I'm really reluctant to get involved here, since I leave for Africa on Monday and have much to do. So this may be my only post here. But I have to say that James White is wrong; the syntax says no such thing as he wishes it does. I just taught participles to my kids in Greek 102, and James misses the target in several basic respects.
1. Participles show aspect but not time. Therefore you cannot pin down a time that the participles in the verses in question took place. In other words, there is no evidence that that participial usage here depends on the perfect tense of the main verb either logically or consecutively.
2. The usage of the participle in all three places is substantival. That is, the participles are being used as nouns, since they are all preceded by Greek articles. Apparently White does not understand that nouns (or substantival participles or substantival adjectives) do not show time or logical sequence.
3. The idea being put forth is cause and effect, which is somewhat the perfective aspect. However, Greek does not normally show cause and effect with a perfect tense preceded by a substantival participle. In translating the NT into Japanese, I recall no case where it does.
Syntax of 1 John 5:1 as a proof for monergism
Discussion in 'Calvinism & Arminianism Debate' started by Greektim, Mar 18, 2016.
Page 2 of 5
-
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
-
-
The perfect tense or aspect is a verb form that indicates that an action or circumstance occurred earlier than the time under consideration, often focusing attention on the resulting state rather than on the occurrence itself. -
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
By the way, have a good trip to Africa. And may you be greatly used and richly blessed by God on your journeys. :) -
I just made up some tee shirts for this thread: :)
I came here debate, and all I got was a grammar lesson and this lousy tee shirt! -
-
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Let me put it a different way, folks. In 1 John 5:1 (and the similar forms in the other references White gives, "the one doing" and "the one loving"), the substantival participle "the believing one" is the subject of the sentence, being in the nominative case. Now the subject of a sentence is never caused by the verb, nor does the verb exist without or in a time sense, prior to or after its subject. If I say, "Joe was knocked out," is "knocked out" somehow the cause of Joe, or does the "knocked out' situation exist prior to Joe's existence? No, of course not. It's subject and verb working together contemporaneously.
In a more technical vein, Daniel Wallace lists the following usages of the Greek perfect in Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (pp. 574-582): intensive perfect, extensive perfect, aoristic perfect, perfect with a present force (Robertson's "present perfect"), gnomic perfect and proleptic perfect. Having just looked through these in Wallace, for the life of me, I can't figure out which one White thinks applies here to make his point valid. None of them are described by Wallace with the meaning White wants.
Just one more word here. Cause and effect in koine Greek is usually portrayed by a hina clause, a hoti clause, or dia with the accusative. None of these structures are in play in these verses.
I could say more, but I should work on my Africa preparation. Toodleoo. -
"The one laying on the ground was knocked out by Ali" does imply sequence of causation. Considering the verb is passive (so the subject of a sentence can be caused by the verb), the subject is clearly represented as the guy who is on the ground as a result of the action of the verb performed by Ali.
I think something that White leaves out of his argument, perhaps assumed, is that this primarily works because of the meaning of the verb in question "he/she/it has been born". The verb itself implies a beginning or order since it is about "having been born by God". It is a passive verb, God performing the action upon the subject. And since birth is the first stage of life, then what follows in the action described in the substantival participle is resultant. This must be true in all 3 verses where the same perfect passive verb and prepositional phrase "having been born by God" is used. Birth happens first resulting in doing, loving, and believing. -
-
Honestly, I'm just glad someone is finally engaging into the real argument here.
Thanks, John! You have my kindest regards as you prepare for Africa. I appreciate all you do in service of our Lord. -
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
I did try to find White's explanation on the film, but couldn't.
I probably won't be able to post anymore, but I'll look for your replies to my posts tomorrow, anyway. (I don't do Internet at home, so can't over the weekend.) -
-
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Sorry, Greektim, I mistook the thread.
Let's just look at the quote from David Alan Black I put on the other thread:
"The tense of the participial construction expresses relative time rather than absolute time: the present tense usually indicates that the action of the participle occurs concurrently with that of the head verb." (Linguistics for Students of New Testament Greek, p. 113). Therefore, in 1 John 5:1 the participle (believing ones) and the main verb (have been born) are happening at the same time, and the main verb did not cause the substantival participle. -
Some preceding points. This has not only to do with the perfect tense but also the passive voice. The passive voice can and frequently does indicate agency (see Black's It's Still Greek to Me, p. 94). In the case of 1 Jn 5:1, "by God" is the prepositional phrase acting as the agent of the passive verb.
Secondly, while Black does mention the aspectual force of Greek verbs, he still seems to favor tense in terms of time. Maybe a 50/50 for aspect and time. Your quote above expresses this quite well. I am more convinced by the aspectual functions of the tenses (or tense-forms as the late Dr. Decker referred to them). Though I'll admit, it is hard to explain this without using time. In the other thread, I explained a perfect tense more with time than aspect. But that is largely because revmwc wasn't going to understand aspect much less the time function.
Without the context of what Dr. Black is saying, it is hard to comment. However, my thoughts have taken me to consider (prior to your post, btw) the idea of the ongoing action of the present participle is what is concurrent with the ongoing result of the perfect passive verb. In other words, as a result of being born by God, the ongoing result of that birth (the main function of the perfect) is the ongoing faith (present participle) of the person born. -
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Note the Friberg definition for gennaw:
"genna,w—1. be or become the father of, beget lit. Mt 1:2ff, 20; J 8:41; 9:34; Ac 7:8, 29. Fig. J 1:13; 1 Cor 4:15; Phlm 10; 1 J 2:29.—2. of women: bear Lk 1:13, 35, 57; Ac 2:8; 22:28 .—3. fig. cause, produce 2 Ti 2:23." [pg 38]
In almost every usage in the NT it means simply to bear or be born. There is not causation other than to give life. In the example given of a figurative usage, "cause, produce," what is caused is in the accusative (2 Tim. 2:23): γεννῶσιν μάχας. (2Ti 2:23 BYZ), "they cause a quarrel." Since 1 John 5:1 has "the believers" in the nominative, by what stretch of the imagination does White say the regeneration (being born) causes the believing? Please give a NT example showing this usage. -
Page 2 of 5