From: Michael Haggett (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Feb 27 2001 - 08:00:23 EST
Jeff Green wrote
Monday, February 26, 2001 11:54 PM:
Matthew 28:19 says POREUQENTES OUN MAQHTEUSATE PANTA TA EQNH...
I usually see this as "Therefore, go and make disciples of all
question's about how to understand POREUQENTES; specifically, is it accurate
this (adverbial) participle as an imperative? What are other valid options?
a consensus on which option is most likely meant?
Are adverbial participles that modify imperatives generally to be
imperatives as well?
I must admit to being rather surprised by the replies I have seen so far
(perhaps there will be more later) so perhaps my perspective will help.
First, I think the definition "adverbial participle" (or similar) is
misleading. It is something derived more from the way we translate into
English than from the Greek itself.
Yes, a participle or participial phrase very often does need to be
translated into English as an adverbial clause but, in doing this, we are
invariably saying MORE than the Greek says. Hence we could MAKE something
when you go ...
as you go ...
if you go ...
because you go ...
although you go ...
... and there are more! This takes us into the realm of sometimes fanciful
interpretation rather than actual translation.
In my opinion a better way is to consider such aorist participles as
SUBSIDIARY verbs. In such instances the aorist participle always BORROWS its
mood from the main verb. Thus we can have indicatives,
KAI EGERQEIS hO IHSOUS HKOLOUQHSEN AUTW
and Jesus got up and followed him - Matt 9:19
... and imperatives, like our current example or, to show the same thing,
the Markan parallel:
KAI EIPEN AUTOIS: POREUQENTES EIS TON KOSMON hAPANTA KHRUXATE TO EUAGGELION
PASH TH KTISEI
and he said to them, "Travel into all the world and proclaim the gospel to
all the creation." - Mark 16:15
... and subjunctives as well:
KAI EZHTOUN hOI ARCIEREIS KAI hOI GRAMMATEIS PWS AUTON EN DOLW KRATHSANTES
and the chief priests and clerics were seeking how they might, by deceit,
seize and kill him - Mark 14:1
(in the parallel in Matt 28:4 both verbs are finite and subjunctive)
And we can even see the subsidiary verb borrowing a time aspect from its
KAI LEGEI AUTW: EGW ELQWN QERAPEUSW AUTON
and he says to him, "I will come and heal him." - Matt 8:7
To translate these as,
"when Jesus got up, he followed him"
"when/if etc. you travel ... proclaim the gospel"
how they might, when/if they seized him, kill him"
"when/if etc. I come, I will heal him"
... would surely be to miss the TONE of what is being said ... and, more
seriously in some instances, to completely miss the POINT! The two actions
are seen as ONE sequence. However the difference between the participle and
the finite verb is that the focus or spotlight is on the full finite verb.
So the emphasis of the sentences is on the finite verb rather than the
got up and FOLLOWED him
go and PROCLAIM the gospel
might seize and KILL him
come and HEAL him
In each of these instances the first action is only the preliminary that
enables you to do the second.
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [email@example.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:36:51 EDT