EPISTEUSAN with HSAN TETAGMENOI
Carl W. Conrad
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sun May 14 10:37:30 EDT 2000
At 3:55 PM -0400 5/13/00, B.J. Williamson wrote:
>Bill:
>
>You wrote:
>
>* the pluperfect often implies repeated or on-going action that spanned
>some time, not some "point" in eternity past. Hence, this might imply that
>these saints had, prior to the current time, but **spanning a period of
>time** in the past, been devoting themselves to eternal life.
>
>Can you site NT examples of this usage of the pluperfect?
>
>Of course HSAN is imperfect and TETAGMENOI is perfect, which
>together "generally" depict a pluperfect aspect. Obviously, neither
>is in the pluperfect per se.
>
>If you do site examples, I would be most interested in seeing
>both. That is, a pluperfect verbal with pluperfect form, as well
>as "pluperfect" verbals as to function (not form, as Acts 13:48).
I guess that, as perfect indicative forms are rare enough in the GNT and
pluperfects rarer yet (86 instances, acc. to a 15-second AcCordance
search), perfect tense morphology is not at the surface of one's memory
banks for Koine Greek. If you but consult the paradigms in reference books,
you'll see that for the 3d plural perfect passive and pluperfect passive
there are ONLY periphrastic forms, i.e. pf.ptc. + EISI/HSAN, the reason
being that it's awkward to attach an -NTO 3d plural ending to a perfect MP
stem ending in a consonant; while a 1st sg. form ETETAGMHN might be
expected, all the forms of a pluperfect passive there are in the GNT are in
the 3d singular: Mt 7:25 TEQEMELIWTO; Lk 4:29 WiKODOMHTO; Lk 16:20
EBEBLHTO; Jn 11:44 PERIEDEDETO; Acts 17:23 EPEGEGRAPTO. If you go back to
Homer, you can find 3d plural pluperfects formed with a phonetic change of
N to A: -NTO --> -ATO; you might conceivably find a 3d plural
ETETACATO--but you WON'T find that in the GNT; you will ONLY find
periphrastic forms.
We had a very thorough discussion last summer of the question of this
particular passage and in particular of the form and meaning of TETAGMENOI
HSAN. Anyone interested in it will find it in the archives for June 30
through July 16, 1999 under four subject-headers: "Tense of TETAGMENOI in
Acts 13:48," "Hair-splitting (was Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48)," "Re:
Hair-splitting for the Bald," and "What to count (was: Hair-splitting...)."
I've already had my say on these questions, and for the present am simply
going to cite parts of a couple of my messages from last summer:
At 6:49 AM -0400 7/5/99, Carl W. Conrad wrote:
>As I tried to state in my first response to this question, there is ONLY
>the periphrastic form of the pluperfect to be found at the time of the
>writing of Acts 13:48 (I certainly haven't done a search of the TLG, but
>I'd wager that the Homeric equivalent 3d pl. inflected pluperfect,
>ETETACATO, is not to be found). So there's not really any point in
>attempting to differentiate meanings of the periphrastic and inflected
>pluperfects.
>
>More to the point, I think, is the question whether there's a semantic
>difference at the time of composition of Acts 13:48 between an aorist
>passive ETACQHSAN and this form before us, HSAN TETAGMENOI. There may be
>real difference of opinion on this; my own judgment is that ETACQHSAN is
>the one that ought properly to be translated as a pluperfect passive in
>English ("had been destined/ordained") while the periphrastic form ought
>more properly to be understood as a past stative with a time simultaneous
>to that of the main verb ("were--at that time--destined/ordained"). I think
>that the upshot is the same in any case, but I think there's this
>difference: the aorist would underscore the completion of the
>destining/ordaining (prior to the time of the main verb) while the
>periphrastic pluperfect would underscore the status quo of the believers at
>the time they believed. Some may well think that this is splitting hairs
>too much to no purpose, but it is worth noting, I think, that the aorist is
>generally used in narrative Greek where English uses a pluperfect to convey
>time of a verb relative to time of another verb, and that the perfect and
>pluperfect, where they are used at all, tend to indicate state or condition
>obtaining at a particular time. Frankly, I don't think this distinction has
>any bearing upon the theological questions posed by this verse, which
>cannot be discussed here.
>
>With regard to the other hair-splitting question, whether hOSOI HSAN
>TETAGMENOI is a relative clause or a substantive clause, I'd place myself
>firmly on the fence: I do think that there's an implicit partitive TWN
>EQNWN to be understood with the hOSOI and I think that one could argue that
>this is an instance of the antecedent assimilated to the relative, so that
>we might amplify the phrasing as EKEINOI EPISTEUSAN hOSOI TETAGMENOI HSAN.
>At several points in Koine texts, one gets the impression that hOSOS/-H/-ON
>is already the relative pronoun replacing hOS/hH/hO that it has become in
>Modern Greek.
and
At 7:57 PM -0400 7/5/99, Carl W. Conrad wrote:
>At 8:58 AM -0700 7/5/99, dixonps at juno.com wrote:
>>
>>The question some of us had raised was rather there is any basis for
>>taking such a construction as found in Acts 13:48 (periphrastic perfect
>>passive
>>participle attending an aorist main verb) as anything other than denoting
>>prior, completed action of the participle with reference to the action of
>>the main verb.
>>
>>If I read you properly, your words, "the periphrastic form ought more
>>properly to be understood as a past stative with a time simultaneous
>>to that of the main verb," suggest something to the contrary. There is
>>no
>>question that an aorist participle can denote time simultaneous to that
>>of the main verb, but I've never heard of a perfect participle doing the
>>same.
>>Can you supply an example of this?
>
>I think you have just about totally misunderstood me, Paul--at least you've
>misunderstood the primary point I was trying to make. Perhaps I ought not
>to have phrased it as "the periphrastic form" which might suggest that, had
>Luke written ETETACATO instead of TETAGMENOI HSAN, the meaning might be
>different. I should have said quite simply "the pluperfect passive ought
>properly to be understood as a past stative with a time simultaneous to
>that of the main verb."
>
>I am NOT saying something about the time of the PARTICIPLE, TETAGMENOI. I
>AM saying that the pluperfect and the imperfect both refer to time prior to
>the present, that the present perfect and the present indicative both refer
>to present time, the present indicative describing what is happening, the
>present perfect describing a condition or state currently obtaining.
>
>An English sentence analogous to the one under consideration is this:
>"Those who were dead did not respond to the morning bugle call." I think
>that "those who were dead" would be expressed in Greek commonly as hOSOI
>TEQNHKOTES HSAN, although perhaps we might see hOSOI ETEQNHKESAN. I think
>that hOSOI ETEQNHKESAN might theoretically be translated as "as many as had
>died" but better would be "as many as were dead"; the sense of the English
>pluperfect is more commonly expressed in Greek narrative prose with an
>aorist, and in this instance it would be: hOSOI APEQANON. The difference
>I'm arguing for is that the aorist is more like the English pluperfect
>because it emphasizes completion prior to a certain point in the past,
>while the Greek pluperfect emphasizes a state obtaining at some point in
>the past.
>
>To return to Acts 13:48 AKOUONTA DE TA EQNH ECAIRON KAI EDOXAZON TON LOGON
>TOU KURIOU KAI EPISTEUSAN hOSOI HSAN TETAGMENOI EIS ZWHN AIWNION. My own
>idiomatic version of this would be, "And as the Gentiles heard, they went
>on to rejoice and to glorify the word of the Lord and those who were
>destined for everlasting life came to believe." I'm translating HSAN
>TETAGMENOI as "were destined"; if it were ETACQHSAN, I'd be more inclined
>to translate it "had been destined." I think the aorist emphasizes the
>completion of the act, whereas I think the pluperfect emphasizes the status
>obtaining for those who believed.
and one other:
At 8:03 AM -0400 7/8/99, Carl W. Conrad wrote:
>(1) I do believe (but am not prepared at present to document) that the
>ratio of perfects/aorists is indeed considerably higher in classical
>narrative Greek than it is in Koine. Probably this is something that HAS
>been documented, but I can't put my hands on it now.
>
>(2) From Accordance, I find the following numbers for Perfect and
>Pluperfect tense forms in the GNT:
>
>Perfect tense forms in GNT: 1573
>Mt 113
>Mk 93
>Lk 171
>Jn 284
>Acts 164
>Pauline letters 329
>Deutero-Pauline 43
>Pastorals 53
>Heb 87
>Catholic letters 137
>Revelation 117
>
>Pluperfect tense forms in GNT: 86
>Mt 8 (hEISTHKEI 2, HiDEI 3, EIWQEI)
>Mk 8 (HiDEI 3, EIWQEI)
>Lk 16 (HiDEI 5, hEISTHKEI 3)
>Jn 34 HiDSEI 15, hEISTHKEI 7
>Acts 17 (HiDEI 5, hEISTHKEI 1)
>Pauline letters 1 (HiDEIN)
>Pastorals: 0
>Heb: 0
>Catholic letters 1
>Revelation 1 (hEISTHKEISAN)
>
>I think it is noteworthy that so many of these pluperfect forms are of
>perfect tenses normally used with present meaning: hESTHKA ("I am
>standing"), OIDA ("I know"), and EIWQA ("I am accustomed"). I definitely
>believe that when a pluperfect sense is required in narrative it is
>generally expressed in Koine with an aorist.
>
>(3) I am content with the description of functions of these tenses at:
>
>http://www.xensei.com/users/samato/greek/gtense.html#Perfect
>
>The Perfect Tense
>1. Intensive (Resultative) Perfect
>2. Extensive (Consummative) Perfect
>3. Perfect with a Present Force
>
>The Pluperfect Tense
> 1. Intensive (Resultative) Pluperfect
> 2. Extensive (Consummative) Pluperfect
>The perfect and pluperfect tenses are identical in aspect though different
>in time. Thus both speak of an event accomplished in the past (in the
>indicative mood) with results existing afterwards - the perfect speaking
>of existing results in the present, the pluperfect speaking of existing
>results in the past.
>
>There's a fuller description of each as well as examples at that site.
>
>For Classical Greek, see Smyth at the Perseus web site, ##1945-1954.
>
>When I say "I am content with that description," I mean that I accept that
>some GNT perfects and pluperfects are consummative, but I think that the
>resultative usage is far more common when the perfect or pluperfect appear
>in the GNT; I think this is particularly true of the very common GEGRAPTAI
>and of such Johannine verb-forms as Pilate's hO GEGRAFA GEGRAFA and Jesus'
>final word: TETELESTAI.
There was really a good deal more correspondence on these issues. I am not
trying to speak for others who participated in that two-week exchange last
summer; I have sought only to clarify my own understanding of the
morphological and syntactic issues at play in this verse. I think this is
consistent with the very brief account I offered on Friday night in my
initial response to this new go-round on this verse and these issues. I
claim no particular authority for this viewpoint; certainly there are
others opposed to mine that have already been aired to some extent.
Nevertheless, I thought it perhaps worth while to point to that lengthy
thread (strand?) from last summer, and to attempt to make clear my own
reasons for understanding the passage as I indicated this Friday past.
--
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
Summer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad at ioa.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek/attachments/20000514/ada2b51d/attachment.html
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list