Professional Documents
Culture Documents
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 . . .
. . .
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
.
(8) Ac 3:11
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 ;
;
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
(10) Ac 3:26 . . .
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
.
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.
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
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
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
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
(16) Lu 9:59
.
(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
(20) Jo 1:12 . . .
2.3.2 Culy reanalyzes the dative participle in Rom 4:10 as an adjectival participle
functioning substantivally:
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
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
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
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).
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
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,
. . . .
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
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
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
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
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
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 ;
;
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
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
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 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