My question is about συζητεῖν. Is it permitted to label this an ingressive present? Wallace doesn't have this category, but it seems such a natural fit here.

- and all were amazed and began to argue...
I might be willing to respond to this question if it came from an identifiable source, i.e., someone who complies with the Forum rule that does not allow pseudonyms.cornopean wrote:Mark 1:27 καὶ ἐθαμβήθησαν ἅπαντες ὥστε συζητεῖν πρὸς ἑαυτοὺς λέγοντας· τί ἐστιν τοῦτο; διδαχὴ καινὴ κατ᾽ ἐξουσίαν· καὶ τοῖς πνεύμασι τοῖς ἀκαθάρτοις ἐπιτάσσει, καὶ ὑπακούουσιν αὐτῷ.
My question is about συζητεῖν. Is it permitted to label this an ingressive present? Wallace doesn't have this category, but it seems such a natural fit here.![]()
- and all were amazed and began to argue...
It has to be done by an administrator. If you send me the info, either email or private message through the forum, I can do it. It will change how your screen name appears, but not your password. Your log in will use the new screen name.cornopean wrote:ok call me crazy but I got to change my name and I can't find where to do it. can someone either delete my profile or tell me how to change it? sorry for the trouble
Ok, I would not use such a category here. Notice that συζητεῖν is part of a result clause with ὥστε, which often takes the infinitive. Here, the present infinitive is relative to the main verb, the present tense showing that the action is contemporaneous with that of the main verb. Now, the way you've expressed it above might be an idiomatic and natural way to express it in English, but that doesn't mean the category is fairly applied to the Greek.Chris Engelsma wrote:Mark 1:27 καὶ ἐθαμβήθησαν ἅπαντες ὥστε συζητεῖν πρὸς ἑαυτοὺς λέγοντας· τί ἐστιν τοῦτο; διδαχὴ καινὴ κατ᾽ ἐξουσίαν· καὶ τοῖς πνεύμασι τοῖς ἀκαθάρτοις ἐπιτάσσει, καὶ ὑπακούουσιν αὐτῷ.
My question is about συζητεῖν. Is it permitted to label this an ingressive present? Wallace doesn't have this category, but it seems such a natural fit here.![]()
- and all were amazed and began to argue...
Tense in the infinitive is relative to the main verb? I know that's true of participles, but infinitives? I've always been led to believe that 'tense' in the infinitive expresses aspect rather than relative time.Barry Hofstetter wrote: Here, the present infinitive is relative to the main verb, the present tense showing that the action is contemporaneous with that of the main verb.
Barry Hofstetter wrote:Ok, I would not use such a category here. Notice that συζητεῖν is part of a result clause with ὥστε, which often takes the infinitive. Here, the present infinitive is relative to the main verb, the present tense showing that the action is contemporaneous with that of the main verb. Now, the way you've expressed it above might be an idiomatic and natural way to express it in English, but that doesn't mean the category is fairly applied to the Greek.Chris Engelsma wrote:Mark 1:27 καὶ ἐθαμβήθησαν ἅπαντες ὥστε συζητεῖν πρὸς ἑαυτοὺς λέγοντας· τί ἐστιν τοῦτο; διδαχὴ καινὴ κατ᾽ ἐξουσίαν· καὶ τοῖς πνεύμασι τοῖς ἀκαθάρτοις ἐπιτάσσει, καὶ ὑπακούουσιν αὐτῷ.
My question is about συζητεῖν. Is it permitted to label this an ingressive present? Wallace doesn't have this category, but it seems such a natural fit here.![]()
- and all were amazed and began to argue...
I would take a slightly different approach to the question.timothy_p_mcmahon wrote:Tense in the infinitive is relative to the main verb? I know that's true of participles, but infinitives? I've always been led to believe that 'tense' in the infinitive expresses aspect rather than relative time.Barry Hofstetter wrote: Here, the present infinitive is relative to the main verb, the present tense showing that the action is contemporaneous with that of the main verb.
Absolutely correct, of course, on both counts, gentlemen. I wrote my response late at night, and must have been thinking either about the participle or the infinitive in indirect statement, not as part of a result clause. If you examine the usages of ὥστε + inf it is used in the NT either with present or aorist infinitives, regardless of the tense of the main verb, so thatcwconrad wrote:Barry Hofstetter wrote:Ok, I would not use such a category here. Notice that συζητεῖν is part of a result clause with ὥστε, which often takes the infinitive. Here, the present infinitive is relative to the main verb, the present tense showing that the action is contemporaneous with that of the main verb. Now, the way you've expressed it above might be an idiomatic and natural way to express it in English, but that doesn't mean the category is fairly applied to the Greek.Chris Engelsma wrote:Mark 1:27 καὶ ἐθαμβήθησαν ἅπαντες ὥστε συζητεῖν πρὸς ἑαυτοὺς λέγοντας· τί ἐστιν τοῦτο; διδαχὴ καινὴ κατ᾽ ἐξουσίαν· καὶ τοῖς πνεύμασι τοῖς ἀκαθάρτοις ἐπιτάσσει, καὶ ὑπακούουσιν αὐτῷ.
My question is about συζητεῖν. Is it permitted to label this an ingressive present? Wallace doesn't have this category, but it seems such a natural fit here.![]()
- and all were amazed and began to argue...
Secondly, with regard to the temporal relationship of the present infinitive συζητεῖν to the aorist indicative ἐθαμβήθησαν, it seems to me that this is indicated by the fact that συζητεῖν is in the ὥστε construction and for that reason is a consequence of the astonishment indicated by ἑθαμβήθησαν: the quest for an explanation begins when the observers discern the unusual/unnatural character of what has just occurred. As Aristotle puts it, philosophy arises from the experience of wonderment: ἀπορία triggers the endeavor to explain what is not understood.timothy_p_mcmahon wrote:Tense in the infinitive is relative to the main verb? I know that's true of participles, but infinitives? I've always been led to believe that 'tense' in the infinitive expresses aspect rather than relative time.Barry Hofstetter wrote: Here, the present infinitive is relative to the main verb, the present tense showing that the action is contemporaneous with that of the main verb.
Here we have both an aorist and a present infinitive used in the result clause. To me, the aorist ἐλθεῖν describes an action which has a terminus point, and the present κατασκηνοῦν indicates an action that could continue for an indefinite period of time, which I think is parallel to to Mk 1:27.ὃ μικρότερον μέν ἐστιν πάντων τῶν σπερμάτων, ὅταν δὲ αὐξηθῇ μεῖζον τῶν λαχάνων ἐστὶν καὶ γίνεται δένδρον, ὥστε ἐλθεῖν τὰ πετεινὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ κατασκηνοῦν ἐν τοῖς κλάδοις αὐτοῦ.
Chris Engelsma wrote:Mark 1:27 καὶ ἐθαμβήθησαν ἅπαντες ὥστε συζητεῖν πρὸς ἑαυτοὺς λέγοντας· τί ἐστιν τοῦτο; διδαχὴ καινὴ κατ᾽ ἐξουσίαν· καὶ τοῖς πνεύμασι τοῖς ἀκαθάρτοις ἐπιτάσσει, καὶ ὑπακούουσιν αὐτῷ.
My question is about συζητεῖν. Is it permitted to label this an ingressive present? Wallace doesn't have this category, but it seems such a natural fit here.![]()
- and all were amazed and began to argue...
Aren't "συζητειν προς εαυτους λεγοντας ..." and "ελθειν τα πετεινα του ουρανου ..." indirect statements, not only consequent to that which is before "ωστε"? I have always considered infinitives in indirect statements to be like aorists, thus I did not see any difference in aspect. For example, Matt 8:24, 13:54, Mark 9:26 and 1 Cor 5:1, have the "present" infinitive but it seems to have a clearly perfective aspect. Therefore I thought temporal relationships were dependent only on the context rather than the "tense" of the infinitive. Is it wrong?Barry Hofstetter wrote:Absolutely correct, of course, on both counts, gentlemen. I wrote my response late at night, and must have been thinking either about the participle or the infinitive in indirect statement, not as part of a result clause. If you examine the usages of ὥστε + inf it is used in the NT either with present or aorist infinitives, regardless of the tense of the main verb, so thatcwconrad wrote:Secondly, with regard to the temporal relationship of the present infinitive συζητεῖν to the aorist indicative ἐθαμβήθησαν, it seems to me that this is indicated by the fact that συζητεῖν is in the ὥστε construction and for that reason is a consequence of the astonishment indicated by ἑθαμβήθησαν: the quest for an explanation begins when the observers discern the unusual/unnatural character of what has just occurred. As Aristotle puts it, philosophy arises from the experience of wonderment: ἀπορία triggers the endeavor to explain what is not understood.it is the type of action in view, not relative to the main verb. A good example is Matt 13:32:
Here we have both an aorist and a present infinitive used in the result clause. To me, the aorist ἐλθεῖν describes an action which has a terminus point, and the present κατασκηνοῦν indicates an action that could continue for an indefinite period of time, which I think is parallel to to Mk 1:27.ὃ μικρότερον μέν ἐστιν πάντων τῶν σπερμάτων, ὅταν δὲ αὐξηθῇ μεῖζον τῶν λαχάνων ἐστὶν καὶ γίνεται δένδρον, ὥστε ἐλθεῖν τὰ πετεινὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ κατασκηνοῦν ἐν τοῖς κλάδοις αὐτοῦ.
Not sure precisely what you are getting at, David. ὥστε + the infinitive is a standard way of showing result. It is not indirect statement. Indirect statement using the accusative and infinitive is rare in biblical Greek, which mostly uses ὅτι, but should the construction be used, then the "tense" of the infinitive becomes important.David Lim wrote:
Aren't "συζητειν προς εαυτους λεγοντας ..." and "ελθειν τα πετεινα του ουρανου ..." indirect statements, not only consequent to that which is before "ωστε"? I have always considered infinitives in indirect statements to be like aorists, thus I did not see any difference in aspect. For example, Matt 8:24, 13:54, Mark 9:26 and 1 Cor 5:1, have the "present" infinitive but it seems to have a clearly perfective aspect. Therefore I thought temporal relationships were dependent only on the context rather than the "tense" of the infinitive. Is it wrong?