[B-Greek] Subject: Re: Eph 1.13 - PISTEUSANTES

Brian Abasciano bvabasciano at gmail.com
Sun Sep 14 15:24:23 EDT 2008


But it is one thing to say it does not have to be such and such a way, and 
another to say the form does not give us any indication. The form is 
generally indicates something either chronologically or logically prior to 
the main verb. So all things being equal, that is the more natural reading. 
To argue against this reading, evidence should be produced from the context. 
I guess I am saying that some sort of prior action (whether chronological or 
logical) is part of the the unmarked connotatin of the aorist participle. 
This does not necessarily answer the question of "after" vs. "when" however. 
For if there is only logical precedence, "when" works just fine. The action 
of the aorist participle may be coincident in time even though logically 
prior.

An example from English can demonstrate (though using English, I think it 
parallels the Greek structure we are discussing enough to try and clarify it 
using English). If one says, "When I pressed the button, the machine turned 
on", the natural implication of that is that pressing the button turned on 
the machine, yielding a sort of logical precedence even though pressing the 
button and the machine turning on were roughly simultaneous. (I suppose one 
could argue that most technically and precisely, the pushing of the button 
began chronologically before the machine turning on, even if ever so 
slightly, so that there is still a chronological precedence. I think that is 
true. However, it is still true that thet two things are roughly 
simultaneous; one might begin first, but the other begins to take place 
before the first is even finished.)

But if one says, "When the machine turned on, I pushed the button, the 
natural (but not necessary or absolute) implication from the grammar (which 
could be overturned by context) is that the machine turned on and this 
immediately led the person to push the button, or at least was immediately 
followed upon by the pushing of the button.

One other consideration should be mentioned. Porter, *Verbal Aspect*, 
383-85, claims that "when the aorist participle precedes the main verb . . . 
there is a tendency to towards antecedent action" (P.T. O'Brien's 
description of Porter from his Ephesians commentary, 119 note 125; though 
O'Brien thinks this an exception; but he he seems concerned to make sure Eph 
1:13 is not taken to indicate two distinct experiences, believing, and then 
subsequesnt sealing). This also weighs in favor of at least a logical 
precedence being given to the aorist particple in Eph 1:13. But as I said, 
this is communicated perfectly well by translating using  "when". Perhaps 
O'Brien's concern raises a good point. Even when use of the aorist particple 
is chronological, it does not need to mean that two distinct events are in 
view, one being completed and then followed by the other. This then might 
even make the distinction between chronological and logical unecessary to 
some degree (especially since if there is a logical priority, then it would 
seem there is almost always a chronological priority of some amount, even if 
it is miniscule, even if the events can be viewed as roghly simultaneous). 
Well, I have probably started to think out loud here. Hopefully it does not 
muddle things too much.


********

Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 06:05:10 -0700 (PDT)
From: George F Somsel <gfsomsel at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Eph 1.13 - PISTEUSANTES
To: "J.M. Pauw" <jmpauw at hotmail.com>, b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
Message-ID: <861906.59731.qm at web38504.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

?? ? ??? ????? ?????????? ??? ????? ??? ????????, ?? ?????????? ??? ???????? 
????, ?? ? ??? ???????????? ???????????? ?? ???????? ??? ?????????? ?? ????,
.
EN hWi KAI hUMEIS AKOUSANTES TON LOGON THS ALHQEIAS TO EUAGGELION THS 
SWTHRIAS hUMWN, EN hWi KAI PISTEUSANTES ESFRAGISQHTE TWi PNEUMATI THS 
EPAGGELIAS TWi hAGIWi.
.
This is, if you read the FAQ for the group, not the place for theological 
discussion.??Though we might stray briefly into that area, we try to quickly 
back away from it.
.
This?strikes me somewhat as?being about as productive as asking how many 
angels can dance on the head of a pin.? I'm not sure what establishing an 
order of succession?will accomplish.? The relationship between the main verb 
in the indicative and the participle is the question.? Generally, you are 
correct that the participle is viewed as being relative to the time of the 
main verb.? I would note, however, E. D. W. Burton's comment
.
132.The general statement made under 118, that the tenses of the participle 
do not in general in themselves denote time, applies also to the Aorist 
Participle. It is very important for the right interpretation of the Aorist 
Participle that it be borne in mind that the proper and leading function of 
the tense is not to express time, but to mark the fact that the action of 
the verb is conceived of indefinitely, as a simple event. The assumption 
that the Aorist Participle properly denotes past time, from the point of 
view either of the speaker or of the principal verb, leads to constant 
misinterpretation of the form. The action denoted by the Aorist Participle 
may be past, present, or future with reference to the speaker, and [Page 60] 
antecedent to, coincident with, or subsequent to, the action of the 
principal verb.
.
Burton, E. D. W. (1898). Syntax of the moods and tenses in New Testament 
Greek (3rd ed.) (59). Edinburg: T. & T. Clark.
.
In other words, to quote a line from _Porgy and Bess_, "It ain't necessarily 
so ?"? It may simply denote distinct events.
.
In this case, however, it would seem that logic would dictate first a 
hearing, then a believing, then a being sealed so that the traditional view 
of the relationship of the participle to the main verb would hold.? This 
doesn't necessarily depend upon the Greek.
?george
gfsomsel


? search for truth, hear truth,
learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
defend the truth till death.


- Jan Hus
_________




More information about the B-Greek mailing list