Jesse Goulet wrote:I'm a bit confused, I think, about the relative time of the perfect participle. Mounce only says its time is the same as its indicative use (completed action with effects still ongoing), but this says nothing about its relative time. Dana-Mantey and Wallace say it denotes action prior to the time of its verb that it modifies, just as the aorist does, but this doesn't address the completed action, ongoing effects element of them.
So if I put these elements together, does the perfect participle indicate action that was completed before the time of its verb, with its effect still ongoing at the time of the verb?
If you are referring to a participle used adverbially, my simple answer is yes, the event is past with respect to the main verb and results in a present state with respect to the main verb. And I think we don't really have a way to convey the difference between the aorist and perfect adverbial participles in English. The nearest to either seems to be the same "having done something, ..." The only examples of the active perfect adverbial participle in the new testament are Luke 1:3, John 4:6,45, 6:19, 7:15, 12:37, 13:2, 18:18, Acts 16:24,34, 25:7, Eph 4:19, 1 Pet 1:22, 2 Pet 2:6, according to my search, but usually the aorist participle and not the perfect participle is used. The passive perfect participles are more common, such as in Matt 27:17, Luke 6:40, 11:21, 16:20, 18:14. Were you referring to any particular instance?