perfect participle in Acts 13:48

Grammar questions which are not related to any specific text.
Eeli Kaikkonen
Posts: 611
Joined: June 2nd, 2011, 7:49 am
Location: Finland
Contact:

Re: perfect participle in Acts 13:48

Post by Eeli Kaikkonen »

Now when you say it that way, yes, it's probably true. I explained it by saying that the imperfect verb sets the time which is used as the reference for understanding this participle. I don't know if a pluperfect would have been as natural here.

It's been translated as "had been appointed" in many modern English translations, and it's of course a bit less ambiguous than "were appointed". But I don't think there's difference in understanding or interpretation.
Daniel Semler
Posts: 315
Joined: February 18th, 2019, 7:45 pm

Re: perfect participle in Acts 13:48

Post by Daniel Semler »

Eeli Kaikkonen wrote: August 14th, 2021, 12:40 pm Now when you say it that way, yes, it's probably true. I explained it by saying that the imperfect verb sets the time which is used as the reference for understanding this participle. I don't know if a pluperfect would have been as natural here.

It's been translated as "had been appointed" in many modern English translations, and it's of course a bit less ambiguous than "were appointed". But I don't think there's difference in understanding or interpretation.
I actually wonder if your explanation isn't what underlies explaining this periphrastic as a pluperfect form. I can find grammars saying this is what it is and that periphrastic constructions in general are very old, but not why the imperfect εἰμί + perfect participle should be a pluperfect but your explanation makes sense.

It's not clear to me what drives the choice of a periphrastic expression over the synthetic form for a verb where both exist. Sometimes I think it would be to carry aspect, for example in the durative future. Perhaps here it is simply to convey the attributive sense - what kind of people.

Thx
D
Barry Hofstetter
Posts: 2159
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 1:48 pm

Re: perfect participle in Acts 13:48

Post by Barry Hofstetter »

Daniel Semler wrote: August 14th, 2021, 12:03 pm I really haven't studied the periphrastic constructions with the participle nearly enough, but isn't this essentially a pluperfect in periphrastic form ?
And thus aren't you really constrained to see this as being antecedent to belief, because you have a speaker describing events, when the belief happened/occurred/began, and that belief beginning under the prevailing effects of another event already past at that time with ongoing consequences also at that time.

Thx
D
No, not a pluperfect. By this time period, the perfect participle is practically an adjective, and so here, "those who were appointed..."
N.E. Barry Hofstetter, M.A., Th.M.
Ph.D. Student U of FL
Instructor of Latin
Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
καὶ σὺ τὸ σὸν ποιήσεις κἀγὼ τὸ ἐμόν. ἆρον τὸ σὸν καὶ ὕπαγε.
Daniel Semler
Posts: 315
Joined: February 18th, 2019, 7:45 pm

Re: perfect participle in Acts 13:48

Post by Daniel Semler »

Barry Hofstetter wrote: August 15th, 2021, 10:41 am
Daniel Semler wrote: August 14th, 2021, 12:03 pm I really haven't studied the periphrastic constructions with the participle nearly enough, but isn't this essentially a pluperfect in periphrastic form ?
And thus aren't you really constrained to see this as being antecedent to belief, because you have a speaker describing events, when the belief happened/occurred/began, and that belief beginning under the prevailing effects of another event already past at that time with ongoing consequences also at that time.

Thx
D
No, not a pluperfect. By this time period, the perfect participle is practically an adjective, and so here, "those who were appointed..."
Interesting, thanx Barry. A couple of follow ups if I may.

So is it by the Koine period not appropriate to view this as a periphrastic at all, but rather as an imperfect with an adjective ?
If so, in a construction like this what is the practical difference ? It appears one ends up in about the same place.
And would you say this applies generally to imperfect εἰμί + perfect participle at this point or only to some cases ?

I'll note in passing Wallace in GGBB lists this verse as an example of the pluperfect periphrastic, and given his list of examples he appears to consider the category to still exist at this period.

And if you have any works I should read on this please let me know and I'll take a look.

Thx
D
Eeli Kaikkonen
Posts: 611
Joined: June 2nd, 2011, 7:49 am
Location: Finland
Contact:

Re: perfect participle in Acts 13:48

Post by Eeli Kaikkonen »

I can't say any more about Greek, but it's interesting that this verbal/adjective distinction is malleable and ambiguous in many other lanugages, too. For example in Finnish - not related to Greek - if one thinks about a perfect, which itself is a combination of "be" + participle, it's difficult to say which it is more: to be something, or that something was done (adjective vs. verb).

In any case the aspects of the main verbs used here should drive the temporal interpretation. The imperfect gives the continuous background for the complete action of the aorist, and whether "was appointed" is more adjectival or verbal, it's an ongoing situation where the believing happens. It's pretty much impossible to think that the appointing (which is a complete action, including its endpoint, because of its telic lexical aspect) is contemporaneous or posterior with believing. There would have existed other ways to express the situation if that would have been meant.
Jonathan Robie
Posts: 4166
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: perfect participle in Acts 13:48

Post by Jonathan Robie »

I agree with Barry that it's adjectival. And really, the sentence gives it away.

Who believed? ὅσοι ἦσαν τεταγμένοι (εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον). That describes the people who believed, ἦσαν τεταγμένοι is part of that description.

What is the time relationship between ἦσαν τεταγμένοι and ἐπίστευσαν? This describes those who ἐπίστευσαν. That's really the only time relationship.
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/
Daniel Semler
Posts: 315
Joined: February 18th, 2019, 7:45 pm

Re: perfect participle in Acts 13:48

Post by Daniel Semler »

Jonathan Robie wrote: August 16th, 2021, 10:15 am I agree with Barry that it's adjectival. And really, the sentence gives it away.

Who believed? ὅσοι ἦσαν τεταγμένοι (εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον). That describes the people who believed, ἦσαν τεταγμένοι is part of that description.

What is the time relationship between ἦσαν τεταγμένοι and ἐπίστευσαν? This describes those who ἐπίστευσαν. That's really the only time relationship.
There's no question the clause describes those who believed, and is thus adjectival. The question I am asking, not the same as the OP, is how is that achieved ? I have suggested ἦσαν τεταγμένοι constitutes a pluperfect in periphrastic form. I am trying to understand Barry's comments in response to that, hence the follow up questions above.

Thx
D
serunge
Posts: 45
Joined: May 23rd, 2011, 11:07 am
Location: Bellingham, WA
Contact:

Re: perfect participle in Acts 13:48

Post by serunge »

Daniel et al.,

Here is a link to an article by Levinsohn that notes the mismatches between the English and Greek perfect, among other things. His abstract provides a great summary of the claims. https://benjamins.com/catalog/cilt.352.18lev

Regarding the straight perfect vs. a periphrastic version, I recall Levinsohn making a claim but I am not sure if it was in an article or personal communication. The perfect has traditionally been described as a past often completed action with ongoing effects. Crellin has convincingly shown that whether a perfect has resultative or statice semantics is a natural consequence of the lexical semantics of the lemma and the verbal voice of the form. Middles naturally result in statives, as do atelic lemmas. Porter/Fanning tried to make it a binary choice when in fact it is more complex.

So what do you do when you have a telic event that you want construed as more stative than resultative? It’s already M/P, but the periphrastic is a means of sliding the verb further down the stative continuum. To be sure the perfect s undergoing significant transition in Koine but there is still a robust alternation in usage. So the principle from Levinsohn is that what we call a periphrastic functioned to make an action or event *more* stative, not just stative.

So in the context of Acts 13:48, the focus is less on the fact that they had been set aside as it is on the state, hence largely adjectival as Barry and Jonathan have noted. I recognize you’d have to have drunk the same presuppositional Koolaid as me to accept this explanation, hence trying to disclose what those are. You’ve asked a good but complex question, hope this helps.
Steve Runge
Daniel Semler
Posts: 315
Joined: February 18th, 2019, 7:45 pm

Re: perfect participle in Acts 13:48

Post by Daniel Semler »

serunge wrote: August 16th, 2021, 11:28 am Daniel et al.,

Here is a link to an article by Levinsohn that notes the mismatches between the English and Greek perfect, among other things. His abstract provides a great summary of the claims. https://benjamins.com/catalog/cilt.352.18lev

Regarding the straight perfect vs. a periphrastic version, I recall Levinsohn making a claim but I am not sure if it was in an article or personal communication. The perfect has traditionally been described as a past often completed action with ongoing effects. Crellin has convincingly shown that whether a perfect has resultative or statice semantics is a natural consequence of the lexical semantics of the lemma and the verbal voice of the form. Middles naturally result in statives, as do atelic lemmas. Porter/Fanning tried to make it a binary choice when in fact it is more complex.

So what do you do when you have a telic event that you want construed as more stative than resultative? It’s already M/P, but the periphrastic is a means of sliding the verb further down the stative continuum. To be sure the perfect s undergoing significant transition in Koine but there is still a robust alternation in usage. So the principle from Levinsohn is that what we call a periphrastic functioned to make an action or event *more* stative, not just stative.

So in the context of Acts 13:48, the focus is less on the fact that they had been set aside as it is on the state, hence largely adjectival as Barry and Jonathan have noted. I recognize you’d have to have drunk the same presuppositional Koolaid as me to accept this explanation, hence trying to disclose what those are. You’ve asked a good but complex question, hope this helps.
Thanx Steve. Yes I think this helps.

I'll try to dig up the references and go through this.

Thanx again
D
Post Reply

Return to “Grammar Questions”