An Analysis of The Function of Greek Ana PDF

1
An Analysis of the Function of Greek Anarthrous Participles in Oblique Cases

Phillip Marshall, Houston Baptist University
11-24-2015
1 Intro: The Problem
The Greek participle is an amazing breed of grammatical critter that shares morphological
markings with both verbs and adjectives. Its adjectival morphology consists of inflectional
morphemes marking case, gender, and number; its verbal morphology consists of
morphemes indicating verbal aspect [through choice of tense-form], but not person or time.
Syntactically, the participle as a verbal is capable of governing complements and adjuncts
just as a finite verb would. Participles are also known to have adjectival and adverbial uses
which can often be distinguished from each other via structural characteristics.
1.1 Generally, the rule of thumb is that articular participles are adjectival in function. The
following exx. illustrate this rule:
Adjectival use in 1st attributive position
(1) Eph 1:19

and what is the surpassing greatness of his

power toward us who believe
Adjectival use in 2nd attributive position

(2) Ac 1:11
Ac 1:11 This Jesus, who was taken up from
... you into heaven....
Nominal (substantival) use of the participle (a subset of the adjectival use)
(3) Ro 12:7
the one who teaches, in his teaching;
1.2 However, what do we do when the participle is anarthrous? Without the article, the
participle could function either adjectivally or adverbially.
If the adjectival participle functions as a predicate, it will be anarthrous (and normally
nominative) and will be set in the context of a copular clause:
(4) 2 Co 9:12 . . .
. . .
2 Co 9:12 For the ministry . . . is

supplying (the needs) . . . and is
An Analysis of the Function of Greek Anarthrous Participles in Oblique Cases: Phillip Marshall, Houston Baptist University
SBL Paper, Nov 2015, Atlanta, Biblical Greek Language and Linguistics Section; Email questions/comments to pmarshall@hbu.edu
overflowing
If the participle is attributive but the noun it modifies is indefinite/unspecified, then it will
be anarthrous (and match the case/gender/number of the noun).
(5) Attribute use:
1 Co 13:1
.
I am a sounding gong or a clanging

cymbal.
(6) Substantival use:

Ro 10:14
;
And how are they to hear without

someone preaching?
Adverbial participles will also be anarthrous (and typically nominative or genitive).

(7) Ac 3:4 . . .
And when Peter gazed (at him), he said
(8) Ac 3:11

While he was clinging to Peter and John,

all the people ran together to them
1.3 From the foregoing exx., we can see that when the participle is anarthrous, it could
possibly function in a number of ways. Aside from predicate uses (in the nominative case)
within finite copular clauses, is there a simple way to distinguish between adjectival and
adverbial uses of the participle in oblique cases (those cases outside of the nominative)? This
question brings us to a proposal by Martin Culy in a 2003 article called The Clue is in the
Case: Distinguishing Adjectival and Adverbial Participles (published in Perspectives in
Religious Studies 30).
2 According to Culy, a simple rule exists that will disambiguate anarthrous participles in
oblique cases, namely, that adverbial participles are under a case constraint: Adverbial
participles will always be nominative, except in genitive absolute constructions or when
they modify an infinitive (441). In the first part of the article, beginning on p. 442, Culy
documents how many elementary and reference grammars mistakenly support the notion
that adverbial (or circumstantial participles) can occur in any case (aside from the vocative).
For ex.,
(9) Ro 4:10 ;
;
How then was it [faith] reckoned? While

he was in a state of being circumcised or a
state of being not circumcised?
(10) Ac 3:26 . . .

God . . . sent him [for the purpose of]

blessing you
The anarthrous participle in (9) is dative and is understood by many to be a temporal

circumstantial participle; that in (10) is accusative and is understood by many to mark
purpose (or result). However, according to Culys rule about case constraints, these
participles are neither nominative nor genitive (i.e., in a GAgenitive absolute
construction), and so they cannot be adverbial. Rather, Culy takes them to be attributive
(and so adjectival).
When he finally comes to defending the thesis, he says the following:
Such a claim [that adverbial participles may occur in any case in Greek], however, is
inconsistent with the nature of adverbial participles and the use of cases in Koine
Greek (Culy, 446).
2.1 What is it about the nature of adverbial participles and cases that makes this claim
inconsistent? Culy is not very clear here:
It is important to remember the basic distinction between adjectival and adverbial
participles: adjectival participles function like adjectives (they modify nouns and
noun-like words), while adverbial participles function like adverbs (they modify
verbs). Adverbial participles specify the circumstances under which the action of the
main verb takes place. Typically, these circumstances will involve an additional
action performed by the subject of the main verb, i.e., the subjects of the participle
and main verb will be coreferential. Since Greek subjects are normally marked with
the nominative case, adverbial participles will almost always be in the nominative
case to indicate that the referent of both verbs is the same. Adjectival participles, on
the other hand, can appear in any case, since their case is determined by the noun or
pronoun that they modify (Culy, 446).
The claims put forth by Culy are as follows:
1. Adjectival participles modify nominals, while adverbial participles modify verbals.
2. Adverbial participles indicate the circumstances in which the action of the matrix
verb occurs.
3. Often the S(ubject) of the matrix verb is also the S of the circumstantial/adverbial
participle (co-referentiality).
4. Since the S of the main verb is typically nominative, the case of the S of the
adverbial participle will also be nominative to mark identity of referents.
5. By contrast, adjectival participles can occur in any case, based on the case of the
nominal it modifies.
I see nothing in #s 1-5 that involves an inconsistency. Since the traditional claim is that an
oblique anarthrous participle matching the case of some non-nominative constituent inside
the clause indicates adverbial action performed by a different S than the matrix verb S, the
participle can still be said to indicate circumstantial activity qualifying the main verb (just
performed by different subjects). Thus, it is consistent with #2, and #s 3-5 dont apply
(hence no inconsistency).
2.2 Culy goes on to discuss 3 types of confusions that, in his mind, contribute to the
lingering misanalyses of these participles as adverbial. First, Culy discusses the Genitive
Absolute construction [labeled by Healey and Healey as GCP for genitive circumstantial
participle]. If one properly understands the GCP to be a switch reference device (i.e., that
the S switches between the participle and the main verb), then it becomes self-evident that
adverbial participles will not occur in the accusative or dative case (446). He then infers
from this that adverbial participles must occur in one of two cases: nominative (without
switching reference) and genitive (with switching reference). The second type of confusion
involves letting our English translations of the Greek lead us to misanalyze the Greek syntax,
and the third type of confusion involves misanalyzing anarthrous accusative participles that
are object-complements in a double accusative construction as if they were adverbial.
Both of these latter two points are well taken. But what about the first confusion, regarding
GCP? Culys inference that adverbial participles are distributed in only one of two cases
rests on a crucial assumption--that only GCPs can occur with an occurrence of switch
reference. This seems dubious.
2.2.1 In a handful of GCP situations (Healey and Healey mention possibly 5, Levinsohn 6),
there is no switch in the S reference. The subscripted numbers indicate references to various
participants in the sentence:
(11) Mt 1:18 1 When his mother Mary had been
2, . . . 1 betrothed to Joseph, . . . she was found to
.
be with child from the Holy Spirit.
(12) Ac 21:34 1

1 2
.
And as he could not learn the facts

because of the uproar, he ordered him to
be brought into the barracks.
More work admittedly needs to be done on these types of examples, but they serve as
counterexamples to the idea that the GCP is a switch-reference device simplicitur.
5
2.2.2 Why suppose that only GCPs can be used when the participial S switches in the
matrix (nuclear) clause? Assuming for a moment that the GCP is a switch-reference device,
then its function is to make overt for the listeners (readers) mental representation that a
change in S is coming (or has occurred). But it does not follow that switches in S between
matrix and embedded clauses cannot occur without the overt signal of a GCP. A switch in
S could be accomplished through the use of an infinitive clause (13), a dependent clause with
a finite verb (14),1 or even a participial clause in an oblique case (13, contra Culy)--but
simply without the pragmatic effect of an overt signal for switch reference.2 As well, it seems
equally plausible to argue that any non-nominative anarthrous participle can signal a switchreference between participial S and matrix-verb S, not just GCPs.
(13) Ac 7:2 1 The God of glory appeared to our father
2
Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia,
2 before he lived in Haran,

(14) Ac 8:39 1
, 2
And when they came up out of the water,

the Spirit of the Lord carried Philip away
2.3 Because Culy is committed to the rule he proposes, he is now forced to reanalyze
anarthrous participles in oblique cases as instances, not of adverbial function, but adjectival
function, seeing that such morpho-syntactic situations fall outside of the proposed two
settings for the normal distribution of adverbial participles. His reanalysis of specific
participles as having attributive function, however, seems misguided and strained.
2.3.1 In a number of cases, Culy insists that an anarthrous participle in the accusative or
dative case matching a personal pronoun in the same case will be attributive.
For ex., Healey and Healey point out that the subjects of H [ and ] clauses may be either the same as or
different from that of their immediate main clause. The switch-reference rule is in no way relevant to the H
clause construction (214).
Consider this analogy: On a Dikian analysis of information structure, to raise a sentence constituent as topic
(or point of departure) to the P1 position involves the overt marking of topicality (to create a frame of
reference). Just because there is an overt strategy for highlighting a topic as marked, one cannot infer that
topicality can only be indicated by the overt means. An author may very well choose to leave a topic further
in the sentence without overtly marking it as such.
2
Rendered adjectivally by Culy
Rendered adverbially by most
(15) Lu 8:27 a certain man from the

a certain man from the

city met Jesus [him], who city met him, when he
had (just) stepped ashore. (had) stepped ashore.
(16) Lu 9:59

.
Grant to me, who is first Permit me, after I have

going away, to bury my first gone away, to bury
father.
my father.
(17) Acts 3:26 He [God] sent him, who He sent him, that he
blesses you.
might bless you.
Not only is it unnecessary for Culy to assume these participles must be attributive, it is also
unlikely given the fact that when the NT writers unambiguously wish to employ an
attributive participle with a pronoun, the participle is always articular:
(18) Lu 18:9
some who trusted in themselves
(19) Col 2:8
lest there be anyone who takes you

captive
(20) Jo 1:12 . . .
(he gave the right . . .) to them who

believe (in his name)
(21) Jas 4:12 . . .
but (who are) you who judges (your

neighbor)?
(22) Eph 1:19

and what is the surpassing greatness of
his power toward us who believe
(23) 1 Cor 8:10

For if someone sees you who possess

knowledge
2.3.2 Culy reanalyzes the dative participle in Rom 4:10 as an adjectival participle
functioning substantivally:
(24) Rom 4:10 ;

;

. . . Was it credited to one who was in [a

state of] circumcision or uncircumcision?
(Culys gloss).
Although it is theoretically possible to read the participle as Culy does, such an

understanding of it does not really form an appropriate response to Pauls question. Paul
began v.10 with the interrogative , which is asking for the way/manner in which this
reckoning took place. The appropriate response would be something like a circumstantial
dependent clause (while he was uncircumcised), rather than a nominal/substantival participle
(a subset of the attributive use) as Culy suggests. If the interrogative clause had begun with
( ) (to what kind of person?), Culys analysis would seem more likely (to one
who was in circumision or uncircumcision?). Culy is forced into a less likely interpretation
of Rom 4:10 because he has assumed the wrong side of a false dilemma.
2.3.3 As mentioned in (17) above, Culy discusses the accusative participle in Act 3:26 and
asserts that it must be rendered as an attributive/adjectival participle (Culys gloss in second
column, traditional gloss in third):
(17) Acts 3:26 He [God] sent him, who He sent him, that he
blesses you.
might bless you.
Again, however, if this participle were in an attributive relation to the referential pronoun
, one would have expected the participle to be articular:
. Further, in an effort to support a less likely reading, he attempts to
provide some rationale for why Luke might have used the putative attributive participle:
So what is the effect of using an adjectival participle rather than a genitive absolute
construction (or another purpose construction)? Quite simply, the use of an attributive
participle keeps the focus on the referent () rather than shifting it to an action.
Assuming an adverbial function for , most English translations place a strong
focus on blessing as the purpose for which God sent Jesus, his servant. When we
understand that the participle is attributive, on the other hand, the focus shifts away from
the act of blessing to the one through whom the blessing comes: He sent him, who
blesses you (Culy, 449).
A paragraph later he says that in Acts 3:26, Jesus is indeed the agent of blessing, but the
focus is on him not on what he does. Such a focus is consistent with the context (Culy,
450).
On the contrary, I do not think the context supports the idea that the focus is on the person
instead of the work. Below we cite Acts 3:17-26 (ESV) in full:
17
And now, brothers, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did also your rulers. 18 But
what God foretold by the mouth of all the prophets, that his Christ would suffer, he thus
fulfilled. 19 Repent therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out, 20 that
times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the
Christ appointed for you, Jesus, 21 whom heaven must receive until the time for restoring
all the things about which God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets long ago. 22
Moses said, The Lord God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your brothers.
You shall listen to him in whatever he tells you. 23 And it shall be that every soul who
does not listen to that prophet shall be destroyed from the people. 24 And all the prophets
who have spoken, from Samuel and those who came after him, also proclaimed these
days. 25 You are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant that God made with your
fathers, saying to Abraham, And in your offspring shall all the families of the earth be
blessed. 26 God, having raised up his servant, sent him to you first, to bless you by
turning every one of you from your wickedness.
Note here that the addresses are characterized as being in ignorance and presently in need
of repentance and times of refreshing. In v. 20 Peter alludes to a future time of Gods
sending Jesus, while in v. 26 he alludes to an earlier time when God raised up and sent
his servant, that is, the period of Jesus earthly ministry as Gods prophet. The participle
, then, is set in the context of a past-time aorist verb, . To refer to
Jesus as him who blesses you by turning you away from your wickedness assumes that
those who hear this description are able cognitively to identify Jesus as having this attribute.3
But it is unlikely that Peters audience would have already drawn this conclusion about who
Jesus is, or that they would have done so back when God initially sent Jesus to them.
Rather, if we take the participle as adverbial (circumstantial) for purpose, then
the idea of in order to bless clarifies the reason that God had sent Jesus: He sent him
[Jesus] in order that he [Jesus] might bless you by turning you away from your wickedness.
In light of v.25, where Peter cites the language of the patriarchal blessing, we see that Peter
wants the hearers to know that God sent this one to bless, and by stating it this way, he is
asserting that Jesus came to fulfill the Abrahamic promise of blessing for all families. It is
precisely because God send him for the act of blessing that Peter can ground the call for
repentanceby doing this, Jesus is fulfilling the word of God from the patriarchs through
the prophets.
3 In this final section, we attempt to explain how NT writers used adverbial participles that
were anarthrous and oblique. In particular, we will narrow our focus to dative adverbial
participles (and explore the accusative ones in another context).
Notice how attributive adjectives and participles often constitute information that is given instead of new:
The blue car sped off. The man who mows my lawn died last night. In these examples, the italicized words
are the attributes, but they do not constitute the most important part of the sentence, the comment (or focus).
3
3.1 Two working assumptions:

3.1.1 Presupposition: Choice implies meaning. The writers choice to use a participle is a
choice not to use some other form or structure that could communicate roughly the same
semantic content. Steve Runge in Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament
summarizes how this notion applies to the use of participles:
The most important thing to understand about participles is the idea of prioritization of
the action. The use of a participle to grammaticalize an action represents the choice not
to use a finite verb form (e.g., indicative or imperative mood), whether connected
through coordination or subordination. Participles are not finite verbs, and the choice to
use one should be respected in our exegesis. Bear in mind also that the Greek participle
may be operating at a level of the discourse comparable to an English finite verb,
particularly in long chains. From an exegetical standpoint, the key point to understand is
the use of participles to prioritize the action within the complex. The finite action is the
most prominent one, with participles playing a supporting role. Regardless of how we
might translate participles into English, in Greek they function to explicitly prioritize the
action (Runge, 288).
3.1.2 Semantic Explicitness: The form and syntactic placement of the adverbial participle
does not grammaticalize the precise semantic relationship between the participle and the
main verb. As the grand old man of Greek studies, A. T. Robertson, explained in a prior
century,
In itself, it must be distinctly noted, the participle does not express time, manner, cause,
purpose, condition or concession. These ideas are not in the participle, but are merely
suggested by the context, if at all, or occasionally by a particle like , , ,
, , . There is no necessity for one to use the circumstantial participle. If he
wishes a more precise note of time, cause, condition, purpose, etc., the various
subordinate clauses (and the infinitive) are at his command, besides the co-ordinate
clauses4 (Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical
Research, 1125).
In other words, if a writer wishes to portray the semantic situation where X / after Y (let
the letters stand for any clause, like Larry left after Moe poked his eyes), he could join the
two clauses in such a way that he places an explicit semantic constraint on that relation, as
in:
4
The semantic constraints introduced by these particles are as follows: (at the same time,
together), (then, so then), (although), (at some time or other), (now),
(when, as).
10
X / Y-INF
X / Y-AOR.FINITE.VB
These particles signal a semantic constraint on the relationship of the actions in X and Y.
On the other hand, if the writer chooses to use the adverbial participle (X / Y-PTC), even
though in the actual situation X occurs after Y, he has chosen to use a form that does not
add that semantic constraint.
3.2 Discourse function of Pre-nuclear adverbial participles.
Pre-nuclear adverbial participles are participles that precede the verb of the main (nuclear,
or matrix) clause. Such participial clauses present information that is backgrounded with
respect to the main verb (Levinsohn, Discourse Features, 183). Runge refers to such a
participial clause as a circumstantial frame, which has a backgrounding function and thus
indicates that it is less important than the main verbal action (Runge, DGGNT, 294).
3.2.1 The circumstantial frames can be distinguished in terms of the case of the participle
and relationship between the S of the participle and S of the main verb:
1. S-MAIN VERB = S-PTC; participle is nominative (except where syntax requires the S of
the main verb to be accusative, as in infinitival clauses). These can be labeled NCP
(Nominative Circumstantial Participles).
2. S-MAIN VERB S-PTC; participle is oblique. These can be further subdivided into
two categories:
2a. Genitive Absolute or Genitive Circumstantial Participles (GCP): The
switch of S referents is marked overtly with GCP; the S-referent of the GCP
may or may not appear as a constituent in the main clause.
2b. Accusative/Dative Circumstantial Participles (ACP and DCP): The
switch of S referents is marked overtly with an ACP or DCP; the S-referent of
the A/DCP will normally appear as a constituent in the main clause (unless it
is omitted due to ellipsis, also known as gapping).
3.2.2 Some examples:
(25) Mt 9:27 1 27 And as Jesus passed on from there, two
1 2 [1]
blind men followed him, crying aloud and
2 .
saying. . . .
28 1 2 28 When he entered the house, the blind
1 2,
men came to him, and Jesus said to them,
. . . .
11
In (25), note that in both 9:27 and 9:28 the S-PTC (Jesus) is different from the S-MAIN VERB (the
blind men). Note also that the referent of the S-PTC is also found in the same case (dative) in
the main clause (in v.28, and possibly in v.27 if the text in brackets is original). The prenuclear participial clauses frame the backgrounded circumstance in which the entire main
clauses take place. One wonders why the DCP was used instead of the more common
GCP? One might propose that since the DCP is less common, its double-use here is marked
and serves a discourse pragmatic function, establishing a hard break in the storyline.
Otherwise, it might simply be that the participle is dative because the constituent of the
main verb with which it is coreferential is syntactically dative.
(26) Matt 14:6 1 1 6 But when Herods birthday came, the
2 2 daughter of Herodias danced before the
2 company and pleased Herod,
,
In (26), note that the S-PTC (Herods birthday) is different from the S-MAIN VERB (Herodias
daughter). The pre-nuclear participial clause frames the backgrounded circumstance in
which the entire main clause take place. Why is the DCP used instead of the more common
GCP? Possibly, its due to the fact in other non-participial contexts, that the word
is used in the dative case to indicate a temporal framework (see, for ex., Mark 6:21, Herod
gave a banquet on his birthday [ ]). Irrespective of what motivated the
dative case of the participle in (26), it still functions circumstantially to set up a temporal
frame for the main clause.
The backgrounding function of a pre-nuclear DCP can also be seen within a complex
sentence, setting up a circumstantial frame inside of an embedded clause. (27) below
provides such an example within a relative clause:
(27) Lk 17:7 [1 2
Lk 17:7 [Who is there among you, having
. . .] 1 2 a servant . . . ,] who, when he has come in
1 2 , from the field, will say to him, Come at
once and recline at table?
3.3 Discourse function of Post-nuclear adverbial participles.
3.3.1 While pre-nuclear adverbial participles present information that is backgrounded with
respect to the main verb, post-nuclear serve a different function:
Those that follow [the main verb] elaborate on the action of the main verb, often
providing more specific explanation of what is meant by the main action. In most
cases they practically spell out what the main action looks like. . . . Elaborating
12
participles serve similar a purpose as the circumstantial participles regarding
prioritization of the action. The finite verbs are more salient than the participles.
They differ in that the participial action directly modifies the main verbal action. If
two main verbs were used, you would have two distinct actions. The participle
relegates it to playing a supporting role to the main action rather than being a
distinct action in its own right. Using the participle places the action under the
umbrella of the main verb, adding more detail or elaboration to the main verb
(Runge, DGGNT, 309-310).
3.3.2 Some examples:
(28) Mt 21:23 1 1
2 1 1
2 2
2
23 And when he entered the temple, the

chief priests and the elders of the people
came up to him as he was teaching, and
said, . . . ?
Notice here that v.23 has a pre-nuclear GCP which functions to background/set the scene
for the main clause, as well as a post-nuclear DCP which specifically elaborates on the verb
of the main clause. The GCP signals a broader circumstance, having scope over the whole
main clause, whereas the domain of the DCP is simply the verb of the main clause. It is also
interesting to see that the same referent (Jesus) is in view in the respective GCP and DCP
clause.
(29) Mk 16:12 1
1 2
1
12 After these things he appeared in

another form to two of them, as they were
walking into the country.
In (29), a PP provides a temporal frame to background the main clause (and, really, the next
few pericopes). The DCP is post-nuclear and elaborates upon the main verb
, probably in a temporal way.
Finally, lets go back to example (24):
(24) Rom 4:10 ;
;

10 How then was it credited to him?

While he was in [a state of] circumcision
or uncircumcision? Not in [a state of]
circumcision, but uncircumcision!
We addressed earlier why one ought not to analyze the dative participle as attributive.
Assuming that we have here a DCP, what is its function? We must first understand that
13
4:10 is a highly elliptical passage in which given information has been omitted. Including v.
9b, I insert what has been omitted in brackets:
9b .
10 [];
[ ] ;
[ ]
When we see the clause structure laid out this way, it becomes easier to see that we have a
post-nuclear DCP which expands upon the gapped main verb (with gapped dative
pronoun), : [Was it reckoned to him] while he was in circumcision or
uncircumcision?

An Analysis of The Function of Greek Ana PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

An Analysis of The Function of Greek Ana PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

An Analysis of the Function of Greek Anarthrous Participles in Oblique Cases

and what is the surpassing greatness of his

Adjectival use in 2nd attributive position

the one who teaches, in his teaching;

2 Co 9:12 For the ministry . . . is

I am a sounding gong or a clanging

(6) Substantival use:

And how are they to hear without

Adverbial participles will also be anarthrous (and typically nominative or genitive).

And when Peter gazed (at him), he said

While he was clinging to Peter and John,

How then was it [faith] reckoned? While

God . . . sent him [for the purpose of]

The anarthrous participle in (9) is dative and is understood by many to be a temporal

And as he could not learn the facts

And when they came up out of the water,

Rendered adjectivally by Culy

Rendered adverbially by most

(15) Lu 8:27 a certain man from the

Grant to me, who is first Permit me, after I have

some who trusted in themselves

(19) Col 2:8

lest there be anyone who takes you

(he gave the right . . .) to them who

(21) Jas 4:12 . . .

but (who are) you who judges (your

(22) Eph 1:19

(23) 1 Cor 8:10

For if someone sees you who possess

(24) Rom 4:10 ;

. . . Was it credited to one who was in [a

Although it is theoretically possible to read the participle as Culy does, such an

3.1 Two working assumptions:

23 And when he entered the temple, the

12 After these things he appeared in

10 How then was it credited to him?

You might also like