Re: More on Participles . . .

Ward Powers (bwpowers@eagles.bbs.net.au)
Thu, 06 Nov 1997 15:06:11 +1100

At 09:02 97/11/01 -0500, Rod Decker wrote:

>Ward,
>
>Thanks for taking time to work through the data. Let me respond to the
>major objections you pose.
>
>>From: Ward Powers <bwpowers@eagles.bbs.net.au>
>...
>>I would invite a closer look at the 8 instances where aorist adverbial
>>participles are classified as refering to simultaneous time with the main
>>verb.
>>...
>>thought is, "he responded by saying [something]". This is an idiom with a
>>particular verb, and this idiom may be independent of general "rules" or
>>practices in Greek. The same thing will apply to occasions where the...
>
>I'm not convinced that we can set such examples aside just because it is an
>"idiom." I'll comment again on that at the end.
>
>I do like your suggestion that we understand APOKRINOMAI as "respond,"
>though I don't see that possibility listed in BAGD or in (my old ed. of)
>L&S. Are there any instances in the NT where it is not used with a verb of
>speaking? (I didn't look at every occurrence, but I don't see any listed in
>BAGD that suggest this.)
>

Rod, in reply:

APOKRINOMAI occurs 231 times in the GNT, on 94 of these occasions in the
form APOKRIQEIS, plus once each for the feminine APOKRIQEISA and the neuter
APOKRIQEN, and seven times in the plural APOKRIQENTES, a total of 103
occurrences as a participle. This is the most frequent form in which
APOKRINOMAI is used in the GNT. It occurs as a participle only in the
Synoptic Gospels and Acts (which in the nature of the case is what we would
expect - except that we would probably have looked for it in John also).

On all of these 103 occurrences the participle is followed by a form of
LEGW or its suppletives. That is to say, the answering takes the form of
saying something. This has led some translations to provide no translation
for APOKRIQEIS on many occasions, and some commentators to conclude that
the APOKRIQEIS is just part of a formula, and therefore redundant, and
indeed meaningless - the context would mean the same (they say) if it were
omitted. I can accept that it is part of a formula, and perhaps even
redundant - but not that it is meaningless.

What APOKRIQEIS is doing (whether or not it is redundant to do so or not in
a given context) is to establish a close link between what follows and what
has gone before: it shows that what is now said is a definite response to
what has preceded.

And what has preceded MAY be something someone else has said - but also, it
may NOT be. That is to say, what is now said may be the speaker's response
to a situation rather than to something that has been SAID.

For example, in Matthew 11:25 Jesus has been upbraiding the unrepentant
cities, and then the narrative continues, "At that time Jesus APOKRIQEIS
said, 'I thank you, Father ...'" But neither the Father nor anyone else had
been speaking to him.

Again, in Matthew 17:4, on the Mount of Transfiguration, when Jesus is
joined by Moses and Elijah, Peter is present but nobody is speaking to him.
But he APOKRIQEIS - he says something by way of response to the whole
situation.

And see Mark 10:24. The disciples were amazed at what Jesus had said; then
Mark continues, "But again Jesus APOKRIQEIS says to them ..." That is,
Jesus responds to their amazement, not to anything actually said to him.

In Luke 5:22 Jesus responds to the unspoken thoughts in the hearts of the
scribes and Pharisees. Similarly, Matthew 22:1; Luke 17:17.

So I conclude that APOKRIQEIS indicates that what is now said is by way of
response to what has gone before, which may be a response to something that
was said, or may be a rseponse to a perceived situation.

In this "pattern" consisting of APOKRIQEIS plus a verb of speaking, what is
now "said" is the form that the APOKRIQEIS took: "In answering, he said
...", or, "By way of response, he said ..." This is similar in nature to
the instance in Mark 15:30, SWSON SEAUTON KATABAS, where the meaning is,
"Save yourself by coming down (from the cross)". That is, to do one action
accomplishes another. I adhere to the point I made in my previous post,
that this kind of situation is not what is normally understood by saying
that the action of a participle is simultaneous with the main verb, which
would mean that as one action is in the process of taking place, the second
(independent action) occurs. For example, Mt 4:18, "As he was walking
beside the Sea of Galilee, he saw ...": "walking" is a present participle.
I still would like to see an unambiguous example from the GNT of two
independent actions occurring where the first is represented by an aorist
participle and is in the process of taking place when the second occurs.

The other instances we have been looking at are not unambiguous in this
regard. For example, I said previously:

>>Mk 6:41, KAI LABWN (the five loaves and the two fishes) ANABLEYAS (into the
>>heaven) EULOGHSEN ... I myself would regard this as two aorist participles
>>indicating the sequence of events leading up to the main verb: first he
>>took (or received) the loaves and fishes, then he looked up into heaven,
>>and then, thirdly, he gave thanks...

Rod, you replied:

>Perhaps; certainly the taking is antecedent, but I would sooner think that
>we are to view Jesus as looking up to heaven *while* he is pronouncing the
>blessing rather than as a separate, prior action.

I would not question your understanding that Jesus was still looking up to
heaven while he pronounced the blessing. But the two aorist participles
followed by the main verb establish the sequence of events: FIRST he took
the bread; NEXT he looked up to heaven, and (irrespective of whether he
continued his looking up to heaven or not) THEN he pronounced the blessing.
The act of looking up to heaven preceded the pronouncing the blessing. Thus
it does not contravene the "rule" that an aorist participle refers to an
act prior to that of the main verb.

Regards,

Ward

Rev Dr B. Ward Powers Phone (International): 61-2-9799-7501
10 Grosvenor Crescent Phone (Australia): (02) 9799-7501
SUMMER HILL NSW 2130 email: bwpowers@eagles.bbs.net.au
AUSTRALIA.