πέμψαντός in J. 6.38?
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.
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.
-
- Posts: 91
- Joined: January 18th, 2013, 9:55 pm
πέμψαντός in J. 6.38?
Not sure where to place this, but, just have a question about this verse if allowed.
ὅτι καταβέβηκα ἀπὸ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ οὐχ ἵνα ⸁ποιῶ τὸ θέλημα τὸ ἐμὸν ἀλλὰ τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πέμψαντός με (NA28).
After hearing an assertion made about the aorist participle in this passage, I have spent a couple of hours tonight working through this Greek text. My question is regarding the time of the action of the aorist participle πέμψαντός in relation to the perfect indicative (main) verb καταβέβηκα.
Wondering if it's accurate to say that the action of the participle πέμψαντός is antecedent in action to that of καταβέβηκα ? It was my understanding that "time" was only relative in the indicative mood - which, obviously πέμψαντός does not have. Unless, the participle is deriving it's "time" from that of καταβέβηκα which is indicative (?).
I have always heard that participles & infinitives are tricky little fella's - and now I am learning why ! Thank you much in advance. Have learned a lot from this forum.
ὅτι καταβέβηκα ἀπὸ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ οὐχ ἵνα ⸁ποιῶ τὸ θέλημα τὸ ἐμὸν ἀλλὰ τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πέμψαντός με (NA28).
After hearing an assertion made about the aorist participle in this passage, I have spent a couple of hours tonight working through this Greek text. My question is regarding the time of the action of the aorist participle πέμψαντός in relation to the perfect indicative (main) verb καταβέβηκα.
Wondering if it's accurate to say that the action of the participle πέμψαντός is antecedent in action to that of καταβέβηκα ? It was my understanding that "time" was only relative in the indicative mood - which, obviously πέμψαντός does not have. Unless, the participle is deriving it's "time" from that of καταβέβηκα which is indicative (?).
I have always heard that participles & infinitives are tricky little fella's - and now I am learning why ! Thank you much in advance. Have learned a lot from this forum.
-
- Posts: 4172
- Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
- Location: Durham, NC
- Contact:
Re: πέμψαντός in J. 6.38?
Good question!R. Perkins wrote: ↑January 9th, 2018, 5:40 am Not sure where to place this, but, just have a question about this verse if allowed.
The time of action of ποιῶ should be understood in relation to the main verb καταβέβηκα. You could expand the phrase ἀλλὰ τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πέμψαντός με to say ἀλλὰ ἵνα ποιῶ τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πέμψαντός με, it's the implied ποιῶ that should be understood in relation to καταβέβηκα.R. Perkins wrote: ↑January 9th, 2018, 5:40 am ὅτι καταβέβηκα ἀπὸ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ οὐχ ἵνα ⸁ποιῶ τὸ θέλημα τὸ ἐμὸν ἀλλὰ τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πέμψαντός με (NA28).
After hearing an assertion made about the aorist participle in this passage, I have spent a couple of hours tonight working through this Greek text. My question is regarding the time of the action of the aorist participle πέμψαντός in relation to the perfect indicative (main) verb καταβέβηκα.
So ... what about the participle πέμψαντός? It's part of a nominal construction τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πέμψαντός με, and does not have a direct relationship to καταβέβηκα. So we know that Jesus καταβέβηκα and we know that he considers the Father to be the one who sent him, but I don't think the sentence tells us the relative time between καταβέβηκα and πέμψαντός. I do think there is an implied time relation between ποιῶ and τοῦ πέμψαντός με.
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/
Re: πέμψαντός in J. 6.38?
It's important to remember that in substantive uses of the participle, the idea of time or even aspect is rather in the background. The emphasis is on describing the referent in terms of the action of the verb, "the one having sent" or "the one who sent." If you think about it, though, logically, the action the sending is antecedent to the action of coming down, but that's not the focus of the grammar.
-
- Posts: 4172
- Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
- Location: Durham, NC
- Contact:
Re: πέμψαντός in J. 6.38?
Yes - but I suspect there's still a difference between τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πέμψαντός με (the will of the one who sent me) and τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πέμποντός με (the will of the one who sends me).Barry Hofstetter wrote: ↑January 9th, 2018, 2:03 pm It's important to remember that in substantive uses of the participle, the idea of time or even aspect is rather in the background.
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/
Re: πέμψαντός in J. 6.38?
Of course. I said in the background, not invisible!Jonathan Robie wrote: ↑January 9th, 2018, 2:55 pmYes - but I suspect there's still a difference between τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πέμψαντός με (the will of the one who sent me) and τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πέμποντός με (the will of the one who sends me).Barry Hofstetter wrote: ↑January 9th, 2018, 2:03 pm It's important to remember that in substantive uses of the participle, the idea of time or even aspect is rather in the background.
-
- Posts: 91
- Joined: January 18th, 2013, 9:55 pm
Re: πέμψαντός in J. 6.38?
If I'm trekking along w. you then you're saying that πέμψαντός is explicating ποιῶ - not καταβέβηκα - in this passage (?).Jonathan Robie wrote: ↑January 9th, 2018, 10:16 amGood question!R. Perkins wrote: ↑January 9th, 2018, 5:40 am Not sure where to place this, but, just have a question about this verse if allowed.
The time of action of ποιῶ should be understood in relation to the main verb καταβέβηκα. You could expand the phrase ἀλλὰ τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πέμψαντός με to say ἀλλὰ ἵνα ποιῶ τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πέμψαντός με, it's the implied ποιῶ that should be understood in relation to καταβέβηκα.R. Perkins wrote: ↑January 9th, 2018, 5:40 am ὅτι καταβέβηκα ἀπὸ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ οὐχ ἵνα ⸁ποιῶ τὸ θέλημα τὸ ἐμὸν ἀλλὰ τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πέμψαντός με (NA28).
After hearing an assertion made about the aorist participle in this passage, I have spent a couple of hours tonight working through this Greek text. My question is regarding the time of the action of the aorist participle πέμψαντός in relation to the perfect indicative (main) verb καταβέβηκα.
So ... what about the participle πέμψαντός? It's part of a nominal construction τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πέμψαντός με, and does not have a direct relationship to καταβέβηκα. So we know that Jesus καταβέβηκα and we know that he considers the Father to be the one who sent him, but I don't think the sentence tells us the relative time between καταβέβηκα and πέμψαντός. I do think there is an implied time relation between ποιῶ and τοῦ πέμψαντός με.
If my understanding is correct, doesn't the participle derive it's time (in the indic. mood) or aktionsart from that of the main verb (which in this v. is καταβέβηκα)? I realize there's much debate on the nature of participles.
My apologies if I'm a bit slow in grasping this (not meaning to drag it out ).
-
- Posts: 91
- Joined: January 18th, 2013, 9:55 pm
Re: πέμψαντός in J. 6.38?
Interesting point about the substantival use of the participle. I tend to categorize participles in the sense of the participle of means (i.e., instrumental usage) - a beginners mistake no doubt . But, I am wondering if the instrumental force would mostly be applicable when coupled w. present, actives?Barry Hofstetter wrote: ↑January 9th, 2018, 2:03 pm It's important to remember that in substantive uses of the participle, the idea of time or even aspect is rather in the background. The emphasis is on describing the referent in terms of the action of the verb, "the one having sent" or "the who sent." If you think about it, though, logically, the action the sending is antecedent to the action of coming down, but that's not the focus of the grammar.
Re: πέμψαντός in J. 6.38?
Substantive participles are inherently adjectival, describing their referents in terms of the action of the verb. Yes, that would be a mistake -- any participle in the predicative may be used as an instrumental, whether present or aorist. There are of course other adverbial uses of the participle besides instrumental.R. Perkins wrote: ↑January 10th, 2018, 2:02 am
Interesting point about the substantival use of the participle. I tend to categorize participles in the sense of the participle of means (i.e., instrumental usage) - a beginners mistake no doubt . But, I am wondering if the instrumental force would mostly be applicable when coupled w. present, actives?
-
- Posts: 4172
- Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
- Location: Durham, NC
- Contact:
Re: πέμψαντός in J. 6.38?
Yes.R. Perkins wrote: ↑January 10th, 2018, 1:55 am If I'm trekking along w. you then you're saying that πέμψαντός is explicating ποιῶ - not καταβέβηκα - in this passage (?).
Barry explained this well - this is a substantival participle, functioning as a noun, and that's really all it does. It isn't acting like a verb that derives its time from that of the main verb. I wouldn't really describe it as adjectival, as he did, there are also adjectival participles that modify nominals such as nouns.R. Perkins wrote: ↑January 10th, 2018, 1:55 amIf my understanding is correct, doesn't the participle derive it's time (in the indic. mood) or aktionsart from that of the main verb (which in this v. is καταβέβηκα)? I realize there's much debate on the nature of participles.
Paul-Nitz gave a very helpful summary of the different kinds of participles here:
viewtopic.php?f=40&t=3955&p=26925#p26925
If a participle is functioning as a noun or an adjective, it doesn't have the same relationship to the main verb that a participle functioning as a verb would (e.g. circumstantial or supplementary participles).
This is B-Greek - and the beginner's forum. These threads aren't instant, and you aren't being slow to grasp this. You're doing fine, and there's nothing to apologize for.R. Perkins wrote: ↑January 10th, 2018, 1:55 amMy apologies if I'm a bit slow in grasping this (not meaning to drag it out ).
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/
-
- Posts: 91
- Joined: January 18th, 2013, 9:55 pm
Re: πέμψαντός in J. 6.38?
Tremendous information in these responses Gents. Trying to work through it all in my mind. The question that keeps rolling through my mind is:Jonathan Robie wrote: ↑January 10th, 2018, 8:51 amYes.R. Perkins wrote: ↑January 10th, 2018, 1:55 am If I'm trekking along w. you then you're saying that πέμψαντός is explicating ποιῶ - not καταβέβηκα - in this passage (?).
Barry explained this well - this is a substantival participle, functioning as a noun, and that's really all it does. It isn't acting like a verb that derives its time from that of the main verb. I wouldn't really describe it as adjectival, as he did, there are also adjectival participles that modify nominals such as nouns.R. Perkins wrote: ↑January 10th, 2018, 1:55 amIf my understanding is correct, doesn't the participle derive it's time (in the indic. mood) or aktionsart from that of the main verb (which in this v. is καταβέβηκα)? I realize there's much debate on the nature of participles.
Paul-Nitz gave a very helpful summary of the different kinds of participles here:
viewtopic.php?f=40&t=3955&p=26925#p26925
If a participle is functioning as a noun or an adjective, it doesn't have the same relationship to the main verb that a participle functioning as a verb would (e.g. circumstantial or supplementary participles).
This is B-Greek - and the beginner's forum. These threads aren't instant, and you aren't being slow to grasp this. You're doing fine, and there's nothing to apologize for.R. Perkins wrote: ↑January 10th, 2018, 1:55 amMy apologies if I'm a bit slow in grasping this (not meaning to drag it out ).
On what textual basis are y'all asserting that the aorist participle πέμψαντός is modifying ποιῶ and not καταβέβηκα? That is, when I come to a specific text how would I tell if the participle is functioning substantivally or verbally?
And, specifically in this text, I am just attempting to ascertain the linguistic reasoning behind y'all's assertions (not in any place to really deny it !).