[B-Greek] Gloss of Participles & Perfect Participles
Carl Conrad
cwconrad2 at mac.com
Wed Feb 18 06:26:45 EST 2009
On Feb 17, 2009, at 11:45 PM, Jason Kenney wrote:
> Hello all!
>
> I have two questions, both centering around Heb 10:14 and τους
> αγιαζομενους. These questions are not referring to the
> interpretation of the text in question, but the syntactical and
> grammatical possibilities. The questions are:
>
> 1. Wallace, for example, identifies several possible glosses for the
> present tense finite verb. It could refer a punctiliar action, could
> be gnomic, etc. The question is whether or not these same glosses
> are applicable to a present tense participle as well? Most
> commentators and grammars read like they can be, but no one I have
> read out and out says it...any help?
>
> 2. With respect to the temporal relationship between a present
> participle and a perfect finite verb (assuming the relationship is
> contemporaneous), which element of the perfect verb is
> contemporaneous to the participle? Is the present participle
> contemporaneous to the completed action, or to the resultant state?
> Or can it be contemporaneous to either, depending upon context?
>
> Thanks so much!
We need the whole text in question:
Heb. 10:14 μιᾷ γὰρ προσφορᾷ τετελείωκεν
εἰς τὸ διηνεκὲς τοὺς ἁγιαζομένους.
[MIAi GAR PROSFORAi TETELEIWKEN EIS TO DIHNEKES TOUS hAGIAZOMENOUS.]
For my part, I don't think there's any great significance to the
relationship of the tense of the participle to the tense of
TETELEIWKEN here. What is heavily underscored in this pronouncement is
the finality, the ultimate completion of the action. I don't think
that it makes that much difference whether TOUS hAGIAZOMENOUS is
glossed as "those who are being made holy" or "the ones who get
sanctified." I think that the context of this account pretty clearly
indicates that traditional ritual practice involves a PROSFORA that is
repeated annually for the purpose of making the celebrants holy,
whereas this offering suffices fully and forever to achieve what
hitherto required a repeated offering.
It may be that some might want to relate the aspect of hAGIAZOMENOUS
to the adverbial expression EIS TO DIHNEKES so as to think in terms of
an ongoing temporal process of "persons being made holy" -- past,
present, or future. I think, however, that EIS TO DIHNEKES qualifies
only the main verb TETELEIWKEN: the efficacy of the offering is
permanent and uncancellable. One might think that the aspect of
hAGIAZOMENOUS allows us to suppose that the celebrants may have
undergone, be undergoing, or come to be undergoing the process of
being made holy at any time in the past, present, or future -- but I
think the focus of what's being said is on the process of the
celebrants who get made holy. The one offering has rendered any new
performance of the offering for such celebrants unnecessary. Some may
recall the fond expression regarding World War I that it was "the war
to end wars." Comparable here is a notion of "the offering that ends
all offerings."
Finally, I wouldn't attempt to extrapolate any general syntactic
principle here about how present participles must correlate with verbs
in the perfect tense. One needs to look at each instance in context.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list