[B-Greek] Matt 28:5/Mk 16:6 and Perf Pass Ptc

Iver Larsen ialarsen at multitechweb.com
Mon Mar 28 23:34:24 EST 2005


> Matt. 28:5 - OIDA GAR hOTI IHSOUN TON ESTAURWMENON ZHTEITE
> Mark 16:6 - IHSOUN ZHTEITE TON NAZARHNON TON ESTAURWMENON
>
> Why is the perfect passive participle used here, rather than the
> aorist participle (i.e.,
> STAURWQENTA) ? The only other instances of ESTAURWMENON in the NT
> are I Cor. 1:23,
> 2:2, and Gal. 3:1, for which Paul's used the perfect, likely for
> theologically and kerygmatically
> significant reasons, IMO.

Hi, Eric.
I think we need to separate the two questions. What is the meaning
difference between an aorist and perfect passive participle of this verb, if
any, and what is the best way to translate it into English?

It seems to me that the perfect participle is generally descriptive or
stative, whereas the aorist participle has focus on the action that was done
to the subject. Quite often the perfect participle functions like an
adjective, which is also a descriptive function.

Although there is no aorist passive participle of this verb in the NT, there
is an aorist of a related word in

Matt 27:44 TO D' AUTO KAI hOI LHiSTAI hOI SUSTAURWQENTES SUN AUTWi WNEIDIZON
AUTON

The focus here seems to be on the actual event of having been crucified
together with Jesus. They were still there, hanging on the cross.
On the other hand, Mark 15:32 has apparently changed Matthew's aorist to the
more normal perfect.
In Rom 6:6 the indicative aorist seems to focus on the event of having been
crucified, whereas Gal 2:19 has focus on the state of being crucified.

I found it interesting to compare the aorist and perfect participles of a
verb like BALLW, where the aorist examples may well focus on the action of
throwing (Mt 5:13, 13:47, Luk 23:19) whereas the perfect seems to focus on
the state/position of the object, either bedridden or being imprisoned (Mt
8:14, 9:2, Mrk 7:30, Luk 23:25). John 3:24 uses perfect where I would have
expected an aorist, but this may be such a fine nuance that John is not
consistent in his usage.

I won't comment on how best to translate into English. In Danish, it is
quite possible to say "the crucified" and we did that in Mark 16:6. In Matt
28:5 we said "Jesus who was crucified". The reason is stylistic. In Mark we
read "Jesus of Nazareth" and in that context it sounds better to add "the
crucified" in Danish. However, it would still have been possible to say
"Jesus, the crucified" in Matthew. It would not be natural to say "Jesus,
who has been crucified".

Iver Larsen




More information about the B-Greek mailing list