Thanks for taking time to work through the data. Let me respond to the
major objections you pose.
>From: Ward Powers <bwpowers@eagles.bbs.net.au>
...
>I would invite a closer look at the 8 instances where aorist adverbial
>participles are classified as refering to simultaneous time with the main
>verb.
>...
>thought is, "he responded by saying [something]". This is an idiom with a
>particular verb, and this idiom may be independent of general "rules" or
>practices in Greek. The same thing will apply to occasions where the...
I'm not convinced that we can set such examples aside just because it is an
"idiom." I'll comment again on that at the end.
I do like your suggestion that we understand APOKRINOMAI as "respond,"
though I don't see that possibility listed in BAGD or in (my old ed. of)
L&S. Are there any instances in the NT where it is not used with a verb of
speaking? (I didn't look at every occurrence, but I don't see any listed in
BAGD that suggest this.)
>In 6:27a we have KAI EUQUS APOSTEILAS hO BASILEUS SPEKOULATORA EPETAXEN
>ENEGKAI THN KEFALHN AUTOU: "and immediately sending, the king an
>executioner ordered to bring his head". The participle is "sent", the main
>verb is "ordered". Certainly the "sending" is not prior to the "ordering".
>But are they simultaneous? Or is the order of events that, first, the king
>gave orders, and that then, second, the king sent the executioner to carry
>out those orders, viz., to bring his head? That is, that the sending refers
>to the bringing, "sending him to bring": to which it is prior...
Your suggestion would seem to imply the wrong "subject" for the participle,
esp. in light of its position forward in the sentence adjacent to hO
BASILEUS. Also the parallel with APELQWN in 27b would seem to demand that
it explain APOSTEILAS in 27a.
It is better, then, I think, to see the commanding and the sending as
roughly simultaneous. If we want to be very technical and insist that
"first, the king gave orders, and that then, second, the king sent the
executioner to carry out those orders," then we may have an instance of an
aorist participle *subsequent* to the main verb! But I think that may be
trying to slice it a bit to thin.
>In Mk 6:26, KAI PERILUPOS GENOMENOS hO BASILEUS ... OUK HQELHSEN AQETHSAI
>AUTHN: "and becoming greatly distressed, the king ... did not wish to
>refuse her." I have no trouble in seeing this as (a) the king became
>greatly distressed (at the situation in which he now found himelf, because
>of the stupid oath he had made in front of the guests), and then (b, and
>subsequently in time) he reached the decision that he did not wish to
>refuse her...
I think this is a possible explanation, but it slices the pragmatics very
thin to do so. I think it more natural to understand Herod's desire not to
refuse the girl as part of his distress. Indeed, if that was not a concern
to him, his stress level would have been considerably less.
>Mk 6:41, KAI LABWN (the five loaves and the two fishes) ANABLEYAS (into the
>heaven) EULOGHSEN ... I myself would regard this as two aorist participles
>indicating the sequence of events leading up to the main verb: first he
>took (or received) the loaves and fishes, then he looked up into heaven,
>and then, thirdly, he gave thanks...
Perhaps; certainly the taking is antecedent, but I would sooner think that
we are to view Jesus as looking up to heaven *while* he is pronouncing the
blessing rather than as a separate, prior action.
>Mk 15:43b, TOLMHSAS, EISHLQEN PROS TON PILATON ...: BAGD (p.822)
>translates, "he summoned up courage and went in". His summoning up courage
>PRECEDED his going in...
BAGD's translation would require viewing the participle as one of attendant
circumstances; if, however, it really does modify the verb EISHLQEN, then I
think simultaneous action is defensible.
I might note that my study in this area has not assummed a fixed temporal
reference for the aorist ptcp.; I have rather tried to approach the text
inductively and ask, in light of the context and any deictic indicators
that may be present, what is the most probable temporal reference intended?
My tentative conclusion is that to start with the assumption of antecedent
action for the aorist participle too often misleads since we are forced to
interpret passages in an unnatural way in order to make sense of them from
our assumed rule. Most frequently, yes, the aorist ptcp. is antecedent, but
there are more simultaneous and perhaps even subsequent aor. ptcps. than
often admitted. If we set aside idioms, then we need to clarify our "rule"
and not state it as absolutely as has often been done. But if we are trying
to describe the data, then those which may include "idioms" are part of our
descriptive task.
Rod
_________________________________________________________________
Rodney J. Decker Baptist Bible Seminary
Asst. Prof./NT P O Box 800
rdecker@bbc.edu Clarks Summit PA 18411
http://www.bbc.edu/courses/BBS/RDecker/Index.htm USA
_________________________________________________________________