In Martyrdom of Peter I have found the following passage where a future participle is present in the text (Accordance module, which is from the Bonnet Acta Apostolorum Apocrypha, 3 vols, Leipzig: 1891-1903) serving what appears to be a the normal function of an aorist participle:
MPeter 3.2 Ὁ δὲ Πέτρος ὅραμα θεασόμενος ἧκεν ἐπὶ τὸν τόπον, ὅπως αὐτὸν καὶ ἐν τούτῳ ἐλέγξῃ· ὅτε γὰρ εἰσίει εἰς τὴν Ῥώμην, ἐξέστησεν τοὺς ὄχλους πετώμενος.
The English translation is as follows: And Peter, having seen a vision, came to the place, that he might reprove him in this also; for when Simon entered into Rome, he amazed the crowds by flying.
In context, I believe the English translation is spot on in handling the participle (it is also translated the same way in Schneemelcher's New Testament Apocrypha volume). I have never seen a future participle used in this way and have not found any discussion of it in the grammars (Mayser, Mandilaras, Smyth). Has anyone seen something like this before?
I'm wondering if it is an anomolous usage, whether of this text or of this verb. I have been unable to locate a digital scan of this particular volume of Bonnet to see if it is a mistake in the Accordance text. There is a critical edition of The Acts of Peter in preparation (https://www.corpuschristianorum.org/ccsa), but who knows when that will be done to check what the reading is.
Interchange of Future and Aorist Participle?
Forum rules
Please quote the Greek text you are discussing directly in your post if it is reasonably short - do not ask people to look it up. This is not a beginner's forum, competence in Greek is assumed.
Please quote the Greek text you are discussing directly in your post if it is reasonably short - do not ask people to look it up. This is not a beginner's forum, competence in Greek is assumed.
-
- Posts: 71
- Joined: May 16th, 2016, 9:27 am
- Contact:
Interchange of Future and Aorist Participle?
Nathaniel J. Erickson
NT PhD candidate, ABD
Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
ntgreeketal.com
ὅπου πλείων κόπος, πολὺ κέρδος
ΠΡΟΣ ΠΟΛΥΚΑΡΠΟΝ ΙΓΝΑΤΙΟΣ
NT PhD candidate, ABD
Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
ntgreeketal.com
ὅπου πλείων κόπος, πολὺ κέρδος
ΠΡΟΣ ΠΟΛΥΚΑΡΠΟΝ ΙΓΝΑΤΙΟΣ
-
- Posts: 1141
- Joined: August 9th, 2012, 4:19 pm
Re: Interchange of Future and Aorist Participle?
Not a problem with the Accordance module.nathaniel j. erickson wrote: ↑March 16th, 2020, 2:25 pm In Martyrdom of Peter I have found the following passage where a future participle is present in the text (Accordance module, which is from the Bonnet Acta Apostolorum Apocrypha, 3 vols, Leipzig: 1891-1903) serving what appears to be a the normal function of an aorist participle:
MPeter 3.2 Ὁ δὲ Πέτρος ὅραμα θεασόμενος ἧκεν ἐπὶ τὸν τόπον, ὅπως αὐτὸν καὶ ἐν τούτῳ ἐλέγξῃ· ὅτε γὰρ εἰσίει εἰς τὴν Ῥώμην, ἐξέστησεν τοὺς ὄχλους πετώμενος.
Ὁ δὲ Πέτρος ὅραμα θεασόμενος ἧκεν ἐπὶ τὸν τόπον, ὅπως αὐτὸν καὶ ἐν τούτῳ ἐλέγξῃ· ὅτε γὰρ εἰσίει εἰς τὴν Ῥώμην, ἐξέστησεν τοὺς ὄχλους πετώμενος.
Les actes de Pierre, ed. L. Vouaux, Paris: Letouzey 1922
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... _63dL0nLK2
C. Stirling Bartholomew
-
- Posts: 315
- Joined: February 18th, 2019, 7:45 pm
Re: Interchange of Future and Aorist Participle?
Any chance it's just a spelling error or a misread in the original transcription ? It would interesting to see a decent photo of the source manuscript but I couldn't find one online.nathaniel j. erickson wrote: ↑March 16th, 2020, 2:25 pm
MPeter 3.2 Ὁ δὲ Πέτρος ὅραμα θεασόμενος ἧκεν ἐπὶ τὸν τόπον, ὅπως αὐτὸν καὶ ἐν τούτῳ ἐλέγξῃ· ὅτε γὰρ εἰσίει εἰς τὴν Ῥώμην, ἐξέστησεν τοὺς ὄχλους πετώμενος.
Thx
D
-
- Posts: 71
- Joined: May 16th, 2016, 9:27 am
- Contact:
Re: Interchange of Future and Aorist Participle?
θεασάμενος would be an obvious possibility. Barring access to the manuscript tradition there is no way of knowing if it is simply an editorial error that has slipped into the printed texts or not. Given that I have so far found nothing in the grammars discussing a systematic usage of the future participle in this way and the visual (and possibly phonological) closeness of the future and aorist participle forms, I would be inclined to describe this instance as a fluke--whether in the manuscript tradition or in the edited volume tradition. From the little I know, the text history of the Acts of Peter is a mess anyway.Daniel Semler wrote: Any chance it's just a spelling error or a misread in the original transcription ? It would interesting to see a decent photo of the source manuscript but I couldn't find one online.
Nathaniel J. Erickson
NT PhD candidate, ABD
Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
ntgreeketal.com
ὅπου πλείων κόπος, πολὺ κέρδος
ΠΡΟΣ ΠΟΛΥΚΑΡΠΟΝ ΙΓΝΑΤΙΟΣ
NT PhD candidate, ABD
Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
ntgreeketal.com
ὅπου πλείων κόπος, πολὺ κέρδος
ΠΡΟΣ ΠΟΛΥΚΑΡΠΟΝ ΙΓΝΑΤΙΟΣ
Re: Interchange of Future and Aorist Participle?
Here, likely a transcription error. However, the future participle would have to be used of purpose if it were original, "Peter came to this place to see a vision..." But that doesn't seem to fit the context well. The use of the future participle to express purpose is well known, and even has NT usage (mostly in Acts).nathaniel j. erickson wrote: ↑March 17th, 2020, 10:20 amθεασάμενος would be an obvious possibility. Barring access to the manuscript tradition there is no way of knowing if it is simply an editorial error that has slipped into the printed texts or not. Given that I have so far found nothing in the grammars discussing a systematic usage of the future participle in this way and the visual (and possibly phonological) closeness of the future and aorist participle forms, I would be inclined to describe this instance as a fluke--whether in the manuscript tradition or in the edited volume tradition. From the little I know, the text history of the Acts of Peter is a mess anyway.Daniel Semler wrote: Any chance it's just a spelling error or a misread in the original transcription ? It would interesting to see a decent photo of the source manuscript but I couldn't find one online.
-
- Posts: 1141
- Joined: August 9th, 2012, 4:19 pm
Re: Interchange of Future and Aorist Participle?
From discourse to grammar? ἔρχομαι + future participle in GreekA. Eu. 576 {Απ.} καὶ μαρτυρήσων ἦλθον
"I have come to bear witness.”
Xen. Ages. 2.7 καὶ οὐ τοῦτο λέξων ἔρχομαι
Thuc. 4.86.4: speech of Brasidas (Sparta) in Akanthos:
οὐ γὰρ ξυστασιάσων ἥκω, οὐδὲ ἂν σαφῆ τὴν ἐλευθερίαν νομίζω ἐπιφέρειν, εἰ τὸ πάτριον παρεὶς τὸ πλέον τοῖς ὀλίγοις ἢ τὸ ἔλασσον τοῖς πᾶσι δουλώσαιμι.
"I have not come here to help this party or that; and I do not consider that I should be bringing you freedom in any real sense, if I should disregard your constitution, and enslave the many to the few or the few to the many”
Daniel Kölligan, Groupe aspect, Paris, 12.5.2012, Pages 3, 14, 18.
https://www.academia.edu/14204429/From_ ... e_in_Greek
C. Stirling Bartholomew
-
- Posts: 1141
- Joined: August 9th, 2012, 4:19 pm
Re: Interchange of Future and Aorist Participle?
The future participle with verbs of motion is also discussed in traditional grammar, Guy Cooper Vol. III, 2.53.7.7 p2392. For those who don't have Cooper on hand, see the following article. It represents ideas from the current century.A. Eu. 576 {Απ.} καὶ μαρτυρήσων ἦλθον
"I have come to bear witness.”
Xen. Ages. 2.7 καὶ οὐ τοῦτο λέξων ἔρχομαι
Thuc. 4.86.4: speech of Brasidas (Sparta) in Akanthos:
οὐ γὰρ ξυστασιάσων ἥκω, οὐδὲ ἂν σαφῆ τὴν ἐλευθερίαν νομίζω ἐπιφέρειν, εἰ τὸ πάτριον παρεὶς τὸ πλέον τοῖς ὀλίγοις ἢ τὸ ἔλασσον τοῖς πᾶσι δουλώσαιμι.
"I have not come here to help this party or that; and I do not consider that I should be bringing you freedom in any real sense, if I should disregard your constitution, and enslave the many to the few or the few to the many”
From discourse to grammar? ἔρχομαι + future participle in Greek
Daniel Kölligan, Groupe aspect, Paris, 12.5.2012, Pages 3, 14, 18.
https://www.academia.edu/14204429/From_ ... e_in_Greek
C. Stirling Bartholomew