roints where their traditions find themselves most evidently on common ground with the Semitic stories which we find in Genesis." Accordingly, in referring septenary time to the creation, we only put it upon the same footing with other legends, such as the Creation of Man, the Fall, the Edenic Happiness, the Flaming Sword, the Tree of Life, the Deluge, etc., which prevailed so extensively in remote ages, and which are found with such remarkable persistency in their chief characteristics in the traditions and literatures of the East. ARTICLE VIII. ATTRIBUTIVE AORIST PARTICIPLES IN PROTASIS, IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. BY THE REV. PROFESSOR W. G. BALLANTINE, D.D.,OBERLIN THEOLOGICAL It is a familiar principle of Greek grammar that a participle preceded by the article may be used substantively and is then equivalent to he who or those who with a finite verb.' Accordingly we have ó KλÉπтwv, he who steals, o TIOTELOV, he who believes, ó ȧyanov, he who loves, and similar expressions without number. The large majority of such participles are in the present tense, but those of the It is the purpose of this other tenses are not infrequent. inquiry to account for the tense in a certain class of cases when the participle is in the aorist. Incidentally, for the sake of discrimination, it will be necessary to consider somewhat the other uses of the aorist and those of the present. 'Goodwin's Greek Grammar, § 276.2; Hadley and Allen's Greek Grammar, § 966. That an aorist participle connotes generally time an343 tecedent to that of the leading verb is fully recognized on all hands, but the failure of our giammars and commentaries to account satisfactorily for the aorist in those cases where it is unnatural to think of antecedent time has thrown a shade of uncertainty over the whole subject. After careful study of many instances, we believe the two following rules can be sustained: RULE I. The phrase o Aroas generally corresponds to ὃς ἔλυσε με seho loosed. cedent to that of the leading verb, except when the parIt then expresses time anteticiple and verb express different aspects of the same act. RULE II. The phrase ó λvoas occasionally corresponds to ôs av Xion. It is then cquivalent to the protasis of a present general supposition, whoever loeses, or to that of a future general supposition, whoever shall loose. The fact that a participle may be equivalent to a finite verb of any mood of the same tense is generally recognized. It is explicitly stated in Goodwin's Greek Moods and Tenses 52. 1; but the full application of the principle to cases of the attributive participle such as we are now considering is not there indicated. Seymour, of Yale, in a paper "On the Use of the Aorist It is to Professor T. D. Particip le in Greek," published in the Transactions of the American Philological Association, 1881, that we owe the first complete exhibition of this second rule. But he makes no reference to the New Testament, and it will not do to assume that what is true of syntax in Homer, or the later classics, is true in Hellenistic Greek. The standard grammars yield little that is helpful for the point in hand. Jelf' says: "As the infinitive has of itself a substantival, and the participle an adjectival character, we may illustrate the difference between the forms of the aorist and present by saying that the aorist infinitive comes nearer to the substantive . . . . and the aorist 'Greek Grammar, 5th Edition, § 405. 3. obs. 3. participle to that of the adjective or personal substantive: puyás, inasmuch as there is therein less of the ὁ φυγών verbal accident of time." In regard to this view, we can only say that not the slightest support for it is afforded by the usage of the New Testament. The Grammar of Hadley and Allen' says: "The attributive participle is often used alone, its substantive being omitted: οἱ πάροντες the persons present, ὁ τυχών whoever happens." Notice how strikingly this second example confirms our second rule. Winer says: "The present participle (with the article) is not unfrequently used substantivally, and then, having become a noun, excludes all the indications of time." Unfortunately his first example is Eph. iv. 28, ó kλéttwy μŋkéti Kλettétw, of which he says: "The present does not stand for the aorist ó xλéyas, which is found in some MSS., but the words mean, let the stealer (i. c., the thief) steal no more." Our Authorized and Revised Versions, "let him that stole," show that somehow there has been a wide-spread repugnance to the idea that Paul wished to say just what he did say, namely "Let him that stealeth (habitually) no longer continue to steal." If the theft was a thing of the past why should Paul, as in our versions, command its discontinuance? If it was a thing of the present, why should grammarians deny the usual time indication? Winer's next example is equally unfortunate, namely, Gal. i. 23, ó diwкwv ýμâs Toтé, our former persecutor, where, as Toτé shows, the imperfect indicative (ôs ediwxe) is represented. "In other places," adds Winer, "where there is a distinct reference to past time, we find the aorist participle used as a substantive; e. g., John v. 29, οἱ τὰ ἀγαθὰ ποιήσαντες, they that have done good. Buttmann' says: "The present participle, in connection. with the article, is often used without any temporal reference, merely to present the idea of the verb either in 3966. Moulton's Edition, p. 444. ' p. 296. 5 the form of a substantive or an adjective." His first example is the same as Winer's, Eph. iv. 28. Each of the others (Matt. xxvii. 40; Rev. xx. 10; i. Thess. i. 10) can be shown to contain a distinct tense reference. Regarding aorist participles, Buttmann's most distinct utterance is: "With the aorist participle the idea of the completed (real or imaginary) past has sovereign control." S. G. Green' says: "In some cases the substantivized participle appears to have lost all temporal reference," and like the others fortifies the statement first by a citation of Eph. iv. 28, adding Stier's enigmatical remark that "here ó kλéas, he who stole, would be too weak, while ỏ kλéttηs would be too strong," and irrelevantly giving references to Ellicott, who translates, "he who steals," and to Alford, who translates, "he that stealeth." But Green admits that some of Winer's examples of timelessness refer to present time. Our contention now is that in the New Testament the attributive participle has always as much, or as little, time reference as belongs to the same tense in the finite mood represented. Thus ó Kλéπτшv may be equivalent to de KλÉTTEι, he who steals, or to ôs exλETTE, he who was used to steal, or to os âv kλétty, whoever steals; on the other hand ὁ κλέψας may be equivalent to ἔς ἔκλεψε, he sho stole, or to ôs âv kλé¥ŋ, whoever steals, or whoever shall steal. Theoretically, of course, both participles may stand for the optative, but practically it may be left out of the account. There was no confusion as to the force of the participles in the minds of the New Testament writers. Each is used with nice discrimination and distinct feeling of its appropriateness to the idea intended. Which of the three translations possible to each participle shall be given in a particular instance must be determined by the context. We are prepared now to examine a number of illustrative passages : 'p. 201. 1 Handbook to the Grammar of the Greek Testament, p. 365. Acts xvii. 24, "The God that made (ó Tonoas) the world," dwelleth not in temples made with hands.” Here ὁ ποιήσας is equivalent to ὃς ἐποίησε, and the time connoted is past relatively to the speaker's present; of course also, though only incidentally, past relatively to the leading verb of the sentence. John v. 29, "they that have done good (oi và ủɣabà Tо1ήσαντες) . .. and they that have done ill (oi rà paíλa Tрúžavтes)." Here the participles connote time past relatively to the leading verb. Acts ix. 21, "Is not this he that in Jerusalem made havoc (óπоρσas)?" The aorist participle here plainly represents the aorist indicative (ös érépoσe). The time of it is past to the speaker's present, and also, as always in such instances, to the leading verb, yet only incidentally. John iii. 33, "He that hath received (ó λaßúv) his witness hath set his seal to this (oppúyoev), that God is true." Here the participle is equivalent to ös eλaße, it connotes time past to the speaker, but not to the main verb; for the two actions are identical. Speaking of an individual believer, the evangelist would say, λaßur iofpúyiσe, by receiving he set his scal. The participle would then fall into the class of aorist participles of identical action discussed by the present writer in the Bibliotheca Sacra, Vol. xli. page 787. This sentence is equivalent then to a simple past supposition. 2 Cor. vii. 12, "I wrote not for his cause that did the wrong (TOû údɩkýσavтos) nor for his cause that suffered the wrong (Tоû údiкrléνTOS)." These participles represent the indicative; their action is prior to that of the main verb, incidentally also to the speaker's present. The Authorized Version read, "for his cause that had done the wrong," which seems better than the Revised Version. Matt. xix. 9, "Whosoever shall put away (ôs àv àπоAvon) his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry (yaμion) another, committeth adultery, and he that marrieth (ó yaμioas) her when she is put away committeth |