distributed to each,
as any had need." [emphases mine]).

At John 8:9 we read that those who had been condemning the woman caught 
in adultery left one by one, KAI KATELEIFQH MONOS KAI hH GUNH EN MESWi 
OUSA. The NRS renders 'and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing 
before him'. But EN MESWi OUSA is hardly 'standing before him'; rather, 
it is another example of this 'participle of the imperfect' - 'the woman 
who had been in the middle'.

This use of the present participle to represent an imperfect is more 
commonly noted in the NT in instances of the participle used 
substantivally. One example often noted is Matthew 2:20b. An angel tells 
Joseph to return from Egypt with the infant Jesus and his mother, 
explaining TEQNHKASIN GAR hOI ZHTOUNTES THN PSUCHN TOU PAIDIOU, 'for 
those who *were seeking* the child's life are dead'.

Although such instances are more common, I have time only to add that if 
the references of further examples were of interest, I could provide 
these. Though they are more common, they are also more complicated, 
because the semantics of such substantival participial constructions is 
debated.

--

It perhaps helps us to accept what may seem a somewhat strange usage of 
the present participle if we consider that there was no imperfect 
participle; so the present is pressed into service for the imperfect in 
instances like these. (I see that Carl has now responded, so I hope the 
above will help as another take on the question.)


Alexander Hopkins
Melbourne, Australia




More information about the B-Greek mailing list