John 6:40 hO QEWRWN, PISTEUWN corrected version
Harry W. Jones
hjbluebird at aol.com
Sat Oct 27 20:21:47 EDT 2001
I appreciate your response to my post but why do you believe that
hO QEWRWN and PISTEUWN are not durative in this context, my I ask?
> At 12:49 PM +0000 10/26/01, Mark Wilson wrote:
> >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