Greenwood professor of hellenistic greek and indo-european philology in the victoria university of manchester tutor in new testament language and literature

Download 3.25 Mb.
Date conversion08.11.2016
Size3.25 Mb.
1   ...   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   26   ...   33
a]peneso 845 (ii/A.D.). The usage is not common in the papyri.

Winer's plentiful testimony from LXX, Apocrypha, and

Byzantine writers (WM 411) illustrates what the NT

statistics suggest, that it belongs to the higher stratum of

education in the main. For ei]j to< we may quote the re-

current formula ei]j to> e]n mhdeni> memfqh?nai, which is decidedly

telic: as PFi 2 (iii/A.D.) quater, OP 82 (iii/A.D.). Miscel-

laneous exx. may be seen in OP 69 (ii/A.D.), BU 18 (ii/A.D.),

195 (ii/A.D.), 243 (ii/A.D.), 321 (iii/A.D.), 457 (ii/A.D.), 651

(ii/A.D.), 731 (ii/A.D.), and 747 (ii/A.D.). Like the rather

commoner pro>j to<, it seems to carry the thought of a remoter

purpose, the tendency towards an end. This is well shown by

the cases in which the main purpose is represented by i!na or

o!pwj, and an ultimate object is tacked on with the articular

infinitive. Thus BU 226 (i/A.D.) o!pwj ei]d^? pare

( =-qai) au]toj to> tuxi?n me th?j a]po>

sou? bohqei

pra?cai . . . pro>j to> mh> peri> tw?n au]tw?n pan

e]ntugxaib. [ i!na] d ] ou#n . . . diame

pro>j to> mh> pa

force is just what we have seen in nearly all the NT exx.;

nor do those in which the purpose is least evident go beyond

what we see in these other illustrations.

Before dealing with the Participle proper, we may

1 Cf 2 Co 213; LPb (ii/B.C.) a@llwj de> t&? mhqen ] e@xein plh>n tou? Ptolemai


briefly touch on another category closely connected with it.

Brugmann has shown (Idg. Forsch. v. 89 ff.), that the

The Participle Greek participle, formed with the suffixes

and the Verbal -nt-, -meno-, and -wos- (-us-), represents the

Adjectives. proethnic participle, which was intimately

connected with the tense system; while

there are primitive verbal adjectives, notably that in -to-,

which in other languages--Latin and English are obvious

examples—have become associated more intimately with the

verb. The –to

verb system; and its freedom from tense connexions may

be seen from the single fact that "amatus est" and "he is

loved" represent different tenses, while "scriptum est" and

"it is written" agree.1 Even in Latin, a word like tacitus

illustrates the absence of both tense and voice from the

adjective in its primary use. Brugmann's paper mainly

concerns Latin and the Italic dialects, and we shall only

pursue the subject just as far as the interpretation of the

Greek –to

remarked on. This is well shown by the ambiguity of a]du

ton in Rom 83: is it "incapable," as in Ac 148, Rom 151,

or "impossible," as in the other NT occurrences? Grammar

cannot tell us: it is a purely lexical problem. As to

absence of tense, we may note that both in Greek and

English this adjective is wholly independent of time and of

"Aktionsart." Both a]gaphtobeloved may answer

indifferently to a]gapw

This fact has some exegetical importance. Thus in Mt 2541

the timeless adjective "cursed" would answer to the Greek


force, "having become the subjects of a curse"; I and this

makes the predicate translation (RVmg "under a curse")

decidedly more probable. That our -d (-n) participle has no

tense force in itself, and that consequently we have no exact

representative of either present, aorist or perfect participle

passive in Greek, is a point that will often need to be borne

in mind. The very word just used, borne, translates the
1 The verbal adjective in -no
- stands parallel with that in -to- from primitive


present ai]ro3, while its punctiliar equivalent

brought represents (RVmg) the aorist e]nexqei?san in 2 Pet 118,

and the similar taken away stands for h]rme1;

and yet all these are called "past participle" in English

grammars. Having cleared the way for a lexical treatment

of the verbals in –to

whether an intransitive, an active, or a passive meaning is to

be assigned to each word, we may give two or three examples

which will lead to a new point. Suneto

of an ambiguous word: it is always active, "intelligent," in

NT, but in earlier writers it is also passive. LS cite

Euripides IT 1092 eu]cu

the two. ]Asu31 is also active, but the next

word a]su

meaning from the middle sunqe

example of the passive, and at the same time of the free use

of these adjectives in composition, is qeodi

taught." Intransitive verbs naturally cannot show passive

meaning. Thus zestofervidus, from ze<(s)w "to boil." But

when we examine qnhto

but "mortal"; paqhto

"capable of suffering," patibilis. So often with transitive

verbs. "The 'invincible' Armada" would be rendered o[

a]h stoinvictus would be similarly used in

Latin, and "unconquered" can be read in that sense in

English. A considerable number of these adjectives answer

thus to Latin words in -bilis, as will be seen from the lexicon:

we need cite no more here. It will be enough merely to

mention the gerundive in –te38,


but can hardly have belonged to the genuine popular speech.

Participle for A considerable proportion of what we

Indicative. have to say about the Participle has been

anticipated. One Hellenistic use, already

adumbrated in the discussion of the Imperative (pp. 180 ff.),

may be finished off at this point, before we go on to describe

subordinate participial clauses. That the participle can be

used for indicative or imperative seems to be fairly estab-

lished now by the papyri. Let us present our evidence

before applying it to the NT exx., which we have already


given so far as the imperative is concerned. For indicative

the following may be cited :--Tb P 14 (ii/B.C.) tw?i ou#n


in person" (no verb follows). Tb P 42 (ib.) h]dikhme

verb follows). AP 78 (ii/A.D.) bi

(no verb). Tb P 58 (ii/B.C.) gra su>


. . . kai> . . . sfeteri a]pa

GH 26 (ii/B.C.), o{ sunepikeleuouj Qrh?rij

th?j Paw?toj suneudokou?ntej tw?n progegra(mme

remark: "The construction is hopeless; one of the participles

sunepik. or suneud. must be emended to the indicative, and

the cases altered accordingly." The writer of the papyrus

uses his cases in a way which would have convicted him of

Semitic birth before any jury of NT grammarians not very

long ago; but if suneudokou?men is meant by the suneu-

dokou?ntej, we may perhaps translate without emendation,

taking tw?n p. as partitive gen. like Ac 2116 (supr., p. 73).

In Par P 63 (ii/B.C.) e@nteucin h[mi?n profero

long a sentence that the absence of finite verb may be mere

anacoluthon. OP 725 (ii/A.D.) o[ de> [H. eu]dokw?n tou

kai> e]kdeida

CPR 4 (i/A.D.), kai> mhde

the same thing in orat. obl., but more clearly due to anaco-

luthon. For the imperative there is the formula seen in

G 35 (i/B.C.) e[autw?n de> a]pimelomenoi i!n ] u[giai

plural precedes): so Par P 63, G 30, Path P 1, Tb P 12

(all Ptolemaic), etc. FP 112 (i/A.D., translated above,

p. 178) e]pe ei!na au]to>n mh> duswph

Tb P 59 (i/B.C.=Witk. p. 88) e]n oi$j e]a>n prosde

1   ...   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   26   ...   33

The database is protected by copyright © 2017
send message

    Main page