[B-Greek] Relative time of participles
Bert de Haan
b_dehaan at sympatico.ca
Sun Feb 11 20:53:45 EST 2007
>Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 21:33:17 +0000
>From: "Bert de Haan" <b_dehaan at sympatico.ca>
>Subject: [B-Greek] Relative time of participles
>To: b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
>Message-ID: <BAY15-F18433DCF3F74CBF2365A9A8B930 at phx.gbl>
>Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
>
>In his book "An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek" C.F.D. Moule writes
>concerning the time relationship between a participle and the main verb:
>[quote] "When 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 'schoolboy' 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."[/quote]
>A bit later he writes that this 'schoolboy' 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, wouldn't 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
>
Some one suggested to me off-list (thank you) to make the question more
specific by including some examples. I don't mind doing that but the
examples are not my point. My point was that he can only find one clear
exception and one that is debatable.
Acts 25:13, KATHNTHSAN EIS KAISARIAN ASPASAMENOI TON FHSTON. He says that
assuming that the aorist participle is the correct reading this would be an
exception.
Acts 12 :25, BARNABAS KAI SAULOS hUPESTREYAN EX IEROUSALHM PLHRWSANTES THN
DIAKONIAN, He wrote; If EIS and not EX were demonstrably the right reading
this verse would be and exception.
I am not out to prove Moule wrong or right, I just would like to get a
better understanding of the participles.
Bert de Haan
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list