Time of Participles

Mark Wilson emory2oo2 at hotmail.com
Thu Aug 15 08:49:02 EDT 2002


I found this study by Rod Decker very informative, and still it makes
me wonder why there is such a consistent temporal nature to the verbals
with Greek. It seems to me that something MORE THAN aspect is involved
in these findings.

Findings like these:
------
Of the 55 adverbial aorist participles in the sample sections, 47 (85.5%)
> >express antecedent time and 8 (14.5%) refer to simultaneous time. No
> >instances of subsequent reference were observed.
-------

How do these findings align with your (Decker) and Porter's statements
concerning the temporal nature of the Greek verbal system? I realize
that GMark is a HISTORICAL account of the life of Christ, but why
is there a temporal distinction between the Aorist and Present
participles? Especially in light of the fact that HOW TO PORTRAY
the action is the main idea behind ASPECT. Why is there a consistent
use of the Aorist to portray antecedent events? The author chooses
Aorist or Present, not based on WHEN the event happens, but HOW he
wants the reader to view the action, right? Simply because an actual
event may have come and gone does not seem to me to be a reliable
factor in determing HOW TO PORTRAY that event.

So why is there not a randon use found in the Aorist and Present
participles? Or to state it another way: why do writers seem so
adverse to portraying antecedent actions as in progress?

Mark Wilson


_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx




More information about the B-Greek mailing list