John 6:40 hO QEWRWN, PISTEUWN corrected version

Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sat Oct 27 07:49:03 EDT 2001


At 12:49 PM +0000 10/26/01, Mark Wilson wrote:
>Harry:
>
>You wrote:
>
>-----
>>  Regarding , TOUTO GAR ESTIN TO QELHMA TOU PATPOS MOU, hINA
>>PAS hO QEWRWN TON hUION KAI PISTEUWN EIS AUTON ECHi ZWHN
>>AIWNION, KAI ANASTHSW AUTON EGW [EN] THi ESCATHi.
>>
>>  It seems to me that hO QEWRWN and PISTEUWN represents an
>>on going process that results in ZWHN AIWNION and ANASTHSW.
>-----
>
>To nobody's surprise I am sure, I would simply say: No. The
>Present tense does not denote on-going action. Any "on-going" aspect
>would be inherent in a verb's Lexical Aspect. Grammatical Aspect
>does NOT denote "on-going" action. And I just don't see how one
>can argue for a "on-going" aspect with these verbs
>in this context, but concerning the ptc PISTEUWN here...
>
>In fairness, I would point you to Wallace's GGBB, pg. 621. footnote 22.
>When I first read it, I fell out of my chair. Then, after I got up,
>I realized that one's theology deeply affects one's grammatical
>conclusions (which, if true, should also inform you as to why
>I hold to my position).
>
>My (theological) thoughts,  :o )

A curious comment. I DO think Wallace's note is plausible, which doesn't
mean that I necessarily agree with it. Nevertheless, I'd agree with Mark's
statement about the two present participles in question, that they need not
necessarily indicate continuous action. I think that substantival
participles especially tend to be like agent nouns and that the durative
aspect of the present isn't necessarily involved.
-- 

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)
Most months: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad at ioa.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/



More information about the B-Greek mailing list