John 6:40 hO QEWRWN, PISTEUWN corrected version

Dale M. Wheeler dalemw at teleport.com
Sun Oct 28 01:50:17 EDT 2001


Carl W. Conrad wrote:

>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:

I completely agree with you that normally substantival ptcs are simply noun 
substitutes, and as someone in the thread pointed out, the choice of the 
"tense" form is based on the lexis of the verb (much the same way that 
"tense" is chosen for infinitives). However, for the writer who fell out of 
his chair, there actually is a little more to Wallace's argument than 
simply his theology precedes his grammar...BTW, I'm not defending his 
conclusion, because I happen to disagree with his conclusion.  The 
"contextual" factor which indicates that one must somehow deal with 
something effecting the Aktionsart of the Pres Subst Ptc of PISTEUW is the 
fact that John also uses PISTEUW in the Aor (John 7:29; 20:29) and Perf 
(8:31) as Subst Ptcs.  Thus, there may in fact be a distinction between the 
Aktionsart of the three tense choices.  Wallace has suggest one possibility 
for the differences.


***********************************************************************
Dale M. Wheeler, Ph.D.
Research Prof., Biblical Languages          Multnomah Bible College
8435 NE Glisan St.                                  Portland, OR 97220
V: 503-2516416        F: 503-251-6478      E: dalemw at teleport.com
***********************************************************************





More information about the B-Greek mailing list