[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