From: Carl W. Conrad (cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu)
Date: Sun May 14 2000 - 10:37:30 EDT
<x-html>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4
: Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:36:25 EDT
<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { margin-top: 0 ; margin-bottom: 0 }
--></style><title>RE: EPISTEUSAN with HSAN
TETAGMENOI</title></head><body>
<div>At 3:55 PM -0400 5/13/00, B.J. Williamson wrote:</div>
<div>>Bill:<br>
><br>
>You wrote:<br>
><br>
>* the pluperfect often implies repeated or on-going action that
spanned<br>
>some time, not some "point" in eternity past. Hence,
this might imply that<br>
>these saints had, prior to the current time, but **spanning a
period of<br>
>time** in the past, been devoting themselves to eternal life.<br>
><br>
>Can you site NT examples of this usage of the pluperfect?<br>
><br>
>Of course HSAN is imperfect and TETAGMENOI is perfect, which<br>
>together "generally" depict a pluperfect aspect.
Obviously, neither<br>
>is in the pluperfect per se.<br>
><br>
>If you do site examples, I would be most interested in seeing<br>
>both. That is, a pluperfect verbal with pluperfect form, as
well</div>
<div>>as "pluperfect" verbals as to function (not form,
as Acts 13:48).</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>I guess that, as perfect indicative forms are rare enough in the
GNT and pluperfects rarer yet (86 instances, acc. to a 15-second
AcCordance search), perfect tense morphology is not at the surface of
one's memory banks for Koine Greek. If you but consult the paradigms
in reference books, you'll see that for the 3d plural perfect passive
and pluperfect passive there are ONLY periphrastic forms, i.e.
pf.ptc. + EISI/HSAN, the reason being that it's awkward to attach an
-NTO 3d plural ending to a perfect MP stem ending in a consonant;
while a 1st sg. form ETETAGMHN might be expected, all the forms of a
pluperfect passive there are in the GNT are in the 3d singular: Mt
7:25 TEQEMELIWTO; Lk 4:29 WiKODOMHTO; Lk 16:20 EBEBLHTO; Jn 11:44
PERIEDEDETO; Acts 17:23 EPEGEGRAPTO. If you go back to Homer, you can
find 3d plural pluperfects formed with a phonetic change of N to A:
-NTO --> -ATO; you might conceivably find a 3d plural
ETETACATO--but you WON'T find that in the GNT; you will ONLY find
periphrastic forms.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>We had a very thorough discussion last summer of the question of
this particular passage and in particular of the form and meaning of
TETAGMENOI HSAN. Anyone interested in it will find it in the archives
for June 30 through July 16, 1999 under four subject-headers:
"Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48," "Hair-splitting
(was Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48)," "Re:
Hair-splitting for the Bald," and "What to count (was:
Hair-splitting...)." I've already had my say on these questions,
and for the present am simply going to cite parts of a couple of my
messages from last summer:</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>At 6:49 AM -0400 7/5/99, Carl W. Conrad wrote:</div>
<div>>As I tried to state in my first response to this question,
there is ONLY<br>
>the periphrastic form of the pluperfect to be found at the time
of the<br>
>writing of Acts 13:48 (I certainly haven't done a search of the
TLG, but<br>
>I'd wager that the Homeric equivalent 3d pl. inflected
pluperfect,<br>
>ETETACATO, is not to be found). So there's not really any point
in<br>
>attempting to differentiate meanings of the periphrastic and
inflected<br>
>pluperfects.<br>
><br>
>More to the point, I think, is the question whether there's a
semantic<br>
>difference at the time of composition of Acts 13:48 between an
aorist<br>
>passive ETACQHSAN and this form before us, HSAN TETAGMENOI. There
may be<br>
>real difference of opinion on this; my own judgment is that
ETACQHSAN is<br>
>the one that ought properly to be translated as a pluperfect
passive in<br>
>English ("had been destined/ordained") while the
periphrastic form ought<br>
>more properly to be understood as a past stative with a time
simultaneous<br>
>to that of the main verb ("were--at that
time--destined/ordained"). I think<br>
>that the upshot is the same in any case, but I think there's
this<br>
>difference: the aorist would underscore the completion of the<br>
>destining/ordaining (prior to the time of the main verb) while
the<br>
>periphrastic pluperfect would underscore the status quo of the
believers at<br>
>the time they believed. Some may well think that this is
splitting hairs<br>
>too much to no purpose, but it is worth noting, I think, that the
aorist is</div>
<div>>generally used in narrative Greek where English uses a
pluperfect to convey<br>
>time of a verb relative to time of another verb, and that the
perfect and<br>
>pluperfect, where they are used at all, tend to indicate state or
condition<br>
>obtaining at a particular time. Frankly, I don't think this
distinction has<br>
>any bearing upon the theological questions posed by this verse,
which<br>
>cannot be discussed here.<br>
><br>
>With regard to the other hair-splitting question, whether hOSOI
HSAN<br>
>TETAGMENOI is a relative clause or a substantive clause, I'd
place myself<br>
>firmly on the fence: I do think that there's an implicit
partitive TWN<br>
>EQNWN to be understood with the hOSOI and I think that one could
argue that<br>
>this is an instance of the antecedent assimilated to the
relative, so that<br>
>we might amplify the phrasing as EKEINOI EPISTEUSAN hOSOI
TETAGMENOI HSAN.<br>
>At several points in Koine texts, one gets the impression that
hOSOS/-H/-ON<br>
>is already the relative pronoun replacing hOS/hH/hO that it has
become in</div>
<div>>Modern Greek.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>and</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>At 7:57 PM -0400 7/5/99, Carl W. Conrad wrote:</div>
<div>>At 8:58 AM -0700 7/5/99, dixonps@juno.com wrote:</div>
<div>>></div>
<div>>>The question some of us had raised was rather there is
any basis for<br>
>>taking such a construction as found in Acts 13:48
(periphrastic perfect<br>
>>passive<br>
>>participle attending an aorist main verb) as anything other
than denoting<br>
>>prior, completed action of the participle with reference to
the action of<br>
>>the main verb.<br>
>><br>
>>If I read you properly, your words, "the periphrastic
form ought more<br>
>>properly to be understood as a past stative with a time
simultaneous<br>
>>to that of the main verb," suggest something to the
contrary. There is<br>
>>no<br>
>>question that an aorist participle can denote time
simultaneous to that<br>
>>of the main verb, but I've never heard of a perfect
participle doing the<br>
>>same.<br>
>>Can you supply an example of this?<br>
><br>
>I think you have just about totally misunderstood me, Paul--at
least you've<br>
>misunderstood the primary point I was trying to make. Perhaps I
ought not<br>
>to have phrased it as "the periphrastic form" which
might suggest that, had<br>
>Luke written ETETACATO instead of TETAGMENOI HSAN, the meaning
might be<br>
>different. I should have said quite simply "the pluperfect
passive ought<br>
>properly to be understood as a past stative with a time
simultaneous to<br>
>that of the main verb."<br>
><br>
>I am NOT saying something about the time of the PARTICIPLE,
TETAGMENOI. I<br>
>AM saying that the pluperfect and the imperfect both refer to
time prior to<br>
>the present, that the present perfect and the present indicative
both refer<br>
>to present time, the present indicative describing what is
happening, the<br>
>present perfect describing a condition or state currently
obtaining.<br>
><br>
>An English sentence analogous to the one under consideration is
this:<br>
>"Those who were dead did not respond to the morning bugle
call." I think<br>
>that "those who were dead" would be expressed in Greek
commonly as hOSOI<br>
>TEQNHKOTES HSAN, although perhaps we might see hOSOI ETEQNHKESAN.
I think<br>
>that hOSOI ETEQNHKESAN might theoretically be translated as
"as many as had<br>
>died" but better would be "as many as were dead";
the sense of the English<br>
>pluperfect is more commonly expressed in Greek narrative prose
with an<br>
>aorist, and in this instance it would be: hOSOI APEQANON. The
difference<br>
>I'm arguing for is that the aorist is more like the English
pluperfect<br>
>because it emphasizes completion prior to a certain point in the
past,<br>
>while the Greek pluperfect emphasizes a state obtaining at some
point in<br>
>the past.<br>
><br>
>To return to Acts 13:48 AKOUONTA DE TA EQNH ECAIRON KAI EDOXAZON
TON LOGON<br>
>TOU KURIOU KAI EPISTEUSAN hOSOI HSAN TETAGMENOI EIS ZWHN AIWNION.
My own<br>
>idiomatic version of this would be, "And as the Gentiles
heard, they went<br>
>on to rejoice and to glorify the word of the Lord and those who
were<br>
>destined for everlasting life came to believe." I'm
translating HSAN<br>
>TETAGMENOI as "were destined"; if it were ETACQHSAN,
I'd be more inclined<br>
>to translate it "had been destined." I think the aorist
emphasizes the<br>
>completion of the act, whereas I think the pluperfect emphasizes
the status</div>
<div>>obtaining for those who believed.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>and one other:</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>At 8:03 AM -0400 7/8/99, Carl W. Conrad wrote:</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>(1) I do believe (but am not prepared at
present to document) that the ratio of perfects/aorists is indeed
considerably higher in classical narrative Greek than it is in Koine.
Probably this is something that HAS been documented, but I can't put
my hands on it now.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>(2) From Accordance, I find the
following numbers for Perfect and Pluperfect tense forms in the
GNT:</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font color="#007700">Perfect tense
forms in GNT: 1573</font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font color="#007700">Mt
113</font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font color="#007700">Mk
93</font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font color="#007700">Lk
171</font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font color="#007700">Jn
284</font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font color="#007700">Acts
164</font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font color="#007700">Pauline letters
329</font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font color="#007700">Deutero-Pauline
43</font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font color="#007700">Pastorals
53</font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font color="#007700">Heb
87</font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font color="#007700">Catholic letters
137</font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font color="#007700">Revelation
117</font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font
color="#007700"><br></font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font color="#007700">Pluperfect tense
forms in GNT: 86</font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font color="#007700">Mt 8 (hEISTHKEI 2,
HiDEI 3, EIWQEI)</font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font color="#007700">Mk 8 (HiDEI 3,
EIWQEI)</font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font color="#007700">Lk 16 (HiDEI 5,
hEISTHKEI 3)</font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font color="#007700">Jn 34 HiDSEI 15,
hEISTHKEI 7</font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font color="#007700">Acts 17 (HiDEI 5,
hEISTHKEI 1)</font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font color="#007700">Pauline letters 1
(HiDEIN)</font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font color="#007700">Pastorals:
0</font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font color="#007700">Heb:
0</font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font color="#007700">Catholic letters
1</font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font color="#007700">Revelation 1
(hEISTHKEISAN)</font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font
color="#007700"><br></font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font color="#007700">I think it is
noteworthy that so many of these pluperfect forms are of perfect
tenses normally used with present meaning: hESTHKA ("I am
standing"), OIDA ("I know"), and EIWQA ("I am
accustomed"). I definitely believe that when a pluperfect sense
is required in narrative it is generally expressed in Koine with an
aorist.</font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font
color="#007700"><br></font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font color="#007700">(3) I am content
with the description of functions of these tenses
at:</font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font
color="#007700"><br></font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font
color="#007700">http://www.xensei.com/users/samato/greek/
></span>gtense.html#Perfect</font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font
color="#007700"><br></font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font color="#007700">The Perfect
Tense </font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font color="#007700">1. Intensive
(Resultative) Perfect</font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font color="#007700">2. Extensive
(Consummative) Perfect</font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font color="#007700">3. Perfect with a
Present Force</font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font
color="#007700"><br></font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font color="#007700">The Pluperfect
Tense</font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font color="#007700"> 1. Intensive
(Resultative) Pluperfect</font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font color="#007700"> 2. Extensive
(Consummative) Pluperfect</font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font color="#007700">The perfect and
pluperfect tenses are identical in aspect though different in time.
Thus both speak of an event accomplished in the past (in the
indicative mood) with results existing afterwards - the perfect
speaking of existing results in the present, the pluperfect speaking
of existing results in the past.</font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font
color="#007700"><br></font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>There's a fuller description of each as
well as examples at that site.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>For Classical Greek, see Smyth at the
Perseus web site, ##1945-1954.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>When I say "I am content with that
description," I mean that I accept that some GNT perfects and
pluperfects are consummative, but I think that the resultative usage
is far more common when the perfect or pluperfect appear in the GNT;
I think this is particularly true of the very common GEGRAPTAI and of
such Johannine verb-forms as Pilate's hO GEGRAFA GEGRAFA and Jesus'
final word: TETELESTAI.</blockquote>
<div><br></div>
<div>There was really a good deal more correspondence on these
issues. I am not trying to speak for others who participated in that
two-week exchange last summer; I have sought only to clarify my own
understanding of the morphological and syntactic issues at play in
this verse. I think this is consistent with the very brief account I
offered on Friday night in my initial response to this new go-round
on this verse and these issues. I claim no particular authority for
this viewpoint; certainly there are others opposed to mine that have
already been aired to some extent. Nevertheless, I thought it perhaps
worth while to point to that lengthy thread (strand?) from last
summer, and to attempt to make clear my own reasons for understanding
the passage as I indicated this Friday past.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>-- <br>
<br>
Carl W. Conrad<br>
Department of Classics, Washington University<br>
Summer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243<br>
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad@ioa.com<br>
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/>
</body>
</html>
</x-html>