Page 1 of 2
Form of the Verb ἀποτρέπου at 2 Ti 3:5
Posted: December 6th, 2020, 1:38 pm
by Bernd Strauss
2 Timothy 3:5: “ἔχοντες μόρφωσιν εὐσεβείας τὴν δὲ δύναμιν αὐτῆς ἠρνημένοι· καὶ τούτους ἀποτρέπου.”
Is the imperative verb ἀποτρέπου in the present continuous form of the mediopassive voice (“be turning yourself away from” rather than “turn away from”)?
Does the form of the verb emphasize “turning away” continuously/ always rather than just once?
Re: Form of the Verb ἀποτρέπου at 2 Ti 3:5
Posted: December 6th, 2020, 3:20 pm
by Barry Hofstetter
Bernd Strauss wrote: ↑December 6th, 2020, 1:38 pm
2 Timothy 3:5: “ἔχοντες μόρφωσιν εὐσεβείας τὴν δὲ δύναμιν αὐτῆς ἠρνημένοι· καὶ τούτους
ἀποτρέπου.”
Is the imperative verb ἀποτρέπου in the present
continuous form of the mediopassive voice (“be turning yourself away from” rather than “turn away from”)?
Does the form of the verb emphasize “turning away” continuously/ always rather than just once?
Did you notice the forum rules above, particularly "This is not a beginner's forum, competence in Greek is assumed?" You need to start with a systematic study of the language and then you can begin to resolve these questions on your own. Other than that, yes, it's a present middle imperative. In general the difference between the present aspect and the aorist is the difference between viewing the action as a process vs. viewing the action as a whole, and precisely what this might mean is largely a function of context. In this context, it's clearly a general prohibition, something Timothy should always do.
Re: Form of the Verb ἀποτρέπου at 2 Ti 3:5
Posted: December 7th, 2020, 5:06 am
by Bernd Strauss
Did you notice the forum rules above, particularly "This is not a beginner's forum, competence in Greek is assumed?"
Yes. Perhaps I should have asked the question on another subforum.
yes, it's a present middle imperative. In general the difference between the present aspect and the aorist is the difference between viewing the action as a process vs. viewing the action as a whole, and precisely what this might mean is largely a function of context. In this context, it's clearly a general prohibition, something Timothy should always do.
Thank you. In Greek grammar textbooks, are such verbs properly called “present continuous imperative” verbs or simply “continuous imperative” verbs?
Re: Form of the Verb ἀποτρέπου at 2 Ti 3:5
Posted: December 7th, 2020, 5:17 am
by Jason Hare
Bernd Strauss wrote: ↑December 7th, 2020, 5:06 am
Thank you. In Greek grammar textbooks, are such verbs properly called “present continuous imperative” verbs or simply “continuous imperative” verbs?
The word "present" contains the idea of aspect, so "continuous" is not a category in Greek grammar. Outside of the indicative mood, there is a distinction in aspect between the present (which has the continuous sense) and the aorist (which is simply the action). Thus, there is no such distinction as "present continuous middle/passive." The present middle/passive (assuming you're talking about the indicative) can be translated as continuous or simple in English, since there is no distinction in Greek. In the imperative, it would have the continuous sense, but it isn't normally translated with a continuous (be + ing) in English.
Re: Form of the Verb ἀποτρέπου at 2 Ti 3:5
Posted: December 8th, 2020, 3:03 am
by Bernd Strauss
https://quizlet.com/160106387/c33-gramm ... ash-cards/ states:
“[Question:] Why does Mounce encourage adoption of the terminology "continuous imperative" (rather than present imperative) and "undefined imperative" (rather than aorist imperative)?
“[Answer:] Like infinitives, with imperatives there is no time differentiation; only aspect. (In participles, aspect is emphasized, but they still communicate time--relative to the main verb.)”
Should the verb ἀποτρέπου at 2Ti 3:5 be called “present imperative” or “continuous imperative”? Or a “present continuous imperative” verb?
Re: Form of the Verb ἀποτρέπου at 2 Ti 3:5
Posted: December 8th, 2020, 9:26 am
by Barry Hofstetter
Bernd Strauss wrote: ↑December 8th, 2020, 3:03 am
https://quizlet.com/160106387/c33-gramm ... ash-cards/ states:
“[Question:] Why does Mounce encourage adoption of the terminology "continuous imperative" (rather than present imperative) and "undefined imperative" (rather than aorist imperative)?
“[Answer:] Like infinitives, with imperatives there is no time differentiation; only aspect. (In participles, aspect is emphasized, but they still communicate time--relative to the main verb.)”
Should the verb ἀποτρέπου at 2Ti 3:5 be called “present imperative” or “continuous imperative”? Or a “present continuous imperative” verb?
Normally the "present" in "present imperative" means that it is formed from the present stem. Then we simply have to understand how the aspect works.
Re: Form of the Verb ἀποτρέπου at 2 Ti 3:5
Posted: December 8th, 2020, 10:07 am
by nathaniel j. erickson
“[Question:] Why does Mounce encourage adoption of the terminology "continuous imperative" (rather than present imperative) and "undefined imperative" (rather than aorist imperative)?
“[Answer:] Like infinitives, with imperatives there is no time differentiation; only aspect. (In participles, aspect is emphasized, but they still communicate time--relative to the main verb.)”
A couple years ago I got to have a lunch meeting with Dr. Mounce at my school and one of the things we talked about was the direction he was taking in the development of his grammar. He was in the process of trying to implement more aspect-oriented language into his grammar, without going wholesale into it. This is probably his halfway house description. Rather than calling them "imperfective imperatives" vs "perfective imperatives", which would be an entirely aspectual naming system, he is sticking with something that is still tied to traditional grammatical terminology, making it easier for learners to use current reference grammars (which is the best argument I can think of for hanging onto the traditional names). He is using terminology that tries to highlight the aspectual difference between the imperative forms without fully jumping ship from the traditional terms. The term "continuous imperative," or "continuous present imperative" could very well be idiosyncratic to Mounce, but it serves a laudable purpose in moving one of the more widely used grammars forward in how he is presenting verbal aspect as central to the verbal system of Greek
So, keeping the term "present" in the mix identifies, as Barry said, that it is formed from the "present" stem, in traditional terms. At some point the learner is supposed to learn that "present" really doesn't mean "present time" (except in the indicative), but something more like "continuous aspect." throwing in "continuous" makes that clear. An aspect centered naming system would just call the "present" stem the imperfective stem, from which you then have imperfective imperatives, imperfective participles, imperfective infinitives, and so on. There is a certain elegance in such a naming system.
Re: Form of the Verb ἀποτρέπου at 2 Ti 3:5
Posted: December 9th, 2020, 5:22 am
by Bernd Strauss
Thank you for the explanations. I can conclude that I can call ἀποτρέπου a "continuous present imperative verb." (I was writing a study note on 2Ti 3:5 in an essay on 2 Timothy chapter 3 and therefore needed to ascertain exactly what term to use when referring to this verb.)
Re: Form of the Verb ἀποτρέπου at 2 Ti 3:5
Posted: December 9th, 2020, 11:03 am
by Jason Hare
Bernd Strauss wrote: ↑December 9th, 2020, 5:22 am
Thank you for the explanations. I can conclude that I can call ἀποτρέπου a "continuous present imperative verb." (I was writing a study note on 2Ti 3:5 in an essay on 2 Timothy chapter 3 and therefore needed to ascertain exactly what term to use when referring to this verb.)
There is no such thing as a non-continuous present imperative, so it doesn't make sense to add that label. It's a present middle/passive imperative. No further label is necessary, and it's not a great idea to just invent your own labels for things. You can say present middle/passive imperative, which has a continuous aspect.
Re: Form of the Verb ἀποτρέπου at 2 Ti 3:5
Posted: December 10th, 2020, 3:46 am
by Bernd Strauss
No further label is necessary, and it's not a great idea to just invent your own labels for things.
I thought that if a writer wants to emphasize to readers not familiar with the Greek language that a Greek word is in the present tense and implies a continuous action, he can use such a label. (I wanted to emphasize in my study note that Paul was speaking to Timothy in the present continuous tense to turn away from ungodly people. The present tense indicates that Timothy was already encountering ungodly people in the first century (when Paul wrote to him), which means that "the last days" mentioned at 2Ti 3:1 had already begun at that time. And the continuous form of the verb indicates that Timothy was encountering such people repeatedly, which likewise indicates that he was already living in the last days. I wanted to show in my essay on 2 Timothy chapter 3 that the last days began in the first century and have continued down to the present, as stated in many Bible commentaries.)
I have seen the labels “present continuous imperative” and “continuous present imperative” in the books:
Believing in Baptism: Understanding and Living God's Covenant Sign (
https://www.google.ru/books/edition/Bel ... frontcover).
Nothing is as it Seems: The Tragedy of the Implicit in Euripides' Hippolytus, page 57 (
https://www.google.ru/books/edition/Not ... frontcover).
God's Best for My Life: Daily Inspirations for a Deeper Walk with God, page 302 (
https://www.google.ru/books/edition/God ... frontcover).
The Spirituality of the Gospels, page 109 (
https://www.google.ru/books/edition/The ... frontcover).
Hidden Meaning in the New Testament :New Light from the Old Greek, page 161 (
https://www.google.ru/books/edition/Hid ... frontcover).
Adventist Review, Volume 180, Issues 1-26, page 11 (
https://www.google.ru/books/edition/Adv ... imperative").