Present Participial ὑπάρχων of Phil. 2.6?

How do I work out the meaning of a Greek text? How can I best understand the forms and vocabulary in this particular text?
Forum rules
This is a beginner's forum - see the Koine Greek forum for more advanced discussion of Greek texts. Please quote the Greek text you are discussing directly in your post if it is reasonably short - do not ask people to look it up.

When answering questions in this forum, keep it simple, and aim your responses to the level of the person asking the question.
cwconrad
Posts: 2112
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714
Contact:

Re: Present Participial ὑπάρχων of Phil. 2.6?

Post by cwconrad » April 26th, 2016, 9:10 am

Not the least of the problems in this thread (and I am convinced that this thread does not belong in any Beginners Forum) is that the key verb of the participle in question is ὑπάρχειν. It's well worth a long look at the entries for this verb in both BDAG and LSJ. However close it may seem to be to εἶναι, it is very different -- an auxiliary verb but more than an auxiliary verb. Its meanings are as slippery and elusive as a Sophoclean image or as the old shape-shifter Proteus. It's almost (but not quite) "be potentially."
0 x


οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)

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

R. Perkins
Posts: 88
Joined: January 18th, 2013, 9:55 pm

Re: Present Participial ὑπάρχων of Phil. 2.6?

Post by R. Perkins » April 27th, 2016, 2:36 am

Jonathan Robie wrote:
R. Perkins wrote:My (elementary) understanding is that when doing exegesis-proper, we should search for the same words & forms under consideration in the current (1) chapter, (2) book, (3) author, (4) testament (OT or NT), (5) LXX, (6) papyri, (7) ECF, etc.
Yes, I should have probably pointed you that direction first, I was trying to answer the other question that you asked (see below). In this case, Lk 9:48, Lk 16:23, Lk 23:50, Acts 2:30, Acts 3:2, Acts 7:55, Acts 14:8, Acts 17:24, Acts 22:3, Rom 4:19, 1Cor 11:7, 2Cor 8:17, 2Cor 12:16, Gal 1:14, Gal 2:14, Phil 2:6

I find it really important to spend more time looking at examples than looking at grammars. The grammars are just trying to explain what is going on with these examples. So one way to move forward is to look at these examples and ask any questions you have about how ὑπάρχων interacts with the main verb in each sentence.

Sometimes it's also helpful to ask how it would be different if he had used a different tense. In this case, I may have complicated it beyond what is useful here.
R. Perkins wrote:Pardon my ignorance, but I'm a little confused on why we would change ὑπάρχων to an aorist participle in our search?
!!! SNIP !!!
Unless, you're responding directly to my assertion above about the "time-ness" of an aorist, participial verb (which, upon further thought, is likely what you're addressing)? But, wouldn't this still alter the force of ὑπάρχων in Phil. 2.6? Honest question.
Exactly. And I don't see any ignorance to forgive here.

I was asking how the meaning of a present participle differs from an aorist participle. In this case, it's complicated by the meaning of the verb, perhaps complicated too much to be helpful. But let's take a look at it:
καὶ ἀπώλοντο ὡς οὐχ ὑπάρξαντες
!!! SNIP !!!
*ὑπάρξαντες = main verb; aorist, active, participle, nominative, masculine, plural

Translation (?): and they were destroyed as not existing
This example is more complicated than I had realized when I chose it. I would have translated it "as though they had not existed", but other people might translate it differently, and I'm pretty sure the experts can have a long and complicated discussion about this - hopefully not in this thread.

I think it's probably easier to go through the present participles shown earlier, and compare them to this one. I imagine that's the best next step for you. Does that make sense? I think we need some guidance from you on what is most helpful.
Okay, sounds good. Actually, y'all have already provided plenty data to analyze.

This is the very reason I'm on this forum. Although I'm not currently taking classes, I'm constantly thinking on the Greek text(s) and, if okay, will ask grammatical questions like this so I can check for blind spots & misunderstandings on my part (?).

As is apparent, I have a long ways to go, but am intensely interested.

And, no, you did not complicate things further (I actually realized what you were doing above later :oops:). In fact, anytime I hear or read a term or concept I'm unfamiliar w., I "go and learn what that means" - so it actually helps me. Indeed, I'd rather be pulled up to higher levels than remain stagnate.

Thanks so much to everyone who answered - been a tremendous help.
0 x

R. Perkins
Posts: 88
Joined: January 18th, 2013, 9:55 pm

Re: Present Participial ὑπάρχων of Phil. 2.6?

Post by R. Perkins » April 27th, 2016, 2:57 am

cwconrad wrote:Not the least of the problems in this thread (and I am convinced that this thread does not belong in any Beginners Forum) is that the key verb of the participle in question is ὑπάρχειν. It's well worth a long look at the entries for this verb in both BDAG and LSJ. However close it may seem to be to εἶναι, it is very different -- an auxiliary verb but more than an auxiliary verb. Its meanings are as slippery and elusive as a Sophoclean image or as the old shape-shifter Proteus. It's almost (but not quite) "be potentially."
Wow - excellent thoughts. My apologies if I posted this thread in the wrong section. I view myself as a beginner & figured this would be an elementary question, hence the reason I posted it here :oops:.

Two quick (incidental) questions about LSJ:

(1) Is there a module in any software program where I can purchase LSJ? I know about Perseus, but can *NEVER* get an answer when I "search" for a Greek term (I just tried ὑπάρχειν). It *ALWAYS* says "Your search for ________ returned no results." Ughh - drives me nuts (it's been this way for years).

(2) How valid is LSJ as it relates to NT lexicography? Seems I rarely see them cited as authorities in any modern academic papers (kinda' like Thayer, Vine's, etc.). And, I've seen definitions of verbs that makes me leery of LSJ. For example, I saw once where they defined προφητεύω as "to preach." Obviously, this definition does not properly reflect the biblical mng. of προφητεύω (a while different topic).

Not to derail this thread (I realize this question likely belongs in a different section) - just some questions that come to mind anytime I see references to LSJ.

**Addendum: I also wish I understood how to use TLG - I'm a member, but have no clue how to search for word-forms :evil:!
0 x

cwconrad
Posts: 2112
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714
Contact:

Re: Present Participial ὑπάρχων of Phil. 2.6?

Post by cwconrad » April 27th, 2016, 7:28 am

R. Perkins wrote:
cwconrad wrote:Not the least of the problems in this thread (and I am convinced that this thread does not belong in any Beginners Forum) is that the key verb of the participle in question is ὑπάρχειν. It's well worth a long look at the entries for this verb in both BDAG and LSJ. However close it may seem to be to εἶναι, it is very different -- an auxiliary verb but more than an auxiliary verb. Its meanings are as slippery and elusive as a Sophoclean image or as the old shape-shifter Proteus. It's almost (but not quite) "be potentially."
Wow - excellent thoughts. My apologies if I posted this thread in the wrong section. I view myself as a beginner & figured this would be an elementary question, hence the reason I posted it here :oops:.
This particular subforum of the Beginners Forum is probably the most awkward of all; we originally instituted it to allow real "beginners" -- people just starting Greek -- to raise questions about "simple" NT texts. How complex a question may be sometimes doesn't become evident immediately. This one is more complex than most of us realized at the outset. I really did think you had pretty well answered your own question in the first post, but I wasn't thinking very well; it should have been obvious that you were looking for a clearer understanding of how the participle related to the verb-form with which it construes.
R. Perkins wrote:Two quick (incidental) questions about LSJ:

(1) Is there a module in any software program where I can purchase LSJ? I know about Perseus, but can *NEVER* get an answer when I "search" for a Greek term (I just tried ὑπάρχειν). It *ALWAYS* says "Your search for ________ returned no results." Ughh - drives me nuts (it's been this way for years).
I'm a Mac user; I have LSJ in both Accordance and Logos, but in fact I've been accessing LSJ more generally at the internet site LOGEION, a version of the Perseus lexical resources which offers several lexica and also has a very nice selection of word-forms in context for each entry: http://logeion.uchicago.edu/
R. Perkins wrote:(2) How valid is LSJ as it relates to NT lexicography? Seems I rarely see them cited as authorities in any modern academic papers (kinda' like Thayer, Vine's, etc.). And, I've seen definitions of verbs that makes me leery of LSJ. For example, I saw once where they defined προφητεύω as "to preach." Obviously, this definition does not properly reflect the biblical mng. of προφητεύω (a while different topic).

Not to derail this thread (I realize this question likely belongs in a different section) - just some questions that come to mind anytime I see references to LSJ.
I wouldn't want to speak to assessments of LSJ's strength; I think that opinions differ. My own view is that LSJ in the more recent updated editions is indispensable, despite the fact that people can fault this or that entry; there is no flawless lexicon. If anyone cares to survey the evidence for any ancient Greek word's range of forms and usage through the centuries, this is an indispensable source, whatever its flaws.
R. Perkins wrote:**Addendum: I also wish I understood how to use TLG - I'm a member, but have no clue how to search for word-forms :evil:!
I don't know whether there's a FAQ already in existence that would be helpful here, but I'd bet that Louis Sorenson is one of several who could whip on up fairly quickly.
0 x
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)

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

R. Perkins
Posts: 88
Joined: January 18th, 2013, 9:55 pm

Re: Present Participial ὑπάρχων of Phil. 2.6?

Post by R. Perkins » April 28th, 2016, 3:01 am

cwconrad wrote:
R. Perkins wrote:
cwconrad wrote:Not the least of the problems in this thread (and I am convinced that this thread does not belong in any Beginners Forum) is that the key verb of the participle in question is ὑπάρχειν. It's well worth a long look at the entries for this verb in both BDAG and LSJ. However close it may seem to be to εἶναι, it is very different -- an auxiliary verb but more than an auxiliary verb. Its meanings are as slippery and elusive as a Sophoclean image or as the old shape-shifter Proteus. It's almost (but not quite) "be potentially."
Wow - excellent thoughts. My apologies if I posted this thread in the wrong section. I view myself as a beginner & figured this would be an elementary question, hence the reason I posted it here :oops:.
This particular subforum of the Beginners Forum is probably the most awkward of all; we originally instituted it to allow real "beginners" -- people just starting Greek -- to raise questions about "simple" NT texts. How complex a question may be sometimes doesn't become evident immediately. This one is more complex than most of us realized at the outset. I really did think you had pretty well answered your own question in the first post, but I wasn't thinking very well; it should have been obvious that you were looking for a clearer understanding of how the participle related to the verb-form with which it construes.
R. Perkins wrote:Two quick (incidental) questions about LSJ:

(1) Is there a module in any software program where I can purchase LSJ? I know about Perseus, but can *NEVER* get an answer when I "search" for a Greek term (I just tried ὑπάρχειν). It *ALWAYS* says "Your search for ________ returned no results." Ughh - drives me nuts (it's been this way for years).
I'm a Mac user; I have LSJ in both Accordance and Logos, but in fact I've been accessing LSJ more generally at the internet site LOGEION, a version of the Perseus lexical resources which offers several lexica and also has a very nice selection of word-forms in context for each entry: http://logeion.uchicago.edu/
R. Perkins wrote:(2) How valid is LSJ as it relates to NT lexicography? Seems I rarely see them cited as authorities in any modern academic papers (kinda' like Thayer, Vine's, etc.). And, I've seen definitions of verbs that makes me leery of LSJ. For example, I saw once where they defined προφητεύω as "to preach." Obviously, this definition does not properly reflect the biblical mng. of προφητεύω (a while different topic).

Not to derail this thread (I realize this question likely belongs in a different section) - just some questions that come to mind anytime I see references to LSJ.
I wouldn't want to speak to assessments of LSJ's strength; I think that opinions differ. My own view is that LSJ in the more recent updated editions is indispensable, despite the fact that people can fault this or that entry; there is no flawless lexicon. If anyone cares to survey the evidence for any ancient Greek word's range of forms and usage through the centuries, this is an indispensable source, whatever its flaws.
R. Perkins wrote:**Addendum: I also wish I understood how to use TLG - I'm a member, but have no clue how to search for word-forms :evil:!
I don't know whether there's a FAQ already in existence that would be helpful here, but I'd bet that Louis Sorenson is one of several who could whip on up fairly quickly.
Okay - Got it. Mac user here too. I think I finally located & figured out how to use L-S-J here: http://stephanus.tlg.uci.edu/lsj/#eid=1&context=lsj

Enjoyed analyzing their lexical definitions of προφητεύω.

Thanks to everyone who helped w. this topic. Y'all are off the hook until I run across something else confusing :lol: :oops:!
0 x

Post Reply

Return to “What does this text mean?”