Featured 1 Cor. 1:18-"are saved" or "are being saved"?

can I ask how to arrive at this? Surely the present participle here denotes "progress", and can only be viewed as in the imperfect?

 

Well, since as I recall you reject modern Greek scholarship , I know I won't convince you, but.... Daniel Wallace (The Basics of New Testament Syntax, pp. 220-221) has the verbal aspect of the present tense being the "Instantaneous (Aoristic or Punctiliar Present)" and the "Progressive Present (Descriptive Present)." David Alan Black (It's Still Greek to Me, p. 107) has the "continuous present" and the present as "aoristic aspect."

But hey, older sources are also available on this. A. T. Robertson, in his massive 1934 tome, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (p. 864) discusses the "Punctiliar (Aoristic) Present." He writes on that page, "The present is formed on punctiliar as well as linear roots. It is not wise therefore to define the pres. ind. as denoting 'action in progress.'"

 

So Dan Wallace indicates our two words in our two verses are "Punctilar (Aoristic) Present (not a process)?

 

Here is A T Robertson on this passage in 1 Corinthians - Word Pictures

To them that are perishing (τοις μεν απολλυμενοις). Dative of disadvantage (personal interest). Present middle participle is here timeless, those in the path to destruction (not annihilation. See 2Th 2:10). Cf. 2Co 4:3.

But unto us which are being saved (τοις σωζομενοις ημιν). Sharp contrast to those that are perishing and same construction with the articular participle. No reason for the change of pronouns in English. This present passive participle is again timeless. Salvation is described by Paul as a thing done in the past, "we were saved" (Ro 8:24), as a present state, "ye have been saved" (Ep 2:5), as a process, "ye are being saved" (1Co 15:2), as a future result, "thou shalt be saved" (Ro 10:9).

Marvin Vincent - Word Studies

To them that perish (τοῖς ἀπολλυμένοις)
Lit., that are perishing. So Rev. The present participle denotes process: they who are on the way to destruction. Compare 2Co 2:15.

Which are saved (τοῖς σωζομένοις)
Rev., being saved: in process of salvation.

 

again DW is wrong!

 

Jibes with:
16 Take heed to thyself, and to thy teaching. Continue in these things; for in doing this thou shalt save both thyself and them that hear thee. 1 Tim 4

...with side notes 'are perishing/are being saved'.

 

the process, as in the imperfect of the present

 

No, Wallace does not address this specific issue in this verse either in his intermediate grammar which I quoted, or his advanced grammar, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (though he does mention other points about the verse). My point was that Wallace indicates there are two possible verbal aspects for the present tense, imperfective (continuous, progressive) and aoristic (punctiliar, looking at the action as a whole). Therefore, 1 Cor. 1:18 could be either one.

P. S. None of the other grammars I have address this specific issue in 1 Cor. 1:18, either.

 

Thanks. The one I looked at online did not have any marginal notes.

What that tells me is that the 1901 ASV revisers believed it could go either way, as far as translation is concerned, and that the majority must have preferred "that perish/are saved" over "are perishing/are being saved."

 

What about A. T. Robertson and David Alan Black? Are they wrong too, but only you are right?

More sources:

"In the present tense there is in Greek no distinction between I loose, which simply represents the action as taking place in present time, and I am loosing, which calls attention to the continuance of the action" (J. Gresham Machen, New Testament Greek for Beginners, 21-22).

."Durative" present and "conative" or "aoristic," or "punctiiar" action (Blass & Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, trans. by Funk, 166-167).

 

I am only talking about the present passage in 1 Corinthians 1:18, where there is no doubt that it is "progressive". I have quoted both ATR and MV, who agree with this!. Even Machen as you quote says "continuance of the action", which is "progressive", and answers to the "imperfect"

 

So one should not be using this for either KJVO or for showing anti KJVO, as both ways can be supported?

 

And I haven't come down on either side in the 1 Cor. 1:18 discussion. My only point has been that concerning the OP, either the KJV or the NKJV renderings are possible. So there is no need to try to convince me of your specific position. The Greek grammars teach that there are two possible verbal aspects for the present tense. That's all I'm saying. The decision must be made according to context.

Specifically on the present participle, Wallace's advanced grammar says, "The aspect of the present participle can be diminished if the particular context requires it. Thus, for example, ὁ βαπτίζων in Mark 1:4 does not mean 'the one who continually baptizes' but simply 'the baptizer.' Indeed, it cannot mean this in Mark 6:14, for otherwise John would be baptizing without a head" (p. 620).

P. S. Machen did not specifically comment on 1 Cor. 1:18, so your comment on him is not germane, though I recognize your previous quotes from Robertson and Vincent to be a contribution.

 

Yep.

 

I understand what you are saying, but the OP is on 1 Cor. 1:18.

 

Which again supports that either view can be valid on this!

 

The greater majority of the English Versions agree with the NKJV! Which is right here

1 Corinthians 1:18 Parallel: For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

 

Well yeah. And I said that, based on verbal aspect, either of the two renderings in the OP were possible. That's my whole point. I see no need to come down on either side of the issue.

 

Thanks, so it would be accurate to say Dr. Wallace "allows" the "punctiliar (aoristic) present, which is the view I hold.

 

Yes, certainly.