Stanley Porter and Periphrastic Participles

Eric Weiss (eweiss@gte.net)
Sat, 22 Mar 1997 21:34:18 -0600

Stanley Porter's "rule" for periphrastic participles confuses me. In his
IDIOMSOFTHEGREEKNEWTESTAMENT he states (pp. 45ff.):

"In determining whether a given instance of EIMI and a participle is
periphrastic, it is useful to keep in mind that no elements may
intervene between the auxiliary verb [EIMI] and the participle except
for those which complete or directly modify the participle (not the verb
EIMI). Hence 2 Cor. 2.17 (OU ... ESMEN hWS hOI POLLOI
KAPHLEUONTESTONLOGONTOUQEOU [we are not like many, peddling the word
of God; NOT: we are not peddling the word of God, as do many]) and Lk.
1.21 (HNhO LAOS PROSDOKWNTONZACARIAN [the people were there,
expecting Zacharias]) are not periphrastic constructions, since in each
case the grammatical subject is placed between the auxiliary verb and
the participle."

Zerwick (GRAMMATICALANALYSIS) and Perschbacher (REFRESHYOURGREEK)
consider the Lk. 1.21 participle periphrastic, as does Friberg's
Analytical GNT (which also considers the 2 Cor. 2.17 participle
periphrastic). I also find Porter's "rule" failing at Luke 2:33 (KAI HN
hO PATHR AUTOU KAI hH MHTHR QAUMAZONTES EPI TOIS LALOUMENOIS PERI
AUTOU), for it seems to me that HN...QAUMAZONTES must be periphrastic
(even though it seems to follow the same pattern as Luke 1.21) - unless
I misunderstand what Porter is saying. Not surprisingly, Zerwick and
Perschbacher and Friberg consider Luke 2.33 periphrastic.

Any help?

--
"Eric S. and Karol-Ann Weiss"
http://home1.gte.net/eweiss/index.htm