A participle will not be the main
verb in a sentence. Instead, as noted above, participles are verbs
that are used as modifiers. In Greek as in English, they may modify nouns as do adjectives,
or they may modify verbs, as do adverbs. To the extent that the
tense of a participle indicates time, it will indicate time only
relative to the main verb. Present tense participles usually
indicate action coincident with the
time of the main verb. In the sentence,
He
broke his leg playing football,
the
main verb (also known as the "leading verb") is broke, and is
past tense. If this sentence were in Greek, the participle would be
in the present tense, but it would not indicate that the playing is
present time in an absolute sense. Rather it would indicate that the
playing was present time at the moment the leg was broken. We
might translate,
He
broke his leg while playing football.
The presentation of
the function of participles in your text book
acknowledges the tendency of participle usage to refuse
rigid classification. Nonetheless, I think it helpful
to the beginner to have an outline of distinct
classifications to use as an initial framework for
interpreting participles. With the understanding that
the following approach is intentionally simplistic,
consider two ways in which participles are used, adjectivally and
adverbially.
Participles used as Adjectives
When a participle is
in the attributive position, translate it as an
adjective modifying the noun with which it agrees in
gender, case and number. Remember that the fundamental
characteristic of the attributive position is that the adjective
comes immediately after its definite article.
(a) One of the two basic patterns we have
learned for the attributive position is...
Definite Article | Noun | Definite Article |
Adjective
Previously, we have seen nouns, or
noun phrases, in the attributive position and functioning
adjectivally. Now we will see participial phrases doing the same
thing.
Definite Article | Noun | Definite Article |
Participial Phrase
Generally, then, we can simply think
of this form of the attributive construction in the following
manner:
Definite Article | Noun | Definite Article |
Modifier
EXAMPLE 1
In the following sentence, we see the
familiar
ὁ
[noun]
ὁ
[modifier] construction
wherein the modifier is in the attributive position.
ὧδε
ὁ
νοῦς ὁ ἔχων σοφίαν
Note that the modifier is the whole
phrase ἔχων σοφίαν,
"having wisdom." It tells
us which νοῦς
(mind) is in view, the one having wisdom. The participle
ἔχων
agrees with the noun it modifies, νοῦς,
in gender, case, and number. But the verbal idea in a participle is
not abandoned, and therefore it may take an object just as any other
verb may. In this sentence, although ἔχων
is functioning adjectivally, it is also a verb and has as its
object, σοφίαν.
How do we translate this sentence?
"Here [is] the mind, the having
wisdom [one]" is certainly awkward.
"Here [is] the having-wisdom
mind" is not any better.
"Here [is] the mind having
wisdom" is perhaps marginally better.
But we can introduce an explanatory
object clause in English that will serve the same purpose as the
adjectival participle, viz., identifying what mind is in view:
Here is the mind
that has
wisdom
EXAMPLE 2
ἐϐλασφήμησαν
τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ἔχοντος τὴν ἐξουσίαν
The leading verb is ἐϐλασφήμησαν,
the subject is implicit in the verb, and the object is ὄνομα.
The simple sentence is, "They blasphemed name." But ὄνομα
has some modifiers. Of course there is the definite article, and
that gives us, "They blasphemed the name." But then we have a
genitive τοῦ θεοῦ
that tells us what name, "the name of God." Now we come to the
participle, ἔχοντος.
It is masculine genitive singular and is very clearly in the
attributive position:
τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ
ἔχοντος
Clearly, it is modifying θεοῦ.
What God? "The God having..." But even though it is functioning as
an adjective, it is still a verb and can take an object. What does
God have? He has τὴν ἐξουσίαν.
The phrase τοῦ
ἔχοντος τὴν ἐξουσίαν in its
entirety modifies θεοῦ,
telling us what God, even as the phrase τοῦ θεοῦ
itself modifies name, telling us what
name.
How do we translate this sentence?
"They blasphemed the name
of God, the having the power [one]" is certainly awkward.
"They blasphemed the name
of the-having-power God" is a little better.
"They blasphemed the name
of God having power" doesn't get the job done.
But we can introduce a relative clause in English that will serve the same purpose as the
adjectival participle, viz., identifying what god is in view, or
something about the God who is in view:
"They blasphemed the name of
God who has the power."
(b) Remember that the attributive
construction may also take the following form:
Definite Article |
Adjective | Noun
Again, in place of a simple
adjective, we may have a participial phrase. And we may represent
this form of the attributive construction generally as
Definite Article |
Modifier | Noun
EXAMPLE
ἔλεγεν οὖν τοῖς
ἐκπορευομένοις ὄχλοις
(Lk. 3:7)
Therefore he was
saying to the going-out crowds...
ἐκπορευομένοις modifes
ὄχλοις, telling us
something about the crowds to whom Jesus was speaking. For this
reason,
ἐκπορευομένοις agrees with
ὄχλοις in gender, case,
and number. We might well translate,
Therefore he was
saying to the crowds that were going out...
(c) Adjectives may function attributively
even though there is no definite article present. The same
is true for participial phrases.
EXAMPLE
καὶ ἐν τῇ συναγωγῇ ἦν ἄνθρωπος
ἔχων πνεῦμα δαιμονίου ἀκαθάρτου
Lk
4:33
And in the synagogue was a man having a spirit of an unclean demon.
The participial phrase
ἔχων πνεῦμα δαιμονίου ἀκαθάρτου
(having a spirit of an unclean demon) describes the man who
was in the synagogue. For this reason, it agrees with ἄνθρωπος
in gender, case, and number. Again note that in English, a relative
clause might aptly be used to convey the idea of the participial
phrase:
And there was a man
in the synagogue who had a spirit of an
unclean demon.
(d) And finally, just as
is true of any adjective, a participle can function as a
substantive.
EXAMPLE
καὶ
ἐγένετο φόϐος μέγας ἐπὶ
πάντας τοὺς ἀκούοντας
Ac 5:5
and great fear came upon all the hearing [ones]
The noun modified by
τοὺς ἀκούοντας
is not explicit, therefore we may need to supply a noun in English.
And again, we may translate using a relative clause to modify a
supplied pronoun:
And great fear came
upon all those who heard.
Participles used as
Adverbs
When a participle is
not in the attributive position, it may well be
functioning as an adverb, modifying the main verb by
telling you when or in what manner the action of the
main verb took place.
EXAMPLE 1
ὑπέστρεψαν
εἰς Ἰερουσαλὴμ ἀναζητοῦντες αὐτόν
ἀναζητοῦντες
[seeking] is functioning as an adverb, telling us in what manner
ὑπέστρεψαν
[they returned].
They returned unto Jerusalem
seeking him.
But just as a participle used
adjectivally does not lose its verbal quality, neither does a
participle used adverbially lose its connection with a noun, whether
the noun is explicit or implicit. In this instance, the participle
ἀναζητοῦντες
is masculine, nominative, plural. That is because it agrees with the
implied subject of the verb ὑπέστρεψαν.
Even when functioning as an adverb, the participle still has an
adjectival quality inasmuch as it agrees with and thus maintains
some modifying force on a substantive, whether explicit or implicit.
EXAMPLE 2
εὗρον αὐτον ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ
καθεζόμενον ἐν μέσῳ τῶν
διδασκάλων
They found him in the
temple sitting in the midst of the teachers
The subject of the sentence is "they,"
implicit in the 3rd person, plural verb, εὗρον.
The object of the verb is αὐτον,
"him". The participle καθεζόμενον
[sitting] is adverbial telling us that someone was sitting
when "they found him in the temple." Who was sitting? Were they
sitting, or was he who was found sitting?
While it may make practical or
contextual sense to you that the one who was found was doing the
sitting, there is a grammatical point that assures us of that fact.
καθεζόμενον
agrees with αὐτον
in number (singular) case (accusative) and gender (masculine). It
would have to be nominative and plural to agree with the subject of εὗρον.
(In fact, εὗρον
itself could be either 1st person singular or 3rd person plural, but
the larger context from which this excerpt is taken, Luke 2:41ff,
indicates that the subject of the verb is Jesus' parents and
accordingly the verb is 3rd person plural.)
When a participle is used
adverbially, we will often translate it using such temporal adverbs
as "while" or "after." As a rule of thumb, if the context calls for
a temporal adverb and if the participle is present tense, use
"while" or "when" rather than "after" in your translation. That is because a present tense participle usually indicates
action that is concurrent with the time of the leading verb. The
leading verb is the main verb, the verb of the simple sentence. In
the example above, the leading verb is εὗρον.
The present tense participle καθεζόμενον
is describing action that was concurrent with the time of the
leading verb. At the time that they found him, he was sitting in the
midst of the teachers. And we could translate this sentence as
follows:
They found him in
the temple while he was sitting in the midst of the teachers.
Notice that the present tense
participle καθεζόμενον
is translated using a past tense in English, was sitting.
As previously noted, the tense of a participle does not
indicate absolute time of action, but very often does indicate relative time, that is, time relative to the
time of the leading verb. A present tense participle indicates
action occurring at the same time as the action of the main verb. In
this sentence, the present tense participle indicates action (sitting)
that was occurring at the time of the action of the main verb
(found). In English, we may use a past tense to indicate the same
idea.
What if the sentence had been...
εὗρον αὐτον ἐν τῷ
ἱερῷ καθεζομένῳ
ἐν μέσῳ τῶν διδασκάλων
...how would the meaning change? Now
the participle is in the dative case and no longer agrees with
αὐτον.
Instead it agrees with
ἱερῷ.
Therefore it would be the temple that is described as sitting in the
midst of the teachers. Because the temple isn't likely to move, this
probably wouldn't mean "while it was sitting in the midst
of the teachers," and therefore we are apt to translate it
adjectivally rather than adverbially:
They found him in
the temple which was sitting in the midst of the teachers.
That illustrates two points: (1) You
must pay close attention to the case, number, and gender of the
participle in order to know who or what is the subject of the action
inherent in the participle, and (2) the particular function of the
participle, whether primarily adjectival or adverbial, may sometimes
only be discerned by considering the context and what makes the most
sense.
EXAMPLE 3
ἐλάλει εὐλογῶν τὸν θεόν. Lk.
1:64b
He was speaking blessing God.
The participle
εὐλογῶν functions as an adverb
modifying
ἐλάλει. It tells in what manner
"he was speaking." Even so, it still agrees with the implicit
subject of the verb in number, case, and gender.
Reviewing what we have said, we
may conclude that an articular participle is necessarily attributive
and functions as an adjective (or substantive). In these cases, it
will often be helpful to use a relative clause in translation. If a participle is anarthrous, it may be attributive, or on the other hand, it may be
functioning adverbially.
It is true that anarthrous participle usage will
often defy neat categorization as either adjectival or adverbial.
But I think that as a beginning point, this framework will serve you
well. As you progress, you will get a feel for the wide range of
nuances conveyed by means of participles.