[B-Greek] Circumstantial Participle
Randall Buth
randallbuth at gmail.com
Wed Mar 12 03:01:19 EDT 2008
willliams egrapse
>
A question came up about the circumstantial participle especially with relation
to Eph 4:8-9 and how it would be understood by Greek speaker of the 1st century.
The circumstantial participle functions as the verb of a subordinate clause,
and, for this reason, we can translate it as a finite verb whose clause is
introduced by the subordinating temporal conjunction "when."
> DIO LEGEI,
ANABAAS EIS hUPSOS hHXHMALWTEUSEN AICHALMWSIAN,
EDWKEN DOMATA TOIS ANQRWPOIS.
TO DE ANEBH TI ESTIN, EI MH hOTI KAI KATEBH EIS TA KATWTERA [MERH] THS GHS;
> Are we correct in assuming that the participle should be understood in this way?
Apparently, the apostle Paul so understood it, and verse 9 is the evidence that
he did so understand it. For, in verse 9, when referring back to this temporal
clause, Paul does so by the expression "τὸ … ἀνέβη," using the finite form
(aor. act. ind. 3p. s.) of the verb! Apparently, Paul understood "ἀναβάς" to
mean virtually the same as "ὅτε ἀνέβη." Since this also involves a quote
from the LXX of Psalm 68:18, what would the LXX experts also say about this?
I know some Greek scholars diagree about the circumstantial participle presence
at all, but what say you all and is there any other examples in the NT, LXX,
Church Fathers?
>
[RB]
I like the question
"how it would be understood by Greek speaker of the 1st century."
The first point to notice is that such a speaker would not describe the
Greek in English. Nor feel a need to "restructure" in another language.
They would certainly feel the 'demoted relationship' between the
METOXH and the ORISTIKH, and be aware that the author could have
chosen two ORISTIKAI verbs, but chose not to. English readers need
to remember that their desire to translate into English or to ennunciate
the relationship between the two verbs is specifying something that the
Greek speaker left unspecified.
You might also note that Paul puts the first event ANABAS into a
demoted METOXH role, while my text of the LXX at hand has made
the opposite choice and has indicative ANEBHS 'you went up' while
putting AIXMALWTEYSAS into the demoted role.
The Greek writers simply choose how they want to present these
two events with the same doer,
as two finite verbs?
as two finite verbs with a subordinate relation specified?
as one finite verb and one demoted
participle with the relation unspecified?
With the last structure the Greek speaker is marking one of the
events as the main point of reference, "home", the finite verb. And
Paul's text or memory may have been different from our old Greek
since he quotes a METOXH "ANABHSAS" but uses it as his point of
reference and then quotes it as a finite verb, (though TO ANABHNAI
would have worked as well, since an infinitive would have been
sufficient to serve as a reference to the event.)
There is also a subtle difference in scope that is caused by choosing
one structure or another. By having 'capture' as the main verb,
Paul's presentation of the 'capture' extends to including the 'going
up', while the old Greek of Psalms does not necessarily include
the 'going up' as part of the process of 'capture'.
Anyway, the above may sound confusing or difficult
because it is linguistics, it is talking about the language,
language turned in on itself (metalanguage)
and mostly in a foreign language (English),
though a description in Greek would be equally linguistic, and
potentially conplicated, by its 'being turned in on itself'.
Well, you asked about the Greek relationships. :-)
ERRWSO
IWANHS (my middle name, KAI EYFWNOTERON)
--
Randall Buth, PhD
www.biblicalulpan.org
Biblical Language Center
Learn Easier - Progress Further - Remember for Life
randallbuth at gmail.com
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list