[B-Greek] PAROUSIA

furuli at online.no furuli at online.no
Sat Apr 5 03:42:04 EST 2003


Dear K.Bratanov

The use of lexicons to answer questions about the meaning of Greek 
words is legitimate. But we should  keep in mind that in a lexicon we 
do not find the *meaning* of a word, but only glosses  representing 
the way a Greek word has been translated into English. The meaning of 
a word is not found in manuscripts or books but in the minds of 
living people, those who have the same presupposition pool (native 
speakers of Greek). Moreover, lexicons often base their glosses on 
theology rather than philology (See the fine criticism of TDNT by 
Barr, J. (1975) "Semantics of Biblical Language", Oxford: Oxford 
University Press.)
The basic question regarding PAROUSIA is whether the word signals a 
state (which by definition is durative), whether it signals a 
punctiliar event (the act of coming), or whether it signals the 
entrance into the state of being present. We may illustrate the case 
by taking a look at verbs. The characteristics "durativity" and 
"punctiliarity" are Aktionsart terms (not aspectual terms), and it is 
important to keep in mind that a verb marked for durativity, never 
ceases to be durative. Thus durativity is a semantic (uncancellable) 
characteristic.The characteristic "punctiliarity", on the other hand, 
is not semantic, that is, a verb whose default interpretation is 
punctiliar can in some contexts be interpreted as durative as well. 
This illustrates that the characteristic durativity is rather easy to 
pinpoint, but punctiliarity is more elusive.

In the NT PAROUSIA occurs 24 times. The word signalled a concept in 
the minds of native speakers of Greek, and the author of a text would 
use the context the help the reader see which side of the concept he 
wanted to make visible in each case. (The context does not generate 
lexical meaning, all such meaning is connected with the concept in 
the human minds, but the context helps make visible a part of this 
concept.) A native Greek would in most cases instantly ascertain the 
part of the concept that the author had made visible. We, who have a 
different presupposition pool (connected with English) can only find 
the side of the concept signalled by a word that the author has made 
visible, by a more tedious study of the context.

As to the NT use, the state of being present is made visible in 
Philippians 2:12 where PAROUSIA is used in contrast to APOUSIA. But 
what about "coming", which is a punctiliar action, can we see in any 
of the instances that this is what is made visible? I would say "no". 
Firstly, actions that are punctiliar (instantaneous) are, because of 
their nature (punctiliar words can also have a durative 
interpretation), very difficult to pinpoint. For instance, if I say 
"Please sit down", do I stress (make visible) the instantaneous 
action of lowering oneself from standing to sitting position, or do I 
stress (make visible) the result of being seated? Secondly, the gloss 
"coming" as an entry for PAROUSIA in the NT is based on theology and 
not on philology. In no place in the NT do the context forbid the 
stative sense of PAROUSIA "to have come and being present". And in no 
place do the context demand the punctiliar sense "coming". As to the 
PAROUSIA of Jesus, the context even suggests the stative and durative 
meaning in Matthew 24:34 where the parallel is "the days of Noah" and 
not "the day of Noah". it is claimed that PAROUSIA is used as "a 
technical term for the coming of Christ". The word "technical" should 
cause alarm bells to ring in our mind; this is theology and not 
philology! When the term "technical" is used, we should always ask 
"Where is the evidence?", and even be more critical than in other 
instances.

In the Classical Greek examples that are cited in the lexicons as 
evidence of the instantaneous sense "coming" I find exactly the same 
problem as in connection with the NT use.  Turner, N (1981) 
"Christian Words" Nashville:Thomas Nelson Publishers discusses 
PAROUSIA (pp 404-409). He cites Sophocles' "Elecvtra" 1104 which he 
translates: "Would you announce our arrival?" But how can we know 
that it is the action of "coming" and not the state of "being 
present" that is made visible? Why could we not translate: "Would you 
announce our presence?"  I do not say that PAROUSIA  cannot be given 
a punctiliar interpretation. But I have never seen a clear-cut 
example of this sense, so I will be happy if someone on the list 
could give a Classical example where the context *demands* the 
instantaneous sense "coming".



Best regards

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo



>Hello!
>
>Would you help me with the translation of the word PAROUSIA ?
>Does it denote "arriving, appearing" or just "presence (without
>coming)" ?
>
>Some people point out that PAROUSIA literally means "to be present"
>and thus applying this meaning to the "coming of the Lord Jesus" they
>deny that there is such coming.
>As I have read the context of many passages I think that it means
>"coming" or "being present by the result of appearing,coming" , that
>is, "coming" would be more accurate translation.
>So does PAROUSIA mean "coming" or just "presence"?
>
>Thank you
>
>__________________________________________________



More information about the B-Greek mailing list