Acts 13:48

Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48 clayton stirling bartholomew c.s.bartholomew at worldnet.att.net
Thu Jul 1 00:47:32 EDT 1999

KJV titles not available > Greetings everyone:> > I would appreciate some help in understanding the use of verb tense in> dependent clauses. The text reads; …KAI EPISTEUSAN OSOI HSAN> TETAGMENOI EIS ZWHN AIWNION. I take the dependent clause as an> adverbial relative clause, either of condition or possibly comparison> (yes?). Is the use of the periphastic pluperfect relative to the main> verb, implying the action occurred prior to the action of the main verb,> or is this only true with participles (non-periphrastic, that is)? I’m> just interested in the grammar, please.> > Thanks> > Jim> > Jim Murray> Racine, WIJim,Why adverbial? I have not spent hours pouring over this text but atfirst glance OSOI HSAN TETAGMENOI EIS ZWHN AIWNION appears to limit thesubject of EPISTEUSAN. The relative clause tells me something about theagents not something about the action.Your second question about the time of TETAGMENOI is one for the aspectgeeks. I would say yes, for sure, prior to the action of the main verbbut no sooner would I get the words out of my mouth than some advocateof systemic functional linguistics would jump all over me and point outthat I just don’t understand how all this stuff works.In the morning there will be some mega greeks back on line after a goodnights sleep and they can help you with both of these questions.–Clayton Stirling BartholomewThree Tree PointP.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062PSYour final comment:>I’m just interested in the grammar, please.I assume by this you mean you don’t want comments like: TETAGMENOI isthe eternal pluperfect indicating that this action took place in theeternal councils of the ontological Trinity . . . electing . . .No danger. I wouldn’t make a comment like that because it would violate rules. :-)))))))))

KJVtitles not available

Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48 clayton stirling bartholomew c.s.bartholomew at worldnet.att.net
Thu Jul 1 00:47:32 EDT 1999

KJVtitles not available

Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Thu Jul 1 06:49:38 EDT 1999

GOLGOQA with O or with A ? titles not available At 10:23 PM -0500 6/30/99, James S. Murray wrote:>Greetings everyone:> >I would appreciate some help in understanding the use of verb tense in>dependent clauses. The text reads; …KAI EPISTEUSAN OSOI HSAN>TETAGMENOI EIS ZWHN AIWNION. I take the dependent clause as an>adverbial relative clause, either of condition or possibly comparison>(yes?). Is the use of the periphastic pluperfect relative to the main>verb, implying the action occurred prior to the action of the main verb,>or is this only true with participles (non-periphrastic, that is)? I’m>just interested in the grammar, please.I think the main thing to be said about the verb form TETAGMENOI HSAN isthat one regularly finds ONLY the periphrastic in the third plural both inthe perfect passive and in the pluperfect passive. The older inflectedforms TETACATO and TETACATAI are found in Homer, perhaps here and thereelsewhere in earlier Greek: reduplicated stem TETAC + NTAI/NTO with typicalshift of the consonantal N to the vowel A between two consonants. So youwouldn’t see a non-periphrastic form in Koine–and yes, I think the time isrelative to the time of the main verb, i.e., prior.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington UniversitySummer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

GOLGOQA with O or with A ?titles not available

Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Thu Jul 1 06:49:38 EDT 1999

GOLGOQA with O or with A ?titles not available

[Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48] James S. Murray jsmurray at execpc.com
Thu Jul 1 20:04:23 EDT 1999

titles not available [Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48] clayton stirling bartholomew wrote:> > Greetings everyone:> >> > I would appreciate some help in understanding the use of verb tense in> > dependent clauses. The text reads; …KAI EPISTEUSAN OSOI HSAN> > TETAGMENOI EIS ZWHN AIWNION. I take the dependent clause as an> > adverbial relative clause, either of condition or possibly comparison> > (yes?). Is the use of the periphastic pluperfect relative to the main> > verb, implying the action occurred prior to the action of the main verb,> > or is this only true with participles (non-periphrastic, that is)? I’m> > just interested in the grammar, please.> >> > Thanks> >> > Jim> >> > Jim Murray> > Racine, WI> > Jim,> > Why adverbial? I have not spent hours pouring over this text but at> first glance OSOI HSAN TETAGMENOI EIS ZWHN AIWNION appears to limit the> subject of EPISTEUSAN. The relative clause tells me something about the> agents not something about the action.> I struggled over whether to take it as an adjectival clause or as an adverbialclause indicating to what extent the Gentiles believed. Wallace givesexamples of clauses beginning with hOSOS (correction from my original post)used adverbally. Is it common for hOSOS to introduce adjectival clauses? I’ma small greek, so bear with me. I find I learn better if I take a stab at itfirst and then figure out what I did wrong.> > Your second question about the time of TETAGMENOI is one for the aspect> geeks. I would say yes, for sure, prior to the action of the main verb> but no sooner would I get the words out of my mouth than some advocate> of systemic functional linguistics would jump all over me and point out> that I just don’t understand how all this stuff works.> > In the morning there will be some mega greeks back on line after a good> nights sleep and they can help you with both of these questions.> > —> Clayton Stirling Bartholomew> Three Tree Point> P.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062> > PS> > Your final comment:> >I’m just interested in the grammar, please.> > I assume by this you mean you don’t want comments like: TETAGMENOI is> the eternal pluperfect indicating that this action took place in the> eternal councils of the ontological Trinity . . . electing . . .> Yep.> > No danger. I wouldn’t make a comment like that because it would violate> rules. :-)))))))))My thoughts, exactly.ThanksJimJim MurrayRacine, WI

titles not available[Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48]

[Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48] James S. Murray jsmurray at execpc.com
Thu Jul 1 20:04:23 EDT 1999

titles not available[Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48]

[Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48] James S. Murray jsmurray at execpc.com
Thu Jul 1 22:53:05 EDT 1999

[Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48] Periphrastic construction in I John 1:4 “Carl W. Conrad” wrote:> At 10:23 PM -0500 6/30/99, James S. Murray wrote:> >Greetings everyone:> >> >I would appreciate some help in understanding the use of verb tense in> >dependent clauses. The text reads; …KAI EPISTEUSAN OSOI HSAN> >TETAGMENOI EIS ZWHN AIWNION. I take the dependent clause as an> >adverbial relative clause, either of condition or possibly comparison> >(yes?). Is the use of the periphastic pluperfect relative to the main> >verb, implying the action occurred prior to the action of the main verb,> >or is this only true with participles (non-periphrastic, that is)? I’m> >just interested in the grammar, please.> > I think the main thing to be said about the verb form TETAGMENOI HSAN is> that one regularly finds ONLY the periphrastic in the third plural both in> the perfect passive and in the pluperfect passive. The older inflected> forms TETACATO and TETACATAI are found in Homer, perhaps here and there> elsewhere in earlier Greek: reduplicated stem TETAC + NTAI/NTO with typical> shift of the consonantal N to the vowel A between two consonants. So you> wouldn’t see a non-periphrastic form in Koine–and yes, I think the time is> relative to the time of the main verb, i.e., prior.> Carl, Just to clarify, would it be true, then, that the verb tense in any kindof dependent clause is generally relative to the main verb; i.e. a presenttense would denote action taking place at the same time as the action of themain verb, an aorist would denote action prior to the action of the main verb,and so forth? I understand that this is generally true with participles,unless it is an aorist participle describing attendent circumstances. Myquestion is if this is also true of any verb form in a dependent clause? Hopethis makes sense?ThanksJimJim MurrayRacine, WI

[Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48]Periphrastic construction in I John 1:4

[Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48] clayton stirling bartholomew c.s.bartholomew at worldnet.att.net
Thu Jul 1 20:19:57 EDT 1999

[Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48] [Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48] > Is it common for hOSOS to introduce adjectival clauses? James,This is a semantics question as much as a syntax question. A relativeclause can be used to limit a substantive. And at first and secondglance that is how I read this relative clause, limiting the subject ofthe main verb.>I struggled over whether to take it as an adjectival clause or as an adverbial>clause indicating to what extent the Gentiles believed.I would take it as indicating what subset of the Gentiles believed. Itdoesn’t seem to tell me anything about the act of believing. It doesseem to tell me something about those who believed. Does this makesense?–Clayton Stirling BartholomewThree Tree PointP.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062

[Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48][Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48]

[Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48] James S. Murray jsmurray at execpc.com
Thu Jul 1 22:53:05 EDT 1999

[Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48]Periphrastic construction in I John 1:4

[Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48] clayton stirling bartholomew c.s.bartholomew at worldnet.att.net
Thu Jul 1 20:19:57 EDT 1999

[Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48][Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48]

[Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48] Daniel Riaño danielrr at mad.servicom.es
Fri Jul 2 05:02:44 EDT 1999

Periphrastic construction in I John 1:4 [Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48] >I would appreciate some help in understanding the use of verb tense in>dependent clauses. The text reads; …KAI EPISTEUSAN OSOI HSAN>TETAGMENOI EIS ZWHN AIWNION. I take the dependent clause as an>adverbial relative clause, either of condition or possibly comparison>(yes?). Is the use of the periphastic pluperfect relative to the main>verb, implying the action occurred prior to the action of the main verb,>or is this only true with participles (non-periphrastic, that is)? I’m>just interested in the grammar, please.It is a *substantive* clause (the subject). From a syntactic pointof view some people would prefer not to call here O(/SOI a relative, aslong as a) it is the subject of his own subordinate clause, but, b) it hasno antecedent or consecuent, either implicit or explicit. (In Spanish somecall it a “relacionante”, bit I don’t know the English term)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Daniel Riaño RufilanchasMadrid, España

Periphrastic construction in I John 1:4[Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48]

[Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48] Daniel Riaño danielrr at mad.servicom.es
Fri Jul 2 05:02:44 EDT 1999

Periphrastic construction in I John 1:4[Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48]

[Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48] Carl Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Fri Jul 2 07:01:51 EDT 1999

titles not available Periphrastic construction in I John 1:4 On 07/01/99, “”James S. Murray” <jsmurray at execpc.com>” wrote:> “Carl W. Conrad” wrote:> > I think the main thing to be said about the verb form TETAGMENOI HSAN is> > that one regularly finds ONLY the periphrastic in the third plural both in> > the perfect passive and in the pluperfect passive. The older inflected> > forms TETACATO and TETACATAI are found in Homer, perhaps here and there> > elsewhere in earlier Greek: reduplicated stem TETAC + NTAI/NTO with typical> > shift of the consonantal N to the vowel A between two consonants. So you> > wouldn’t see a non-periphrastic form in Koine–and yes, I think the time is> > relative to the time of the main verb, i.e., prior.> > Carl, Just to clarify, would it be true, then, that the verb tense in any kind> of dependent clause is generally relative to the main verb; i.e. a present> tense would denote action taking place at the same time as the action of the> main verb, an aorist would denote action prior to the action of the main verb,> and so forth? I understand that this is generally true with participles,> unless it is an aorist participle describing attendent circumstances. My> question is if this is also true of any verb form in a dependent clause? Hope> this makes sense?This question cannot be answered with a generalization that will cover all types of dependent clauses, because infinitives, participles, subjunctives, and optatives depend more on aspect than on time information.

titles not availablePeriphrastic construction in I John 1:4

[Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48] Carl Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Fri Jul 2 07:01:51 EDT 1999

titles not availablePeriphrastic construction in I John 1:4

[Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48] Paul S. Dixon dixonps at juno.com
Fri Jul 2 11:16:27 EDT 1999

[Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48] [Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48] On Fri, 2 Jul 1999 8:39:35 “Moon-Ryul Jung” <moon at saint.soongsil.ac.kr>writes:> >It seems that hOSOI HSAN TETAGMENOI EIS ZWHAN AIWNION is >the explicitly mentioned subject of EPISTEUSAN. Is there any>grammatical grounds for taking it otherwise?> I agree. Even if one were to view the perfect TETAGMENOIas intensive, does this make any sense? We would then have,as many as are appointed to eternal life believed. Could thispossibly mean they are appointed to eternal life because theybelieved, or when they believed? What would be the subsequentmeaning in the context?I, too, would like to see some precedence for taking such a perfected subject clause with an aorist indicative any other way than as denoting the prior action of the perfect.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.

[Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48][Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48]

[Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48] Paul S. Dixon dixonps at juno.com
Fri Jul 2 11:16:27 EDT 1999

[Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48][Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48]

[Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48] Moon-Ryul Jung moon at saint.soongsil.ac.kr
Fri Jul 2 08:39:35 EDT 1999

Periphrastic construction in I John 1:4 [Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48] > >I would appreciate some help in understanding the use of verb tense in> >dependent clauses. The text reads; …KAI EPISTEUSAN OSOI HSAN> >TETAGMENOI EIS ZWHN AIWNION. I take the dependent clause as an> >adverbial relative clause, either of condition or possibly comparison> >(yes?). Is the use of the periphastic pluperfect relative to the main> >verb, implying the action occurred prior to the action of the main verb,> >or is this only true with participles (non-periphrastic, that is)? I’m> >just interested in the grammar, please. It seems that hOSOI HSAN TETAGMENOI EIS ZWHAN AIWNION is the explicitly mentioned subject of EPISTEUSAN. Is there anygrammatical grounds for taking it otherwise?Moon-Ryul JungAssistant ProfessorSoongsil Univ. Seoul, Korea > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~> Daniel Ria=F1o Rufilanchas> Madrid, Espa=F1a

Periphrastic construction in I John 1:4[Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48]

[Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48] Moon-Ryul Jung moon at saint.soongsil.ac.kr
Fri Jul 2 08:39:35 EDT 1999

Periphrastic construction in I John 1:4[Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48]

[Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48] clayton stirling bartholomew c.s.bartholomew at worldnet.att.net
Fri Jul 2 12:14:59 EDT 1999

[Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48] 1Thess 3:13 >>I would appreciate some help in understanding the use of verb tense in>>dependent clauses. The text reads; …KAI EPISTEUSAN OSOI HSAN>>TETAGMENOI EIS ZWHN AIWNION. I take the dependent clause as an>>adverbial relative clause, either of condition or possibly comparison>>(yes?). Is the use of the periphastic pluperfect relative to the main>>verb, implying the action occurred prior to the action of the main verb,>>or is this only true with participles (non-periphrastic, that is)? I’m>>just interested in the grammar, please.> > It is a *substantive* clause (the subject). From a syntactic point> of view some people would prefer not to call here O(/SOI a relative, as> long as a) it is the subject of his own subordinate clause, but, b) it has> no antecedent or consecuent, either implicit or explicit. (In Spanish some> call it a “relacionante”, bit I don’t know the English term)> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~> Daniel Riaño Rufilanchas> Madrid, España> Daniel, Paul, Moon-Ryul,Yes, I can see this as one way to read this text. However , I seeanother way of reading it. If we take TA EQNH as the subject of allthree finite verbs then we can take hOSOI HSAN TETAGMENOI EIS ZWHNAIWNION as limiting the scope of TA EQNH. If you read the text in thismanner it is this limited set of TA EQNH that is performing the actionin all three finite verbs. Doubtless someone will say hOSOI should be aneuter plural if it is to be used like this but I don’t see that as abig hurdle to get over since the subject under discussion is the men whobelieved who were, oh by the way, Gentiles.OK, so this is a little far fetched. Your reading is probably correct.–Clayton Stirling BartholomewThree Tree PointP.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062

[Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48]1Thess 3:13

[Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48] clayton stirling bartholomew c.s.bartholomew at worldnet.att.net
Fri Jul 2 12:14:59 EDT 1999

[Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48]1Thess 3:13

[Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48] dixonps at juno.com dixonps at juno.com
Fri Jul 2 18:36:30 EDT 1999

1Thess 3:13 1Thess 3:13 On Fri, 02 Jul 1999 09:14:59 -0700 “clayton stirling bartholomew”<c.s.bartholomew at worldnet.att.net> writes:>Daniel, Paul, Moon-Ryul,> >Yes, I can see this as one way to read this text. However , I see>another way of reading it. If we take TA EQNH as the subject of all>three finite verbs then we can take hOSOI HSAN TETAGMENOI EIS ZWHN>AIWNION as limiting the scope of TA EQNH. If you read the text in this>manner it is this limited set of TA EQNH that is performing the action>in all three finite verbs. Doubtless someone will say hOSOI should be a>neuter plural if it is to be used like this but I don’t see that as a>big hurdle to get over since the subject under discussion is the men who>believed who were, oh by the way, Gentiles.> >OK, so this is a little far fetched. Your reading is probably correct.> Hi Clayton,To be sure, hOSOI HSAN TETAGMENOI EIS ZWHN AIWNION,in this context is limited by TA EQNH, so that as many of these particular Gentiles who had been appointed unto eternal lifebelieved. I’m not sure what your point is, unless you are suggesting thata different state of affairs might exist for other Gentiles, or for theJews. Incidentally, wouldn’t it be better to take the two imperfects withTA EQNH, then take the aorist EPISTEUSAN with hOSOI? Itmay be saying that when the Gentiles heard, they were rejoicingand glorifying the word of the Lord and that as many (no more, no less) of these as had been appointed unto eternal life believed.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.

1Thess 3:131Thess 3:13

[Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48] dixonps at juno.com dixonps at juno.com
Fri Jul 2 18:36:30 EDT 1999

1Thess 3:131Thess 3:13

[Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48] Moon-Ryul Jung moon at saint.soongsil.ac.kr
Sat Jul 3 05:20:14 EDT 1999

1Thess 3:13 DE in I John 1:3 (was Re: Periphrastic construction in I John 1:4) On 07/02/99, “”clayton stirling bartholomew” <c.s.bartholomew at worldnet.att.net>” wrote:> >>I would appreciate some help in understanding the use of verb tense in> >>dependent clauses. The text reads; …KAI EPISTEUSAN OSOI HSAN> >>TETAGMENOI EIS ZWHN AIWNION. I take the dependent clause as an> >>adverbial relative clause, either of condition or possibly comparison> >>(yes?). Is the use of the periphastic pluperfect relative to the main> >>verb, implying the action occurred prior to the action of the main verb,> >>or is this only true with participles (non-periphrastic, that is)? I’m> >>just interested in the grammar, please.> >> > It is a *substantive* clause (the subject). From a syntactic point> > of view some people would prefer not to call here O(/SOI a relative, as> > long as a) it is the subject of his own subordinate clause, but, b) it ha=> s> > no antecedent or consecuent, either implicit or explicit. (In Spanish som=> e> > call it a “relacionante”, bit I don’t know the English term)> >> >> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~> > Daniel Ria=F1o Rufilanchas> > Madrid, Espa=F1a> >> > Daniel, Paul, Moon-Ryul,> > Yes, I can see this as one way to read this text. However , I see> another way of reading it. If we take TA EQNH as the subject of all> three finite verbs then we can take hOSOI HSAN TETAGMENOI EIS ZWHN> AIWNION as limiting the scope of TA EQNH. If you read the text in this> manner it is this limited set of TA EQNH that is performing the action> in all three finite verbs. Doubtless someone will say hOSOI should be a> neuter plural if it is to be used like this but I don’t see that as a> big hurdle to get over since the subject under discussion is the men who> believed who were, oh by the way, Gentiles.> > OK, so this is a little far fetched. Your reading is probably correct.> [Moon]I wonder if the following is OK grammatically speaking:TA EQNH EPISTEUSAN hOSOI HSAN TETAGMENOI EIS ZWHN AIWNION Here, the noun clause hOSOI… should be considered to be an apposition tothe subject TA EQNH. If hOSOI is a relative clause modifying TA EQNH, noproblem. But I wonder if the above apposition sounds OK.Moon-Ryul JungAssistant ProfessorSoongsil University,Seoul, Korea> P.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062

1Thess 3:13DE in I John 1:3 (was Re: Periphrastic construction in I John 1:4)

[Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48] Moon-Ryul Jung moon at saint.soongsil.ac.kr
Sat Jul 3 05:20:14 EDT 1999

1Thess 3:13DE in I John 1:3 (was Re: Periphrastic construction in I John 1:4)

[Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48] James S. Murray jsmurray at execpc.com
Sun Jul 4 18:54:30 EDT 1999

[Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48] titles not available Daniel, Paul, Clayton, Moon-Ryul:Thanks for setting me straight on this.JimJim MurrayRacine, WIDaniel Riaño wrote:> >I would appreciate some help in understanding the use of verb tense in> >dependent clauses. The text reads; …KAI EPISTEUSAN OSOI HSAN> >TETAGMENOI EIS ZWHN AIWNION. I take the dependent clause as an> >adverbial relative clause, either of condition or possibly comparison> >(yes?). Is the use of the periphastic pluperfect relative to the main> >verb, implying the action occurred prior to the action of the main verb,> >or is this only true with participles (non-periphrastic, that is)? I’m> >just interested in the grammar, please.> > It is a *substantive* clause (the subject). From a syntactic point> of view some people would prefer not to call here O(/SOI a relative, as> long as a) it is the subject of his own subordinate clause, but, b) it has> no antecedent or consecuent, either implicit or explicit. (In Spanish some> call it a “relacionante”, bit I don’t know the English term)> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~> Daniel Riaño Rufilanchas> Madrid, España

[Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48]titles not available

[Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48] James S. Murray jsmurray at execpc.com
Sun Jul 4 18:54:30 EDT 1999

[Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48]titles not available

[Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48] James S. Murray jsmurray at execpc.com
Sun Jul 4 21:35:49 EDT 1999

The longest words in the GNT Aktionsart of ESKHNWSEN and EGENETO in 1Jo1:14 Carl Conrad wrote (snip):> On 07/01/99, “”James S. Murray” <jsmurray at execpc.com>” wrote:> > “Carl W. Conrad” wrote:> > > Carl, Just to clarify, would it be true, then, that the verb tense in any kind> > of dependent clause is generally relative to the main verb; i.e. a present> > tense would denote action taking place at the same time as the action of the> > main verb, an aorist would denote action prior to the action of the main verb,> > and so forth? I understand that this is generally true with participles,> > unless it is an aorist participle describing attendent circumstances. My> > question is if this is also true of any verb form in a dependent clause? Hope> > this makes sense?> > This question cannot be answered with a generalization that will cover all> types of dependent clauses, because infinitives, participles, subjunctives,> and optatives depend more on aspect than on time information.> Oops! I was thinking of the indicative, and I can see where I made this too broad toanswer. Mea culpa. Like Abraham, I’ll risk trying your patience with a (hopefully)more limited question 🙂 .What I’m really trying to understand is why HSAN TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48 is actionprior to the main verb EPISTEUSAN. The options I’ve considered are:1. The pluperfect periphrastic, as a participle, is still time relative to the mainverb. Based on subsequent posts and further reading in Wallace, I suspect this isincorrect.2. The periphrastic should be understood as equivalent to a pluperfect indicative,and that the action (and its results) have been completed in the past relative to thewriter. If this is the case, would it be the fact that it is imbedded in asubstantive clause that puts it prior to the Gentiles believing, as it is action thathelps define the subject of EPISTEUSAN? Or is it semantics? It seems to me this isthe gist of Paul Dixon’s post.JimJim MurrayRacine, WI

The longest words in the GNTAktionsart of ESKHNWSEN and EGENETO in 1Jo1:14

[Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48] James S. Murray jsmurray at execpc.com
Sun Jul 4 21:35:49 EDT 1999

The longest words in the GNTAktionsart of ESKHNWSEN and EGENETO in 1Jo1:14

Hair-splitting (was Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48) Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Mon Jul 5 06:49:18 EDT 1999

Aktionsart of ESKHNWSEN and EGENETO in 1Jo1:14 Hair-splitting (was Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48) At 8:35 PM -0500 7/4/99, James S. Murray wrote:>Carl Conrad wrote (snip):> >> On 07/01/99, “”James S. Murray” <jsmurray at execpc.com>” wrote:>> > “Carl W. Conrad” wrote:>> >> > Carl, Just to clarify, would it be true, then, that the verb tense in>>any kind>> > of dependent clause is generally relative to the main verb; i.e. a present>> > tense would denote action taking place at the same time as the action>>of the>> > main verb, an aorist would denote action prior to the action of the>>main verb,>> > and so forth? I understand that this is generally true with participles,>> > unless it is an aorist participle describing attendent circumstances. My>> > question is if this is also true of any verb form in a dependent>>clause? Hope>> > this makes sense?>> >> This question cannot be answered with a generalization that will cover all>> types of dependent clauses, because infinitives, participles, subjunctives,>> and optatives depend more on aspect than on time information.>> > >Oops! I was thinking of the indicative, and I can see where I made this>too broad to>answer. Mea culpa. Like Abraham, I’ll risk trying your patience with a>(hopefully)>more limited question 🙂 .> >What I’m really trying to understand is why HSAN TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48>is action>prior to the main verb EPISTEUSAN. The options I’ve considered are:> >1. The pluperfect periphrastic, as a participle, is still time relative to>the main>verb. Based on subsequent posts and further reading in Wallace, I suspect>this is>incorrect.> >2. The periphrastic should be understood as equivalent to a pluperfect>indicative,>and that the action (and its results) have been completed in the past>relative to the>writer. If this is the case, would it be the fact that it is imbedded in a>substantive clause that puts it prior to the Gentiles believing, as it is>action that>helps define the subject of EPISTEUSAN? Or is it semantics? It seems to>me this is>the gist of Paul Dixon’s post.As I tried to state in my first response to this question, there is ONLYthe periphrastic form of the pluperfect to be found at the time of thewriting of Acts 13:48 (I certainly haven’t done a search of the TLG, butI’d wager that the Homeric equivalent 3d pl. inflected pluperfect,ETETACATO, is not to be found). So there’s not really any point inattempting to differentiate meanings of the periphrastic and inflectedpluperfects.More to the point, I think, is the question whether there’s a semanticdifference at the time of composition of Acts 13:48 between an aoristpassive ETACQHSAN and this form before us, HSAN TETAGMENOI. There may bereal difference of opinion on this; my own judgment is that ETACQHSAN isthe one that ought properly to be translated as a pluperfect passive inEnglish (“had been destined/ordained”) while the periphrastic form oughtmore properly to be understood as a past stative with a time simultaneousto that of the main verb (“were–at that time–destined/ordained”). I thinkthat the upshot is the same in any case, but I think there’s thisdifference: the aorist would underscore the completion of thedestining/ordaining (prior to the time of the main verb) while theperiphrastic pluperfect would underscore the status quo of the believers atthe time they believed. Some may well think that this is splitting hairstoo much to no purpose, but it is worth noting, I think, that the aorist isgenerally used in narrative Greek where English uses a pluperfect to conveytime of a verb relative to time of another verb, and that the perfect andpluperfect, where they are used at all, tend to indicate state or conditionobtaining at a particular time. Frankly, I don’t think this distinction hasany bearing upon the theological questions posed by this verse, whichcannot be discussed here.With regard to the other hair-splitting question, whether hOSOI HSANTETAGMENOI is a relative clause or a substantive clause, I’d place myselffirmly on the fence: I do think that there’s an implicit partitive TWNEQNWN to be understood with the hOSOI and I think that one could argue thatthis is an instance of the antecedent assimilated to the relative, so thatwe might amplify the phrasing as EKEINOI EPISTEUSAN hOSOI TETAGMENOI HSAN.At several points in Koine texts, one gets the impression that hOSOS/-H/-ONis already the relative pronoun replacing hOS/hH/hO that it has become inModern Greek.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington UniversitySummer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

Aktionsart of ESKHNWSEN and EGENETO in 1Jo1:14 Hair-splitting (was Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48)

Hair-splitting (was Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48) Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Mon Jul 5 06:49:18 EDT 1999

Aktionsart of ESKHNWSEN and EGENETO in 1Jo1:14 Hair-splitting (was Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48)

Hair-splitting (was Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48) dixonps at juno.com dixonps at juno.com
Mon Jul 5 11:58:27 EDT 1999

More hair-splitting: was Aktionsart of ESKHNWSEN and EGENETO in John 1:14 Hair-splitting (was Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48) On Mon, 5 Jul 1999 06:49:18 -0400 “Carl W. Conrad”<cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu> writes:>At 8:35 PM -0500 7/4/99, James S. Murray wrote:>>Carl Conrad wrote (snip):>More to the point, I think, is the question whether there’s a semantic>difference at the time of composition of Acts 13:48 between an aorist>passive ETACQHSAN and this form before us, HSAN TETAGMENOI. There may >be real difference of opinion on this; my own judgment is that ETACQHSAN>is the one that ought properly to be translated as a pluperfect passivein>English (“had been destined/ordained”) while the periphrastic form ought>more properly to be understood as a past stative with a time >simultaneous to that of the main verb (“were–at thattime–destined/ordained”). I >think that the upshot is the same in any case, but I think there’s this>difference: the aorist would underscore the completion of the>destining/ordaining (prior to the time of the main verb) while the>periphrastic pluperfect would underscore the status quo of the >believers at the time they believed. Some may well think that this issplitting >hairs too much to no purpose, but it is worth noting, I think, that the >aorist is generally used in narrative Greek where English uses apluperfect to >convey time of a verb relative to time of another verb, and that theperfect >and pluperfect, where they are used at all, tend to indicate state or >condition obtaining at a particular time. Frankly, I don’t think this >distinction has any bearing upon the theological questions posed by thisverse, which>cannot be discussed here.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 perfectpassiveparticiple attending an aorist main verb) as anything other than denotingprior, completed action of the participle with reference to the action ofthe 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 simultaneousto that of the main verb,” suggest something to the contrary. There isnoquestion that an aorist participle can denote time simultaneous to thatof the main verb, but I’ve never heard of a perfect participle doing thesame.Can you supply an example of this?Thanks,Paul DixonP.S. If this email comes across chopped up, please forgive. It wascleaned up nicely prior to sending, but am sending it on my new laptop:), which seems to be working more choppily than the trusty oldcomputer.___________________________________________________________________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 hair-splitting: was Aktionsart of ESKHNWSEN and EGENETO in John 1:14Hair-splitting (was Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48)

Hair-splitting (was Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48) dixonps at juno.com dixonps at juno.com
Mon Jul 5 11:58:27 EDT 1999

More hair-splitting: was Aktionsart of ESKHNWSEN and EGENETO in John 1:14Hair-splitting (was Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48)

Hair-splitting (was Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48) Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Mon Jul 5 19:57:32 EDT 1999

Hair-splitting (was Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48) any info on Carl Ruck or John Clabeaux? At 8:58 AM -0700 7/5/99, dixonps at juno.com wrote:>On Mon, 5 Jul 1999 06:49:18 -0400 “Carl W. Conrad”><cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu> writes:>>At 8:35 PM -0500 7/4/99, James S. Murray wrote:>>>Carl Conrad wrote (snip):> >>More to the point, I think, is the question whether there’s a semantic>>difference at the time of composition of Acts 13:48 between an aorist>>passive ETACQHSAN and this form before us, HSAN TETAGMENOI. There may>>be real difference of opinion on this; my own judgment is that ETACQHSAN> >>is the one that ought properly to be translated as a pluperfect passive>in>>English (“had been destined/ordained”) while the periphrastic form ought>>more properly to be understood as a past stative with a time>>simultaneous to that of the main verb (“were–at that>time–destined/ordained”). I>>think that the upshot is the same in any case, but I think there’s this>>difference: the aorist would underscore the completion of the>>destining/ordaining (prior to the time of the main verb) while the>>periphrastic pluperfect would underscore the status quo of the>>believers at the time they believed. Some may well think that this is>splitting>>hairs too much to no purpose, but it is worth noting, I think, that the>>aorist is generally used in narrative Greek where English uses a>pluperfect to>>convey time of a verb relative to time of another verb, and that the>perfect>>and pluperfect, where they are used at all, tend to indicate state or>>condition obtaining at a particular time. Frankly, I don’t think this>>distinction has any bearing upon the theological questions posed by this>verse, which>>cannot be discussed here.> >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 that>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’vemisunderstood the primary point I was trying to make. Perhaps I ought notto have phrased it as “the periphrastic form” which might suggest that, hadLuke written ETETACATO instead of TETAGMENOI HSAN, the meaning might bedifferent. I should have said quite simply “the pluperfect passive oughtproperly to be understood as a past stative with a time simultaneous tothat of the main verb.”I am NOT saying something about the time of the PARTICIPLE, TETAGMENOI. IAM saying that the pluperfect and the imperfect both refer to time prior tothe present, that the present perfect and the present indicative both referto present time, the present indicative describing what is happening, thepresent perfect describing a condition or state currently obtaining.An English sentence analogous to the one under consideration is this:”Those who were dead did not respond to the morning bugle call.” I thinkthat “those who were dead” would be expressed in Greek commonly as hOSOITEQNHKOTES HSAN, although perhaps we might see hOSOI ETEQNHKESAN. I thinkthat hOSOI ETEQNHKESAN might theoretically be translated as “as many as haddied” but better would be “as many as were dead”; the sense of the Englishpluperfect is more commonly expressed in Greek narrative prose with anaorist, and in this instance it would be: hOSOI APEQANON. The differenceI’m arguing for is that the aorist is more like the English pluperfectbecause it emphasizes completion prior to a certain point in the past,while the Greek pluperfect emphasizes a state obtaining at some point inthe past.To return to Acts 13:48 AKOUONTA DE TA EQNH ECAIRON KAI EDOXAZON TON LOGONTOU KURIOU KAI EPISTEUSAN hOSOI HSAN TETAGMENOI EIS ZWHN AIWNION. My ownidiomatic version of this would be, “And as the Gentiles heard, they wenton to rejoice and to glorify the word of the Lord and those who weredestined for everlasting life came to believe.” I’m translating HSANTETAGMENOI as “were destined”; if it were ETACQHSAN, I’d be more inclinedto translate it “had been destined.” I think the aorist emphasizes thecompletion of the act, whereas I think the pluperfect emphasizes the statusobtaining for those who believed.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington UniversitySummer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

Hair-splitting (was Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48)any info on Carl Ruck or John Clabeaux?

Hair-splitting (was Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48) Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Mon Jul 5 19:57:32 EDT 1999

Hair-splitting (was Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48)any info on Carl Ruck or John Clabeaux?

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

What are websites for Hebrew grammars? any info on Carl Ruck or John Clabeaux? 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 otherthan denoting>>prior, completed action of the participle with reference to the actionof>>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 isno>>question that an aorist participle can denote time simultaneous to hat>>of the main verb, but I’ve never heard of a perfect participle doingthe>>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 Iought >not to have phrased it as “the periphrastic form” which might suggest >that, had Luke written ETETACATO instead of TETAGMENOI HSAN, the meaningmight >be different. I should have said quite simply “the pluperfect passive >ought properly to be understood as a past stative with a timesimultaneous >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 referto time >prior to the present, that the present perfect and the presentindicative both >refer to present time, the present indicative describing what ishappening, >the present perfect describing a condition or state currently obtaining.All you are saying then, to use other terminology, is that you perceivetheperfect TETAGMENOI as intensive, rather than extensive, with the stressbeingnot on the completed past act (of God’s choosing), but upon the existingpresentresults, that is, that the hOSOI were in the resulting state of beingchosen whenthey 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 whowere>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 aoristemphasizes >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 iscarried, but a possible ambiguity is avoided by rendering the aoristingressively.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.

What are websites for Hebrew grammars?any info on Carl Ruck or John Clabeaux?

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

What are websites for Hebrew grammars?any info on Carl Ruck or John Clabeaux?

Hair-splitting (was Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48) Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue Jul 6 14:44:21 EDT 1999

any info on Carl Ruck or John Clabeaux? any info on Carl Ruck or John Clabeaux? At 10:08 AM -0700 7/6/99, dixonps at juno.com wrote:>On Mon, 5 Jul 1999 19:57:32 -0400 “Carl W. Conrad”><cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu> writes:> >>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?Precisely.>>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.Yes; moreover, I think that this understanding of the way aorist andpluperfect work in Koine (I can’t really prove it, but I believe it) helpsexplain the rarity of both the perfect and the pluperfect in Koine. Theaorist has effectively assumed their functions in narrative and they areused, when they are used, more fundamentally to emphasize that existingresult.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington UniversitySummer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

any info on Carl Ruck or John Clabeaux?any info on Carl Ruck or John Clabeaux?

Hair-splitting (was Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48) Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue Jul 6 14:44:21 EDT 1999

any info on Carl Ruck or John Clabeaux?any info on Carl Ruck or John Clabeaux?

Hair-splitting (was Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48) dixonps at juno.com dixonps at juno.com
Tue Jul 6 17:20:08 EDT 1999

any info on Carl Ruck or John Clabeaux? Heb 1:8 On Tue, 6 Jul 1999 14:44:21 -0400 “Carl W. Conrad”<cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu> writes:>>>To return to Acts 13:48 AKOUONTA DE TA EQNH ECAIRON KAI EDOXAZON TON>>>LOGON TOU KURIOU KAI EPISTEUSAN hOSOI HSAN TETAGMENOI EIS ZWHNAIWNION.>>>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 whowere>>>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 aoristemphasizes>>>the completion of the act, whereas I think the pluperfect emphasizesthe>>>status obtaining for those who believed.>> >>I like your translation very much. The intensive force of the perfectis>>carried, but a possible ambiguity is avoided by rendering the aorist>>ingressively.> >Yes; moreover, I think that this understanding of the way aorist and>pluperfect work in Koine (I can’t really prove it, but I believe it)helps>explain the rarity of both the perfect and the pluperfect in Koine. >The aorist has effectively assumed their functions in narrative and they>are used, when they are used, more fundamentally to emphasize that >existing result.Would you suspect then that the ratio of perfects/aorists in ClassicalGreekis higher than in the Koine? Would this also suggest the ratio ofconsummative aorists/constative aorists is greater in the Koine? My feel for theaorists in theGreek NT is that the vast majority are constative and relatively few areingressiveor consummative. Is it even less so in the Classics?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.

any info on Carl Ruck or John Clabeaux?Heb 1:8

Hair-splitting (was Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48) dixonps at juno.com dixonps at juno.com
Tue Jul 6 17:20:08 EDT 1999

any info on Carl Ruck or John Clabeaux?Heb 1:8

Hair-splitting (was Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48) James S. Murray jsmurray at execpc.com
Tue Jul 6 18:20:27 EDT 1999

Hair-splitting (was Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48) More hair-splitting: was Aktionsart of ESKHNWSEN and EGENETO in John 1:14 “Carl W. Conrad” wrote:> As I tried to state in my first response to this question, there is ONLY> the periphrastic form of the pluperfect to be found at the time of the> writing of Acts 13:48 (I certainly haven’t done a search of the TLG, but> I’d wager that the Homeric equivalent 3d pl. inflected pluperfect,> ETETACATO, is not to be found). So there’s not really any point in> attempting to differentiate meanings of the periphrastic and inflected> pluperfects.> > More to the point, I think, is the question whether there’s a semantic> difference at the time of composition of Acts 13:48 between an aorist> passive ETACQHSAN and this form before us, HSAN TETAGMENOI. There may be> real difference of opinion on this; my own judgment is that ETACQHSAN is> the one that ought properly to be translated as a pluperfect passive in> English (“had been destined/ordained”) while the periphrastic form ought> more properly to be understood as a past stative with a time simultaneous> to that of the main verb (“were–at that time–destined/ordained”). I think> that the upshot is the same in any case, but I think there’s this> difference: the aorist would underscore the completion of the> destining/ordaining (prior to the time of the main verb) while the> periphrastic pluperfect would underscore the status quo of the believers at> the time they believed. Some may well think that this is splitting hairs> too much to no purpose, but it is worth noting, I think, that the aorist is> generally used in narrative Greek where English uses a pluperfect to convey> time of a verb relative to time of another verb, and that the perfect and> pluperfect, where they are used at all, tend to indicate state or condition> obtaining at a particular time. Frankly, I don’t think this distinction has> any bearing upon the theological questions posed by this verse, which> cannot be discussed here.> > With regard to the other hair-splitting question, whether hOSOI HSAN> TETAGMENOI is a relative clause or a substantive clause, I’d place myself> firmly on the fence: I do think that there’s an implicit partitive TWN> EQNWN to be understood with the hOSOI and I think that one could argue that> this is an instance of the antecedent assimilated to the relative, so that> we might amplify the phrasing as EKEINOI EPISTEUSAN hOSOI TETAGMENOI HSAN.> At several points in Koine texts, one gets the impression that hOSOS/-H/-ON> is already the relative pronoun replacing hOS/hH/hO that it has become in> Modern Greek.> This was very helpful. Thank you.JimJim MurrayRacine, WI

Hair-splitting (was Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48)More hair-splitting: was Aktionsart of ESKHNWSEN and EGENETO in John 1:14

Hair-splitting (was Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48) James S. Murray jsmurray at execpc.com
Tue Jul 6 18:20:27 EDT 1999

Hair-splitting (was Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48)More hair-splitting: was Aktionsart of ESKHNWSEN and EGENETO in John 1:14

Hair-splitting (was Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48) Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Thu Jul 8 08:03:02 EDT 1999

TLG Lookup Hair-splitting for the Bald At 2:20 PM -0700 7/6/99, dixonps at juno.com wrote:>On Tue, 6 Jul 1999 14:44:21 -0400 “Carl W. Conrad”><cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu> writes:>>Yes; moreover, I think that this understanding of the way aorist and>>pluperfect work in Koine (I can’t really prove it, but I believe it)>helps>>explain the rarity of both the perfect and the pluperfect in Koine.>>The aorist has effectively assumed their functions in narrative and they> >>are used, when they are used, more fundamentally to emphasize that>>existing result.> >Would you suspect then that the ratio of perfects/aorists in Classical>Greek>is higher than in the Koine? Would this also suggest the ratio of>consummative>aorists/constative aorists is greater in the Koine? My feel for the>aorists in the>Greek NT is that the vast majority are constative and relatively few are>ingressive>or consummative. Is it even less so in the Classics?Paul, this deserves a fuller and fully documented answer based on much morethorough research than I’ve been able to carry out. Let me say ratherbriefly:(1) I do believe (but am not prepared at present to document) that theratio of perfects/aorists is indeed considerably higher in classicalnarrative Greek than it is in Koine. Probably this is something that HASbeen documented, but I can’t put my hands on it now.(2) From Accordance, I find the following numbers for Perfect andPluperfect tense forms in the GNT:Perfect tense forms in GNT: 1573Mt 113Mk 93Lk 171Jn 284Acts 164Pauline letters 329Deutero-Pauline 43Pastorals 53Heb 87Catholic letters 137Revelation 117Pluperfect tense forms in GNT: 86Mt 8 (hEISTHKEI 2, HiDEI 3, EIWQEI)Mk 8 (HiDEI 3, EIWQEI)Lk 16 (HiDEI 5, hEISTHKEI 3)Jn 34 HiDSEI 15, hEISTHKEI 7Acts 17 (HiDEI 5, hEISTHKEI 1)Pauline letters 1 (HiDEIN)Pastorals: 0Heb: 0Catholic letters 1Revelation 1 (hEISTHKEISAN)I think it is noteworthy that so many of these pluperfect forms are ofperfect tenses normally used with present meaning: hESTHKA (“I amstanding”), OIDA (“I know”), and EIWQA (“I am accustomed”). I definitelybelieve that when a pluperfect sense is required in narrative it isgenerally expressed in Koine with an aorist.(3) I am content with the description of functions of these tenses at:http://www.xensei.com/users/samato/greek/gtense.html#PerfectThe Perfect Tense1. Intensive (Resultative) Perfect2. Extensive (Consummative) Perfect3. Perfect with a Present ForceThe Pluperfect Tense 1. Intensive (Resultative) Pluperfect2. Extensive (Consummative) PluperfectThe perfect and pluperfect tenses are identical in aspect though differentin time. Thus both speak of an event accomplished in the past (in theindicative mood) with results existing afterwards – the perfect speaking ofexisting results in the present, the pluperfect speaking of existingresults in the past.There’s a fuller description of each as well as examples at that site.For Classical Greek, see Smyth at the Perseus web site, ##1945-1954.When I say “I am content with that description,” I mean that I accept thatsome GNT perfects and pluperfects are consummative, but I think that theresultative usage is far more common when the perfect or pluperfect appearin the GNT; I think this is particularly true of the very common GEGRAPTAIand of such Johannine verb-forms as Pilate’s hO GEGRAFA GEGRAFA and Jesus’final word: TETELESTAI.Nevertheless, I want to underscore that I don’t consider this a full orsatisfactory answer to your question, Paul.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington UniversitySummer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/————– next part ————–A non-text attachment was scrubbed…Name: not availableType: text/enrichedSize: 3848 bytesDesc: not availableUrl : http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//attachments/19990708/39be8c39/attachment.bin

TLG LookupHair-splitting for the Bald

Hair-splitting (was Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48) Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Thu Jul 8 08:03:02 EDT 1999

TLG LookupHair-splitting for the Bald

Acts 13:48 multiple choice question Richard r.vandenhengel at hetnet.nl
Sat Dec 14 11:14:36 EST 2002

genitive in John 1:3 Future Passive Forms in Matthew Acts 13:48 runs as follows: AKOUONTA DE TA EQNH EXAIRON KAI EDOCAZON TONLOGON TOU QEOU KAI EPISTEUSAN hOSOI HSAN TETAGMENOI EIS ZWHN AIWNION.How would you translate this verse?A. ‘And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified theword of God; and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed’ (RSV).B. ‘The Gentiles were glad when they heard (this) and praised the Lord andall who were aimed at eternal life believed’ (Theodor Zahn: Kommentar zumNeuen Testament). In German: ‘Die Heiden freuten sich, da sie (dies)hörten und priesen Gott und es wurden gläubig alle, die auf ewiges Lebengerichtet waren’.C. ‘When the gentiles heard this they were glad and praised the word ofGod and as many as were (present) believed, having been placed in positiontowards (or: ‘having been directed towards’) eternal life’ (My owntranslation).D. . (Your alternative translation)Arguments:Translation A:1. The words HSAN and TETAGMENOI form the verbal phrase, like HSAN andsimilar participles do in other places (see Matthew 9:36, Luke 8:2, 9:32,Acts 12:12). HSAN is an auxiliary verb and has no meaning of itself.2. The best translation of TASSW is “to ordain”, for most Englishtranslations choose for this meaning of TASSW.Translation B:1. The idea of predestination to eternal life does not follow from Acts13:48, for if Luke would have had this intention, the addition hUPO (TOU)QEOU to HSAN TETAGMENOI would have been indispensable (see Romans 13:1:hAI DE OUSAI hUPO QEOU TETAGMENAI EISIN).2. Luke didn’t intend to say “ordained themselves”, for in that case hewould have used the appropriate mode as Paul does in 1 Corinthians 16:15:KAI EIS DIAKONIAN TOIS hAGIOIS ETACAN hEAUTOUS.3. Luke didn’t intend to mention who caused the action, just as we do notwonder who dressed the president when we say: “the president was dressed”.Luke only talks about Gentiles who were unhappy in their thinking andstriving with their religion and who were aimed at/looking for eternallife. They wanted to know more about eternal life. Therefore they hadinvited Paul and Barnabas to speak to them (verses 42 and 44). With thewords KAI EPISTEUSAN hOSOI HSAN TETAGMENOI EIS ZWHN AIWNION Luke simplymeans that those who were aimed at/looking for eternal life, believed.Translation C:1. The phrase hOSOI HSAN should be translated as “as many as were(present)”. The phrase hOSOI HSAN occurs only twice in the NT: in Acts13:48 and in Acts 4:6. The ASV and the AV translate Acts 4:6 (KAI hOSOIHSAN EK GENOUS ARXIERATIKOU) as “and as many as were of the kindred of thehigh priest”. In both phrases hOSOI HSAN the word HSAN has its ownmeaning. It is not used as an auxiliary verb. In Acts 4:6 the word HSANindicates presence (EK GENOUS ARXIERATIKOU indicates descent) and in Acts13:46 HSAN also indicates presence.2. Verbs should only be translated as auxiliary verbs if it is clear thatthey cannot have any meaning at all, for degrading verbs to auxiliaryverbs, robs these words of their meaning.3. The translation “and as many as were there believed” corresponds withthe fact that the gentiles EXAIRON KAI EDOCAZON TON LOGON TOU QEOU. Tothem the gospel was really a joyful message, for they heard that the Lordhad commanded Paul and Barnabas: I have set you to be a light for theGentiles, that you may bring salvation to the uttermost parts of theearth’. Just like in Joppa all who were present believed (Acts 10:19-48).In both cases none of the believers were Jews, in accordance with thecomposition of the book of Acts. The overwhelming acceptance of the Gospelby the Gentiles is in accordance with the triumph of the Gospel expressedby the following verse: DIEFERETO DE hO LOGOS TOU KURIOU DI hOLHS THSXWRAS.4. Luke does not describe coming to faith as a one-sided act of God, as ifbelief is the irresistible result of an eternal decree. The words KAIEPISTEUSAN simply mean that belief is a human act. Moreover, Lukecontrasts the praising of the word of God by the gentiles (EXAIRON KAIEDOCAZON TON LOGON TOU QEOU: verse 48) with the rejection of the word ofGod by the Jews (verse 46) and he also contrasts the joyful belief of thegentiles in eternal life (ZWHN AIWNION: verse 48) with the bitterrejection of eternal life by the Jews (verse 46) to illustrate that beliefand unbelief are two sides of the same coin: human freedom andresponsibility. According to Luke God has a good purpose with everyone,nevertheless some reject His good purpose (Luke 7:30: hOI DE FARISAIOI KAIhOI NOMIKOI THN BOULHN TOU QEOU HQETHSAN EIS hEAUTOUS).5. Translating the participle TETAGMENOI with “were ordained” is ratherarbitrary, for this translation associates the participle with a specifictheological concept, whereas TASSW is never used with such a meaning inthe NT (see TASSW in Matthew 28:16, Luke 7:8, Acts 13:48, 15:2, 22:10,28:23, Romans 13:1 and 1 Corinthians 16:15). Moreover, if Luke had reallyintended to communicate such a theological concept, more explanation wouldhave been necessary to be understood.However, my translation ‘to placed in position’ is mentioned in mostlexicons as the main meaning of TASSW (see: A Greek-English Lexicon of theNew Testament, Walter Bauer, TASSW, 1, Thayers Greek-English Lexicon ofthe New Testament, Joseph H. Thayer, TASSW, 1 and 1a, Greek EnglishLexicon, Liddell-Scott, TASSW, I.1., Analytical Lexicon to the Greek NewTestament, Timothy and Barbara Friberg, TASSW (1)). The gentiles were putin position towards eternal life, like soldiers who are placed in positionto move towards the enemy (see for this military origin of TASSW: GreekEnglish Lexicon, Liddell-Scott, TASSW, I.1. and Luke 7:8), or like pieceson a chessboard which are placed in position to move towards the otherside.The perfect time of the participle TETAGMENOI indicates that Paul firstrevealed that salvation and eternal life were also meant for the gentiles(verse 47) – placing them in position towards (or: directing them towards)eternal life – and after hearing this revelation the gentiles believed.The verb TASSW in combination with the preposition EIS is used in thissense of ‘to direct to’ in Matthew 28:16: EIS TO OROS OU ETACATO AUTOIS hOIHSOUS (RSV: to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them). See alsoKAI EIS DIAKONIAN TOIS AGIOIS ETACAN hEAUTOUS in 1 Corinthians 16:15.Taking in consideration the above mentioned arguments I think thetranslation “to be placed in position towards” or “to be directed towards”is to be preferred above the translation “to be ordained”.Which translation do you prefer and why? Maybe you even have analternative translation. I am interested in your views.Kind regardsRichard van den HengelThe Netherlands

genitive in John 1:3Future Passive Forms in Matthew

Acts 13:48 multiple choice question Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Sun Dec 15 11:02:50 EST 2002

Middle and Passive Aorist and Future forms genitive in John 1:3 [correction] Richard van den Hengel wrote:> Acts 13:48 runs as follows: AKOUONTA DE TA EQNH EXAIRON KAI EDOCAZON TON> LOGON TOU QEOU KAI EPISTEUSAN hOSOI HSAN TETAGMENOI EIS ZWHN AIWNION.> > How would you translate this verse?> A. ‘And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the> word of God; and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed’ (RSV).> B. ‘The Gentiles were glad when they heard (this) and praised the Lord and> all who were aimed at eternal life believed’ (Theodor Zahn: Kommentar zum> Neuen Testament). In German: ‘Die Heiden freuten sich, da sie (dies)> hörten und priesen Gott und es wurden gläubig alle, die auf ewiges Leben> gerichtet waren’.> C. ‘When the gentiles heard this they were glad and praised the word of> God and as many as were (present) believed, having been placed in position> towards (or: ‘having been directed towards’) eternal life’ (My own> translation).> D. . (Your alternative translation)My alternative:When the non-Jews heard this, they started rejoicing and praising God forhis message, and all those who were appointed to receive eternal life,believed.> Arguments:> > Translation A:> 1. The words HSAN and TETAGMENOI form the verbal phrase, like HSAN and> similar participles do in other places (see Matthew 9:36, Luke 8:2, 9:32,> Acts 12:12). HSAN is an auxiliary verb and has no meaning of itself.That HSAN is an auxiliary verb does not mean that it has no meaning orfunction. Notice how the preceding verbs are in imperfect tense. This tenseis often used to describe a situation that lasts for some time. Theauxiliary plus perfect participle similarly describes the state some of themwere in, that is, they were appointed to receive eternal life.> 2. The best translation of TASSW is “to ordain”, for most English> translations choose for this meaning of TASSW.Not necessarily the best. “Ordain” has obtained a religious and limitedconnotation in modern English that no longer fits the Greek. “Destined”might be used, but that word again leads to theological controversy.”Appointed” is more natural English, but there are other options, like “setapart”.> > Translation B:> 1. The idea of predestination to eternal life does not follow from Acts> 13:48, for if Luke would have had this intention, the addition hUPO (TOU)> QEOU to HSAN TETAGMENOI would have been indispensable (see Romans 13:1:> hAI DE OUSAI hUPO QEOU TETAGMENAI EISIN).This is false argumentation, because you let your theologicalpresuppositions override what the Greek text says. Whether or not a hUPOphrase is present, the agent for the middle-passive TETAGMENOI is God.> 2. Luke didn’t intend to say “ordained themselves”, for in that case he> would have used the appropriate mode as Paul does in 1 Corinthians 16:15:> KAI EIS DIAKONIAN TOIS hAGIOIS ETACAN hEAUTOUS.Yes, that is right. Luke did not intend to say “ordained themselves”whatever that might mean.The active verb in 1 Cor 16:15 means “put themselves into” or “investedthemselves in.” An active sense does not fit the Luke passage at all.> 3. Luke didn’t intend to mention who caused the action, just as we do not> wonder who dressed the president when we say: “the president was dressed”.> Luke only talks about Gentiles who were unhappy in their thinking and> striving with their religion and who were aimed at/looking for eternal> life. They wanted to know more about eternal life. Therefore they had> invited Paul and Barnabas to speak to them (verses 42 and 44). With the> words KAI EPISTEUSAN hOSOI HSAN TETAGMENOI EIS ZWHN AIWNION Luke simply> means that those who were aimed at/looking for eternal life, believed.There is no way TETAGMENOI can possibly mean “looking for”, and “aimed at”makes little sense. People are not “aimed at” anything.> Translation C:> 1. The phrase hOSOI HSAN should be translated as “as many as were> (present)”. The phrase hOSOI HSAN occurs only twice in the NT: in Acts> 13:48 and in Acts 4:6. The ASV and the AV translate Acts 4:6 (KAI hOSOI> HSAN EK GENOUS ARXIERATIKOU) as “and as many as were of the kindred of the> high priest”. In both phrases hOSOI HSAN the word HSAN has its own> meaning. It is not used as an auxiliary verb. In Acts 4:6 the word HSAN> indicates presence (EK GENOUS ARXIERATIKOU indicates descent) and in Acts> 13:46 HSAN also indicates presence.> 2. Verbs should only be translated as auxiliary verbs if it is clear that> they cannot have any meaning at all, for degrading verbs to auxiliary> verbs, robs these words of their meaning.There is no doubt whatsoever that HSAN here is an auxiliary verb to be takentogether with the perfect participle. It is not permissible to twist theGreek text to say what you want it to say, and it is not permissible to add”present” to the translation.> 3. The translation “and as many as were there believed” corresponds with> the fact that the gentiles EXAIRON KAI EDOCAZON TON LOGON TOU QEOU. To> them the gospel was really a joyful message, for they heard that the Lord> had commanded Paul and Barnabas: I have set you to be a light for the> Gentiles, that you may bring salvation to the uttermost parts of the> earth’. Just like in Joppa all who were present believed (Acts 10:19-48).> In both cases none of the believers were Jews, in accordance with the> composition of the book of Acts. The overwhelming acceptance of the Gospel> by the Gentiles is in accordance with the triumph of the Gospel expressed> by the following verse: DIEFERETO DE hO LOGOS TOU KURIOU DI hOLHS THS> XWRAS.Are you saying that every non-Jew who heard the Good News believed it? Ifso, this is not what the text is saying, nor what Luke could possibly havemeant.> 4. Luke does not describe coming to faith as a one-sided act of God, as if> belief is the irresistible result of an eternal decree. The words KAI> EPISTEUSAN simply mean that belief is a human act. Moreover, Luke> contrasts the praising of the word of God by the gentiles (EXAIRON KAI> EDOCAZON TON LOGON TOU QEOU: verse 48) with the rejection of the word of> God by the Jews (verse 46) and he also contrasts the joyful belief of the> gentiles in eternal life (ZWHN AIWNION: verse 48) with the bitter> rejection of eternal life by the Jews (verse 46) to illustrate that belief> and unbelief are two sides of the same coin: human freedom and> responsibility. According to Luke God has a good purpose with everyone,> nevertheless some reject His good purpose (Luke 7:30: hOI DE FARISAIOI KAI> hOI NOMIKOI THN BOULHN TOU QEOU HQETHSAN EIS hEAUTOUS).Even with the translation ordained or appointed, there is no reason to takethat to the theological or philosophical extreme of an “irresistible resultof an eternal decree.”> 5. Translating the participle TETAGMENOI with “were ordained” is rather> arbitrary, for this translation associates the participle with a specific> theological concept, whereas TASSW is never used with such a meaning in> the NT (see TASSW in Matthew 28:16, Luke 7:8, Acts 13:48, 15:2, 22:10,> 28:23, Romans 13:1 and 1 Corinthians 16:15). Moreover, if Luke had really> intended to communicate such a theological concept, more explanation would> have been necessary to be understood.It seems that you are letting your theology drive your understanding of thetext, instead of the other way round.> However, my translation ‘to placed in position’ is mentioned in most> lexicons as the main meaning of TASSW (see: A Greek-English Lexicon of the> New Testament, Walter Bauer, TASSW, 1, Thayers Greek-English Lexicon of> the New Testament, Joseph H. Thayer, TASSW, 1 and 1a, Greek English> Lexicon, Liddell-Scott, TASSW, I.1., Analytical Lexicon to the Greek New> Testament, Timothy and Barbara Friberg, TASSW (1)). The gentiles were put> in position towards eternal life, like soldiers who are placed in position> to move towards the enemy (see for this military origin of TASSW: Greek> English Lexicon, Liddell-Scott, TASSW, I.1. and Luke 7:8), or like pieces> on a chessboard which are placed in position to move towards the other> side.> The perfect time of the participle TETAGMENOI indicates that Paul first> revealed that salvation and eternal life were also meant for the gentiles> (verse 47) – placing them in position towards (or: directing them towards)> eternal life – and after hearing this revelation the gentiles believed.So, you are saying that Paul is the implied agent for TETAGMENOI? That is ahighly unusual interpretation, and it certainly cannot be derived from theperfect tense form.> The verb TASSW in combination with the preposition EIS is used in this> sense of ‘to direct to’ in Matthew 28:16: EIS TO OROS OU ETACATO AUTOIS hO> IHSOUS (RSV: to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them).No, it is not permissible to take words out of their context to try to provea preconceived idea. The phrase EIS TO OROS depends on the preceding wordEPOREUQHSAN and it is parallel to another destination mentioned: EIS THNGALILAIAN. The disciples went to Galilee, more specifically to the mountainwhere Jesus had appointed for them to go and meet him. See also> KAI EIS DIAKONIAN TOIS AGIOIS ETACAN hEAUTOUS in 1 Corinthians 16:15.> Taking in consideration the above mentioned arguments I think the> translation “to be placed in position towards” or “to be directed towards”> is to be preferred above the translation “to be ordained”.> > Which translation do you prefer and why? Maybe you even have an> alternative translation. I am interested in your views.I am afraid that your preferred translation of this verse is too far removedfrom the intended meaning of the Greek text.> > Kind regards> Richard van den Hengel> The NetherlandsBest wishes,Iver LarsenSIL Translation consultant

Middle and Passive Aorist and Future formsgenitive in John 1:3 [correction]

Acts 13:48 multiple choice question Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sun Dec 15 15:48:52 EST 2002

MEQUSOS vs. OINOPOTHS, drunks Middle and Passive Aorist and Future forms At 7:02 PM +0300 12/15/02, Iver Larsen wrote:>Richard van den Hengel wrote:>> Translation B:>> 1. The idea of predestination to eternal life does not follow from Acts>> 13:48, for if Luke would have had this intention, the addition hUPO (TOU)>> QEOU to HSAN TETAGMENOI would have been indispensable (see Romans 13:1:>> hAI DE OUSAI hUPO QEOU TETAGMENAI EISIN).> >This is false argumentation, because you let your theological>presuppositions override what the Greek text says. Whether or not a hUPO>phrase is present, the agent for the middle-passive TETAGMENOI is God.More a footnote than anything else.Insmuch as this–Richard’s question and Iver’s response both–seems prettyevidently a comment on something that I’ve said, perhaps even what I saidthis morning about the so-called “divine passive,” let me say (a) that Ihave no difficulty with the assumption that the agent for TETAGMENOI inthis instance must be God (TASSEIN is an action that must be performed bysomeone, and I wouldn’t suppose that TASSEIN EIS ZWHN is the prerogative ofany other than God; (b) I wouldn’t think there’s any need to classify thisas a “divine passive;” (c) although I worded my principle more loosely atthe outset, what I’ve tried to say pretty carefully more recently is: useof a middle-passive form in Greek seems intended to focus upon theevent/action/occurrence itself rather than upon the responsible agent orinstrument; if it was deemed important by the speaker/writer to denote theagent or instrument, the standard agent and instrumental constructionswould usually, though not necessarily always, be employed.– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad at ioa.comWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/

MEQUSOS vs. OINOPOTHS, drunksMiddle and Passive Aorist and Future forms

Acts 13:48 multiple choice question Richard r.vandenhengel at hetnet.nl
Thu Dec 19 17:31:39 EST 2002

Downloadable Greek Testament – online ALLHLWN Iver Larsen wrote that:> Richard van den Hengel wrote:> > Acts 13:48 runs as follows: AKOUONTA DE TA EQNH EXAIRON KAI EDOCAZON TON> > LOGON TOU QEOU KAI EPISTEUSAN hOSOI HSAN TETAGMENOI EIS ZWHN AIWNION.> >> > How would you translate this verse?> > A. ‘And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the> > word of God; and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed’ (RSV).> > B. ‘The Gentiles were glad when they heard (this) and praised the Lord and> > all who were aimed at eternal life believed’ (Theodor Zahn: Kommentar zum> > Neuen Testament). In German: ‘Die Heiden freuten sich, da sie (dies)> > hörten und priesen Gott und es wurden gläubig alle, die auf ewiges Leben> > gerichtet waren’.> > C. ‘When the gentiles heard this they were glad and praised the word of> > God and as many as were (present) believed, having been placed in position> > towards (or: ‘having been directed towards’) eternal life’ (My own> > translation).> > D. . (Your alternative translation)> > My alternative:> When the non-Jews heard this, they started rejoicing and praising God for> his message, and all those who were appointed to receive eternal life,> believed.Thanks Iver, for your extensive answer.However, your answers elicit some questions. Why do you write that thenon-Jews started praising God for his message? Doesn’t the text say thatthey praised the word of God instead of God himself?> > > Arguments:> >> > Translation A:> > 1. The words HSAN and TETAGMENOI form the verbal phrase, like HSAN and> > similar participles do in other places (see Matthew 9:36, Luke 8:2, 9:32,> > Acts 12:12). HSAN is an auxiliary verb and has no meaning of itself.> > That HSAN is an auxiliary verb does not mean that it has no meaning or> function. Notice how the preceding verbs are in imperfect tense. This tense> is often used to describe a situation that lasts for some time. The> auxiliary plus perfect participle similarly describes the state some of them> were in, that is, they were appointed to receive eternal life.> Of course an auxiliary verb has a function. I agree it indicates time. Butdon’t you agree that an auxiliary verb has no meaning of itself?> > 2. The best translation of TASSW is “to ordain”, for most English> > translations choose for this meaning of TASSW.> > Not necessarily the best. “Ordain” has obtained a religious and limited> connotation in modern English that no longer fits the Greek. “Destined”> might be used, but that word again leads to theological controversy.> “Appointed” is more natural English, but there are other options, like “set> apart”.> >I couldn’t find the meaning “destined” in any lexicon. I couldn’t find themeaning “set apart” in any lexicon either (see: A Greek-English Lexicon ofthe New Testament, Walter Bauer, Thayers Greek-English Lexicon of the NewTestament, Joseph H. Thayer, Greek English Lexicon, Liddell-Scott,Analytical Lexicon to the Greek New Testament, Timothy and BarbaraFriberg). Why do you choose for such meanings? It seems to me thesetranslations are derived from a theological background.The meaning “to appoint” makes more sense to me, for it can be found inmost lexicons.> > Translation B:> > 1. The idea of predestination to eternal life does not follow from Acts> > 13:48, for if Luke would have had this intention, the addition hUPO (TOU)> > QEOU to HSAN TETAGMENOI would have been indispensable (see Romans 13:1:> > hAI DE OUSAI hUPO QEOU TETAGMENAI EISIN).> > This is false argumentation, because you let your theological> presuppositions override what the Greek text says. Whether or not a hUPO> phrase is present, the agent for the middle-passive TETAGMENOI is God.> I don’t understand why you accuse Theodor Zahn of false argumentation. Tome it seems his arguments are based on textual comparison. He mentions anexample of a sentence in which TASSW is being used in combination withhUPO QEOU to show that the use of hUPO (TOU) QEOU in combination withTASSW lies at hand if an author wants to express that God is the agent.Why do you say that the agent for the middle-passive TETAGMENOI must beGod. Do you mean that such a middle-passive is always a divine passive?Why can’t the word of God be the agent, or Paul and Barnabas? Do you wantto exclude these possibilities beforehand on the basis of textualarguments?On exegetical grounds it can be argued that the word of God was the agentof TETAGMENOI, for the non-Jews didn’t praise God, but they praised theword of God, for the word of God had directed them towards eternal life,and the word of God spread throughout all the region (verse 49). Dotextual arguments make such an exegesis impossible?On exegetical grounds it can also be argued that Paul and Barnabas werethe agents of TETAGMENOI. They were “set to be a light for the Gentiles”and to “bring salvation to the uttermost parts of the earth” (verse 47).Do textual arguments exclude the possibility that Paul and Barnabas werethe means chosen by God through whom the Gentiles were directed towardseternal life?<skip>> > 3. Luke didn’t intend to mention who caused the action, just as we do not> > wonder who dressed the president when we say: “the president was dressed”.> > Luke only talks about Gentiles who were unhappy in their thinking and> > striving with their religion and who were aimed at/looking for eternal> > life. They wanted to know more about eternal life. Therefore they had> > invited Paul and Barnabas to speak to them (verses 42 and 44). With the> > words KAI EPISTEUSAN hOSOI HSAN TETAGMENOI EIS ZWHN AIWNION Luke simply> > means that those who were aimed at/looking for eternal life, believed.> > There is no way TETAGMENOI can possibly mean “looking for”, and “aimed at”> makes little sense. People are not “aimed at” anything.> You are right. I think that I translated Theodor Zahn not preciselyenough. I think it would have been better to translate the words “und eswurden gläubig alle, die auf ewiges Leben gerichtet waren” with “and allwho were directed towards eternal life believed”. The word TASSW whichmeans ‘to place in position’ in combination with EIS can mean “to direct”(See Barclay M. Newman, Jr. A Concise Greek-English Lexicon of the NewTestament). Theodor Zahn argues that the non-Jews were directed towardseternal life (not explicitly by God nor explicitly by themselves, but justdirected) because they were not satisfied with their lives and becausethey had heard Paul and Barnabas speak to the Jews of a better life.Therefore they “begged that these things might be told them the nextSabbath” (verse 42). Maybe now you understand Theodor Zahn somethingbetter. Do you think such a translation conflicts with the Greek text?> > Translation C:> > 1. The phrase hOSOI HSAN should be translated as “as many as were> > (present)”. The phrase hOSOI HSAN occurs only twice in the NT: in Acts> > 13:48 and in Acts 4:6. The ASV and the AV translate Acts 4:6 (KAI hOSOI> > HSAN EK GENOUS ARXIERATIKOU) as “and as many as were of the kindred of the> > high priest”. In both phrases hOSOI HSAN the word HSAN has its own> > meaning. It is not used as an auxiliary verb. In Acts 4:6 the word HSAN> > indicates presence (EK GENOUS ARXIERATIKOU indicates descent) and in Acts> > 13:46 HSAN also indicates presence.> > 2. Verbs should only be translated as auxiliary verbs if it is clear that> > they cannot have any meaning at all, for degrading verbs to auxiliary> > verbs, robs these words of their meaning.> > There is no doubt whatsoever that HSAN here is an auxiliary verb to be taken> together with the perfect participle. It is not permissible to twist the> Greek text to say what you want it to say, and it is not permissible to add> “present” to the translation.> The addition “present” or “available” is necessary in English to expressthe meaning of EIMI (see A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament,Walter Bauer, EIMI, I, 6). It is no addition that alters the meaning ofEIMI. If HSAN is not taken as an auxiliary verb, such an addition isindispensable.Why don’t you doubt that ESAN is an auxiliary verb here? Why should ESANin combination with a perfect participle always form the verbal phrase? Aquick query search for “OSOI HSAN” showed some results that seem to pleadfor the meaning of “as many as were there” (OSOI HSAN IN TAIS ELLHNIKAIS,Thucydides, The Peloponnesian War book 1, chapter 17, section 1, KAIAQHNAIWN OSOI HSAN IN BOIWTOIS, Thucydides, The Peloponnesian War book 5,chapter 35, section 5, OSOI HSAN EN TH ATTIKE, Thucydides, ThePeloponnesian War book 2, chapter 6, section 2). If you combine thesesearch results with the fact that OSOI HSAN in Acts 4:5 also indicatespresence, why do you refute the local sense of EIMI as a possibletranslation?> > 3. The translation “and as many as were there believed” corresponds with> > the fact that the gentiles EXAIRON KAI EDOCAZON TON LOGON TOU QEOU. To> > them the gospel was really a joyful message, for they heard that the Lord> > had commanded Paul and Barnabas: I have set you to be a light for the> > Gentiles, that you may bring salvation to the uttermost parts of the> > earth’. Just like in Joppa all who were present believed (Acts 10:19-48).> > In both cases none of the believers were Jews, in accordance with the> > composition of the book of Acts. The overwhelming acceptance of the Gospel> > by the Gentiles is in accordance with the triumph of the Gospel expressed> > by the following verse: DIEFERETO DE hO LOGOS TOU KURIOU DI hOLHS THS> > XWRAS.> > Are you saying that every non-Jew who heard the Good News believed it? If> so, this is not what the text is saying, nor what Luke could possibly have> meant.> That is what I am saying indeed. Why should such a translation be refuted?<skip>> > However, my translation ‘to place in position’ is mentioned in most> > lexicons as the main meaning of TASSW (see: A Greek-English Lexicon of the> > New Testament, Walter Bauer, TASSW, 1, Thayers Greek-English Lexicon of> > the New Testament, Joseph H. Thayer, TASSW, 1 and 1a, Greek English> > Lexicon, Liddell-Scott, TASSW, I.1., Analytical Lexicon to the Greek New> > Testament, Timothy and Barbara Friberg, TASSW (1)). The gentiles were put> > in position towards eternal life, like soldiers who are placed in position> > to move towards the enemy (see for this military origin of TASSW: Greek> > English Lexicon, Liddell-Scott, TASSW, I.1. and Luke 7:8), or like pieces> > on a chessboard which are placed in position to move towards the other> > side.> > The perfect time of the participle TETAGMENOI indicates that Paul first> > revealed that salvation and eternal life were also meant for the gentiles> > (verse 47) – placing them in position towards (or: directing them towards)> > eternal life – and after hearing this revelation the gentiles believed.> > So, you are saying that Paul is the implied agent for TETAGMENOI? That is a> highly unusual interpretation, and it certainly cannot be derived from the> perfect tense form.> Paul and Barnabas could also be the agent, just like the word of God as Iargued above. It may sound unusual, but do you think that the perfecttense form of TETAGMENOI excludes the possibility that others than God arethe agent?> > The verb TASSW in combination with the preposition EIS is used in this> > sense of ‘to direct to’ in Matthew 28:16: EIS TO OROS OU ETACATO AUTOIS hO> > IHSOUS (RSV: to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them).> > No, it is not permissible to take words out of their context to try to prove> a preconceived idea. The phrase EIS TO OROS depends on the preceding word> EPOREUQHSAN and it is parallel to another destination mentioned: EIS THN> GALILAIAN. The disciples went to Galilee, more specifically to the mountain> where Jesus had appointed for them to go and meet him.> The meaning “to direct” of the verb TASSW can be found in Barclay M.Newman, Jr. A Concise Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament.Moreover, if the main meaning of TASSW (“to place in position”) iscombined with EIS, why shouldn’t we translate the words “to place inposition towards” with “to direct towards”? It seems so obvious to me.> Kind regards> Richard van den Hengel> The Netherlands

Downloadable Greek Testament – onlineALLHLWN

Acts 13:48 multiple choice question Mark Wilson emory2oo2 at hotmail.com
Fri Dec 20 11:43:50 EST 2002

downloadable greek text ALLHLWN Richard:I think you are assuming that the Greek text itselfis the deciding factor in how one is to understand the text.This is a naive approach if you ask me.Presuppositions determine how we interpret a text. I do not meanthat the Greek is open to any and all options, but I am sayingthat one’s presuppositions will have a significant bearing on howone interprets a text. It seems to me you need to address thepresuppositional issues rather than the Greek issues. But I willadmit I have not managed to gain many followers to this view of mine.More times than not a Passive is chosen because it better supports one’stheological presuppositions. Same with choosing the Middle.The only problem I have with this discussion is the failureto realize that there is great latitude in translating andinterpreting Scripture.How else can one measure one’s heart?My thoughts,Mark Wilson_________________________________________________________________MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 3 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus&xAPID=42&PS=47575&PI=7324&DI=7474&SU= http://www.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/getmsg&HL=1216hotmailtaglines_eliminateviruses_3mf

downloadable greek textALLHLWN

[bible passage=”Acts 13:48″]

Is it conceivable that the participle TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48 could be in the middle voice instead of the passive?

Ren — home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list @lists.ibiblio.org http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

8 thoughts on “Acts 13:48”

cwconrad2 says:

On Dec 03, 2010, at 03:55 PM, fredsmith1000@usa.com wrote:

Yes, it’s perfectly conceivable, although it wouldn’t surprise me that many would prefer to call it a “divine passive.” As a middle it’s sense would “… those who have taken their place … ” or something like, ” … those who have gotten into the line for … ” The form itself TETAGMENOI EISIN can be understood in either a middle or passive sense.

Carl W. Conrad Department of Classics, Washington University (ret)

— B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek B-Greek mailing list B-Greek@lists.ibiblio.org http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek


December 3, 2010 at 10:24 pm
"Barry H." says:

—– Original Message —– Sent: Friday, December 03, 2010 3:55 PM

What do you think it would mean if it were middle?

N.E. Barry Hofstetter, semper melius Latine sonat… Classics and Bible Instructor, TAA http://www.theamericanacademy.net (2010 Salvatori Excellence in Education Winner) V-P of Academic Affairs, TNARS bhofstetter@tnars.net http://www.tnars.net

http://my.opera.com/barryhofstetter/blog http://mysite.verizon.net/nebarry

— B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek B-Greek mailing list B-Greek@lists.ibiblio.org http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek


December 4, 2010 at 12:05 am
"Barry H." says:

—– Original Message —– Cc: Sent: Friday, December 03, 2010 5:24 PM

The ancient versions seem to have taken it as a passive, i.e., Jerome:

“…erant praeordinati ad vitam aeternam.”

N.E. Barry Hofstetter, semper melius Latine sonat… Classics and Bible Instructor, TAA http://www.theamericanacademy.net (2010 Salvatori Excellence in Education Winner) V-P of Academic Affairs, TNARS bhofstetter@tnars.net http://www.tnars.net

http://my.opera.com/barryhofstetter/blog http://mysite.verizon.net/nebarry

— B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek B-Greek mailing list B-Greek@lists.ibiblio.org http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek


December 4, 2010 at 12:18 am
"Iver Larsen" says:

It wasn’t conceivable to me, but since it was to Carl, the answer to your question is: Yes.

Another question is: Is this form likely to be used as a middle in this text? I would say: no.

Although the middle aorist of TASSW is used to refer to an arrangement set up by and for the benefit of the subject, such an idea is unlikely here. I think others have made this arrangement for them. What their active involvement in receiving this “appointment” might be, is beyond the scope of the grammar.

Iver Larsen

—– Original Message —– Sent: 3. december 2010 23:55

— B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek B-Greek mailing list B-Greek@lists.ibiblio.org http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek


December 4, 2010 at 5:49 am
cwconrad2 says:

On Dec 03, 2010, at 03:55 PM, fredsmith1000@usa.com wrote:

Yes, it’s perfectly conceivable, although it wouldn’t surprise me that many would prefer to call it a “divine passive.” As a middle it’s sense would “… those who have taken their place … ” or something like, ” … those who have gotten into the line for … ” The form itself TETAGMENOI EISIN can be understood in either a middle or passive sense.

Carl W. Conrad Department of Classics, Washington University (ret)

— B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek B-Greek mailing list B-Greek@lists.ibiblio.org http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek


May 15, 2018 at 8:55 pm
"Barry H." says:

—– Original Message —– Sent: Friday, December 03, 2010 3:55 PM

What do you think it would mean if it were middle?

N.E. Barry Hofstetter, semper melius Latine sonat… Classics and Bible Instructor, TAA http://www.theamericanacademy.net (2010 Salvatori Excellence in Education Winner) V-P of Academic Affairs, TNARS bhofstetter@tnars.net http://www.tnars.net

http://my.opera.com/barryhofstetter/blog http://mysite.verizon.net/nebarry

— B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek B-Greek mailing list B-Greek@lists.ibiblio.org http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek


May 15, 2018 at 8:55 pm
"Barry H." says:

—– Original Message —– Cc: Sent: Friday, December 03, 2010 5:24 PM

The ancient versions seem to have taken it as a passive, i.e., Jerome:

“…erant praeordinati ad vitam aeternam.”

N.E. Barry Hofstetter, semper melius Latine sonat… Classics and Bible Instructor, TAA http://www.theamericanacademy.net (2010 Salvatori Excellence in Education Winner) V-P of Academic Affairs, TNARS bhofstetter@tnars.net http://www.tnars.net

http://my.opera.com/barryhofstetter/blog http://mysite.verizon.net/nebarry

— B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek B-Greek mailing list B-Greek@lists.ibiblio.org http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek


May 15, 2018 at 8:55 pm
"Iver Larsen" says:

It wasn’t conceivable to me, but since it was to Carl, the answer to your question is: Yes.

Another question is: Is this form likely to be used as a middle in this text? I would say: no.

Although the middle aorist of TASSW is used to refer to an arrangement set up by and for the benefit of the subject, such an idea is unlikely here. I think others have made this arrangement for them. What their active involvement in receiving this “appointment” might be, is beyond the scope of the grammar.

Iver Larsen

—– Original Message —– Sent: 3. december 2010 23:55

— B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek B-Greek mailing list B-Greek@lists.ibiblio.org http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek


May 15, 2018 at 8:55 pm

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

People who read this article also liked:

8 thoughts on “Acts 13:48”

Leave a Reply