Hair-splitting (was Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48)
dixonps at juno.com
dixonps at juno.com
Tue Jul 6 13:08:36 EDT 1999
On Mon, 5 Jul 1999 19:57:32 -0400 "Carl W. Conrad"
<cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu> writes:
>At 8:58 AM -0700 7/5/99, dixonps at 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
>>prior, completed action of the participle with reference to the action
>>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
>>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
>>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
>not to have phrased it as "the periphrastic form" which might suggest
>that, had Luke written ETETACATO instead of TETAGMENOI HSAN, the meaning
>be different. I should have said quite simply "the pluperfect passive
>ought properly to be understood as a past stative with a time
>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
>prior to the present, that the present perfect and the present
>refer to present time, the present indicative describing what is
>the present perfect describing a condition or state currently obtaining.
All you are saying then, to use other terminology, is that you perceive
perfect TETAGMENOI as intensive, rather than extensive, with the stress
not on the completed past act (of God's choosing), but upon the existing
results, that is, that the hOSOI were in the resulting state of being
they believed. Right?
>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.
>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
>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
>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
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.
More information about the B-Greek