[B-Greek] Rom 1:18 and the conative

Carl Conrad cwconrad2 at mac.com
Wed Sep 23 07:54:21 EDT 2009


On Sep 22, 2009, at 9:20 PM, Stephen Baldwin wrote:

>
> Ladies and Gentlemen:
> In Romans 1:18, Paul writes that God is revealing his wrath etc.
> EPI PASAN ASEBEIAN KAI ADIKIAN ANTHRWPWN TWN THN ALHQEIAN EN ADIKIA  
> KATEXONTWN
>
> The object of my affections is the last word, which looks to me like  
> a genitive plural present active participle [or GPM-P-A-Pt in my  
> shorthand].
> In reading Cranfield's commentary, he notes [p112] and footnotes [6  
> p112] that the present participle has conative force. He references  
> BDF.319 [I now own this masterpiece  [to the novice] of  
> obtuseness ;-) ].
>
> But I am unclear as to the force of KATEXONTWN. BDF says [if I read  
> it correctly] that we have here the notion of an attempted-but- 
> incomplete action, and that is how Cranfield interprets it thus. His  
> footnote indicates that far from this being a pessimistic statement  
> about the suppression of truth, it emphasises the futility of the  
> sinful mind in its attempts to suppress the truth.
>
> I think my question relates to how we identify this as being  
> conative? [Cranfield himself laments that many commentators have  
> missed this. Schreiner [Baker Exegetical] makes no mention of it to  
> the best of my reading]...
> And I have found precious little in my Greek library that discusses  
> the connative. DeMoss in his dictionary mentions the inchoative, the  
> tendential, and the voluntative. Any expositions in grammars to  
> these terms would be appreciated!!

I am rather inclined to think that too much is made of the term  
"conative" although it's certainly worth being aware that present and  
imperfect indicatives especially can suggest ongoing effort to  
accomplish an objective. If you've read what BDF has to say about it,  
I think you know all you really need to know:

"319. Conative present.  Inasmuch as the description of the occurrence  
in the durative present is bound up with the notion of incompleteness,  
the present itself can denote an attempted but incomplete action  
(universal in Greek): Jn 10:32 διὰ ποῖον αὐτῶν  
ἔργον ἐμὲ λιθάζετε [DIA POION AUTWN ERGON EME  
LIQAZETE]; (‘want to stone me?’), G 5:4 οἵτινες ἐν  
νόμῳ δικαιοῦσθε  [hOITINES EN NOMWi DIKAIOUSQE](‘want  
[are attempting] to be justified’), Jn 13:6 νίπτεις, G 6:12  
ἀναγκάζουσιν [ANAGKAZOUSIN]. The imperfect more frequently  
has this nuance (§326).—Rob. 880; Burton 8."

If you really think you want to know more, you can go to those  
referenced pages in AT Robertson and Burton, or you can go to Wallace  
(GGBB), who likes to subdivide and (sub)conquer. On pp. 534-5 he  
offers an account of the "conative" (aka "tendential, voluntative")  
present with two subcategories: "1.  In Progress, but not Complete  
(True Conative)" and "2.  Not Begun, but About/Desired to be Attempted  
(Voluntative/ Tendential)"

I don't recollect whether or not  "conative" has been termed an  
"Aktionsart" but it seems to me that it ought to be so termed; there  
are certainly some verbs which by their very nature signify endeavor  
rather than accomplishment. That seems to be the case with KATECW  
which is to be found in the GNT 17x: 15x in the present or imperfect  
indicative, 2x in the aorist subjunctive. The verb means fundamentally  
"restrain," "hold back" or "hold down" or "hold in check."

In my opinion (FWIW) one learns more of what one needs to know about  
verb usage from an unabridged lexicon entry that illustrates with  
clearly-referenced examples than from analytic grammarians who  
endeavor to pigeonhole usage into subcategories.

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)






More information about the B-Greek mailing list