Textkit Logo

kataksiothentes: aorist participle with future meaning?

Are you learning New Testament Greek with Mounce's Basics of Biblical Greek? Here's where you can meet other learners using this textbook. Use this board to ask questions and post your work for feedback. Use this forum too to discuss all things Koine, LXX & New Testament Greek including grammar, syntax, textbook talk and more.

kataksiothentes: aorist participle with future meaning?

Postby muminustrollus » Mon Apr 12, 2004 6:48 am

Luk 20:34 And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage:


Luk 20:35 But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:


Luk 20:36 Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"They which shall be accounted worthy" is in Greek the passive aorist partiple of kataksio (to deem worthy of).

According to Wallace's Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, aorist participles often have a generic meaning. Nowhere does he say that they have a future meaning. So how can the translator of the KJV have translated "kataksiothentes" as a future?

For me the right translation should be :

They which are accounted worthy to obtain that world and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage

With a future tense resurrection becomes a future event.
With a present tense, resurrection is a mode of being which is accessible to humans at any time.

Methinks Greek grammar is on my side...
phpbb
muminustrollus
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2004 8:48 am
Location: Peking

Postby mingshey » Mon Apr 12, 2004 8:56 am

According to my shallow learning about the greek tenses, aorist(and secondary teses in general) usually denotes the idea of a single action, rather than the past, while the primary tense denotes a continued action. -- Maybe except in the active mood, direct voice. So I think it also can be used to denote a single action in the future, too. I'll have to look up Smyth to be sure about this point. :D
User avatar
mingshey
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1332
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2003 6:38 am
Location: Seoul

Postby muminustrollus » Mon Apr 12, 2004 10:15 am

Here is what I read in Wallace's Greek Grammar p. 555

"Aorist participles usually suggest antecedent time to that of the main verb. "
phpbb
muminustrollus
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2004 8:48 am
Location: Peking

Postby klewlis » Mon Apr 12, 2004 9:58 pm

Aorist can definitely be used to indicate something that is going to happen in the future. See Wallace pp563-564 under "proleptic (futuristic) aorist".

Considering his definition, I think that this verse could possibly fit.

I can't seem to locate the idea in Smyth... maybe someone else can help us out with that. :)
User avatar
klewlis
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 1593
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2003 1:48 pm
Location: Vancouver, Canada

Postby Paul » Tue Apr 13, 2004 2:07 am

Hi,

Just a few random thoughts on this:

a. of themselves participles are timeless (at least outside of indirect discourse) but do express aspect
b. whatever time they do express is typically relative to the leading verb
c. after Smyth, aorist participles are antecedent or coincident to the time of the leading verb

Given the leading verbs [face=SPIonic]gamou=sin[/face] and [face=SPIonic]gamizontai[/face] - both presents - it seems to me perfectly fair to translate:

"Those who are deemed worthy...neither marry..." (coincident)

In fact, the second translation is how the "The New Jerusalem Bible" (and muminustrollus) has it.

The KJV translation might be an attempt at a 'proleptic aorist'. If so, then we do well to read "..which shall be accounted worthy.." as a final state that properly exists outside of time, and not as a future tense.

Finally, Smyth appears to be mute on the question of the 'proleptic aorist'.

Cordially,

Paul
User avatar
Paul
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 701
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2003 4:47 pm
Location: New York

Postby mingshey » Tue Apr 13, 2004 3:32 am

See

Aorist for Future : Smyth 1934

;)
Last edited by mingshey on Tue Apr 13, 2004 5:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
mingshey
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1332
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2003 6:38 am
Location: Seoul

Postby Paul » Tue Apr 13, 2004 3:52 am

Paul wrote:Finally, Smyth appears to be mute on the question of the 'proleptic aorist'.


Thanks Mingshey - nice find. I wish he'd called it 'proleptic' though. :)

Cordially,

Paul
User avatar
Paul
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 701
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2003 4:47 pm
Location: New York

Postby PeterD » Tue Apr 13, 2004 4:08 pm

Can we say that the proleptic aorist, unlike the future tense, stresses the the unequivocal outcome of the event at some unknown time in the future? It is going to happen, but the time is not defined (aorist = undefined).

The RSV translation: but those who are accounted worthy to attain...
Fanatical ranting is not just fine because it's eloquent. What if I ranted for the extermination of a people in an eloquent manner, would that make it fine? Rather, ranting, be it fanatical or otherwise, is fine if what is said is true and just. ---PeterD, in reply to IreneY and Annis
PeterD
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 591
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2003 6:54 pm
Location: Montreal, Canada

Postby Paul » Fri Apr 16, 2004 2:57 pm

PeterD wrote:Can we say that the proleptic aorist, unlike the future tense, stresses the the unequivocal outcome of the event at some unknown time in the future? It is going to happen, but the time is not defined (aorist = undefined).


Hey Peter,

Yes, that seems like a good definition of the proleptic aorist.

You raise an interesting issue with regard to the meaning of 'aorist'. Dionysisus Thrax and his commentators apply the term 'aorist' (undefined, indefinite) to both the aorist and future tenses. They would seem to mean that both tenses are indifferent with respect to nearness in time. "I went to the store" could mean I went yesterday or 10 years ago. Similarly, "I will go to the store" could mean in the next 5 seconds or some day in the far future.

Later authors like Goodwin regard the meaning of 'aorist' from a more aspectual perspective, e.g., having to with freedom from the limitations imposed by aspectual concepts like completion, progress, repetition, etc.

The proleptic aorist must take its force from aorist aspect and not from any past temporal reference.

A particularly good example of the proleptic aorist is Jude 1.14:

[face=SPIonic]le/gwn )Idou\ h)=lqen Ku/rioj e)n a(gi/aij muria/sin au)tou=[/face]

"saying 'Behold, the Lord is coming with his many saints'.."

Cordially,

Paul
User avatar
Paul
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 701
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2003 4:47 pm
Location: New York

Postby muminustrollus » Sun Apr 18, 2004 8:40 am

Wallace p.615:

The aorist (participle ) is sometimes used generically. Cf Matt 10,39 the one who finds his life o euron ....the one who loses his life o apolesas.

Since "kataksiothentes" can be translated both as present, past and future how are we to decide how to translate this verse?

those who have been deemed worthy to inherit the life of the world to come

those who are deemed worthy to receive the life of the world to come

those who shall be deemed worthy to receive the life of the world to come

Considering Enoch's and Elijah's rapture into heaven and the case of Melchisedec, who is said to be immortal, I think that the future is excluded.
phpbb
muminustrollus
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2004 8:48 am
Location: Peking

Phil 2,6 throwing light on kataksiothentes...

Postby muminustrollus » Sun Apr 18, 2004 9:23 am

However, it is a mistake to add the word "and" after labon. Citing C.F. Moule to the effect that "in the New Testament there is no exception to the rule that an aorist participle denotes an action prior to that of the main verb, with the possible exception of two passages in Acts,"40 some would translate: "He emptied himself [in death], having taken the form of a slave, having appeared as man." However, if ekenosen is to refer to an incarnation, it is clear that Jesus did not empty himself having first become a slave. It is better to render the sentence, "he emptied himself by taking the form of a slave."

http://www.abc-coggc.org/COGGC/gcpublications/jrad/JRAD1-4-3.htm
phpbb
muminustrollus
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2004 8:48 am
Location: Peking

Postby Kopio » Fri Apr 23, 2004 8:08 pm

I think part of the problem here...is that we're looking to Smyth for our Grammatical help.....he doesn't mention the Aorist as "Proleptic"....it's a label that is used much more commonly by the purely Koine guys (BDF, Robertson, Wallace). Don't get me wrong, I love Smyth, and use it often when reading Classical....but it fit's under the old adage "The right tool for the right job" By the time the NT came around, the Greek language had been messed up enough that a lot of the Classical rules and catagories don't apply.

I ran into this a lot with my 4th year Greek prof, who had a Classical Greek training, he didn't have nearly as many lexical catagories for datives and genatives, etc....he felt a lot of the current (Biblical or Koine) lexical catagories have more to do with theology and interpretation.

Just my two denarii worth
User avatar
Kopio
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 785
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2004 7:56 pm
Location: Boise, ID


Return to Koine Greek And Mounce's Basics of Biblical Greek

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests