[B-Greek] Relative time of participles
Bert de Haan
b_dehaan at sympatico.ca
Sat Feb 10 16:33:17 EST 2007
In his book âAn Idiom Book of New Testament Greekâ C.F.D. Moule writes
concerning the time relationship between a participle and the main verb:
[quote] âWhen the context positively demands a decision as to the
sequence of the actions referred to in the participle and the main verb
respectively, it often turns out that a Present Participle alludes to an
action with which the action of the main verb coincides (at least in part),
while an Aorist Participle refers to action previous to what is referred to
in the main verb. Consequently, the âschoolboyâ translation of an
Aorist Participle by <having done so-and-so>, though entirely false to the
essential meaning of an Aorist as such, turns out to be a fair approximation
to the to the sense in its context more often than it deserves
to.â[/quote]
A bit later he writes that this âschoolboyâ rule may even be safer for
N.T. Greek than for the Classical writers.
He lists a few exceptions (all the ones he knows of,) to this principle. (HE
called it principle.)
He writes all this after he explains the difference in aspect between the
different tenses so I assume that that is what he is referring to when he
writes; 'essential meaning of an Aorist as such.'
My question is; Why would he call it entirely false? If it works that
often, wouldnât there be more than coincidence at play here? It seems to
me that the authors may well have intentionally written a participle in a
particular tense to indicate relative time as well as aspect.
Any thoughts?
Bert de Haan
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list