Time and Order in the Circumstantial Participles of Mark and Luke -- By: Robert E. Picirilli

Journal: Bulletin for Biblical Research
Volume: BBR 17:2 (NA 2007)
Article: Time and Order in the Circumstantial Participles of Mark and Luke
Author: Robert E. Picirilli


Time and Order in the
Circumstantial Participles of Mark and Luke

Robert E. Picirilli

Nashville

Stanley Porter has suggested that the order of circumstantial participles in relation to the verbs on which they depend tends to indicate how they relate temporally: antecedent if before the primary verb and contemporaneous or subsequent if following. Grammarians whom he cites as having partly recognized this do not really anticipate his view. More important, numerous examples of circumstantial participles in the Gospels of Mark and Luke show a different pattern and fail to sustain his formulation. Aorist circumstantial participles typically precede their primary verbs but may be temporally antecedent to or contemporaneous with them. Present circumstantial participles may precede or follow their primary verbs and may be temporally antecedent to or contemporaneous with them regardless of order. Perfect circumstantial participles, whether before or after their primary verbs, are typically contemporaneous with them. The careful exegete should focus on the context alone to determine if any given circumstantial participle is temporally antecedent to, contemporaneous with, or even subsequent to its primary verb.

Key Words: circumstantial participles, order of participle and verb, time in participles, NT exegesis

Grammarians of Koine Greek often discuss whether there are any objective indicators of the relative time of circumstantial participles. One view is that the tenses of these participles inherently imply relative time, with aorist participles being antecedent to, and present and perfect participles contemporaneous with the time of the primary verbs to which they are linked.1 It is not my purpose, here, to deal with this, though I may observe in passing that I do not think NT usage sustains this view.

Instead, it is my purpose to deal with a newer view: namely, that the order of the participle and its primary verb indicate the relative time between them. According to this view, participles that precede their primary verbs tend to be relatively antecedent to them, while participles that follow their primary verbs in the sentence tend to be either temporally contemporaneous with or subsequent to them. Stanley Porter believes that

this pattern occurs often enough to signal a general intention on the part of the NT writers. If this is the case, the exegete should recognize this pattern and interpret accordingly.

My study of the participles of Mark and Luke, however, convinces me that this should not be taken into account in interpretation. My purpose in this article is...

You must have a subscription and be logged in to read the entire article.
Click here to subscribe
visitor : : uid: ()