[B-Greek] Ephesians 2:8 ESTE SESWSMENOI
Alexander Jech
awjjech at gmail.com
Wed Mar 23 11:12:42 EDT 2011
Thanks. I have since looked this point up in Wallace's _Greek Grammar Beyond
the Basics_ and found that he at least agreed with my teachers that if
periphrasis does anything, it emphasizes the force of aspect, and it doesn't
always do even that. Paul Johnson -- it wasn't Mounce who actually said
this, but another writer who was invited to write a little blurb about the
theological significance of perfect participles or excerpted for the same
purpose -- did not really make an argument for this view that the
periphrastic makes the aspect of all participles continuous. He presented it
as if it were a point of Greek grammar completely without controversy.
Alexander Jech
ALEXANDROS hUAKINQOS
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 11:09 AM, Iver Larsen <iver_larsen at sil.org> wrote:
> There are many periphrastic phrases in the NT, but none of them appear to
> support what you report Mounce as saying. Did he give reasons?
>
> The perfect participle does indeed indicate a stative aspect. When it is
> combined with a form of EIMI, it is this form that will contain the time
> reference, but it does not change the aspect. I assume Mounce was thinking
> of those with a present tense of EIMI, but even those do not support his
> statement. Let me just give you a few places to look at (they are most
> common in John):
>
> Mat 18:20: οὗ γάρ εἰσιν δύο ἢ τρεῖς συνηγμένοι εἰς τὸ ἐμὸν ὄνομα
> OU GAR EISIN DUO H TREIS SUNHGMENOI EIS TO EMON ONOMA
> for not two or three are in a position of having gathered into my name (not
> a process of gathering, but a state of having gathered)
>
> Luk 12:6: καὶ ἓν ἐξ αὐτῶν οὐκ ἔστιν ἐπιλελησμένον ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ
> KAI hEN EX AUTOU OUK ESTIN EPILELYSMENON ENWPION TOU QEOU
> And not one of them is in the position of being overlooked before God (not
> a process of being not overlooked, but a state of not being overlooked.)
>
> 2 Cor 4:3: εἰ δὲ καὶ ἔστιν κεκαλυμμένον τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ἡμῶν, ἐν τοῖς
> ἀπολλυμένοις ἐστὶν κεκαλυμμένον
> EI DE KAI ESTIN KEKALUMMENON TO EUAGGELION hHMWN, EN TOIS APOLLUMENOIS
> ESTIN KEKALUMMENON
> Even though our gospel is in the state of being hidden, it is (only) to
> those who are in the process of perishing that it is hidden.
>
> Heb 4:2: καὶ γάρ ἐσμεν εὐηγγελισμένοι καθάπερ κἀκεῖνοι
> KAI GAR ESMEN EUHGGELISMENOI KAQAPER KAKEINOI
> For we are indeed in the position of having heard the good needs as well as
> those (not a process)
>
> Luk 23:15: καὶ ἰδοὺ οὐδὲν ἄξιον θανάτου ἐστὶν πεπραγμένον αὐτῷ
> KAI IDOU OUDEN AXION QANATOU ESTIN PEPRAGMENON AUTWi
> And listen: He is not in the position of having done anything punishable by
> death (not a process of doing, but a state of having done.)
>
> Iver Larsen
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alexander Jech" <awjjech at gmail.com>
> To: "B Greek" <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
> Sent: 21. marts 2011 17:00
> Subject: [B-Greek] Ephesians 2:8 ESTE SESWSMENOI
>
>
>
> I have a question about how to understand the significance in Ephesians
>> 2:8
>> of using the periphrastic phrase ESTE SESWSMENOI rather than SESWSQE. What
>> I
>> remember from my teachers was that these were roughly equivalent; the only
>> difference might be in emphasis. In both statements, we are to understand
>> a
>> perfect (or stative) aspect: you are in a state of having been saved, of
>> being safe, you are right now saved.
>>
>> But I recently read in Mounce's Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar that
>> using
>> the periphrastic form alters the aspect from perfect to continuous, so the
>> meaning of the statement is not *you have been saved*, but *you are in the
>> process of being saved*. I don't have my copy here, so I can't quote the
>> passage exactly; it was in one of the theological introductions that the
>> book includes for each chapter, in this case the introduction by Paul
>> Johnson to the chapter on Perfect Participles and the Genitive Absolute.
>> Reading this completely surprised me!
>>
>> So, I did some searching of the B-Greek archives, to see if I could find
>> an
>> answer there. Although I will admit that my searching of the archives was
>> somewhat incompetent, I turned up nothing definitive. I found some support
>> for my understanding of perfect periphrasis and some indication of
>> disagreement about it, too, and I wasn't sure what to conclude. So I
>> decided
>> to write to the list to ask my questions directly. Is this a disagreement
>> amongst Greek scholars about how to interpret periphrastic phrases? Does
>> this reflect an evolution in Greek between Attic and other older dialects
>> and the Koine dialect, or over some other time span? Did I just forget
>> what
>> my teachers taught me? (I recall covering perfect participles in an
>> exceedingly short amount of time!) I would appreciate any help that anyone
>> can provide on these points.
>>
>> --
>> Alexander Jech
>> University of Virginia
>> Program in Political Philosophy, Policy & Law
>>
>
>
--
Alexander Jech
University of Virginia
Program in Political Philosophy, Policy & Law
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list