From: dixonps@juno.com
Date: Tue Jul 06 1999 - 13:08:36 EDT
On Mon, 5 Jul 1999 19:57:32 -0400 "Carl W. Conrad"
<cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu> writes:
>At 8:58 AM -0700 7/5/99, dixonps@juno.com wrote:
>>
>>The question some of us had raised was rather there is any basis for
>>taking such a construction as found in Acts 13:48 (periphrastic perfect
>>passive participle attending an aorist main verb) as anything other
than denoting
>>prior, completed action of the participle with reference to the action
of
>>the main verb.
>>
>>If I read you properly, your words, "the periphrastic form ought more
>>properly to be understood as a past stative with a time simultaneous
>>to that of the main verb," suggest something to the contrary. There is
no
>>question that an aorist participle can denote time simultaneous to hat
>>of the main verb, but I've never heard of a perfect participle doing
the
>>same. Can you supply an example of this?
>
>I think you have just about totally misunderstood me, Paul--at least
>you've misunderstood the primary point I was trying to make. Perhaps I
ought
>not to have phrased it as "the periphrastic form" which might suggest
>that, had Luke written ETETACATO instead of TETAGMENOI HSAN, the meaning
might
>be different. I should have said quite simply "the pluperfect passive
>ought properly to be understood as a past stative with a time
simultaneous
>to that of the main verb."
>
>I am NOT saying something about the time of the PARTICIPLE,
>TETAGMENOI. I AM saying that the pluperfect and the imperfect both refer
to time
>prior to the present, that the present perfect and the present
indicative both
>refer to present time, the present indicative describing what is
happening,
>the present perfect describing a condition or state currently obtaining.
All you are saying then, to use other terminology, is that you perceive
the
perfect TETAGMENOI as intensive, rather than extensive, with the stress
being
not on the completed past act (of God's choosing), but upon the existing
present
results, that is, that the hOSOI were in the resulting state of being
chosen when
they believed. Right?
<snip>
>
>To return to Acts 13:48 AKOUONTA DE TA EQNH ECAIRON KAI EDOXAZON TON
>LOGON TOU KURIOU KAI EPISTEUSAN hOSOI HSAN TETAGMENOI EIS ZWHN AIWNION.
My
>own diomatic version of this would be, "And as the Gentiles heard, they
>went on to rejoice and to glorify the word of the Lord and those who
were
>destined for everlasting life came to believe." I'm translating HSAN
>TETAGMENOI as "were destined"; if it were ETACQHSAN, I'd be more
>inclined to translate it "had been destined." I think the aorist
emphasizes
>the completion of the act, whereas I think the pluperfect emphasizes the
>status obtaining for those who believed.
I like your translation very much. The intensive force of the perfect is
carried, but a possible ambiguity is avoided by rendering the aorist
ingressively.
Paul Dixon
___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.
--- B-Greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu] To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-329W@franklin.oit.unc.edu To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:32 EDT