text:
A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research cap 20.doc
cirojmed
DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
saveSave A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light ... For Later
Grammar Handout [Consolidated] 2nd Edition
Assignment 2 Language Related Tasks
Navigate Intermediate Wordlist Unit 1
Present Simple Tense.docx
5thgradebluebandunitoverview
2015.23161.Santal Folk Tales Vol 1 Text
Nepalese Linguistics Vol. 24
Finite Non Finite
Editing Correcting Adjectives Order
Grammatical Categories of Word n Their Inflections
13. Planificare Anuala Limba Engleza L1 SPARK 4 Clasa a VIII a 09061607
New Words From PD James_The Lighthouse
Type of Verbs
Meetings Vocabulary
Chapter - Verbs Voice Adjectives and Adverbs
G019468484
Verbals
VERBAL NOUNS ( )
I. Kinship. The finite verb, verbum finitum (das bestimmte Verb), has now been
discussed as adequately as the space in this grammar allows. Originally there was no
difference between verb and noun (see Conjugation of the Verb). But gradually there
was developed a difference. It was done largely by the help of the pronouns which were
added to the verb-stems. Nouns also had their own inflection. But a considerable body
of words partook of the nature of both verb and noun and yet did not cut loose from
either. In a sense therefore the finite verb is a combination of verb and pronoun while
the non-finite verb combines verb and noun. These verbal nouns are the non-finite verb,
verbum infinitum (das unbestimmte Verb).1 They failed to add the personal pronominal
endings of the finite verb and so did not become limited to a subject (finite). And yet
they developed tense and voice and were used with the same cases as the finite verb. In
so far they are true verbs. On the other hand they are themselves always in a case like
other nouns. The verbal substantive comes to drop its inflection (fixed case-form) while
the verbal adjective is regularly inflected in the singular and plural of all three genders
just like any other adjective. These verbal nouns may be regarded either as hybrids or as
cases of arrested development, more properly deflected development, for they continued
to develop in a very wonderful way. The Greek of the Attic period would be barren
indeed if robbed of the infinitives and the participles. The names are not distinctive,
since both are participles2 (partake of the nature of both verb and noun) and both are
non-finite or infinitives (are not limited to a subject by personal endings). The rootdifference between these lies not in the verbal idea, but in the noun. It is the difference
between substantive and adjective. Both are verbals, both are nouns, but one is a
substantive and the other is an adjective. These general remarks may help one to
understand the history and usage of both infinitive and participle.
II. The Infinitive ( or ).
1. ORIGIN. There is no real ground for difference of opinion on this subject, however
much scholars may argue as to the significance of the infinitive.1 In the Sanskrit the
infinitive did not have tense or voice. The root used was that of a substantive closely
connected with a verb.2 But it is verbal in Sanskrit also in the notion of action, nomina
actionis. In the Veda and Brhmana the number of these verbal nouns is very large.
They are used with cases, the cases corresponding to the verb, but that phenomenon
appears in Latin and Greek. In Plautus we even find the abstract noun tactio in the
nominative governing its case just as if it were tangere. Classical Greek has a few wellknown examples of a noun or adjective governing the case appropriate to the verb with
which it is closely connected.2 The same thing occurs in the N. T. also. Cf.
(2 Cor. 6:14). See chapter on Cases. These substantives have enough verbal
1 K.-Bl., Bd. II, p. 4.
2 In K.-G. (Bd. II, p. 1) the ch. begins thus: Lehre von den Partizipialen; dem Infinitiv und
dem Partizipe. Both are participles and both are infinitives.
1 Goodwin, M. and T., p. 297.
2 Moulton, Prol., p. 202.
consciousness to govern cases.3 In the old Sanskrit these verbal substantives occur in
any case (except the vocative, which is not a real case). The later Sanskrit has only one
such case-ending so used, the accusative in -tum or -itum (cf. the Latin supine).4 But for
the developments in other languages, especially in the Greek and Latin, these Sanskrit
verbal substantives would not have been called infinitives. But they show beyond
controversy the true origin of the infinitive before tense and voice were added. They
were originally substantives in any case, which were used as fixed case-forms (cf.
adverbs) which had a verbal idea (action), and which were made on verbal roots. The
Latin shows three cases used in this way: the locative as in regere, the dative as in reg
and the accusative as in the supine rectum.5 The Greek infinitive shows only two caseendings, the dative as in (cf. also , , with Sanskrit dvn;
Homeric with Sanskrit vidmn) or the locative in .1 Thus in the Greek
and Latin it is only oblique cases that were used to form the infinitives.2 It is then as a
substantive that the infinitive makes its start. We see this in the Sanskrit dvn
vsnm= .3 This substantive aspect is clearly seen in the use of
with in Heb. 2:15. The first4 step towards the verbal idea was in the
3 Ib., p. 203.
4 Whitney, Sans. Gr., pp. 347 ff.
5 Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 202; Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 469; Vogrinz, Gr. d. hom.
Dial., 1889, p. 139.
1 Cf. Giles (Man., p. 470) for - and its relation to the Sans. san-i.
2 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 515.
3 Ib.
construction . Moulton5 illustrates the border-land of the English inf. by
the sentence: He went out to work again. If we read hard work we have a
substantive; but if we read work hard, we have a verbal notion. Strictly speaking,
=for giving the good things, while =in seeing the
good things. This was the original etymological sense as the Sanskrit makes clear. See
further chapter on Conjugation of Verb.
2. DEVELOPMENT. In the Sanskrit we see the primitive infinitive without tense or
voice. In the modern Greek the infinitive, outside of the Pontic dialect, has disappeared
save with auxiliary verbs, and even so it is in a mutilated state, as with ,
, , remnants of the ancient infinitives , ,
MOULTON, J. H., A Grammar of N. T. Greek. Vol. I, Prolegomena (1906). 3d ed. (1908).
, Characteristics of N. T. Greek (The Expositor, 1904).
, Einleitung in die Sprache des N. T. (1911).
, Grammatical Notes from the Papyri (The Expositor, 1901, pp. 271282; 1903, pp.
104121, 423439. The Classical Review, 1901, pp. 3137, 434441; 1904, pp. 106
112, 151155).
, Introduction to N. T. Greek (1895). 2d ed. (1904).
, Language of Christ (Hastings One-vol. D. B., 1909).
, N. T. Greek in the Light of Modern Discovery (Cambr. Bibl. Essays, 1909, pp. 461
, The Science of Language (1903).
MOULTON, W. F., and GEDEN, A. S., A Concordance to the Greek Testament (1897).
MOULTON and MILLIGAN, Lexical Notes from the Papyri (The Expos., 1908).
, The Vocabulary of the N. T. Illustrated from the Papyri and other Non-Literary
Sources. Part I (1914), II, III.
5 Prol., p. 203.
(Thumb, Handb., pp. 162, 167). Between these two extremes comes the history of the
rise and fall of the Greek infinitive. We may sketch that history in five periods.6
(a) The Prehistoric Period. The infinitive is simply a substantive with the strict
sense of the dative or locative case. Cf. the Sanskrit. We may infer also that there was
no tense or voice. This original epexegetical use of the inf. as the dative of limitation
has survived with verbs, substantives and adjectives. So (Lu. 1:57).
Cf. our a wonder to behold. See (Mt. 6:24), (Ac.
14:5), (Mk. 1:7). See also Jas. 1:19, , where
reproduces the dative idea.
(b) The Earliest Historic Period. The case-form (dative or locative) begins to lose its
significance. In Homer the dative idea is still the usual one for the infinitive, in harmony
with the form.7 With verbs of wishing, commanding, expecting, beginning, being able,
etc., the dative idea is probably the original explanation of the idiom. Cf.
(Mt. 7:11), knows how to give (for giving). Homer has =stepped for
going. But already in Homer there are signs that the case-form is getting obscured or
stereotyped. It occurs as apparent subject with impersonal verbs and as the logical
object of verbs of saying in indirect discourse.1 The use of with the inf. is common
also in Homer. would naturally be used with the ablative, like pur and the
infinitive in Sanskrit,2 and so the Greek idiom must have arisen after the dative or
locative idea of the inf. in Greek was beginning to fade.3 In Homer the inf. is already a
fixed case-form. The disappearance of as a distinct case-ending in Greek may have
made men forget that the usual inf. was dative. This dative inf. was probably a survival
of the old and once common dative of purpose. Gradually the inf. passed from being
THUMB, A., Die Forsch. ber die hellen. Spr. in den Jahren 19021904 (Arch. f. Pap. 3, pp. 443
, Die griech. Sprache im Zeitalter des Hellenismus (1901).
, Die sprachgesch. Stell. des bibl. Griech. (Theol. Rund., 1902).
, Handbuch der griech. Dial. (1909).
, Handbuch d. neugriech. Volkssprache. 2. Aufl. (1910).
, Handbuch des Sanskrits. I, Grammatik (1905).
, Unters. ber d. Sp. Asper im Griech. (1889).
6 Burton, N. T. M. and T., p. 143, has four. But see Robertson, Short Gr. of the Gk. N.
T., p. 188.
7 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 154.
1 Ib., pp. 157, 159.
2 Whitney, Sans. Gr., 983.
3 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 158. It seems a bit odd to find Radermacher (N. T. Gr., p. 145)
saying of the inf.: in seiner ursprnglichen Bedeutung als Modus. The inf. is not a mode
and the original use was substantival, not verbal.
merely a word of limitation (epexegetic) to being subject or object. We see the
beginning of this process in Homer, though there is only4 one instance of the article with
the inf., and that is in the Odyssey (20. 52), . But even here may be
demonstrative.5 But in Homer the inf. has tense and voice, a tremendous advance over
the Sanskrit inf. This advance marks a distinct access of the verbal aspect of the inf. But
there was no notion of time in the tense of the inf. except in indir. discourse where
analogy plays a part and the inf. represents a finite mode.6 This use of the inf.,
afterwards so common in Latin, seems to have been developed first in the Greek.7 But it
was the loss of the dative force as an essential factor that allowed the inf. to become
distinctly verbalized.8 As it came to be, it was an imperfect instrument of language. As a
verb it lacked person, number and time except in indirect discourse. As a substantive it
lacked inflection (without case or number) after it came to be limited to two cases. Even
after the case-idea vanished and it was used in various cases it was still indeclinable.9
The addition of tense and voice to the fixed case-form of the substantive with verbal
root was possible just because of the obscuration of the case-idea.
(c) The Classic Period from Pindar on. The articular infinitive is often used and
there is renewed accent on its substantival aspects. The inf. is freely used with or
without the article in any case (except vocative) without any regard to the dative or
locative ending. Pindar first uses the neuter article with the inf. as the subject.1 By
the assumption of the article it was substantivized again with a decided increment of its
power.2 It is to be remembered, however, that the article itself is a development from
the demonstrative and was very rare in Homer with anything. Hence too much must not
be made of the later use of the article with the inf. Hesiod shows two examples of the
article with the inf. Pindar has nine and one in the accusative.3 The absence or
ambiguous character of the article in early Greek makes it necessary to be slow in
denying the substantival aspect or character of the inf. in the Homeric period.4 Hence it
is best to think of the article as being used more freely with the inf. as with other nouns
as the article made its onward way. The greatly increased use of the article with the inf.
did serve to restore the balance between the substantival and verbal aspects of the inf.
now that tense and voice had come in. The enlarged verb-force was retained along with
the fresh access of substantival force. The Greek infinitive has a life of its own, and a
4 Monro, ib., p. 179.
5 Birklein, Entwickelungsgesch. des substantivierten Infin., 1888, p. 2 f.
6 Monro, Hom. Gk., pp. 158 ff. Cf. Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 515.
7 Goodwin, Moods and Tenses, p. 299.
8 Gildersl., Am. Jour. of Philol., 1882, p. 195.
9 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 568.
1 Burton, N. T. M. and T., p. 143.
3 Birklein, Entw. d. subst. Infinitivs, p. 4 f.
4 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 576. Hesseling (Essai hist. sur linfinitif grec, 1892, p. 5) puts
the matter too strongly.
richer and more subtle development than can be found in any of the cognate
languages.5 The infinitive, thus enriched on both sides, has a great career in the classic
period of the language, especially in Thucydides, the Orators, Xenophon and Plato. It
has a great variety of uses. In general, however, it may be said that the inf. was not as
popular in the vernacular as in the literary style for the very reason that it was synthetic
rather than analytic, that it lacked clearness and emphasis.6 But it was not till the
period that the inf. began to disappear.7
(d) The Period. The inf. begins to disappear before on the one hand and
on the other. Jannaris1 outlines the two chief functions of the inf. in its developed
state to be prospective (purpose like ) and declarative (subject or object like , and
ultimately also). The fondness for analysis rather than synthesis, particularly in the
vernacular, gradually pushed the inf. to the wall. The process was slow, but sure. There
is indeed a counter tendency in the enlarged use of and the inf. in the ,
particularly in the LXX under the influence of the Hebrew infinitive construct, and so to
some extent in the N. T. So from Polybius on there is seen an increase of and the
inf. side by side with the enlarged use of and . The two contradictory tendencies
work at the same time.2 On the whole in the the inf. has all the main idioms of the
classic age (with the marked absence of ) and the new turn given to and
. The Hebrew did not use the inf. as much as the Greek and never with the article.
Certainly the inf. is far less frequent in the LXX than in the comparatively free Greek of
the N. T., about half as often (2.5 to the page in the LXX, 4.2 in the N. T.).3 But the
Hebrew has not, even in the LXX, introduced any new uses of the inf. in the Greek. The
Hebrew inf. construct had no article and was thus unlike and the inf. The total
number of infinitives in the N. T., according to Votaw,4 is 2,276. The number of
anarthrous infs. is 1,957, of articular 319. The inroad of and is thus manifest as
compared with the Attic writers. The writings of Luke show the largest and most varied
use of the inf., while the Johannine writings have the fewest.5 Pauls use is very uneven.
Votaw6 finds the same inequality in the case of the apocryphal books. The papyri show
a similar situation. Different writers vary greatly, but on the whole the inf. is dying save
Jannaris
JANNARIS, A. N., A Historical Greek Grammar (1897).
, On the True Meaning of the (Class. Rev., 1903, pp. 93 ff.).
1 Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 568.
2 Klker, Questiones de Elocutione Polyb., 1880, p. 302.
3 Votaw, The Use of the Inf. in Bibl. Gk., 1896, p. 55.
Votaw VOTAW, C. W., The Use of the Infinitive in Bibl. Greek (1896).
4 Ib., p. 50.
in the use with auxiliary verbs, and it is going even there as is seen from the use of
with in the N. T. Cf. Mk. 9:30. In the we find with and
in Polybius, the LXX and later writers.7 As the inf. disappears in the
later Greek strange combinations appear, as in Malalas and Theophanes we meet
with the subjunctive ( , ).1 The inf. never had
a monopoly of any construction save as the complement of certain verbs like ,
, etc. This was probably the original use of the inf. with verbs and it was true to the
dative case-idea.2 It was here alone that the inf. was able to make a partial stand to avoid
complete obliteration.
(e) The Later Period. Outside of the Pontic dialect the inf. is dead, both anarthrous
and articular, save with the auxiliary verbs.3 The use of as a mere auxiliary is
common enough in Herodotus and probably was frequent in the vernacular then as it
was later.4 The fortunes of the infinitive were determined by its nature.5 The increased
use of abstract nouns made it less needed for that purpose, as the fondness for and
made it less necessary as a verb. The N. T. is mid-stream in this current and also
midway between the rise and the end of this river. The writers will use the inf. and
side by side or the inf. and parallel. Even in the classical Attic we find after
(Xenophon).6 As disappeared stepped into its place. In Latin ut was
likewise often used when the inf. could have occurred. The blending of and in
the helped on the process.
In the N. T. the exclusive province of the inf. is a rather narrow7 one. It still occurs
alone with and . It has a wide extension of territory with . But on the
whole it has made distinct retreat since the Attic period. The story is one of the most
interesting in the history of language.
3. SIGNIFICANCE. Originally, as we have seen, the infinitive was a substantive, but a
verbal substantive. This set case of an abstract substantive has related itself closely to
the verb.8 The Stoic grammarians9 called it a verb, ,
7 Thompson, Synt. of Attic Gk., p. 248. Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 574, for list of verbs
with in late Gk.
1 Rueger, Beitr. zur hist. Synt. d. griech. Sprache, 1895, p. 11.
3 Jebb in V. and D.s Handb., p. 324.
4 Ib., p. 326. G. Meyer (Essays und Studien, 1885, p. 101) says that the Albanians are
the only Slavic folk dem ein Infinitiv abgeht. It is due to the mod. Gk.
5 Thompson, Synt. of the Attic Gk., p. 247.
6 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 221.
8 Curtius, Erlut., p. 296.
9 Jolly, Gesch. des Inf. im Indoger., 1873, p. 16.
. Apollonius Dyskolos10 called it a fifth mode and the later grammarians
followed his error. Some of the Roman grammarians actually took infinitivus in the
sense perfectus, just as they mistranslated by genitivus.1 Bopp2 rightly perceived
that the inf. has a nominal origin and was later adjusted to the verb in Greek. It is not a
real verb in the very height of its glory.3 And yet the consciousness of the nominal
origin was partially obscured even in the time of Homer. The original case-form is so
far forgotten that this dative may appear in the nominative and the accusative. The
tenses and voices have developed. But Brugmann4 seems to go too far in saying that
already the inf. was only a verb in the popular feeling. Moulton,5 indeed, harks back
to Apollonius Dyskolos: The mention of The Verb has been omitted in the heading of
this chapter, in deference to the susceptibilities of grammarians who wax warm when
or is attached to the verb instead of the noun. But having thus done homage
to orthodoxy, we proceed to treat these two categories almost exclusively as if they
were mere verbal moods, as for most practical purposes they are. He states, it is true,
that every schoolboy knows that in origin and part of the use the inf. is a substantive,
but nearly all that is distinctive is verbal.6 I venture to say that this is overstating the
case. It is not a mere question of the notion of the user of the infinitive in this passage or
that. The history is as it is. In the full development of the inf. we see the blending of
both substantive and verb. In this or that example the substantival or the verbal aspect of
the hybrid form may be dominant, but the inf. in the historical period is always both
substantive and verb. It is not just a substantive, nor just a verb, but both at the same
time. The form itself shows this. The usage conforms to the facts of etymology. It is not
true that the article makes the inf. a substantive as Winer7 has it. As a matter of fact,
therefore, the inf. is to be classed neither with the noun nor with the verb, but with the
10 Ib., p. 22.
1 Ib., pp. 31 ff.
Bopp BOPP, Vergleichende Grammatik (1857).
2 Vergl. Gr., p. 3.
3 Cf. Schroeder, ber die formelle Untersch. der Redet. im Griechischen und Lateinischen, p.
BRUGMANN, K., Elements of Comparative Grammar of the Indo-Germanic Languages
(translation by Wright, 1895).
, Griechische Grammatik. 3. Aufl. (1900), the ed. quoted. Vierte vermehrte Aufl. of A.
Thumb (1913).
, Grundri der vergl. Gr. d. indog. Sprachen. 2. Aufl., Bde. I, II (18971913).
, Kurze vergleichende Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen (1904).
4 Griech. Gr., p. 515.
participle, and both stand apart as verbal nouns. The article did enlarge8 the scope of the
inf. just as the use of tense did. The Germans can say das Trinken and French le savoir
like the Greek . There is no infinitive in Arabic. As a matter of fact, the inf.
because of its lack of endings (here the participle is better off with the adjective
endings) is the least capable of all parts of speech of fulfilling its functions.9 In its very
nature it is supplementary. It is either declarative or prospective,1 but always a verbal
substantive. There is a difference between and . Both have verbal
stems and both are abstract. The difference2 lies in the tense and voice of . But
has all that is in plus tense and voice. I decline, therefore, to divide the
infinitive into the anarthrous and articular uses so popular in the grammars. These uses
do exist, but they simply represent two uses of the inf. in its substantival aspects. They
do not affect the verbal side of the inf. at all. The inf. may properly be discussed under
its substantival and its verbal aspects. But even so a number of uses cross over as
indirect discourse, for instance, or the inf. to express purpose (with or without the
article). We must look at both sides of the inf. every time to get a total idea of its value.
A number of points of a special nature will require treatment.
4. SUBSTANTIVAL ASPECTS OF THE INFINITIVE.
(a) Case (Subject or Object Infinitive). Here I mean the cases of the inf. itself, not
the cases used with it. The inf. is always in a case. As a substantive this is obvious. We
have to dismiss, for the most part, all notion of the ending (dative or locative) and treat
it as an indeclinable substantive. A whole series of common expressions has the inf. as
subject besides the ordinary verbs. Thus note 1 Cor. 9:15 ,
(Heb. 4:6; 9:27) , (Mt. 18:13)
, (3:15) , (Ac. 21:35) ,
(Lu. 6:12) , (18:25) , (Jo. 18:14)
, (Mt. 22:17) , (Heb. 9:5) , (Ac.
27:24) , (Ac. 2:24) , (Ph. 3:1)
. So Ac. 20:16; 2 Pet. 2:21. All this is simple enough. The articular inf. is
likewise found in the nominative as in Mk. 9:10, . Here
the article is not far removed from the original demonstrative. Cf. 10:40,
, where is probably the original dative for giving. One
naturally feels that the articular inf. is more substantival than the anarthrous, as in Ro.
7:18, , but that is not correct. The subject-inf. occurs freely
both with and without the article in the N. T. as in the generally. See Mt. 15:20
, (Mk. 12:33) , (Ro. 7:18) and . Add 1 Cor.
WINER, G. B., De verborum cum praep. compos. in N. T. Usu (18341843).
, Gramm. d. neut. Sprachidioms (1822). 7. Aufl. von Lnemann (l867).
7 W.-M., p. 406.
1 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 568 f. Cf. Henry, Revue de Linguistique de la Philologie
Compare, vol. XX, ii.
7:26; 11:6; 2 Cor. 9:1; Ph. 1:21, 24, 29; Heb. 10:31; Ro. 14:21. The origin of this
nominative or subject is probably due to its use with impersonal expressions. Moulton1
illustrates it by the Latin humanum est errare, where the force of the locative form
errare may be seen by translating: There is something human in erring. This may have
been the original idiom, but it has gone beyond that to mean: Erring is human. English
students often forget that erring is here infinitive, not participle, both in sense and
history. It is a step further in the N. T. to see and the inf. used as subject nominative.
Cf. Lu. 17:1; Ac. 10:25; 1 Cor. 16:4. In 2 Cor. 7:11 the substantival aspect of the inf. is
shown by the use of the pronoun in the nominative with
. Cf. the inf. in the predicate nom. with in Ro. 1:12,
. So in Ro. 13:11, , where the inf.
is in predicate apposition with . Originally it was doubtless time for arising. In 1
Th. 4:6 we have both the anarthrous and articular inf. in apposition with . Cf. also
the appositive inf. in Ac. 15:28; Jas. 1:27; 1 Th. 4:3; Ro. 4:13.
The object-infinitive in the accusative is quite common both with and, particularly,
without the article. In the N. T. more than half of the instances of the inf. come in here,
the object-inf. with verbs of various sorts.2 In the LXX, however, it is rare in proportion
to the other uses. The accusative case is to us more manifest when the article occurs.
See Ph. 2:6, , where the articular inf. is the
direct object of . So in 2:13, with . Cf.
Ac. 25:11, . See further 1 Cor. 14:39; 2 Cor. 8:10. In Ph.
4:10, , the acc. may be that of general reference.
Certainly in 1 Th. 3:3, , this is true. Blass3 calls it here quite superfluous.
In Ro. 14:13 is in apposition with the accusative , as in 2 Cor. 2:1.
In 2 Cor. 10:2, , we should naturally look for the ablative
with . The instances without the article are more numerous. A fairly complete list
of the verbs in the N. T. that have the inf. in indirect discourse was given in the chapter
on Modes (Indirect Discourse, pp. 1036 ff.). These infs. are in the acc., though some of
them may possibly preserve the original dative or locative idea. But the acc. with the
inf. is that of general reference, while the inf. itself is in the acc. case, the object of the
verb of saying or thinking. Cf. Lu. 2:44, . The occasional use of
the nom. predicate, as in Ph. 4:11, , accents the acc. character of
the object-inf. This point is clear also in the case of indirect commands where the noun
or pronoun is in the dative and the inf. in the acc., as in 1 Cor. 5:11,
. The illustrations are numerous and need not be multiplied (see list
under Indirect Discourse). With , , the dative makes a good idea
and was probably so understood in the beginning.1 It may be questioned, however, if in
actual usage this idiom is not also the acc. Cf. Mt. 1:19 , (1:20)
, (5:34) , (16:12) , (Lu.
18:1) (both infs. in the acc., one with , the other general
reference with ), (Ro. 15:8) (cf. Ac. 27:13), (2
Cor. 10:2) , (1 Th. 4:11)
2 Votaw, Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 57.
3 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 234. Cf. 2 Esd. 6:8 .
(note the interrelation of
these infs.). See further Mk. 9:28; 12:12; Lu. 16:3; Jo. 5:18; Ro. 14:2; Gal. 3:2; 1 Cor.
10:13. In the acc. also are the articular infs. with prepositions like (Ro. 1:11);
(Ac. 8:11); (Lu. 22:20); (Mt. 5:28).
But the inf. occurs in the other oblique cases also with more or less frequency. The
genitive, for instance, appears with the prepositions (Jas. 4:15); (Heb. 2:15,
); (2 Cor. 7:12); (Ac. 8:40). The only instance of an attribute
with the infinitive in the N. T. is Heb. 2:15, except in apposition with . It was rare
in classic Greek and confined to pronouns. Cf. , Plato, Rep. 433. The
genitive may be found with as in Mk. 8:14, (cf.
in Heb. 6:10. But we have in Ph. 3:13). At any rate in
Lu. 1:9, (cf. 1 Sam. 14:47), we have an undoubted genitive. Cf. also
(Mt. 21:32). The very common use of with the inf.
must also be noted. Most of these are genitives, as in (Mt. 2:13). The free
use of with the inf. where the case is not genitive will be discussed under a special
section under the article with the inf. Cf., for instance, Lu. 17:1; Ac. 10:25; 20:3; 27:1.
The gen. occurs with substantives just as other substantives are used. This is a fairly
common idiom. See Ac. 27:20 , (1 Cor. 9:10)
, (Ro. 15:23) , (1 Pet. 4:17)
, (Heb. 5:12) . Note, in particular, Ro. 11:8,
, where the infs. are parallel with . Cf. Lu. 1:57, 74; 2:6; 10:19;
21:22; 22:6, etc. Note especially Ph. 3:21,
. Let these suffice. They illustrate well how the inf. continued to be regarded as
a real substantive. The genitive occurs also with adjectives as in
(Lu. 24:25); (Ac. 23:15). The genitive is found with
(the anarthrous inf.) as in Lu. 15:19, 21, (cf. Rev. 5:4, 9). In 1 Cor. 16:4
may be due to , but is probably used as subj. nominative in a
rather loose way. The inf. in the genitive is specially common in Luke and also in Paul.1
The ablative illustrations are not very numerous, but they are clear. Thus we have
the abl. with verbs of hindering as in Mt. 19:14, , and
Lu. 4:42, . The classical Greek had also and the
inf., as in 1 Cor. 14:39, and after verbs of hindering, which last does not occur in
the N. T., so that it is probable that an inf. without the art. as in Mt. 19:14 is in the abl.,
though not certain. Moulton (Prol., p. 220) illustrates Lu. 4:42 and Ac. 14:18 by B. U.
164 (ii/iii A.D.) , J. H. S., 1902, 369 (Lycaonian inscription)
, B. U. 36 (ii/iii A.D.) , N. P. 16
(iii/A.D.) . See further Lu. 24:16
, Ac. 10:47 , 14:18
. Cf. also Ac. 20:20, 27; Ro. 11:10; 15:22; 2 Cor. 1:8; Heb.
7:23; 1 Pet. 3:10. Cf. in the LXX, Gen. 16:2; 20:6; Ps. 38:2; 68:24 (quoted in Ro.
11:10); Is. 24:10; 1 Sam. 8:7; Jer. 7:10.2 The abl. occurs also with prepositions as in
2 Cor. 8:11, and , in Mt. 6:8 . In Ac. 15:28,
J. H. S. J. H. S., The Journal of Hellenic Studies (London).
2 Cf. Viteau, Le Verbe, p. 172.
, , the inf. is in the abl., in apposition with the preceding
The only instance of the inf. in the instrumental in the N. T. occurs in 2 Cor. 2:13,
. The inf. is not found with in the N. T. Votaw (Inf. in
Biblical Greek, p. 29) notes six examples of the instrumental and the inf. in the LXX
text of B (2 Chron. 28:22; Eccl. 1:16; Is. 56:6; 4 Macc. 17:20, 21). But other MSS. vary.
Moulton (Prol., p. 220) cites L. Pb. (ii/B.C.), .
The locative occurs with as in (Lu. 24:51). It is extremely
frequent in the N. T., especially in Luke. The possible Hebraistic aspect of the idiom
comes up under Prepositions with the Inf. There remains, of course, a possible locative
use of a form like . But one doubts if this original idea is preserved in the N. T.1
Cf. Mt. 16:3, , which is more naturally explained as a dative: ye
have knowledge for discerning, though in discerning makes sense. But with the dative
it is different. There is no instance of the dative inf. with a preposition, but the original
dative is clear in all examples of purpose without or a preposition. Thus Mt. 5:17,
, , I came not for destroying, but for fulfilling.
So Lu. 12:58, , give diligence for being reconciled. Cf. Mt.
7:11; 16:3 with and . See further Mt. 2:2, , we
came for worshipping; Jo. 21:3, , I go a-fishing. So Ro. 3:15, LXX,
, swift for shedding blood. The substantive also has the dative inf. in
Ro. 9:21, , power for making. See further 1 Pet. 4:3, ,
for having wrought; Gal. 5:3, , debtor for doing; Heb. 11:15,
, time for returning. This was the original idiom and, with all the
rich later development as verbal substantive, the inf. did not wholly get away from the
dative idea.
(b) The Articular Infinitive. We have to cross our tracks frequently in discussing the
inf. in a lucid fashion. Numerous examples of the articular inf. have already been given
in treating the cases of the inf. But the matter is so important that it calls for special
investigation. If we pass by the doubtful articular inf., , in the Odyssey,2
we still find (cf. p. 1054) a few examples in the oldest Greek (two in Hesiod, nine in
Pindar, nine in the Lyrics).3 The use of the article with the inf. grew with the growth of
the article itself. But it is not to be overlooked that in Homer the anarthrous inf. had
already developed nearly all the constructions of this verbal substantive.1 The addition
of the article made no essential change in the inf. It was already both substantive and
verb. But the use of the article greatly enlarged the range of the inf. It is extended to
new uses, especially with prepositions. The article was first used with the nom., then the
acc. and then the other cases. The use of and with the inf. is wholly postHomeric.2 In the Dramatists and Herodotus it is still chiefly in the nom. and acc., though
2 Cf. Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 179. Gildersl. (Am. Jour. of Philol., 1912, p. 488) gave this
name (articular infinitive) to the idiom. I watch the fate of my little things with a
benevolent detachment.
3 Birklein, Entwickelungsgeschichte, p. 91.
we do find and , and we see the inf. used with prepositions also.3 In Thucydides
the articular inf. suddenly jumps to great prominence, occurring 298 times,4 especially
in the speeches. Of these 163 occur with prepositions.5 He even uses with the future
inf. and with and the inf. The orators likewise use the art. inf. very freely. It was
especially in Demosthenes that the power of taking dependent clauses was fully
developed.6 Only the Pontic dialects, as already noted, keep the inf. as a living form,
and a few substantives preserve a mutilated form, like (eating)= ,
(kissing)= (Thumb, Handb., p. 117). In the N. T. we see all this power
still retained with the further development in the use of . The inf. itself, as we have
seen, is retreating in the N. T., but it still possesses the full range of its varied uses. The
articular inf. has all the main uses of the anarthrous inf. Votaw (The Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p.
51) finds 22 uses of the inf. (19 anarthrous, 15 articular), but some of these overlap and
are artificial. Moulton (Prol., p. 214) concludes from a study of the inscriptions that the
articular inf. only invaded the dialects as the was starting. There is no essential
difference in idea, and the mere presence or absence of the article is not to be pressed
too far. Jannaris7 admits that sometimes the verbal character is completely obscured. On
that point I am more than sceptical, since the inf. continues to have the adjuncts of the
verb and is used with any voice or tense. Jannaris8 thinks that in late Greek the
substantival aspect grew at the expense of the verbal and the articular inf. had an
increasing popularity. I admit the popularity, but doubt the disappearance of the verbal
aspect. Jannaris makes the mistake of taking substantival inf. as coextensive with
articular inf. Blass1 questions if the article always has its proper force with the inf. and
suggests that perhaps sometimes it merely occurs to show the case of the inf. Here again
I am sceptical. Why does the case of the inf. need to be shown any more than other
indeclinable substantives? In Mt. 1 the article does serve to distinguish object from
subject. I have never seen an articular inf. where the article did not seem in place.
Moulton2 considers the use of the article the most characteristic feature of the Greek
infinitive in post-Homeric language. Blass3 seems puzzled over the frequency of the
articular inf. in the N. T., since it is chiefly confined to Luke and Paul, whose writings
have most affinity with the literary language. Jannaris4 notes how scarce it is in the
writings of John and in unlearned papyri and inscriptions, doubtful in the medival
5 Gildersl., Contrib. to the Hist. of the Inf., Transac. of the Am. Philol. Asso., 1878, pp.
6 Goodwin, M. and T., p. 315. Hypereides, he adds, even exceeds Demosthenes.
1 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 233.
period, and absent from the modern vernacular. The articular infinitive, therefore,
could not resist any longer the tendency of the time, whether it was conceived as a noun
or as a verb.5 The analytic tendency drove it out finally. Moulton6 has made some
researches on the use of the articular inf. in the dialect inscriptions. He does not find a
single instance in Larfields Botian inscriptions. He finds one from Lesbos, one from
Elis, one from Delphi, a few from Messene, etc. He notes the silence of Meisterhans on
the subject. The conclusion seems to be inevitable that the articular inf. is as rare in the
Attic vernacular as it was common in the Attic orators. It is mainly a literary use,
starting in Pindar, Herodotus and the tragedians, and matured by Attic rhetoric.
Aristophanes uses it less than half as often as Sophocles and Aristophanes gives the
Attic vernacular. And yet it is not absent from the papyri. Moulton7 counts 41 instances
in vol. I of B. U. The N. T. uses it about as often to the page as Plato. He scores a point
against Kretschmers view that the Attic contributed no more to the than any one
of the other dialects, since from the literary Attic the articular inf. passed into daily
speech of the least cultured people in the later Hellenist world.8 Polybius9 deserves to
rank with Demosthenes in the wealth of his use of the inf. He employs the inf. in all
11,265 times, an average of 7.95 to the page. He has the articular inf. 1,901 times, an
average of 1.35 to the page. In the N. T. the inf. occurs 2,276 times, an average of 4.2
times to a page. The articular inf. is found in the N. T. 322 times, an average of .6 times
to a page. The N. T. shows fewer uses, in proportion, of the articular inf. than the O. T.
or the Apocrypha. Of the 303 (Moulton) instances, 120 are in Lukes writings and 106
in Pauls Epistles. But Votaw1 counts 319 in all. The MSS. vary in a number of
instances and explain the difference. Moulton2 gives the figures for all the N. T. books
thus: James 7, Hebrews 23, Gospel of Luke 71, Paul 106, Acts 49, 1 Peter 4, Matthew
24, Mark 13 (14), John 4, Revelation 1, not in Col., Philem., Past. Eps., Joh. Eps., 2
Pet., Jud. Luke has the most varied use of the articular inf., and Pauls is somewhat
uneven.3 The use of the articular inf. in the various cases has already been sufficiently
discussed. In general one may agree with Moulton4 that the application of the articular
infin. in N. T. Greek does not in principle go beyond what is found in Attic writers.
6 Prol., pp. 213 ff.
KRETSCHMER, P., Die Einl. in die Geschichte der griech. Sprache (1906).
, Die Entstehung der (Sitz. ber. d. Wien. Akad., 1900).
, Die griech. Vaseninschriften ihrer Sprache nach untersucht (1894).
9 Allen, The Inf. in Polyb. Compared with the Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 47.
1 Inf. in Bibl. Gk., pp. 50 ff.
The special use of the articular inf. with prepositions is reserved for separate discussion.
There is little doubt that the first use of with the inf. was demonstrative as it was with
everything.5 In Mk. 9:10, , the article is almost
demonstrative, certainly anaphoric (cf. verse 9). The same thing is true of 10:40 where
refers to in verse 37. It is not necessary to give in detail many
examples of the articular inf. in the N. T. I merely wish to repeat that, when the article
does occur with the inf., it should have its real force. Often this will make extremely
awkward English, as in Lu. 2:27, . But the
Greek has no concern about the English or German. It is simply slovenliness not to try
to see the thing from the Greek standpoint. But we are not to make a slavish rendering.
Translation should be idiomatic. It is hardly worth while to warn the inept that there is
no connection between the article and the English to in a sentence like Ph. 1:21,
. Here the article has just the effect that
the Greek article has with any abstract substantive, that of distinction or contrast. Life
and death (living and dying) are set over against each other. See further Mt. 24:45; Lu.
24:29; Ac. 3:12; 10:25; 14:9; 21:12; 25:11; Ro. 4:11, 13, 16, 18; 13:8; 14:21; 2 Cor.
8:10 f.; 9:1; Ph. 1:23, 29; 2:6; 4:10; 1 Th. 3:2 f.
Some special words are needed about and the inf. The question of purpose or
result may be deferred for separate discussion. We have seen how the genitive inf. with
occurs with verbs, substantives, adjectives and prepositions. The ablative inf. with
is found with verbs and prepositions. The ablative use is not here under discussion,
since it involves no special difficulties save the redundant . We may note that in
Critias was very common with the inf.1 We see it also in Polybius in various uses
named above.2 It is an Attic idiom that became very common in the postclassical and
Byzantine Greek.3 Cf. , O. P. 1159, 1113 (iii/A.D.).
There is no special difficulty with and the inf. with verbs as object except in a case
like Mt. 21:32 where gives rather the content than the purpose of
The instances with substantives like Ac. 14:9, , give no
trouble on the score of the article. It is the case (objective genitive) that has to be noted.
So with Ph. 3:21, . As to adjectives, as already noted, it is
doubtful if in 1 Cor. 16:4, , the inf. is to be taken
with as genitive. Moulton5 so regards it, but it may be a loose nominative, as we
shall see directly. But there is a use of and the inf. that calls for comment. It is a
loose construction of which the most extreme instance is seen in Rev. 12:7,
. This inf. (note the nom. with it) is in explanatory apposition with .
1 Birklein, Entwick., p. 9.
2 Allen, The Inf. in Polyb., pp. 29 ff.
Moulton6 cleverly illustrates it with the English: There will be a cricket matchthe
champions to play the rest. It is a long jump to this from a case like Ac. 21:12,
, where the simple object-inf. is natural (cf. 1
Th. 4:10 f.). Cf. also Ac. 23:20, . This
loose inf. of design is found twelve times in Thucydides, six in Demosthenes and five
in Xenophon.7 These writers prefer the prepositions with and the inf. Polybius in his
first five books has this simple and the inf. only six times, all negative.8 The normal
use of with the inf. was undoubtedly final as it was developed by Thucydides, and
in the N. T. that is still its chief use.1 But many of the examples are not final or
consecutive. It is only in Luke (Gospel 24, Acts 24) and Paul (13) that with the inf.
(without prepositions) is common.2 They have five-sixths of the examples.3 And Luke
has himself two-thirds of the total in the N. T. Matthew has seven. John avoids it.
Moulton4 shows that of Pauls thirteen examples three (Ro. 6:6; 7:3; Ph. 3:10) either
final or consecutive, two (Ro. 15:22; 2 Cor. 1:8) are ablative, five occur with
substantives (Ro. 15:23; 1 Cor. 9:10; 16:4; 2 Cor. 8:11; Ph. 3:21), four are epexegetic
(Ro. 1:24; 7:3; 8:12; 1 Cor. 10:13). In Luke about half are not final. It is this loose
epexegetical inf. that calls for notice. We find it in the LXX (cf. Gen. 3:22; 19:19;
31:20; 47:29, etc.).5 It is possible that this very common idiom in the LXX is due to the
Hebrew . It does not occur in Polybius.6 In the LXX also we see and the inf. used
as the subject of a finite verb in complete forgetfulness of the case of . Cf. 2 Chron.
6:7, . So 1 Sam.
12:23; 1 Ki. 8:18; 16:31; Ps. 91:3; Is. 49:6; Jer. 2:18; Eccl. 3:12; 1 Esd. 5:67.7 One must
recall the fact that the inf. had already lost for the most part the significance of the
dative ending - and the locative - (-). Now the genitive and the dative - are
both obscured and the combination is used as subject nominative. We have this curious
construction in Lu. 17:1, . See also Ac. 10:25,
, and 27:1, . Cf. further 20:3. It is naturally rarer in
7 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 578. Cf. Birklein, Entwick., p. 101.
8 Jann., ib.
Mr. H. Scott gives the following list for and the inf.:
Pres.Aor.Paul134Synoptics922Acts1113Heb.13Rev.1Jas.11 Pet.1344579 (less
9 fr. LXX, 4 Paul, 5 Ac.=70)
4 Prol., p. 217. Cf. also Gal. 3:10.
5 Cf. W.-M., p. 410 f.
6 Allen, Inf. in Polyb., p. 53. Cf. Gildersl., Am. J. of Phil., vol. XXVII, p. 105 f.
7 Votaw, The Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 28.
the N. T. than in the LXX. Moulton (Prol., p. 220) gives a papyrus example closely
allied to it, O. P. 86 (iv/A.D.) . See Winer-Moulton, p. 411, for
numerous examples in LXX. But very much like it is the use of as object-inf., with
in Lu. 4:10 (Ps. 90:11); in 5:7; in 9:51; in Ac.
3:12; in 7:19; in 15:20; in 21:12; in 23:20.
Cf. also in Ac. 23:15. This is surely a wide departure from classical
Greek.1 It is, however, after all in harmony with the genius and history of the inf.,
though the nominative use of comes from the LXX.
The vernacular papyri show a few examples of and the inf. It is found in the
inscriptions of Pisidia and Phrygia. Cf. Compernass, p. 40. Moulton2 illustrates Lu. 1:9
with , B. U. 665 (i/A.D.); Mt. 18:25 and Jo. 5:7 () with
, B. U. 830 (i/A.D.); 1 Cor. 9:6 with , C. P. R. 156;
Lu. 22:6 with , B. U. 46 (ii/A.D.). He concludes that the usage is
not common in the papyri and holds that the plentiful testimony from the LXX concurs
with the N. T. usage to the effect that it belongs to the higher stratum of education in
the main. This conclusion holds as to the N. T. and the papyri, but not as to the LXX,
where obviously the Hebrew inf. construct had a considerable influence. Moulton seems
reluctant to admit this obvious Hebraism.
(c) Prepositions. We are not here discussing the inf. as purpose or result, as
temporal or causal, but merely the fact of the prepositional usage. The idiom cannot be
said to be unusual in classical Greek. Jannaris3 agrees with Birklein4 that classical writers
show some 2000 instances of this prepositional construction. The writers (classic and
later) who use the idiom most frequently are Thucydides, Xenophon, Polybius,
Diodorus, Dionysius, Josephus, Plutarch, Dio Cassius. The most prolific user of the
construction is Polybius (1053 instances) and Josephus next (651 times).5 If the
prepositional adverbs be added to the strict list of prepositions, the number is very much
enlarged, especially in Polybius, who has 90 with , 115 with , 504 with ,
160 with , 74 with , 24 with , 90 with , 33 with , 41 with , only
one with .1 The idiom was here again later than the articular inf. itself and was also
Winer-Moulton WINER-MOULTON, A Treatise of the Grammar of N. T. Gk. 3d ed. (1882).
Various eds.
1 Burton, N. T. M. and T., p. 159. In late Gk. this use of and the inf. came to
displace the circumstantial participle and even finite clauses, only to die itself in time.
Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 483.
Compernass COMPERNASS, De Sermone Gr. Volg. Pisidiae Phrygiaeque meridionalis
2 Prol., p. 219 f.
Birklein BIRKLEIN, F., Entwickelungsgeschichte des substantivierten Infinitivs (1882).
4 Entwickelungsgesch., p. 103.
5 Krapp, Der substantivierte Inf., 1892, p. 1.
1 Allen, The Inf. in Polyb., p. 33. 25, 12=1179 for all.
Attic in origin and literary. But it is common also in the Greek inscriptions according to
ranit.2 It is rare in the papyri, according to Moulton,3 save in the recurrent formula,
, and (cf. 990) in the case of . Cf. , B. U.
226 (i/A.D.); , O. P. 237 (i/A.D.); (ib.).
Votaw4 finds the prepositional inf. almost one-half of all the articular infs. in the O. T.,
the Apocrypha and the N. T., the proportion being about the same in each section of the
Greek Bible.
Not quite all the prepositions were used with the inf. in ancient Greek, the
exception5 being . had it only with the genitive, with the accusative,
with the acc., with the acc. and gen., with acc. and loc., with the
ablative, with the ablative.6 It was not therefore freely used with all the usual cases
with the different prepositions. As a rule the article was essential if a preposition
occurred with an inf. The reason for this was due to the absence of division between
words. It was otherwise almost impossible to tell this use of the inf. from that of
composition of preposition with the verb if the two came in conjunction. Cf.
in Jas. 4:15. A few instances are found without the article. Thus
(note presence of between) in Herodotus I, 210. 2. It appears thus three
times in Herodotus. So also in schines, Eum. 737, we have .7 So
Soph., Ph., 100. Winer8 finds two in Theodoret (cf. IV, 851, ). The
papyri give us , O. P. 36 (i/A.D.), and the common vernacular phrase9
(for drinking). Cf. in Jo. 4:10. Moulton10 cites also an example of
from Plutarch, p. 256 D, and one from an inscription of iii/B.C. (O. G. I. S. 41, Michel
370) . The instances without the article are clearly very few. Moulton
(Prol., p. 81) suggests that the significant frequency of in the papyri is due to
Ionic influence. The LXX furnishes several instances of anarthrous , as
in Judg. 6:11 (cf. 2 Esd. 22:24; Sir. 38:27; Judith 4:15). Note also in 1 Macc.
16:9; in Ps. 122:2 (so Ruth 3:3); in Tob. 11:1. Cf.
also with anarthrous inf. in Polybius, etc.
The tenses have their full force in this prepositional construction, as in Mk. 5:4,
. Naturally some tenses suit certain
Granit GRANIT, De Inf. et Part. in Inscr. Dial. Graec. Questiones Synt. (1892).
2 De Inf. et Part. in Inscr. Dialect. Graec. Questiones Synt., 1892, p. 73.
4 Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 19.
6 Cf. Birklein, Entwickelungsgesch., p. 104. These preps. retain this disqualification in
the N. T. (Moulton, Prol., p. 216).
7 Thompson, Synt. of Attic Gk., p. 246.
10 Ib.
prepositions better, as with the present tense.1 The principles of indirect discourse
apply also to the inf. with prepositions. Cf. (Mk. 14:28).
In the N. T. the accusative seems to occur always even when the nominative predicate
would be possible,2 as in (Heb. 7:24). So also Lu. 11:8. But note
Xen., Cyr., I, 4. 3, .
It is not necessary for the article to come next to the inf. as in Mt. 13:25. Several
words may intervene and the clause may be one of considerable extent. Cf. Mk. 5:4; Ac.
8:11; Heb. 11:3; 1 Pet. 4:2. But the N. T. does not have such extended clauses of this
nature as the ancient Greek, and the adverbs usually follow the inf.3 The English split
inf. is not quite parallel.
In the O. T. there are 22 prepositions used with the inf. and the Apocrypha has 18,
while the N. T. shows only 10.4 Of these only eight are the strict prepositions (, ,
, , , , , ) and two the prepositional adverbs and . It remains
now to examine each in detail.
is not rare with the inf. and is chiefly found in the Greek orators.5 But we
have it in Thucydides, Xenophon and Plato. Herodotus6 has only 11 instances of the
preposition with the inf., but 5 of them are with . It does not occur in Polybius. In
the N. T. we have only one instance, Jas. 4:15, . Votaw gives one for the
LXX, Ps. 108:4, .
has 33 instances in the N. T., all but one (genitive, Heb. 2:15,
) in the accusative. Mr. H. Scott reports the 33 exx. thus: Phil. 1, Jas. 1, Heb. 4, Mk.
5, Mt. 3, Lu. 9, Ac. 9, Jo. 1. The O. T. has it with the inf. 35 times and the Apocrypha
26,1 all with the accusative. The idiom is so frequent in Xenophon and
Thucydides that as compared with it stands as 2 to 3.2 In later Greek ( and
Byzantine) it comes to displace even and , though finally shifting to in
modern Greek (cf. English for that).3 It is not surprising therefore to find it in the N.
T. with comparative frequency. is frequent in Lukes writings, and once in Pauls
Epistles, and rare in the other N. T. writers.4 It is always the cause that is given by
, as in Mt. 13:5 f., . It is not merely the practical equivalent of and
, but is used side by side with them. Cf. Jas. 4:2 f.,
. It may stand alone, as in Lu. 9:7; 11:8, or with the accusative of general
reference as in indirect discourse, as in Lu. 2:4; 19:11. Note two accs. in Ac. 4:2. The
1 Burton, N. T. M. and T., p. 50.
5 Birklein, Entwick., p. 104.
6 Helbing, Die Prpositionen bei Herod., p. 148.
3 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 373 f.
4 Viteau, Le Verbe, p. 165.
perfect tense occurs seven times, as in Mk. 5:4 (ter); Lu. 6:48; Ac. 8:11; 18:2; 27:9. In
Mk. 5:4 it is the evidence, not the reason, that is given.5 Blass (Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 236)
unnecessarily rejects Jo. 2:24.
is common also with the inf. without much difference in sense from
and with the inf.6 But the N. T. does not use with the inf. There is no doubt
about the final use of whatever is true of the consecutive idea. In the late Greek
Jannaris7 notes a tendency to use (cf. in Jas. 1:19) rather
than the simple inf. Cf. 1 Th. 4:9. But this tendency finally gave way to . The O. T.
has 124, the Apocrypha 28 and the N. T. 72 times.8 In the N. T. it is more
common than any other preposition with the inf., coming next with 55 examples.
Moulton9 counts only 62 instances of in the N. T., but Votaw is right with 72.
Paul has it 50 times. There are 8 in Hebrews and only one each in Luke and Acts, a
rather surprising situation. The papyri10 show scattered examples of it. Cf.
, P. Fi. 2 (iii/A.D.) 4 times. In 1 Pet. 4:2, , note the long
clause. There is no doubt that in the N. T. has broken away to some extent from
the classic notion of purpose. That idea still occurs as in Ro. 1:11, .
This is still the usual construction. Cf. Ro. 3:26; 7:4; 8:29; Eph. 1:12; Ph. 1:10; 1 Th.
3:5; Jas. 1:18; 1 Pet. 3:7; Heb. 2:17, and other examples in Mt. and Heb., to go no
further. In Paul we notice other usages. In Ph. 1:23, , we have
it with a substantive and in Jas. 1:19 it occurs with the adjectives and . It is
epexegetic also with the verbal adjective in 1 Th. 4:9. Besides, we find it as
the object of verbs of command or entreaty giving the content of the verb as in 1 Th.
2:12; 3:10; 2 Th. 2:2, . Cf. also 1 Cor. 8:10. So
in Mt. 20:19; 26:2; 1 Cor. 11:22 there is a really dative idea in . Just as came
to be non-final sometimes, so it was with , which seems to express conceived or
actual result (cf. also) as in Ro. 1:20; 12:3; 2 Cor. 8:6; Gal. 3:17. Cf. the double use
of for aim or result.1 The perfect tense can be used with as in Eph. 1:18
and Heb. 11:3 , the only instances. But the present
occurs 32 times, the aorist 38, the perfect 2=72. These developed uses of occur to
some extent in the LXX (1 Ki. 22:8; 1 Esd. 2:24; 8:84).
10 Ib., p. 220.
1 Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 236; Moulton, Prol., p. 219; Burton, N. T. M. and T., p.
appears in the tragedies.2 It is found 6 times in Thucydides, 16 in Xenophon,
26 in Plato.3 But Blass4 observes that the classical writers did not use in the
temporal sense of while or during. Moulton5 sought to minimize the fact that in the
O. T. occurs 455 times (45 in the Apocrypha) and that it exactly translates the
Hebrew and held that it did not in principle go beyond what we find in Attic writers.
But he took that back in the second edition6 under the suggestion of Dr. E. A. Abbott that
we must find Attic parallels for during. So he now calls this possible but unidiomatic
Greek. In the N. T. we have and the inf. 55 times and 3/4 in Luke. In the Greek
Bible as a whole it is nearly as frequent as all the other prepositions with the inf.7 The
Semitic influence is undoubted in the O. T. and seems clear in Luke, due probably to his
reading the LXX or to his Aramaic sources.8 Cf. Lu. 1:8; 8:5 ( ); 24:51;
Ac. 3:26; 4:30; 9:3, etc. Jannaris9 sees here a tendency also to displace the participle.
The idiom is not confined to Lukes writings. Cf. Mt. 13:4; 13:25; Mk. 4:4; Heb. 2:8;
3:12, etc. Ordinarily it is the present inf. as in Mt. 13:4; Lu. 8:5; Ac. 3:26, where the
Attic writers would have the present participle. But in Luke we have also the aorist inf.
as in 2:27 , (3:21) , where Blass1 sees the equivalent
of the aorist participle (cf. ) or a temporal conjunction with the
aorist indicative. One questions, however, whether the matter is to be worked out with
so much finesse as that. The aorist inf. with occurs only 12 times in the N. T.2 It is
more correctly just the simple action of the verb which is thus presented, leaving the
precise relation to be defined by the context, like the aorist participle of simultaneous
action. Cf. in Heb. 2:8; Gen. 32:19, . This is all that
should be made to mean with either the present or the aorist. Cf. Mt. 13:4; 27:12; Lu.
8:40; 9:29. The idea is not always strictly temporal. In Ac. 3:26 (cf. Jer. 11:17), 4:30, it
6 P. 249.
ABBOTT, E. A., Clue. A Guide through Greek to Hebrew (1904).
, Johannine Grammar (1906).
, Johannine Vocabulary (1905).
8 But Dalman, Worte Jesu, p. 26 f., denies that it is an Araman constr.
is more like means. Votaw3 sees content in Lu. 12:15; Heb. 3:12. In Heb. 8:13,
, the notion is rather causal. The conception is not wholly temporal in Mk. 6:48;
Lu. 1:21.4 No other preposition occurs in the N. T. with the inf. in the locative case. But
cf. , O. P. 1122, 9 f. (A.D. 407).
appears in Xenophon, Plato and Demosthenes, usually as final, but also
causal.5 Sophocles in his Lexicon quotes the construction also from Diodorus and
Apophth. There is only one instance of it in the N. T., 2 Cor. 7:12,
, where it is clearly causal as with the two preceding
participles, , (a good passage to note
the distinction between the inf. and the part.). The case is, of course, the genitive.
, likewise, appears in the N. T. only once with the inf. (2 Cor. 8:11,
), but the case is ablative. Its usual idea in Attic prose is that of outcome or result.6
Votaw7 gives no illustration from the O. T., but three from the Apocrypha. Blass8 takes
it in 2 Cor. 8:11, to be equivalent to . More likely it is meant to accent the
ability growing out of the possession of property, whatever it may be. In Polybius
with the inf. has a more varied use (departure, source of knowledge, source of
advantage).1 He uses it 25 times.
, likewise, occurs but once (Ac. 8:40, ), and with the
genitive. Birklein does not find any instances of and the inf. in the classic
writers, though he does note and less frequently .2 Cf.
, P. B. M. 854 (i/ii A.D.). But in the O. T. Votaw3 observes 52 instances of
and 16 in the Apocrypha. Cf. Gen. 24:33; Judith 8:34. We have already noted the
anarthrous use of in 1 Macc. 16:9 A. Cf. Gen. 10:19, 30, etc. So also
and () and the inf., 1 Esd. 1:49, and Tob. 11:1 B. It is rather surprising
therefore that we find only one instance in the N. T. and that in the Acts. The
construction is probably due to the analogy of and the inf.
5 Birklein, Entwick., p. 106. It is found in Polyb. also. Cf. Klker, Questiones, p. 302;
Allen, Inf. in Polyb., p. 35. Lutz (Die Casus-Adverbien bei Att. Redn., 1891, p. 18) finds it
zuerst bei Antiphon.
Sophocles SOPHOCLES, E. A., Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine Period
1 Allen, Inf. in Polyb., p. 34 f.
2 Entwick., p. 105.
is found only a few times in Herodotus, Plato and Demosthenes.4 It
appears, however, thirty-three times in Polybius and usually with the aorist tense.5 The
idea is temporal and the aorist is a practical equivalent for the aorist participle. In the O.
T. Votaw6 finds it 99 times and only 9 in the Apocrypha. There are 15 examples in the
N. T. and the case is the accusative always. vanished with the inf. in modern
Greek.7 The aorist is always used in the N. T. save one perfect (Heb. 10:15). See Mk.
1:14; 14:28, . Eight of the examples occur in Lukes writings (Lu.
12:5; 22:20; Ac. 1:3; 7:4; 10:41; 15:13; 19:21; 20:1). See also Mt. 26:32; Mk. 16:19; 1
Cor. 11:25; Heb. 10:15, 26.
in the ancient writers was used much like and in the temporal sense.8 It
gradually invaded the province of , though in the N. T. we only meet it 9 times. It is
not common in the papyri nor the inscriptions.9 See Delphian inscr. 220,
. Polybius has it 12 times.10 In the O. T. we find it 46 times, but only 5 in the
Apocrypha.11 The tense is always the aorist save one present (Jo. 17:5). Cf. Gal. 3:23,
. There is no essential difference in construction and idea
between and the inf. and and the inf. The use of with the inf. was
common in Homer before the article was used with the inf. The usage became fixed and
the article never intervened. But the inf. with both and is in the ablative case.
Cf. ablative1 inf. with pur in Sanskrit. was never used as a preposition in
composition, but there is just as much reason for treating as a prepositional adverb
with the ablative inf. as there is for so considering , not to say alone as in
(1 Macc. 16:9). The use of the article is the common idiom. The fact of
and the inf. held back the development of . In modern Greek as
occurs with the subj. (Thumb, Handb., p. 193). In the N. T. is still ahead with 13
examples. The instances of are Mt. 6:8; Lu. 2:21; 22:15; Jo. 1:48; 13:19; 17:5;
Ac. 23:15; Gal. 2:12; 3:23.
is the remaining idiom for discussion. It was used by the ancients in much
the same sense as and , looking to, with a view to.2 The idiom is very
common in Polybius,3 150 examples, and there are 10 of . But in the O. T. we
5 Allen, Inf. in Polyb., p. 41.
10 Allen, Inf. in Polyb., p. 33.
11 Votaw, Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 20.
1 Whitney, Sans. Gr., 983; Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 158. Homer used with the inf.
after both positive and negative clauses.
have only 14 examples and 12 in the Apocrypha.4 The N. T. shows 12 also. Some of the
LXX examples are of (Ex. 1:16; 2 Macc. 7:14), but in the N. T. they are all
. In the papyri Moulton5 finds rather more common than . In the N.
T. Matthew has it five times (5:28; 6:1; 13:30; 23:5; 26:12). These express aim unless
5:28 is explanatory of .6 Mark has it once, 13:22. Luke has it twice (18:1, where
means with reference to; Ac. 3:19 only B, while other MSS. read ).7
Pauls four examples (2 Cor 3:13; Eph. 6:11, DEFG ; 1 Th. 2:9; 2 Th. 3:8) all give
the subjective purpose.8 Both present (3 times) and aorist (9 times) tenses occur. Cf.
in Mt. 6:1.
(d) The Infinitive with Substantives. Numerous examples of the inf. with
substantives were given in the discussion of the cases of the inf. The matter calls for
only a short treatment at this point. The use of the inf. with substantives was ancient9
and natural, first in the dative or locative and then in the genitive with . It was
always common in the classic Greek.1 The usage is common in Polybius with both the
anarthrous and the articular inf.2 The same thing is true of the O. T. and the Apocrypha.3
It is so frequent as not to call for illustration. The meaning is that of complement and
the inf. most frequently occurs with words of time, fitness, power, authority, need, etc.
It is abundantly used in the N. T. both with and without the article. Some anarthrous
examples are (Mt. 3:14) , (Lu. 2:1) , (Jo. 1:12)
, (19:40) , (Ac. 24:15) , (Ro. 13:11)
, (Gal. 5:3) , (Heb. 7:5) , (Rev.
11:18) , etc. These are all real datives and the construction is common
enough in the N. T., more so than in the LXX. In Ph. 1:23 note
. The same substantives may have and the inf., though now, of course, the
case is genitive. Cf. (Lu. 1:57) , (2:21) , (10:19)
, (Ac. 14:9) , (27:20) , etc. It
occurs ten times in Lukes writings and nine in Pauls Epistles. It is about as common in
proportion as in the LXX.4 See further Lu. 1:74; 2:6; 21:22; 22:6; Ac. 20:3; Ro. 1:24;
8:12; 11:8; 15:23; 1 Cor. 9:10; 10:13; 2 Cor. 8:11; Ph. 3:21; 1 Pet. 4:17; Heb. 5:12, etc.
Since the inf. is a substantive, the genitive relation with other substantives is obvious
and natural.
7 Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 236.
8 W.-M., p. 414 note.
2 Allen, Inf. in Polyb., pp. 23, 32.
3 Votaw, Inf. in Bibl. Gk., pp. 15, 26.
(e) The Infinitive with Adjectives. This idiom is likewise classical and is common
from Homer on.5 As already shown, the case varies with different adjectives. This inf. is
complementary as with substantives. It is natural with adjectives as any other
substantive is. It held on longest with , , but other adjectives in late
began to give way to (cf. Jas. 1:19, , )
rather than the simple inf. and finally this disappeared before (cf. Mt. 8:8,
).6 In the LXX and the N. T. the inf. with adjectives is less frequent than with
substantives. We have it with both the anarthrous and the articular inf. See (Mt. 3:11)
, (Mk. 10:40) , (Lu. 15:19) , (Jas. 3:2)
, (1 Cor. 7:39) , (Heb. 5:11)
, (1 Pet. 4:3) , etc. It is more common with
, , . The only adjective that often has and the inf. in the O. T. is
.1 We find it also with adverbs as in Ac. 21:13,
(so 2 Cor. 12:14). The articular examples are less frequent. But note (Lu. 24:25)
, (Ac. 23:15) . Some would add 1 Cor. 16:4,
, but see Cases of the Inf.
(f) The Infinitive with Verbs. This usage came to be, of course, the most frequent of
all. It started as a dative or locative, then a sort of accusative of reference,2 then the
object of verbs with whatever case the verb used. It is both anarthrous and articular. It is
not necessary to go over again (see Cases of the Inf.) the varied uses of the inf. with
verbs, whether the object of verbs of saying or thinking in indirect discourse, verbs of
commanding or promising, the direct object of verbs (auxiliary inf.), verbs of
hindering,3 etc. As a matter of fact they are all object-infs. whatever the case (acc., gen.,
abl., dat., instr.). Votaw4 notes that in the N. T. this use of the inf. is four times as
common as any other. It is usually the anarthrous inf., but not always. Even
and (not N. T.) are used with and the inf. Jannaris5 has made a careful list
of the verbs that continued for a while in late Greek to use the inf. against the inroads of
. Radermacher (N. T. Gr., p. 150) argues that in general the N. T. use of the inf. with
verbs is like that of the . The inf. with (1 Th. 2:2) is
not a Hebraism, but a Hellenism. But surely it is not necessary to call this usage an
Atticism. In the discussion of (see pp. 430, 994) the displacement of the inf. by
even after verbs like was sufficiently treated. Schmid6 shows how this
5 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 155 f. For Polyb. see Allen, Inf. in Polyb., pp. 23, 32.
3 See Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 487.
4 Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 7.
5 Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 574 f.
Radermacher RADERMACHER, L., Neut. Grammatik. Das Griechisch des N. T. im
Zusammenhang mit der Volkssprache (1911).
6 Atticismus, Bd. IV, p. 81. Cf. also Hatz., Einl., p. 215.
Infinitivsurrogat made its way from Aristotle onwards.7 In the N. T. it is chiefly in
the Gospel of John that we find this use of . The strong volitive flavour which clung
to would perhaps commend it to a writer of Johns temperament.8 But after all, the
inf. with verbs has not quite disappeared from Johns Gospel. Jannaris9 has worked out
the situation in Johns Gospel as between this use of the inf. and . He finds about
125 times and the inf. with verbs about 129 times. Of these 57 belong to (37)
and (20). There are besides, 10 with and 12 each with and with .
The rest are scattered with , , , , , , ,
, etc. It is clear, therefore, that the inf. with verbs is by no means dead in the N.
T., though the shadow of is across its path. As illustrations of the great wealth of
verbs with the inf. in the N. T. note (Mt. 11:20) , (27:58)
, (Mk. 12:12) , (Lu. 16:3) ,
. Almost any verb that can be used with a substantive can be used with the
inf. The use of the inf. with is a Hebraism. Cf. Ex. 14:13. See Lu. 20:11 f.,
. It means to go on and do or do again. It is the one Hebraism that
Thumb1 finds in Josephus, who is Atticistic. The articular inf. with verbs is much less
frequent. But note after (Ro. 13:8); (Ac.
25:11); after (Ac. 3:12); (15:20);
(Lu. 4:42). In 1 Ki. 13:16 we have with
. These are just a few specimens. See Cases of the Inf.
(g) The Appositional Infinitive. The grammars draw a distinction here, but it is more
apparent than real as Votaw2 well says. The inf. in apposition is that with nouns; the
epexegetical inf. is used with verbs. But at bottom the two uses are one. They are both
limitative. With nouns the appositional inf. restricts or describes it. It is a common
enough idiom in classical Greek3 and is found also in the LXX. In the N. T. observe Ac.
15:28 , , (Jas. 1:27)
, . Cf. further Ac. 26:16; 2 Cor. 10:13; Eph. 3:6, 8;
4:17; 1 Th. 4:3 f.; Heb. 9:8; 1 Pet. 2:15 (). The articular inf. may also be
appositional as in Ro. 14:13, , . So also 2 Cor. 2:1;
7:11; Ro. 4:13; 1 Th. 4:6 bis. In the N. T. and the Apocrypha it is only (in the
articular use) that is appositional, but in the O. T. 15 out of the 17 instances have
without any reference to the case of the noun.4 It is worth noting that is common
also in appositional clauses (cf. Lu. 1:43; 1 Cor. 9:18), especially in the writings of John
(Jo. 4:34; 15:8; 17:3; 1 Jo. 3:11, 23; 4:21; 5:3, etc.). We find also in 1 Jo. 2:3; 3:16).1
9 Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 572 f. For an extended list of the verbs in the N. T. used with the
complementary inf. see Viteau, Le Verbe, pp. 157 ff.
1 Hellen., p. 125. Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 233.
3 Cf. Hadley and Allen, 950; Goodwin, 1517.
1 See Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 229.
5. VERBAL ASPECTS OF THE INFINITIVE. It is worth repeating (p. 1057) that the inf.
is substantive as well as verb. Each inf. does not, of course, have all the substantival and
verbal uses, but each inf. has both substantival and verbal aspects. The uses vary with
each example. The verbal aspects do not exclude the substantival, though some2 writers
say so. Per contra, Jannaris3 holds that the verbal nature of the substantival infinitive
was sometimes completely lost sight of. This I do not concede. After tenses came to
the verbal substantive its dual character was fixed. But, pp. 1050, 1056 f., the inf. did
not come to the rank of a mode.
(a) Voice. The Sanskrit inf. had no voice. In Homer the inf. already has the voices,
so that it is speculation as to the origin. It is possible that the original Greek inf. had no
voice. This is an inference so far as the Greek is concerned, but a justifiable one.
Moulton4 illustrates it well by , capable for wondering, and
, worthy for wondering, when the first means able to wonder and the
second deserving to be wondered at. They are both active in form, but not in sense.
The middle and passive infinitives in Greek and Latin are merely adaptations of certain
forms, out of a mass of units which had lost their individuality, to express a relation
made prominent by the closer connection of such nouns with the verb.5 There was so
much freedom in the Greek inf. that the Sanskrit -tum did not develop in the Greek as
we see it in the Latin supine. Gradually by analogy the inf. forms came to be associated
with the voices in the modes. Practically, therefore, the Greek inf. came to be used as if
the voices had distinctive endings (cf. the history of the imper. endings).6 Thus in Lu.
12:58, , it is clear that the passive voice is meant
whatever the origin of the form . The reduplication shows the tense also. The same
remark applies to Mk. 5:4, . See
also 5:43, . No special voice significance is manifest in
, which is like our eating and is the acc. of general reference with
which in turn is the direct object of . But has the passive force beyond a
doubt. Cf. further in Ac. 26:32 and in 2
Cor. 7:12. In general, therefore, after the inf. is fully developed, the voice in the inf.
appears exactly as in the modes. So (Ac. 15:20); (Lu.
2:5); (Heb. 6:10); (1 Cor. 7:39); (Lu. 15:19). Cf.
(Lu. 7:24) and (Mt. 6:1).
(b) Tense. See chapter on Tenses for adequate discussion of this point. Some general
remarks must here suffice. As the Sanskrit inf. had no voice, so it had no tense. In the
original Greek there was possibly no tense in the inf., but in Homer the tense is in full
force.1 There is no time-element in the inf. (cf. subj., opt. and imperative) except as the
future inf. echoes the expectation of a verb like (or ) or as the inf.
2 As, for instance, Szczurat, De Inf. Hom. Usu, 1902, p. 17. He claims that the Hom.
inf. came to serve almost all the ideas of the finite verb.
6 In Ac. 26:28, , one notes a possible absence of the strict
voice in . But it is a hard passage.
represents a fut. ind. in indirect discourse (see Indirect Discourse under Modes). It is
probably true that originally there was no distinction between aorist (punctiliar) and
present (linear) action in the inf. In Sanskrit and Latin the infinitives and supines have
no necessary connection with the present stem (cf. supine tactum and inf. tangere).2
The in has only accidental similarity to link it with that in .3 Moulton4
tersely adds: But when once these noun-forms had established their close contact with
the verb, accidental resemblances and other more or less capricious causes encouraged
an association that rapidly grew, till all the tenses, as well as the three voices, were
equipped with infinitives appropriated to their exclusive service. But even so at first
the tense of the inf. had only to do with the kind of action (punctiliar, linear, state of
completion), not with time.
In general, as with the subj., opt. and imper., the aorist inf. came to be the natural5
one unless some reason for the present or perf. or fut. existed. Cf. (Lu. 9:54);
(Lu. 24:46); (Mt. 5:17); (Lu. 18:10); (Ac.
10:33); (Ro. 3:15), etc. Sometimes, as in (Mt. 23:23), the inf. was
used to suggest antecedent action. But the timeless aorist may point to what is future, as
in Lu. 24:46 above. Cf. also Lu. 2:26; Ac. 3:18. Essentially, it does neither. Cf.
with aor. inf. So [], P. Grenf., ii, 77 (iii/A.D.). In indirect assertions
the aorist inf. represents the aor. indicative, but the N. T. seems to show no instance like
this.1 However, that is a mere accident, for note
(Lu. 2:27) where the same principle applies. Contrast the
tense of and in Ac. 26:28. In Lu. 24:46, ,
we have the timeless aorist in indirect discourse.
The present inf. with some verbs would accent linear action and with others the inf.
would not draw the point sharply. Some writers have a fondness for the present.2 One
can see the force of linear action in (Jo. 9:4) and in
(Mk. 12:33). Cf. also in Ph. 3:16. In 1 Jo. 3:9, ,
the linear notion is prominent (cf. in verse 6). It is also quite normal with
, with which it occurs 84 times in the N. T. to 6 of the aorist. See Mt. 14:22 for
both aorist and present in same sentence. Cf. also Ac. 15:37 f. The
usual tense-distinction may be assumed to exist, though in a case like (Heb.
5:11) the point is not to be stressed. The present inf. in indirect assertion represents the
same tense of the direct, as in Mt. 22:23; Lu. 11:18, etc. Rarely the present inf.
represents an imperfect indicative as in Lu. 20:6.
The perfect inf. is common also in indirect discourse to stand for the same tense of
the direct, as in Jo. 12:29; Ac. 12:14; 14:19; 16:27. This is natural enough. But the
perfect inf. is found also in the complementary inf. as Ac. 26:32, .
2 Moulton, Prol., p. 204
5 Votaw, Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 59, notes 5,484 aorists and 3,327 presents in the Gk. Bible.
In the N. T. the ratio is 4:3, in the O. T. 2:1.
2 Gildersl., Am. Jour. of Philol., 1882, p. 193. Madvig, Bemerkungen ber einige Punkte
des Griech., 1848, p. 321, shows how the inf. has only the time of the principal verb.
Note Lu. 12:58, . But we also find the perfect tense with the
articular inf. (So aorist and present) as in Mk. 5:4; Lu. 6:48; Ac. 27:9. In the N. T. there
are in all 47 perfect infs. and the same number in the O. T.3 Of the N. T. examples 23
are anarthrous, 8 articular. The papyri show the articular perf. inf. Cf. ,
P. Oxy. 294 (A.D. 22); , P. Br. M. 42 (B.C. 168).
The future inf. is increasingly rare. Thucydides even used with the future inf. The
same construction is found in Polybius.4 But in the the future inf. is weakening
rapidly. This disappearance of the fut. inf. is partly due to the retreat of the future tense
in general1 and partly to the apparent kinship between the future and aorist forms. In the
papyri Moulton2 notes that the future inf. is sometimes used in the as equivalent
to the aorist or even the present, since the sense of the future was vanishing. Cf.
in Jo. 21:25 ( BC), while the other later MSS. give . In the O. T. the
fut. inf. (anarthrous always) occurs only 14 times and only 6 in the N. T. The
Apocrypha has, however, 54, but almost all in 2 and 3 Maccabees.3 Three of the N. T.
examples are with (Ac. 11:28; 24:15; 27:10). Another is in Ac. 23:30 and is
dependent on a participle after a past indicative. In Ac. 26:7 the margin of W. H. (after
B) has (text ) with . In Heb. 3:18 note
(LXX). Another example is in Jo. 21:25, after . Moulton (Prol., p.
219) cites , B. U. 830 (i/A.D.).
(c) Cases with the Infinitive. In general the inf. uses the same case that the finite
verb does. So the genitive in Heb. 6:10 , the dative in 1 Cor. 7:39
, the acc. in Ac. 23:15 , the instrum. in Mt. 15:20
, the locative in Ac. 21:21 , the
ablative in Ac. 15:20 , the predicate nominative in Ac.
17:18 , the predicate accusative in Ro. 2:19
, or the acc. of general reference in ind. discourse in Mk. 12:18. But this
brings us again to the acc. in indirect assertion, a matter already treated at some length.
(See Accusative Case, Indirect Discourse, and the next section.) But the thing to note is
the real verbal nature of the inf. in the matter of cases. Note the three accusatives with
in Heb. 5:12, two objects, one of general reference. The cognate neuter
plural is seen in (Mt. 16:21).
(d) The Infinitive in Indirect Discourse. The frequent obscuration of the cases with
the inf. in indirect discourse justifies some additional remarks besides those in the
chapter on Modes. The inf. is not finite and, like the participle, has no subject. By
courtesy the grammars often say so, but it beclouds more than it clears to do so. The
case of the predicate4 with the inf. is the place to start. Cf. Mt. 19:21,
. See also 2 Cor. 10:2, , where the nominative occurs
1 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., pp. 486, 552 ff.
2 Prol., p. 204 f. Cf. Hatz., Einl., pp. 142, 190; Klker, Quest., p. 281.
4 Cf. Delbrck, Vergl. Synt., Tl. II, p. 460. Brug. (Griech. Gr., p. 518) takes the acc. as
originally the obj. of the verb. That was not always true, as we have seen in Indirect
Discourse (pp. 1037 ff.).
within the domain of the accusative articular inf. But note Mk. 14:28,
. The true nature of the acc. with the inf. as being merely that of
general reference comes out well in the articular inf., as in Jas. 4:2,
. It is not necessary here to go over again the steps taken under Modes,
but simply to insist on the true nature of the accusative with the inf. It stands, indeed, in
the place of a finite verb of the direct statement, but does not thereby become finite with
a subject. From the syntactical standpoint the construction is true to both the
substantival and verbal aspects of the inf. The subject of the finite verb, when thrown
into the acc., takes this turn because of the limitations of the inf. When it is retained in
the nominative, it is by apposition with the subject of the principal verb or by attraction
if in the predicate. Draeger sees this point clearly in his treatment of the matter in Latin
where the acc. with the inf. is much more frequent than in Greek.1 The name is
confessedly a misnomer, say King and Cookson.2 Schmid3 also sees the matter clearly
and makes the acc. with the inf. the acc. of general reference. The usual beaten track is
taken by Jolly,4 but the truth is making its way and will win. Schmitt5 admits that the acc.
is not the grammatical subject, but only the logical subject. But why call it subject at
all? Schroeder6 properly likens it to the double accusative with , as in
. The late Sanskrit shows a few examples like English if you wish me
to live.7 The use of the acc. with the inf. early reached a state of perfection in Greek
and Latin. Schlicher8 notes 130 instances of it in Homer with alone as against 15
Draeger DRAEGER, Hist. Syntax d. lat. Sprache (18781881).
1 Hist. Synt., Bd. II, pp. 380, 446.
King and Cookson KING and COOKSON, The Principles of Sound and Inflexion as
Illustrated in the Greek and Latin Languages (1888).
2 Introd. to Comp. Gr., 1890. p. 214.
3 ber den Infinitiv, p. 40.
JOLLY, Ein Kapitel d. vergl. Syntax. Der Konjunktiv und Optativ.
, Geschichte des Infinitivs im Indog. (1873).
4 Gesch. des Inf., p. 247.
Schmitt SCHMITT, P., ber den Ursprung des Substantivsatzes mit Relativpartikeln im Griech.
5 ber den Urspr. des Substantivsatzes, p. 5.
Schroeder SCHROEDER, ber die form. Untersch. d. Redet. im Griech. und Lat. (1874).
6 ber die formelle Untersch. der Redet., p. 28.
7 Wilhelmius, De Inf. linguarum Sanscritae, Beoticae, Persicae, Graecae, Oscae, Vmbricae,
Latinae, Goticae Forma et Vsv, 1873, p. 65.
8 Moods of Indirect Quotation, Am. Jour. of Theol., Jan., 1905.
with , . We see it in its glory in historians like Xenophon and Thucydides in Greek
and Csar in Latin. Votaw9 notes the rarity of the construction in the O. T. and Apoc.
(46 verbs), while the N. T. has 27 (83 exx.) verbs which use the idiom. But even in the
N. T., as compared with the ancient Greek, the construction is greatly narrowed. The
particular verbs in the N. T. which may use the acc. and the inf. in indirect assertion
were given under Modes. A general view of the matter discloses a rather wide range
still. But the idiom, being largely literary, is chiefly found in Luke, Rom. and 1 Cor.
The other writers prefer . Luke, in fact, is the one who makes the most constant use
of the idiom, and he quickly passes over to the direct statement. There is with most of
them flexibility as was shown. Blass1 has a sensible summary of the situation in the N.
T. There is, in truth, no essential difference in the Greek construction, whether the inf. is
without a substantive, as in Ac. 12:15 , with the acc., Ac. 24:9
, or with the nom. Ro. 1:22 . Cf.
Ac. 17:30; 1 Pet. 3:17. Words like , may be followed by no substantive (Mt.
23:23; Ro. 13:5). Cf. Lu. 2:26. In 1 Pet. 2:11, we have only the predicate
. Freedom also exists. In Mk. 9:47 we have
, while in Mt. 18:8 we read . Even in
Matthew the predicate adj. is acc., though it might have been dative, as in Ac. 16:21.
Further examples of the predicate dative when an accusative is possible are seen in Lu.
1:3; 9:59; Ac. 27:3 ( AB); 2 Pet. 2:21. But see Ac. 15:22, 25; Heb. 2:10. The case of
the inf. itself is not the point here. There are besides verbs of willing, desiring, allowing,
making, asking, beseeching, exhorting, some verbs of commanding, the inf. with ,
, , , prepositions and the articular infinitive. With all these the acc. may occur.
A difficult inf. occurs in Ac. 26:28, . Is the
object of or of ? Can be try by persuasion? Prof. W. Petersen
suggests that this is a contamination of and
. But verbs differ. , for instance, always has the
acc. and the inf., while the dative comes with (Ac. 22:10), (Mk. 6:39),
and verbs like , , , and impersonal expressions like
, , , , etc. As shown above, is used
either with the acc. or the dative, as is true of (cf. Mt. 5:34, 39 with Ac. 21:21;
22:24). Blass2 adds also Ac. 5:9, . He notes also that
occurs with the acc. (Ac. 10:48) as is true of (Mk. 6:27) and
(Ac. 15:2). Even appears with the acc. and inf. (Jo. 18:14) and
(Lu. 6:4, where D has the dative, as is true of Mt. 12:4). With Blass1 observes
how clumsy is (Ac. 22:17). The acc. and inf. occurs with
(Ac. 9:32) and the dative also in the sense of it befell or happened to one, as
in Ac. 20:16. In Ac. 22:6, , the two constructions are
1 Gr. of N. T. Gk., pp. 239241.
Petersen PETERSEN, W., Greek Diminutives in (1910).
combined. Blass2 further observes the independence of the inf. in adding an acc. of
general reference besides the acc. with a verb of asking, as in Ac. 13:28
, (1 Th. 5:27) .
In Ac. 21:12, , the is
acc. of general reference with the inf., which is itself in the genitive as to form, though
the real object of the verb. There is no instance in the N. T. of the inf. in a subordinate
clause unless we follow Nestle in 1 Pet. 5:8, . There are sporadic
examples of such a construction due to analogy of the inf. in the main clause.3 Cf. O. P.
1125, 14 (ii/A.D.), .
(e) Personal Construction with the Infinitive. Many verbs and adjectives allowed
either the personal or the impersonal construction with the infinitive. The Greek
developed much more freedom in the matter than the Latin, which was more limited in
the use of the impersonal.4 In the N. T. the impersonal construction occurs with fixed
verbs like , Ac. 25:24, , where note inf. dependent
on inf. as is common enough (Ac. 26:9; Lu. 5:34; Heb. 7:23; Mk. 5:43; Lu. 6:12; 8:55).
So also with , etc. The impersonal construction is seen also in Lu. 2:26; 16:22;
Ph. 3:1; Heb. 9:26, etc. The inf. with impersonal verbs is somewhat more frequent in the
N. T. than in the LXX. On the whole the personal construction with the inf. is rare in the
N. T.5 But in the N. T. has the personal construction, as in Ac. 17:18,
(cf. Jas. 1:26; Gal. 2:9, etc.), but we find in Lu. 1:3 (cf. Ac.
15:28, etc.) and even (Ac. 26:9). The seems to use it
less frequently than the ancient Greek. Radermacher (N. T. Gr., p. 148) quotes Vett.
Valens, p. 277, 19, . We have
(1 Th. 2:4) and (Heb. 11:4). One may compare the
personal construction with (1 Cor. 15:12; 2 Cor. 3:3; 1 Jo. 2:19). The personal
construction occurs with (Heb. 7:26). The impersonal has the acc. and the inf. (1
Cor. 11:13), the dative and the inf. (Mt. 3:15), both the dative and the acc. (Heb. 2:10).
NESTLE, E., Einfhrung in das griech. N. T. 2. Aufl. (1899). Introd. to the Textual Crit. of the N.
T. (Tr. 1901).
, Novum Testamentum Graece. 8th ed. (1910).
, Septuagint (Hastings D. B., 1902).
, Septuaginta-Studien. IV (18861907).
, Zum neutest. Griechisch (Z. N. W., vii, 1906).
3 Cf. Middleton, Analogy in Synt., p. 9. Maximus of Tyre has it in a rel. clause. Drr,
Sprachl. Unters., p. 43.
Cf. W. F. Moulton in Winer-Moulton, p. 402. The love of the passive impersonal appears
in Ac. 13:28 , , and in 5:21,
(Radermacher, N. T. Gr., p. 148). The nominative predicate with the inf. and the
nom. in indirect discourse is to be noted also.
(f) Epexegetical Infinitive. As already remarked, there is no essential difference
between the appositional and the epexegetical use of the infinitive. The epexegetical inf.
is added to a clause more or less complete in itself, while the merely appositional is
more simple.1 It is common in the dramatists. This use is probably adnominal2 in origin,
but it drifts into the verbal aspect also. We see a free use of the limitative3 inf. in
, which only occurs once in the N. T. (Heb. 7:9). Brugmann does not agree
with Grnewald that this is the original epexegetical or limitative inf., though it is kin to
1 Thomspon, Synt. of Attic Gk., p. 239.
3 Grnewald, Der freie formelhafte Inf. der Limit. im Griech., p. 21 f.
it. Blass4 applies epexegetical merely to the appositional inf. It is in the epexegetical
inf. that we see more clearly the transition from the original substantive to the verbal
idea. It is hard to draw the line between
(Lu. 2:1) and , (Ro.
1:28). The first is appositional, the latter epexegetical. A good instance of the
epexegetical inf. is seen in 2 Cor. 9:5, where is
subsidiary to the clause preceding, as is often the case. Viteau5 notes that the
construction is frequent in the Epistles. Cf. Eph. 1:1618 ( ); 3:16 f.
(, ), Col. 1:10 (), 4:3 ().
Further examples occur in Lu. 1:54 , 1:72 , 1:79
, Ac. 17:27 , 2 Pet. 3:2 . The LXX6 shows
rather frequent instances of the articular inf. in this sense (cf. Gen. 3:22; Judg. 8:33; Ps.
77:18). The N. T. shows very few. Indeed, Votaw finds only one, that in Gal. 3:10,
. But certainly (Ro. 1:24) after is just as truly
epexegetical as is in verse 28 after . So also Ro. 7:3; 8:12; 1 Cor.
10:13. Burton1 looks at the epexegetical inf. as an indirect object, as in Lu. 10:40,
. There is no doubt that in such instances
the inf. is in the original dative case with the dative idea. See further Mk. 4:23; 6:31; Lu.
7:40; 12:4; Ac. 4:14; 7:42; 17:21; 23:17, 18, 19; Tit. 2:8, etc.
(g) Purpose. It is but a step from the explanatory or epexegetical inf. to that of
design. Indeed, the epexegetical inf. sometimes is final, a secondary purpose after ,
as in Eph. 1:18; 3:17; Col. 1:10, etc. The sub-final or objective use of the inf. is also a
step on the way. This use was very common in the ancient Greek, but was partially
taken up by in the N. T.2 But many verbs, as we have seen, retain the sub-final inf.
Grnewald GRNEWALD, L., Der freie formelhafte Inf. d. Limitation im Griech. (1888).
Viteau
VITEAU, J., Essai sur la syntaxe des voix dans le grec du N. T. (Rev. de Phil., 1894).
, tude sur le grec du N. T. I, Le Verbe (1893); II, Le Sujet (1896).
5 Le Verbe, p. 161.
Burton BURTON, E. D., Syntax of the Moods and Tenses of the N. T. Gk. 3d ed. (1909).
1 N. T. M. and T., p. 147.
2 Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 255 f.; Humphreys, The Problems of Greek, Congress
of Arts and Sciences, 1904, vol. III, pp. 171 ff.
in the N. T. as in the rest of the . Blass careful lists and those of Viteau were
given under Indirect Discourse. This notion of purpose is the direct meaning of the
dative case which is retained. It is the usual meaning of the inf. in Homer,3 that of
purpose. It goes back to the original Indo-Germanic stock.4 It was always more common
in poetry than in prose. The close connection between the epexegetical inf. and that of
purpose is seen in Mk. 7:4, (for keeping, to keep). So Mt.
27:34, (for drinking, to drink). So Mt. 25:35,
. The inf. with the notion of purpose is exceedingly frequent in the LXX, second
only to that of the object-inf. with verbs.5 It was abundant in Herodotus.6 Hence Thumb7
thinks its abundant use in the is due to the influence of the Ionic dialect. Moulton8
agrees with this opinion. This is true both of the simple inf. of purpose and and the
inf. The Pontic dialect still preserves the inf. of purpose after verbs like , etc.
It is noteworthy that this inf. was not admitted into Latin except with a verb of motion.
Moulton (Prol., p. 205) cites Par. P. 49 (ii/B.C.) , as
parallel to Lu. 18:10, . Moulton1 notes this correspondence
between the ancient and the modern vernacular and agrees with Thumbs verdict again
that the result is due to the two conflicting tendencies, one the universalizing of ,
which prevailed in Western Hellenism and resulted in the disappearance of the inf. in
modern Greece, while the localizing of the inf. in Pontus serves to illustrate to-day the
N. T. idiom. The N. T. use of the inf. of purpose includes the simple inf., and the
inf., and the inf., and the inf., and the inf. There is no example of
4 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 516; Delbrck, Grundr., IV, pp. 463 ff.
7 Theol. Lit., 1903, p. 421.
1 Prol., p. 205. Allen gives no ex. of the simple inf. of purpose in Polyb., only ,
. Cf. Inf. in Polyb., p. 22.
. First note the simple inf., all in the original dative case. This use had a wider
range in Homer than in the Attic writers. Thus Mt. 2:2 ;
(5:17) , ; (7:5) ;
(11:7) (so verse 8, ); 20:28; (Mk. 3:14)
; (5:32) ; (Lu. 18:10)
; (Jo. 4:15) ; (Ac. 10:33) ; (2
Cor. 11:2) ; (Rev. 5:5) ; (16:9)
. These examples will suffice. It is very common in the N. T. It is
not necessary to multiply illustrations of after all the previous discussion. The O. T.
shows the idiom in great abundance, though the construction is classic. It was used
especially by Thucydides.2 This was a normal use. We have already noticed that Paul
makes little, if any, use of this idiom.3 It is possible in Ro. 6:6; Ph. 3:10. Indeed, Votaw4
notes only 33 instances of and inf. of purpose in the N. T., and these are chiefly in
Matthew, Luke and Acts. Note (Mt. 2:13) , (13:3)
, (Lu. 21:22) , (24:29) . See further Ac. 3:2;
5:31; 26:18; 1 Cor. 10:7; Gal. 3:10; Heb. 10:7, etc. The use of is, of course, the
same construction. Cf. Ro. 6:6, . Cf. Ac. 21:12. In Lu. 2:22
note , and in verse 24 . Purpose is also expressed by as in 1
Th. 3:5, , and by as in Mt. 6:1, . In the
N. T. with the inf. of purpose is rare. Originally purpose was the idea with ,
or conceived result. Actual result with was expressed by the indicative. In the
LXX the notion of purpose is still common, especially in the books of Genesis, Exodus,
Leviticus.1 In the N. T. there are only 8 instances, leaving out Ac. 20:24, according to
W. H., and only 7 if we follow W. H. in Lu. 9:52. See Mt. 10:1,
. And (= , , and so) is simply so
as, not so that. See also Lu. 4:29, . Cf. further Mt. 15:33; 27:1;
Lu. 20:20. Burton2 thinks that in Mt. 27:1 gives rather content than purpose. One
must not confuse with and the inf. of purpose the somewhat analogous construction
of and after verbs of hindering. This is in reality, as was shown, the ablative
and the regular object-inf. (substantival aspect). Cf. Lu. 4:42; Ac. 20:27; Ro. 15:22.
Votaw3 notes 22 verbs in the LXX and the N. T. that use this idiom. The only common
one is . See further Final Clauses in chapter on Modes for papyri examples.
(h) Result. Purpose is only intended result, as Burton4 argues. Radermacher (N. T.
Gr., p. 153) says that the difference between purpose and result in the inf. is often only
in the more subjective or objective colouring of the thought. It is hard to draw a line
2 Moulton, Prol., p. 216. Thuc. was the first to use and the inf. for purpose
(Berklein, Entwickelungsgesch., p. 58).
3 Ib., p. 217 f.
3 Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 24. Cf. W.-M., p. 409.
between conceived result and intended result. Blass5 explains a number of examples as
result that I have put above under Purpose, as Rev. 5:5; 16:9. It is largely a matter of
standpoint. The line of distinction is often very faint, if not wholly gone. Take Rev. 5:5,
for instance, . The lion had opened the book and so it was
actual result. So also Ac. 5:3, ,
. Ananias had actually lied. In the ancient Greek also the distinction between purpose
and result was not sharply drawn.6 The inf. may represent merely the content7 and not
clearly either result or purpose, as in Eph. 3:6, . Cf. also 4:22, .
This is not a Hebraistic (Burton) idiom, but falls in naturally with the freer use of the
inf. in the . See also Ac. 15:10 , (Heb. 5:5) .
Where it is clearly result, it may be actual or hypothetical.8 The hypothetical is the
natural or conceived result. The N. T. shows but 12 instances of the simple inf. with the
notion of result, according to Votaw.1 In the O. T. it is quite common. The 12 examples
in the N. T. are usually hypothetical, not actual. So Ro. 1:10
, (Eph. 3:17) , , (6:19) , (Col. 4:3) ,
(4:6) , (Heb. 6:10) . It is here that the kinship with purpose is so
strong. Cf. Rev. 16:9. But some examples of actual result do occur, as in Lu. 10:40; Ac.
5:3; Rev. 5:5. In the O. T.2 we have actual result with and the inf., but no examples
occur in the N. T. Not more than one-half of the examples of and the inf. in Luke,
who gives two-thirds of the N. T. instances, are final.3 Some of these are examples of
hypothetical result. See discussion of Result in chapter on Mode for further discussion
and papyri examples. It is rather common in the O. T., though not so frequent in the N.
T.4 It is possible to regard Mt. 21:32, , thus, though in
reality it is rather the content of the verb.5 There is similar ambiguity in Ac. 7:19,
. But the point seems clear in Ac. 18:10,
, and in Ro. 7:3, . If can be occasionally
used for result, one is prepared to surrender the point as to if necessary. It is
usually purpose, but there is ambiguity here also, as in Mt. 26:2; 1 Cor. 11:22, where the
purpose shades off toward hypothetical result. In Ac. 7:19 we seem to have hypothetical
result, . So also Ro. 6:12, . It is true also of
6 Bumlein, Modi, p. 339.
7 W.-M., p. 400. See Burton, N. T. M. and T., p. 150 f.
2 Votaw, Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 25. Cf. Ruth 2:10,
; See also 2 Chron. 33:9; 1 Macc. 14:36.
Heb. 11:3, . See further Ro. 12:3; 2 Cor. 8:6; Gal. 3:17.6 Votaw7 argues
for actual result in Ro. 1:20, . It is hard to deny it in
this passage. But it is and the inf. that is the usual N. T. construction for this idea
with the inf. As already shown (see Mode) nearly all of the 62 examples of and the
inf. in the N. T. have the notion of result. Once Votaw8 notes an instance of hypothetical
result in the N. T., 1 Cor. 13:2, .
Burton9 goes further and includes in this category Mt. 10:1; 2 Cor. 2:7. But these
debatable examples are in harmony with the usual ambiguity as to result and purpose.
There is no doubt about the examples of actual result with . Thus Mt. 13:54
, (Mk. 9:26)
, (Lu. 12:1) , (Ac. 5:15) . See also Ac.
15:39; Ro. 7:6; 2 Cor. 7:7; Ph. 1:13, etc. There is one instance in the text of W. H.
where occurs with the inf., Lu. 9:52, with the idea of purpose involved.
Cf. O. P. 1120, 19 f. (iii/A.D.). The use of (Heb. 7:9) is the
absolute idea, as already shown. Different also is (2 Cor. 10:9)=as if.
A clear case of result occurs in Epictetus, IV, 1, 50, .
(i) Cause. There is only one example in the N. T. of the articular inf. without a
preposition in this sense. That is in 2 Cor. 2:13, , and it is in the instr. case
as already shown. The LXX shows a half-dozen examples, but all with variant
readings.1 But it is common with to have the causal sense, some 32 times in the
N. T.2 See Prepositions and Substantival Aspects of the Infinitive. Cf. Mt. 13:5 f.; Mk.
5:4; Lu. 6:48; Jas. 4:2 f. There is one instance of in 2 Cor. 7:12.
(j) Time. Temporal relations are only vaguely expressed by the inf. See Tense in this
chapter for the absence of the time-element in the tenses of the inf. except in indirect
discourse. Elsewhere it is only by prepositions and (an adverbial preposition in
reality) that the temporal idea is conveyed by the inf. Antecedent time is expressed by
or . For , see Mt. 6:8; Lu. 2:21, etc. or (so in Mt. 1:18;
Mk. 14:30; Ac. 7:2; W. H. have in the margin in Ac. 2:20) occurs with the inf. 11
times, all aorists (all in Gospels and Acts). We have it only twice with finite verb after
negative sentences, once with the subj. (Lu. 2:26), once with the opt. (Ac. 25:16), both
in Luke (literary style). See, for the inf.,3 Mt. 26:34 , (Jo. 4:49)
. See further Mt. 26:75; Mk. 14:72; Lu. 22:61 (five of the instances are
practically identical); Jo. 8:58; 14:29; Ac. 2:20. In Herodotus, under the influence of
indirect discourse, the inf. occurs with , , , , and the relative
pronouns.4 Contemporaneous action is described by , especially in Luke. Cf. Lu.
1:21, . See Prepositions with Infinitive for further remarks. Subsequent
6 Cf. Burton, N. T. M. and T., p. 161; Moulton, Prol., p. 219.
2 Burton, N. T. M. and T., p. 161, mentions only 23.
3 The inf. with is common in Hom. See Monro, p. 158.
action is set forth by as in Mt. 26:32; Lu. 12:5, etc. In Ac. 8:40, ,
we have the prospective future.
(k) The Absolute Infinitive. This idiom is very common in Homer, especially as an
imperative and in the midst of imperatives.1 R. Wagner2 notes that in Homer this use of
the inf. occurs with the nom. The papyri still show examples like
.3 Gerhard4 holds that in such cases there is ellipsis of . The Attic
inscriptions5 frequently have the absolute infinitive as imperative. Deissmann (Light
from the Anc. East, p. 75) notes that, as in German, it is common in edicts and notices.
Cf. imperatival use of infinitive in modern French. He quotes from the Limestone
Block from the Temple of Herod at Jerusalem (early imperial period):
, Let no
4 Bnard, Formes verbales en Grec daprs le Texte dHrodote, 1890, p. 196. See also
Sturm, Die Entwick. der Konstrukt. mit , 1883, p. 3.
Wagner WAGNER, R., Questiones de epigrammatis graecis ex lapidibus collectis grammaticae
2 Der Gebr. des imper. Inf. im Griech., 1891, p. 12.
3 Reinach, Pap. grecs et dmotiques, 1905.
4 Unters. zur Gesch. des griech. Briefes, Phil. Zeitschr., 1905, p. 56.
5 Meisterh., p. 244.
Deissmann
DEISSMANN, A., Bible Studies (1901). Tr. by A. Grieve; cf. Bibelstudien (1895) and Neue
Bibelstudien (1897).
, Biblische Grcitt etc. (Theol. Rundschau, Okt. 1912).
, Die Hellenisierung des semitischen Monotheismus (N. Jahrb. f. d. kl. Alt., 1903).
, Die neut. Formel in Christo (1892).
, Die Sprache d. griech. Bibel (Theol. Rundschau, 1906, No. 116).
, Die Urgeschichte des Christentums im Lichte der Sprachforschung (Intern. Woch., 30.
Okt. 1909).
, Hellenistisches Griechisch (Herzog-Haucks Realencyc., VII, 1899).
, Licht vom Osten (1908).
, Light from the Ancient East (1910). Tr. by Strachan.
, New Light on the N. T. (1907). Tr. by Strachan.
, Papyri (Encyc. Bibl., III, 1902).
, St. Paul in the Light of Social and Religious History (1912).
foreigner enter within, etc. See also Epictetus, IV, 10, 18, ,
. The imperatival use was an original IndoGermanic idiom.6 It flourishes in the Greek prose writers.7 Burton8 and Votaw9 admit
one instance of the imperatival inf. in the N. T., Ph. 3:16, . But
Moulton10 rightly objects to this needless fear of this use of the inf. It is clearly present
in Ro. 12:15, , . The case of Lu. 9:3 is also pertinent where
comes in between two imperatives. Moulton himself objects on this point that this inf. is
due to a mixture of indirect with direct discourse. That is true, but it was a very easy
lapse, since the inf. itself has this imperatival use. In 1 Th. 3:11; 2 Th. 2:17; 3:5 there is
the nominative case and the whole context besides the accent to prove that we have the
optative, not the aorist active infinitive. See Mode for further discussion. Moulton11
quotes Burkitt as favouring the mere infinitive, not , in Mt. 23:23,
, after the Lewis Syriac MS., and also in 2 Cor. 12:1
after . The imperatival use of the inf. was common in laws and maxims and recurs in
the papyri.1 So A. P. 86 (i/A.D.) , . Radermacher (N. T. Gr., p. 146)
quotes Theo, Progymn., p. 128, 12, , where the inf. is used as a deliberative
subj. would be. He gives also the Hellenistic formula, , Inscr.
Pergam., 13, 31; 13, 34. Hatzidakis2 notes that in the Pontic dialect this construction still
exists. The epistolary inf. has the same origin as the imperatival inf. It is the absolute
inf. This is common in the papyri. See Ac. 15:23; 23:26; Jas. 1:1, . The nom. is
the nominative absolute also. Cf. 2 Jo. 10, where is the object of .
Radermacher (N. T. Gr., p. 146) notes how in the later language the acc. comes to be
used with the absolute inf., as in C. Inscr. lat. V. 8733, = . It
is just in this absolute inf. that we best see the gradual acquirement of verbal aspects by
the inf. It is probably the oldest verbal use of the inf.3 The construction in Heb. 7:9,
, is but a step further on the way. There is but one example of this absolute
inf. with in the N. T.4 Cf. in Rev. 12:7, where it is an independent
parenthesis.
10 Prol., p. 179.
Burkitt BURKITT, F. C., Syriac Forms of N. T. Proper Names (1912).
Hatzidakis HATZIDAKIS, G. N., Einleitung in die neugriechische Grammatik (1892).
2 Einl., p. 192.
4 For the variety of uses of the absolute inf. in ancient Gk. see Goodwin, M. and T., pp.
310 ff.
(l) Negatives. The ancient Greek used chiefly with the inf. except in indirect
assertion where of the direct was retained. But we see with the inf. after verbs of
saying as early as Homer, , Iliad, XVII, 174. Thus won a place for
itself with the inf., but many verbs retained as verbs of swearing, hoping, promising,
etc. But special phrases could have anywhere and strong contrast or emphasis would
justify .5 Votaw6 finds 354 instances in the Greek Bible where the inf. itself is
modified by the negative. Of these 330 have and the rest have compounds of . The
anarthrous inf. with he notes 59 times in the O. T., 32 in the Apocrypha and 47 in the
N. T., 139 in all. The articular inf. with he finds in the O. T. 136 times ( 99,
37), in the Apocrypha 21 times ( 10, 11), in the N. T. 35 times ( 15, 20),
192 in all ( 124, 68). With the anarthrous inf. the negative more frequently occurs
with the principal verb as in . We do have in infinitival clauses, as will be
shown, but in general it is true to say that the inf. directly is always negatived by in
the N. T. This is true of all sorts of uses of the inf. So the subject-inf. uses , as
(2 Pet. 2:21), both the anarthrous as above and the
articular as in Lu. 17:1. The object-inf. likewise has , as in Lu. 21:14,
. For the articular accusative with see Ro. 14:13. We
have it with indirect commands as in Mt. 5:34, , and in indirect
assertion as in Ac. 23:8, . We
have it with as in Jas. 5:17, , and with prepositions as in 2 Cor. 4:4,
. With verbs of hindering and denying the negative is not
necessary, but it was often used by the ancients as a redundant negative repeating the
negative notion of the verb, just as double negatives carried on the force of the first
negative. It was not always used. When the verb itself was negatived, then could
follow.1 But we do not find this idiom in the N.T. Examples of the N.T. idiom have
already been given in this chapter. The variety in the N. T. may be illustrated. See Lu.
23:2 , (Ac. 4:17)
, (Gal. 5:7) , (Ro. 15:22)
, (Lu. 4:42) , (Mt. 19:14)
, (1 Cor. 14:39) , (Ac. 14:18)
, (Ac. 8:36) ,
(10:47) , (20:20)
. Radermacher (N. T. Gr., p. 149) illustrates the
Pauline with the infinitive by Sophocles Electra, 1078, ,
and the inscr. (Heberdey-Wilhelm, Reisen in Kilikien, 170, 2),
. We may note also Ac. 4:20, , where the negative
is not redundant. Cf. also Jo. 5:19, , where the second negative
is redundant, but it repeats the . Some MSS. have a redundant negative with
1 See Thompson, Synt., pp. 425 ff.
Wilhelm WILHELM, A., Beitrge zur griech. Inschriftenkunde (1909).
in Lu. 22:34 (cf. 1 Jo. 2:22 after ) and with in Heb. 12:19. So
AP read in Lu. 20:27.
Even in indirect discourse the same negative is repeated, as in Ac. 26:26,
. Here strictly goes with in spite of
its position after , but is construed with , and so is used
rather than or . But in Mk. 7:24, , it is not best to
explain with the inf. in this fashion. This looks like the retention of the old
classic use of with the inf. which the grammars are not willing to allow in the N. T.1
Epictetus uses with the inf. as in IV, 10, 18,
. As a matter of fact we have a number of other examples of with the inf.,
too many to rule out without ceremony. There is the case in Heb. 7:11,
; It is
true that comes just before , but it is rather forced to deny it any
connection with . See also Ro. 8:12,
, where, however, occurs outside of and is directly concerned with .
Other examples of sharp contrast by means of are found, as in Ac. 10:40 f.,
, ; Ro. 7:6,
; Heb. 13:9,
(but here no contrast is expressed). In Ro. 4:12, 16, with , we find
(m) with the Infinitive. This classic idiom has vanished from the N. T. save in 2
Cor. 10:9, . Even here it is not a clear case, since depends on
and comes in as a parenthetical clause, as if (as it were).
The treatment of the infinitive has thus required a good many twists and turns due to
its double nature.
III. The Participle ( ).
1. THE VERBALS IN AND . These verbals are not exactly participles
inasmuch as they have no tense or voice. They are formed from verb-stems, not from
tense-stems, and hence are properly called verbal adjectives.2 In the broadest sense,
however, these verbals are participles, since they partake of both verb and adjective.
Originally the infinitive had no tense nor voice, and the same thing was true of the
participle. For convenience we have limited the term participle to the verbal adjectives
with voice and tense. The verbal in goes back to the original Indo-Germanic time
and had a sort of perfect passive idea.3 This form is like the Latin -tus. Cf. ,
ntus; , igntus. But we must not overdo this point. Strictly this pro-ethnic -tos
has no voice or tense and it never came to have intimate verbal connections in the Greek
as it did in Latin and English.4 Thus amatus est and do not correspond,
nor, in truth, does he is loved square with either. Even in Latin, a word like tacitus
illustrates the absence of both tense and voice from the adjective in its primary use.1
Already in the Sanskrit voice and tense appear with some of the participles, but the
division-line between participial and ordinary adjectives is less strictly drawn in
Sanskrit than in the other Indo-European languages.2 The ambiguity due to the absence
of voice in the verbal in was inherited from the original Indo-Germanic time.3 It
becomes, therefore, a lexical, not a syntactical problem to decide in a given instance
whether the verbal is active or passive in signification. In itself it is neither. A
similar problem is raised in compound adjectives like - (Ac. 5:39), fighting
God. In modern Greek the verbal in is rare and is little more than an adjective
(Thumb, Handb., p. 151), though the new formation in has more verbal force.
This ambiguity appears in Homer and all through the Greek language.4 Blass5 overstates
it when he says that in the N. T. the verbal adjective has practically disappeared, with
the exception of forms like , which have become stereotyped as adjectives. As
a matter of fact the verbal in is still common in the N. T. as in the in general.
Take, for instance, , , , , ,
, , , , , , , , ,
, , , , etc. It is true6 that the tendency is rather to
accent the adjectival aspect at the expense of the verbal idea of these words. But this
also was true at the start, as we have just seen in the Sanskrit. The point to note is that
the verbal does not denote voice. In Ac. 14:8; Ro. 15:1, is incapable,
whereas usually it is impossible, as in Mt. 19:26=Mk. 10:27, etc. In Ro. 8:3, therefore,
it is doubtful whether is the impotency or the impossibility
of the law.7 There is no notion of tense or of Aktionsart in these verbals in and so
does not distinguish8 between , and .
Moulton thus properly notes the fact that in Mt. 25:41 we have , having
become the subjects of a curse, not , cursed. It is interesting to note
in 1 Pet. 1:8, but here is active in sense,
inexpressible. The ambiguity comes also in our English participle borne used for
in Mk. 2:3, and the punctiliar brought used for in 2 Pet. 1:18.
With these Moulton1 contrasts (taken away) in Jo. 20:1. It is worth while to
study a few more examples from the lexical point of view. In general2 the passive sense
is more common, as in (Mt. 3:17); (Lu. 9:62); (Jo. 6:45);
(2 Tim. 3:16); (1 Th. 4:9); and (Ro. 2:15
f.).3 Here (Ro. 2:15 f.) is used just like a substantive (neuter adjective in
2 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 347.
4 Stahl, Krit.-hist. Synt., p. 761.
5 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 37.
6 Cf. Viteau, Essai sur la Synt. des Voix, Revue de Philol., p. 41.
2 Riem. and Goelzer, Synt., p. 707.
3 In Sans. the verbal adjs. in -t are sometimes called passive participles (Whitney,
Sans. Gr., p. 340). This form does not belong to the tense system.
plural). But (Rev. 3:15) is active in sense as is (Ro. 1:31), though
next to it (paronomasia) is made from the middle (covenant).4
, sometimes passive in sense in the old Greek, is always active in the N. T., as
in Mt. 11:25, but (Ro. 6:12) is liable to death, not dying, as (Ac.
26:23) is capable of suffering. Cf. the Latin adjectives in -bilis.
The verbal in is later than that in and does not occur in Homer. It is
probably a modification of the verbal to express the idea of the predicate-infinitive,
like this is not to eat (to be eaten).5 It is really a gerundive and is used in the personal
or impersonal construction, more commonly the latter.6 The personal is always passive
in sense, while the impersonal is active and may be formed from transitive or
intransitive verbs.7 It expresses the idea of necessity. It was never as common as the
verbal in and is not unknown in the papyri,8 though not frequent. It is more like the
verb (and participle) than the verbal in in one respect, that it often uses the cases of
the regular verb.9 This is seen in the one example in the N. T. (Lu. 5:38)
. It is the impersonal construction, though the agent is not here
expressed. This example of in Luke is a survival of the literary style (cf. Viteau,
Essai sur la Syntaxe des Voix, Revue de Philologie, p. 38). See Theo, Progymn., p.
128, 12, .
2. HISTORY OF THE PARTICIPLE.
(a) The Sanskrit Participle. This was more advanced in its development than the
Sanskrit infinitive, which had no voice or tense. In the Veda the aorist, present, perfect
and future tenses have participles.1 The distinction in the structure of the participle as
compared with the other verbal adjectives lies just in this point. The mere verbal is
formed on the verb-stem, while the participle is formed on the tense-stem.2 In the
Sanskrit also both voices (active and middle) show these participles. Thus already in the
original Indo-Germanic tongue it appears probable that the participle existed with voice,
tense, Aktionsart and government of cases.3 The Greek participle is thus rooted in this
pro-ethnic participle as seen by the very suffixes -nt-, -meno-, -wos- (-us).4
(b) Homers Time. Already in Homer and Hesiod the participle occurs as a fully
developed part of speech. It occurs on an average of 81/6 times per page of 30 lines.5 In
5 Brug., Griech. Gr., pp. 184, 525.
7 Goodwin, M. and T., p. 368 f.
9 But even with this sometimes appears as in (Jo. 6:45) where we
have the ablative. Cf. Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 522.
3 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 521 f.
4 Brug., Indoger. Forsch., V, pp. 89 ff.; Giles, Man., p. 473; Moulton, Prol., p. 221.
5 Williams, The Part. in the Book of Acts, 1909, p. 7.
Hesiod the participle is chiefly attributive, while the predicate participle is less common
than in Homer.6 This use of the participle as the practical equivalent of the hypotactic
clause is a purely Greek development (copied by the Latin to some extent) within
historical times.7 The participle is a literary device, and flourished best with writers of
culture who were .8 Broadus used to call the Greek a participle-loving
language, and, taken as a whole, this is true. Certainly the participle had its most
perfect development in the Greek. The aorist participle died in the Sanskrit and did not
appear in the Latin. It is the aorist active participle which made the participle so
powerful in Greek. The English, like the Sanskrit and the Greek, is rich in participles,
though the German is comparatively poor. We gain a certain grandeur and terseness by
the construction, a certain sweep, a certain , such as Hermogenes recognises as
lying in the participle.9 This wealth of participles gives flexibility and swing to the
(c) The Attic Period. In Herodotus the participle jumps to 171/2 times per page of 30
lines.1 But Sophocles has it only 9 times on the same scale. Williams2 runs the parallel on
with 13 for Thucydides, 123/5 for Xenophon, 101/6 for Plato, 103/4 for Demosthenes. It is
thus in the historians and orators and not the poets, that we see the participle in its glory.
(d) The . Here we note a sharp difference in the several styles of writing. The
Atticists like Josephus with 20, and 2 Maccabees with 231/2, lead in conscious imitation
of the ancients. They go beyond them in fact. But the writers of the literary
follow close behind, as Polybius with 174/5, Strabo with 131/2 and Plutarch with 14.
Certainly there is no sign of decay here. But in the LXX, Exodus, Deuteronomy and
Judges give only 61/6 while3 the papyri show 64/5. This confirms the judgment that the
vernacular was not fond of the participle and found it clumsy. Jannaris4 quotes striking
passages from Thucydides, Plato and Demosthenes which illustrate well the clumsiness
and ambiguity of the participle in long, involved sentences. Even in the older Greek in
unconventional or unscholarly composition the accumulation of participles is shunned.
6 Bolling, The Part. in Hesiod, Cath. Univ. Bull., 1897, III, p. 423.
Broadus BROADUS, JOHN A., Comm. on Matt. (1886).
9 Gildersl., Stylistic Effect of the Gk. Part., Am. Jour. of Philol., 1888, p. 142.
1 Williams, The Part. in Acts, p. 7.
Williams WILLIAMS, C. B., The Participle in the Book of Acts (1908).
The clearer and easier analysis of co-ordinate or subordinate clauses was used instead.5
In the N. T. we see the participle used on the whole more frequently than in the LXX
and the papyri. The Hebrew had a certain restraining influence on the participle in the
LXX. In the vernacular papyri the participle was held back on the principle just stated
above. It is Luke who makes most frequent use of the participle with 162/3 in the Gospel
and 171/6 in the Acts per page of 30 lines.6 But 1 Peter follows close behind with 152/3
and Hebrews with 14. In the other Gospels Matthew has it 121/2, Mark 112/3 and John
102/5.7 James has it 10 per page, while in the Epistles and Revelation it drops back to 8
and 9. On the whole it is much as one would expect. The more literary books lead (after
Paul with only 9 per page average in Gal., 1 Cor., and Rom.).8 The historical books
surpass the Epistles, while Hebrews here reveals its hortatory, sermonic character. For a
succession of participles see Ac. 12:25; 23:27; Heb. 1:3 f.; Mk. 5:15. The details of the
N. T. situation will come later.
(e) Modern Greek. The participle more and more came to be scholastic and dropped
out of the vernacular.1 In particular was this true of the circumstantial participle. The
classic Greek by means of the participle developed the periodic style (
) and is seen at its highest in Isocrates. See, for example, the
Ciceronian period in Isocrates, p. 82. Jebb2 contrasts this with , simply
tacking clause to clause as in Mt. 7:25, 27 and colloquial repetition of finite verbs as in
Jo. 1:47; 7:4. But , , (Ph. 3:2) has rhetorical effect. In the
vernacular modern Greek, therefore, we see a retreat of the participle all along the line.
It is not dead as the infinitive, but is dying, though some vernacular writers are bringing
back the use of the participle for literary purposes (Thumb, Handb., p. 168). The
analytic tendency of modern language is against it. See Jebbs remarks for the various
devices used instead of the participle. The only participles left in modern Greek are the
indeclinable present active in (cf. gerund in Latin), some middle (or passive)
parts. in or and perfect passives like (no reduplication).3 A
few are made from aorist stems like (Thumb, Handb., p. 150). The use of the
part. in the modern Greek is very limited indeed.
3. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PARTICIPLE.
6 Williams, Part. in Acts, p. 23.
8 Ib., p. 22. Williams did not count 2 Cor. and the other Pauline Epistles.
Jebb
JEBB, R. C., Attic Orators. 2d ed. (1893).
, Introduction to the Iliad and the Odyssey. (1892).
, On the Relation of Classical to Modern Greek (Appendix to Vincent and Dicksons
Handbook to Mod. Gk., 1887).
2 V. and D., Handb., p. 333.
3 Thumb, Handb., p. 167. Cf. also Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 242.
(a) Originally an Adjective. The infinitive was originally a substantive, as we have
seen. In the Sanskrit it did not acquire voice and tense, though it had the verbal idea of
action. The participle, as we have seen, had made more progress in the Sanskrit, but it
was also originally an adjective. It never got away from this original adjectival idea.4
But we are not left to history and logic to prove this point. It so happens that some
participles in form never became participles in fact. They are merely adjectives. Homer
shows a number of such words.5 Cf. -. We see remnants of this usage in the N.
T. like (Ro. 8:20), (1 Cor. 9:17). Other participles come in certain uses to be
only substantives (adjectives, then substantives), though the true participial use occurs
also. Cf. , a ruler (Mt. 20:25); , a governor (Ac. 7:10);
, your belongings (Lu. 12:33). In general the adjective represents a
quality at rest, the participle represents a quality in motion.6 But not all verbs express
motion. The mere adjectival notion is more common in the Latin, as in prteritus,
quietus, tacitus, etc. In Mt. 17:17, , the verbal adjective
and participle occur together.
(b) The Addition of the Verbal Functions. These functions are tense, voice and casegovernment. There was originally no notion of time in the tense, nor does the tense in
the participle ever express time absolutely. It only gives relative time by suggestion or
by the use of temporal adverbs or conjunctions.1 The verbal idea in the participle thus
expands the adjectival notion of the word.2 But the addition of these verbal functions
does not make the participle a real verb, since, like the infinitive, it does not have
subject.3
(c) The Double Aspect of the Participle. The very name participle (pars, capio)
indicates this fact. The word is part adjective, part verb. Voss calls it mules, which is
part horse and part ass.4 Dionysius Thrax says:
. In the true participle, therefore, we are to
look for both the adjectival and the verbal aspects, as in the infinitive we have the
substantival and the verbal. The emphasis will vary in certain instances. Now the
adjectival will be more to the fore as in the attributive articular participle like .5
Now the verbal side is stressed as in the circumstantial participle. But the adjectival
notion never quite disappears in the one as the verbal always remains in the other
(barring a few cases noted above). One must, therefore, explain in each instance both
the adjectival and verbal functions of the participle else he has set forth only one side of
the subject. It is true that the verbal functions are usually more complicated and
interesting,6 but the adjectival must not be neglected.
5 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 54. Cf. Stahl, Krit.-hist. Synt., p. 681.
3 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 53.
4 Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 169.
(d) Relation between Participle and Infinitive. As already explained, they are closely
allied in use, though different in origin. Both are verbal nouns; both are infinitival; both
are participial. But the participle so-called is inflected always, while the infinitive socalled has lost its proper inflection. The infinitive, besides, expresses7 the action in
relation to the verb, while the participle expresses the action in relation to the subject or
the object of the verb (or some other substantive or pronoun).1 The distinction between
the participle and the infinitive thus becomes quite important. Thus in Lu. 16:3,
, the idea is I am ashamed to beg and do not do it, while
would be I beg and am ashamed of it.2 Cf. the analytic expression in 2
Tim. 1:12. In Xenophon, Mem., 2, 6, 39, we have . So in
Attic Greek took the infinitive as a rule, linking the infinitive with the verb. But
sometimes the participle occurred, linking the action to the subject (or object) and so
contrasting the beginning with the end.3 In the N. T. all the examples have the present
infinitive except Lu. 13:25 . In Lu. 3:23, , we
have neither with . Cf. Lu. 14:30, . Radermacher (N. T.
Gr., p. 169) compares (Ac. 11:4) with
(Xen. of Eph., p. 388, 31). On the other hand, in the N. T. occurs only with the
participle, as in Lu. 5:4, . Cf. Ac. 5:42; 6:13; Eph. 1:16; Col. 1:9; Heb.
10:2. But in Ac. 14:18 note , which well illustrates the
difference between the inf. and the part. The use of (Mt. 11:1)
Blass4 calls unclassical. The part. alone occurs with (Gal. 6:9; 2 Th. 3:13).
Note also (spurious passage in Jo. 8:7), but (Ac.
27:33) without . Cf. Ac. 12:16, , and Lu. 7:45,
. Radermacher (N. T. Gr., p. 169) finds the part. with in vulgar
literature. He observes that many of these neater classical idioms with the part. do not
appear in the N. T. Contrast with this the inf. in Ac. 20:20, 27,
. There is no example of the inf. with in the N. T., but the
part. occurs in Mt. 6:16, 18 (). The adjective alone is seen in Mt. 23:27, 28.
Cf. also Ro. 7:13. It is hardly on a par with the participle in Mt. 6:17 in spite of Blasss
insistence.5 Thoroughly classical also are (Mt. 17:25) and
(Heb. 13:2), specimens of literary style. The infinitive with
occurs in Clem., Cor., II, 8, 2. The part. with does not occur in the
N. T. In the later the inf. takes the place of the participle with ,
and (Radermacher, N. T. Gr., p. 169). The part. is found with (Ac. 8:16)
and (Lu. 23:12). It is doubtful if the participle belongs to the verb in 1 Tim.
5:13, , but, if so, it is not to be understood as like the
inf.1 In Ph. 4:11; 1 Tim. 5:4, the inf. occurs with according to classic idiom.
7 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 242. In general, on this point, see Goodwin, M. and T., p.
1 Cf. Schoemann, Die Lehre von den Redet. nach den Alten, 1862, p. 34.
2 Robertson, Short Gr., p. 194.
At any rate, if (1 Tim. 5:13) is a circumstantial part., something has to be
supplied with . The part. in 1 Tim. 1:12, , is certainly
circumstantial. The distinction between the inf. and the part. comes out sharply in
indirect discourse also. The inf. is more objective. Thus note
(Jo. 12:18) and (2 Th.
3:11). The participle is a descriptive adjective even though in indirect discourse (cf. Lu.
4:23; Ac. 7:12). See 1 Cor. 11:18 for the inf. again. In Mt. 7:11,
, the inf. with means know how to give. But in Lu. 4:41,
, it is mere indirect discourse. For the part. see 2 Cor. 12:2,
(cf. Mk. 6:20). In Ac. 3:9 note .
Here we have the same root, though a different sense. is common with . But
occurs both with the inf. as in Heb. 10:34,
, and the participle as in Heb. 13:23,
. Cf. Lu. 8:46, , where the
tense and participle both accent the vivid reality of the experience. But note the inf. in
Mt. 16:13. The same thing is true of as in Tit. 1:16,
, and 1 Jo. 4:2, (cf. 2 Jo. 7). Cf. also Ac.
24:10 and in 1 Th. 2:4 and 2 Cor. 8:22. Note
difference between (Lu. 6:7) and
(Mk. 14:37). Cf. Indirect Discourse. Further examples of the
supplementary participle come later. These sufficiently illustrate the difference between
the use of inf. and part.
(e) Method of Treating the Participle. The hybrid character of the participle has led
to a great deal of diversity in its treatment in the grammars. Prof. Williams2 gives an
interesting summary in his monograph. None of them are satisfactory because they do
not follow a consistent plan. Part of the divisions are from the adjectival, part from the
verbal point of view. They are not parallel. Thus we have Khners complementary,
attributive, adverbial participles; Goodwins attributive, circumstantial, supplementary;
Burtons adjectival, adverbial, substantival; Jannaris adjectival and adverbial; Blass
attributive and in additional clause; Hadley and Allens attributive and predicate;
Delbrck-Brugmann;s external, objective, adverbial. Then Williams1 adds another that
is no better, ascriptive, adverbial, complementary. Thompson2 gives the attributive and
the supplementary participle after saying that the nominal and the verbal classification is
more elastic. The only way to get symmetry in the treatment of the participle is to
follow the line of its double nature (adjectival and verbal) and discuss the adjectival
functions and the verbal functions separately. See the discussion of the infinitive. That
2 The Part. in Acts, pp. 1 ff.
GOODWIN, W. W., Greek Grammar. Various editions.
, Syntax of the Moods and Tenses of the Greek Verb. Rev. Ed. (1890).
Hadley and Allen HADLEY and ALLEN, Greek Grammar (1895).
1 The Part. in Acts, p. 5.
Thompson THOMPSON, F. E., A Syntax of Attic Greek. New ed. (1907).
2 Synt. of Attic Gk., p. 249.
is to say, each participle must be considered as both adjectival and verbal. Not all the
adjectival aspects will be true of any one participle nor all of the verbal, but each one
will have some adjectival and some verbal functions. Thus alone can one get a clear
statement of the many participial combinations and permutations. As an adjective the
participle is attributive (anarthrous or articular) or predicate. It may even be
substantival, especially with . It is always declinable. As a verb there is always voice
and tense and there may be cases. But any given anarthrous predicate participle may be
either supplementary (complementary) or circumstantial (additional) or wholly
independent (as indicative or imperative). The articular participle is ruled out of this
three-fold alternative, though it still has voice, tense and governs cases. The articular
participle is always attributive (or substantival). The lines thus cross and recross in the
nature of the case. But a clear statement of all the essential facts can be made by taking
the adjectival and the verbal aspects separately. In any given instance there is thus a
double problem. Both sides of the given participle must be noted.
4. ADJECTIVAL ASPECTS OF THE PARTICIPLE.
(a) Declension. The free declension of the participle in number and gender and case
(cf. per contra the infinitive) makes the task of noting the adjectival aspects
comparatively simple. There are anomalies of agreement in these three points as with
other adjectives. Thus in Rev. 3:12 in apposition with
does not conform in case. There is a difficulty of both case and gender in
in Rev. 1:15. See also (Ac. 21:36) where the number and gender both
vary. In Mk. 4:31 note where takes the gender of
. Cf. also (Mt. 27:61). But these matters are discussed adequately
in chapter on The Sentence.
(b) Attributive Participle.
() Anarthrous. The article is not of course necessary with the attributive participle
any more than with any other attributive adjective. Thus we have (Jo. 4:10),
living water, which is just as really attributive as (Jo. 4:11). When the
article is used there is no doubt about the participle being attributive. When it is absent,
it is an open question to be examined in the light of the context. Note also 1 Cor. 13:1,
. This construction (the anarthrous attributive) is
not so common as the other uses of the participle,1 and yet it is not wholly absent from
the N. T. See (Ac. 2:2) and
(Rev. 4:1). It is not always easy to draw the line between the anarthrous attributive
participle and the predicate participle of additional statement. Cf.
, (Ac. 22:3). If occurred before these
participles, we should have the articular-attributive participle which is equivalent to a
relative.2 So in Ac. 10:18, we have , but in 10:32,
. Cf. Lu. 6:48, , with
Mt. 7:24, . See also Lu. 6:49. Cf. Ro. 8:24,
. Cf. Mt. 27:33. The problem is particularly real in Mk.
5:25, 27. W. H. indicate by the comma after that they regard the participles
with (, , , , ) up to that point as
attributive. They describe the woman who comes. Then the sentence proceeds with the
predicate-circumstantial participles (, ) before . Luke (8:43)
makes the matter plainer by putting a relative clause after the first participle. The
anarthrous attributive participle is closely bound to the substantive or pronoun even
when it is an additional statement. See Mt. 12:25,
. See also Lu. 6:40; 2 Th. 2:4; Rev. 2:15. In Mt. 13:19,
, we probably have the genitive absolute and so predicate circumstantial, but
even here occurs, though remote. Cf. (Mt. 7:26) and
(7:24), where we see how nearly these constructions approach each other.3 But
the anarthrous indefinite participle is clearly found in Jas. 4:17,
, . This passage may throw some light on Mt. 12:25.
In Mt. 13:35, , we probably have the articular attributive
participle, since the Greeks did not always place the attributive participle between the
article and the substantive.1 The use of is interesting in Rev. 15:1,
. The anarthrous indefinite participle is seen also in a few
constructions like (Ac. 5:14), where the participle
means believing men and has in apposition with it. See also
(Mk. 1:3, LXX), (Mt. 2:6, LXX), and
(Ro. 3:11, LXX) where is more common, (Rev.
2:14). It is worth noting in this connection also the fact that occasionally a preposition
occurs with an anarthrous participle (cf. infinitive). So (Ro. 10:14).
Here the idea is not without preaching, but without one preaching, without a
preacher. For without preaching we must have . See once more
, (12:15) and (1 Pet.
3:12). In 1 Cor. 15:27, , we have the usual articular construction.
() Articular. The articular participle occurs a few times in Homer.2 In general the
Book of Acts has the articular participle in about the same proportion as the great Attic
writers.3 All articular participles are, of course, attributive. But the matter has some
points of interest and cannot be dismissed with this general statement. The examples are
very numerous. The substantives may be expressed as in
(Mt. 25:34); (Mk. 3:22).
Like other articular adjectives, the participle may come between the article and the
substantive, as in (1 Tim. 1:10);
(Mt. 2:7); (Heb. 12:2). Cf. Jude 3. The substantive may
precede and the article may be repeated, as (Jo. 4:11);
(1 Cor. 15:37); (1 Cor. 15:57). Cf. Mt. 26:28; 27:44;
Jas. 5:1; Ro. 2:10. In Mk. 12:38 the article is repeated as in 12:40 (apposition) when the
nominative reminds us of the common anacoluthon in Revelation. With proper names
note (Mt. 1:16); (Ac. 10:18). Cf.
1 Th. 1:10; 2 Tim. 1:8 f. For a long passage see (Ac. 21:28). The order of
the words is not insisted on and in long passages the participle may follow without the
repetition of the article, as in Mt. 6:30,
. See also Ac. 12:10; 13:32; 26:4, 6; Heb. 2:2; Heb. 12:3,
where in the long clause the participle with comes in between and
3 This use of without art. occurs occasionally in class. Gk. See K.-G., II, p. 608 f.
1 Cf. Goodwin, M. and T., p. 330.
2 Vogrinz, Gr. des hom. Dialektes, 1889, p. 184.
3 Williams, The Part. in the Book of Acts, p. 46.
and a good distance from . Sometimes the article is used
with the participle, but not with the substantive, as in
(Lu. 7:32); (1 Pet. 1:7);
(Ac. 4:12); (Ac. 11:21);
(2 Jo. 7); (Jude 4, where note the series of participles and one
adjective parallel with the participles). Cf. also 1 Cor. 2:7. The articular
participle also occurs with pronouns,1 as in (Mt. 11:3);
(Lu. 18:9); (Col. 2:8); (Jo. 1:12);
(Jas. 4:12); (Gal. 1:7); (Ph.
3:18 f.). Particularly in address do we find the articular participle, as in Mt. 7:23; 27:40;
Lu. 6:25 (but note dative in 6:24); Ac. 2:14; 13:16. The use of the articular participle
with is common, as (Mt. 5:22); (Mt. 7:26),
(7:21). This is equal to the relative clause (Mt. 7:24). In Ro. 2:1
is used with . Cf. in Ac. 9:21. Here also
is continued by as if it were a relative clause. The articular
participle sometimes occurs where it is followed by an infinitive. Here it is still further
complicated, but it is clear. See (Ro. 8:18);
(1 Cor. 12:22). Cf. also 2 Pet. 3:2. The use of in Acts
calls for special remark. In Ac. 13:1, , we see this idiom,
which Moulton2 translates the local church. Note 14:13 D,
(or ). Cf. Ramsays remark (Ch. in Rom. Emp., p. 52, quoting J. A.
Robinson), that in Acts introduces some technical phrase, or some term which it
marks out as having a technical sense (cf. 5:17; 13:1; 28:17), and is almost equivalent to
. An ingenious person might apply this in Eph. 1:1 to the text with
absent; but the usual view needs no defence against such an alternative. With
in Ro. 13:1 we may compare Par. P. 5 (ii/B.C.),
. So N. P. 49 (iii/A.D.), the current month. The
passage in Ac. 5:17 reads , and 28:17 has
. Moulton agrees, we may note, with Sanday and Headlam (in loco) in taking
(Ro. 9:5) as referring to Jesus. As is well known, the difficulty here is a
matter of exegesis and the punctuation of the editor will be made according to his
theology. But it may be said in brief that the natural way to take and is in
apposition to . It is a very common thing in the N. T., as already noted, to have
and the participle where a relative clause is possible. But this idiom is common in the
older Greek. See Ac. 10:18, 32, and chapter on Article. It remains then to speak of the
frequent use of the articular participle without a substantive or pronoun. This idiom is
too common for exhaustive treatment, but some examples are given. Cf. Mt. 10:40,
, . Note
also and the next verse and in verse 42. See further Mt.
10:37; Ac. 10:35; Rev. 1:3. The question of the tense is interesting in some of these
RAMSAY, W. M., Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia. 2 vols. (1895, 1897).
, St. Paul the Traveller (1896).
examples, as in in Mt. 10:39, but that will be
discussed a bit later. Like a relative clause, the articular participle may suggest1 the
notion of cause, condition, purpose, etc., as in Mt. 10:37, 39, 40, 41; Lu. 14:11; Ro. 3:5.
But this notion is very indefinite.
(c) Predicate Participle. From the adjectival standpoint all participles that are not
attributive are predicate. This aspect of the participle must be elucidated further. The
verbal aspect comes into special prominence with all the predicate participles. They will
be touched very lightly here and receive full discussion under Verbal Aspects. It may be
said at once that all the supplementary and circumstantial participles are predicate. One
must not confuse the articular participle in the predicate like (Lu.
7:19) with the real predicate participle. Cf. Lu. 16:15; 22:28.2 The predicate participle is
simply the adjective in the predicate position. That is, it is not attributive. There are
obviously many varieties of the predicate participle. But the predicate adjective has had
adequate treatment. Cf. (Lu. 14:18). Cf. also Heb. 5:14; Ac. 9:21.
(d) The Participle as a Substantive. The adjective, though a variation from the
substantive, is sometimes used as a substantive as in . It is not strange,
therefore, that the participle also shows substantival uses. These are sometimes
anarthrous, as in (Mt. 9:18), (Mt. 2:6). But, as a rule, the participle as
a substantive is articular. Cf. Lu. 12:33, , where the genitive shows
the substantival character of this participle. Cf. further 2:27 , (1
Cor. 7:35) , (Ph. 3:8) ,
(Mt. 14:20) , (Ro. 7:23) , (Heb. 12:11)
, etc. There are also the many examples where and the part. is used without a
subst. or pron., as in Mt. 10:39, and (cf. , ). The
substantive use of the participle is a classic idiom.1 The use of the neuter participle as an
abstract substantive is not so common in the N. T. as in the ancient Greek.2 But see
further (Lu. 8:56), (9:7), (19:10),
(Jo. 16:13), (Ac. 24:25), , (1 Cor. 1:28),
(14:7), (2 Cor. 3:10 f.), (Heb. 12:10), etc. In Lu. 22:49 note
. One is not to confuse with this idiom the so-called substantive participle
of some grammars, which is a term used for the substantivizing of the verbal force of
the participle, not the adjectival. Thus Burton3 calls the supplementary participle like
that in Ac. 5:42, , and in Lu. 8:46,
, the substantive participle. I confess that I see nothing to be
gained by applying substantive to the purely verbal aspects of the participle.
Confusion of thought is the inevitable result. See 5, (d), ().
(e) The Participle as an Adverb. The formation of adverbs from participles is due
to its adjectival function. Cf. (Mk. 11:32), (1 Tim. 3:16),
(2 Cor. 11:23). Besides, the participle itself (cf. neuter adjective ,
etc.) sometimes has an adverbial force. In particular note (1 Cor. 16:6). See also
(Mk. 14:72). This obscure participle expresses coincident action (cf.
3 N. T. M. and T., p. 175 f.
Moulton, Prol., p. 131). Cf. (Lu. 2:16), and
(19:5 f.). We cannot always draw a distinction between this use and the
circumstantial participle of manner. The verbal and the adjectival standpoints come
together. A number of the grammars apply the term adverbial to all the circumstantial
participles.4 But it is more than doubtful if one gains as much as he loses thereby. It is
true that logically a sort of adverbial relation may be worked out, an adverbial addition
to the sentence.1 But it does not help much from the syntactical point of view to insist
on this fact in the exposition of the circumstantial participle. As to form the
circumstantial participle is still adjectival. The adverbial notion is inferential and purely
logical. There is something, however, to be said for the adverbial aspect of the
redundant participle in (Mt. 13:14, LXX), which is on a par with
. Both are attempts to translate the Hebrew inf. absolute. Moulton2 has
found the idiom in schylus and Herodotus, but the N. T. usage is clearly due to the
LXX, where it is very common. Cf. also (Ac. 7:34),
(Heb. 6:14), from the LXX again. Blass (Gr. of the N. T. Gk., p. 251) calls this
construction thoroughly un-Greek. There are other pleonastic participles like the
common (Mt. 3:15) which is somewhat like the vernacular: He ups
and says (Moulton Prol., p. 15 f.). Cf. also (Jo. 21:19),
(Mt. 13:46), he has gone and sold. So also (Lu. 15:20), he
arose and came. Once again note (Mt. 13:33), she took and hid.
This idiom is more Aramaic than Hebraic and is at any rate picturesque vernacular. But
it is also Greek. Pleonasm belongs to all tongues. Radermacher (N. T. Gr., p. 179)
quotes Herod. VI, 67, 10, ; VI, 68, 5, . Mr. Dan Crawford finds in
the Bantu language dying he died for the irrevocableness of death. We now turn to the
verbal aspects of the participle, which are more complex.
5. VERBAL ASPECTS OF THE PARTICIPLE.
(a) Voice. There is nothing of a distinctive nature to say about the voice of the
participle in addition to what has already been said (see ch. on Voice). The voices run in
the participles precisely as in the verb itself. We find the voice in the earliest Greek as in
the Sanskrit. All the nuances of the voices appear in the participle. Cf. the active in
(Lu. 13:10), (Jo. 4:10); the middle in (Lu. 12:36),
(Ac. 22:16), (Mk. 14:47); the passive in (Mt.
19:22), (1 Cor. 2:7), (Heb. 13:23),
(Mk. 5:30), (Ac. 16:6). We may note in particular
(Lu. 14:18 f.), (Mt. 10:22) and (1 Cor. 14:9). In
Mk. 5:26, , the active participle has the construction of the
passive, but this is due to the verb , not to the voice. Cf. also Gal. 4:9,
(b) Tense.
() Timelessness of the Participle. It may be said at once that the participle has tense
in the same sense that the subjunctive, optative and imperative have, giving the state of
the action as punctiliar, linear, completed. In the beginning1 this was all that tense meant
in the participle. The participle was timeless. Indeed the participle in itself continued
4 So Burton, N. T. M. and T., p. 169 f.
2 Prol., pp. 14, 76.
timeless, as is well shown by the articular participle.2 Thus in Mk. 6:14,
, it is not present time that is here given by this tense, but the general
description of John as the Baptizer without regard to time. It is actually used of him
after his death. Cf. (Mt. 2:20). In Mt. 10:39, , the
principal verb is future while the participle is aorist, but the aorist tense does not mean
past or future time. So in Mt. 25:20 and 24 and have no notion of
time but only the state of the action. But the tenses of the participle may be used for
relative time. In relation to the principal verb there may be suggested time. Thus
above implies that is antecedent to which is future. In
Ac. 24:11, , the principal verb is past, but the participle is
relatively future, though absolutely past. The relative time of the participle
approximates the indicative mode and is able to suggest antecedent (aorist, present,
perfect tenses), simultaneous (aorist, present tenses) and subsequent (present, future
tenses) action. The tenses of the participle must be studied with this distinction in mind.
But this notion of relative time is deeply imbedded in the nature of the participle and
the use is universal.3 Certainly this notion of relative time is more obvious in the Greek
participle than in the Latin or in the modern languages.4 In the chapter on Tense the
participial tenses were treated with reasonable completeness, but some further remarks
are necessary at this point. A word needs to be said about the idiom
(Jo. 1:15), (Ac. 3:10), where the principal verb is thrown into
() The Aorist. The Aktionsart of the aorist participle is sufficiently illustrated in the
discussion of the aorist tense. There is, of course, no reason for not having the
constative, ingressive or effective aorist in the participle.1 Schaefer2 argues that in most
cases the participle uses the effective aorist. That may be true, though there is nothing in
the nature of the participle itself to cause it. Blass3 thinks that the aorist participle
contains the idea of completion, but even so that notion may be merely constative or
ingressive. Goodwin4 holds that the aorist participle generally represents the action as
antecedent to the principal verb. Burton5 has it more nearly correct when he insists that
the aorist participle conceives of the event indefinitely or simply. So Blass6 denies that
the aorist tense implies antecedent action. It is usually assumed that the proper use of
2 Moulton, Prol., p. 126. He notes Heb. 10:14, , as a good ex. of the
timelessness of the part.
3 Gildersl., Synt. of Class. Gk., Pt. I, p. 139.
1 Schaefer, Das Partizip des Aoristes bei den Tragikern, 1894, p. 5.
Schaefer SCHAEFER, Das Partizip des Aor. bei d. Tragikern (1894).
4 M. and T., p. 48. So Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 48.
5 N. T. M. and T., p. 59.
the aorist participle is antecedent action and that only certain verbs (as exceptions) may
occasionally express simultaneous action. But this is a misapprehension of the real
situation. It is doubtless true, as Burton7 notes, that the antecedent use furnishes the
largest number of instances, but that fact does not prove priority or originality of
conception. The aorist participle of antecedent action does not denote antecedence; it is
used of antecedent action, where antecedence is implied, not by the aorist tense as a
tense, but in some other way.8 Moulton9 is equally explicit: The connotation of past
time was largely fastened on this participle, through the idiomatic use in which it stands
before an aorist indicative to qualify its action. As point action is always completed
action, except in the ingressive, the participle naturally came to involve past time
relative to that of the main verb. It is probable that the original use of the aorist
participle was that of simultaneous action. From this was developed quite naturally, by
the nature of the various cases, the antecedent notion. Cf. (Mt.
4:2) where the fasting expressed by the participle is given as the reason for the
hungering expressed by the principal verb. For further examples of antecedent action
see Mt. 2:14; 2:16; 27:3; 2 Cor. 2:13. For the articular aorist see Mt. 10:39; Lu. 12:47;
Jo. 5:15. While this came to be the more common idiom from the nature of the case, the
original use of the aorist participle for simultaneous action continued. One has no
ground for assuming that antecedent action is a necessary or an actual fact with the
aorist participle.1 The aorist participle of simultaneous action is in perfect accord with
the genius and history of the Greek participle. For numerous examples of both uses see
the chapter on Tense. A good instance is seen in Mt. 27:4,
. So also (Lu. 10:30). See Ac. 2:23,
, where the slaying was manifestly done by the impaling on the cross. The two
actions are identical per se. Moulton (Prol., p. 131) observes that when the verb
precedes the aorist participle it is nearly always the participle of coincident action. He
(Prol., p. 132) cites O. P. 530 (ii/A.D.), . It so
happens that the N. T. shows a great number of such examples. See Mk. 15:30
, (Lu. 2:16) , (Ac. 10:33) .
Cf. Mt. 26:75. In Ac. 10:29, , the participle is antecedent in idea.
Acts, however, is particularly rich in examples of the coincident aorist participle which
follows the verb. See 10:39; 11:30; 13:33; 15:8, 9; 19:2; 23:22, 25, 30; 25:13; 26:10. It
is in point of fact a characteristic of Lukes style to use frequently the coincident
participle (both aorist and present) placed after the principal verb. This fact completely
takes away the point of Sir W. M. Ramsays argument2 for the aorist of subsequent
action in Ac. 16:6, where, however, it is more probably antecedent action, as is possible
in Ac. 23:22. The argument made against it under Tense need not be repeated here.3
Burton assents4 to the notion of the aorist of subsequent action in the participle, but no
real parallels are given. I have examined in detail the N. T. examples adduced and
shown the lack of conclusiveness about them all. See chapter on Tense. It is even
claimed that subsequent action is shown by the participles (present as well as aorist) in
Ac. 5:36; 6:11; 8:10, 18; 14:22; 17:26; 18:23; 28:14, but with no more evidence of
reality. Actual examination of each passage shows the action to be either simultaneous
or antecedent. See also Lu. 1:9, , where it is
obviously coincident. The same thing is true of Heb. 11:27, ,
. Cf. also Ac. 7:35 , (13:22) . A case
like 1 Pet. 1:20 f. is not, of course, pertinent. However, the common use of the aorist
participle in indirect discourse (as with all the supplementary participles) without any
notion of time is to the point. So Ac. 9:12, . So
(Lu. 10:18). The action is purely punctiliar with no
notion of time at all. It is true that the articular participle is occasionally used (see
chapter on Tense) for time past to the time of the writer, but future to the time of the
principal verb. As a matter of fact this aorist participle is timeless, as is shown by the
use of in Mt. 10:4 and in 26:25. So in Jo. 5:12;
5:15; 11:2. It is the action alone that is under consideration, not the
time of its performance. See, per contra,
2 St. Paul the Traveller, p. 212.
3 See Ballentine, Bibliotheca Sacra, 1884, p. 787, for discussion of N. T. exx.
(Lu. 12:47) where the aorist participle gives the simple action with a future
verb. Cf. Lu. 6:49 for the articular aorist part. with the present indicative. Burton1 feels
the weakness of his contention for subsequent action in the aorist participle when he
explains that it is perhaps due to Aramaic influence. There is no need for an appeal to
that explanation, since the fact does not exist. It is only in the circumstantial participle
that any contention is made for this notion. It is certainly gratuitous to find subsequent
action in Ro. 4:19, , not to mention 4:21; Ph. 2:7;
Heb. 9:12. Burton reluctantly admits that, though in 1 Pet. 3:18 is clearly
subsequent to , yet it is probably to be taken together with as
defining the whole of the preceding clause. This latter view is, of course, true, since the
order of the participles is , . The timelessness of the aorist
participle is well shown in Jo. 16:2, []
. Cf. also (Heb. 2:10). This coincident use of the aorist
participle is by no means so rare in the ancient Greek as is sometimes alleged.2 The
action was specially likely to be coincident if the principal verb was also aorist.3 Like
the other articular participles, the aorist participle may be the practical equivalent of the
relative. So in Lu. 12:8 f. and are used side by side.
() The Present. As the aorist participle is timeless and punctiliar, so the present
participle is timeless and durative. The participle is thus, like the infinitive, ahead of the
present indicative, which does not distinguish between punctiliar and durative action. A
careful treatment of the force of the present participle has been given under Tense. The
real timelessness of this participle is shown in the fact that it is used indiscriminately
with past, present or future tenses of the indicative. So (Ac. 4:34);
(Heb. 11:21); (Heb. 5:8);
(Mt. 6:27); (1 Cor. 14:9). The articular present especially
shows the absence of time. So (Gal. 2:6);
(Ac. 2:47); (Mt. 10:40);
(Lu. 10:8); (Mt. 6:18). There will be
Aktionsart in this participle also. Some of these words are really punctiliar (, for
instance). But, in general, the present participle gives linear action. The present
participle may have relative time. This relative time is usually simultaneous or
coincident. This is only natural. Sometimes, however, this relative time may be
antecedent action, a classic idiom.1 Examples of this idiom were given under Tense, but
add Jo. 9:8, , where the adverb of time helps to throw the
participle back of , as with makes the verb later than in
9:25. Cf. also Gal. 1:23, , where both participle
and verb have adverbs of time by way of contrast. For other instances like these see Mt.
9:20=Mk. 5:25=Lu. 8:43; Jo. 5:5; Ac. 24:10; Eph. 2:13; Col. 1:21; 1 Tim. 1:13, etc.
There are also undoubted instances of the present participle to express the notion of
purpose, futuristic in conception, though present in form. Add to the instances already
given the following: Mk. 3:31, . Here the first
participle is only noticeable as the usual linear action (with aorist indicative). The
2 See Leo Meyer, Griech. Aor., p. 125.
3 Gildersl., Synt., Pt. I, p. 140. See Seymour, The Use of the Gk. Aorist Part., Trans.
Am. Philol. Assoc., XII, p. 88 f.
1 Goodwin, M. and T., p. 47; Gildersl., Synt., Part I, p. 139.
second participle, however, is practically purpose. They sent to him calling him. They
sent to call him. So also Lu. 13:6 , (13:7) . It is not strictly
true that here the present participle means future or subsequent time. It is only that the
purpose goes on coincident with the verb and beyond. This prospective present part. (cf.
present ind.) appears in Ac. 21:3, . The ship was
appointed to unload her cargo. Cf. Mt. 6:30; 11:3; 26:28; Lu. 7:19; 1 Cor. 15:57; Jas.
5:1; Ac. 3:26. The future is simulated1 also by the present participle when it is used
for conative action. It is, of course, not the participle that brings out this notion. See
(Mt. 23:14) , (27:40) ,
(Ac. 28:23) . The notion of repetition (iterative present) occurs also as in
Ac. 2:47, , kept adding those saved from time to time. So
(Ac. 4:34). They would from time to time sell and
bring and place at the feet of the apostles. There is thus a sharp contrast from the
specific instance of Barnabas, of whom it is said: (4:37). It is not
clear, however, why the present participle occurs in 3:8,
, unless it is to note that he kept on leaping and walking (alternately). Cf. this
notion in verse 8, . Cf. also in 5:5, ,
where is antecedent to the verb, but is descriptive (linear). The notion of
distribution is perhaps present in Heb. 10:14, , the objects of
sanctification.2 Certainly is iterative in Eph. 4:28. Cf. Ac. 1:20; Col. 2:8. It
is interesting to note the difference between the present and the aorist participle in Mt.
16:28, , and in Ac. 9:12,
. The perfect participle of the same verb and in the same construction occurs
in Mk. 9:1, . The three
tenses of the participle of may also be illustrated by the punctiliar notion of the
aorist in in Lu. 10:18, the durative notion of in Mt. 15:27 and of
in Mk. 13:25, the perfect notion of in Rev. 9:1.
() The Perfect. This tense brings little that is distinctive in the participle. Cf.
(Jo. 17:23), (18:18), (Ac. 18:2),
(Jo. 4:6), (Rev. 9:1), (1 Jo. 4:2), (Mt.
25:24). The distinction between intensive and extensive was drawn under Tense. Some
of the intensive uses have lost the notion of completion (punctiliar) and hold on to the
linear alone in the present sense. Cf. (Ac. 25:10), (Mt. 12:25) with
which contrast (2 Jo. 1), (Ac. 5:2), (Lu. 7:12),
(Jo. 18:22). The periphrastic use of the perfect participle in past, present
and future time has been sufficiently illustrated already. So has the rare combination of
perfect and present participle in Eph. 4:18; Col. 1:21. The perfect participle also is
either articular or anarthrous, attributive or predicate. For the predicate use see in
particular Lu. 13:6 , (Heb. 5:14)
. It needs to be noted again that the perfect participle has no
time in itself. In the nature of the case the act will be antecedent except where the tense
has lost its true force as in , , . But it is only relative time, not
absolute, and the leading verb may itself be punctiliar, linear or perfect, in the past,
present or future.1 Just as the present participle may suggest antecedent action and so be
1 Gildersl., Synt., Pt. I, p. 140.
a sort of imperfect participle (past time), so the perfect participle is sometimes2 used
where a sort of past perfect sense results. The action was finished and is now no longer
the fact, though the state represented by the perfect once existed. So
in Ac. 3:10. Cf. Mk. 5:15,
. This is a most instructive passage. The historical present and the aorist
indicative here occur side by side. The attributive and the predicate participles appear
side by side. The present and the perfect participles come together. Of the two perfect
participles, one, , is still true (punctiliar plus linear) and describes the mans
present state; the other, , is no longer true and describes the state of the
man before Jesus cast out the demon, which casting-out is itself in the past. This
participle is therefore a sort of past perfect. Cf. also Jo. 8:31. Another striking example
is Jo. 11:44, . Here is still true, though
is not. Lazarus had been dead, but is not now. We see the same situation in 1
Cor. 2:7, . The widsom of God is no longer hidden. The point is
still clearer in Ro. 16:25 f.,
, where the long silence is now expressly said to be broken. Note the sharp contrast
in the aorist participle with . This distinction between the perfect and aorist
participle is often clearly drawn. See 2 Cor. 12:21
, (1 Pet. 2:10) . The same act may
be looked at from either standpoint. One may not always care to add the linear aspect to
the punctiliar. Cf. and in 1 Jo. 5:18,
in Mk. 5:15 and in 5:18, in Mt. 25:18 and
in 25:24. Cf. (Lu. 8:46) and
(Mk. 5:30). Adverbs of time may occur with the perfect as
with other tenses of the participle. Cf. Jo. 19:33, . There is a sort of
harmony in (19:35). The difference between the perfect and
present tenses after is strikingly shown in Revelation. Cf.
(6:9), (7:2),
(9:1). Cf. also Mk. 5:33, , . One must not
confuse the perf. part. in Gal. 2:11 and Rev. 21:8 with a present like in
Heb. 12:18 (touchable).
() The Future. The future participle, like the future tense in general, was later in its
development than the other tenses. It is usually punctiliar also and has something of a
modal value (volitive, futuristic) like the subjunctive (aorist).1 See discussion under
Tense. The future participle is always subsequent in time to the principal verb (cf. the
present participle by suggestion), not coincident and, of course, never antecedent. Hence
the future participle comes nearer having a temporal notion than any of the tenses. But
even so it is relative time, not absolute, and the future participle may occur with a
principal verb in the past, present or future. This idiom grew out of the context and the
voluntative notion of the future tense.2 This point is well illustrated by the parallel use
of to express intention. Cf. (Jo. 6:64) and
1 Cf. Gildersl., Synt., Pt. I, p. 142.
2 Cf. Burton, N. T. M. and T., p. 72.
1 Cf. Delbrck, Synt. Forsch., IV, p. 97.
(12:4). As already shown, the future participle is much less frequent in the
N. T. (as in LXX) than in the generally (as in the papyri). Another rival to the
future participle is (Jo. 1:9), (Lu. 7:19). Both and
(cf. ) are anticipatory presents.3 Cf. and in Ro. 8:38.
Nearly all the N. T. examples of the future participle (see chapter on Tense for
discussion) are in Luke and Paul and Hebrews (the three best specimens of literary style
in the N. T.). But see Mt. 27:49, ; Jo. 6:64, ; 1 Pet. 3:13,
. For the Gospel of Luke see 22:49, . The rest of his examples are
in the Acts, as 8:27, , (20:22) , (22:5) , (24:11)
, (24:17) . For Paul see Ro. 8:34, (a question of
editing, but cf. in verse 34), 1 Cor. 15:37, . For Heb. see
3:5, , (13:17) . We find in Heb. 13:17. In
conclusion one must note that the future part. disappeared wholly from the later Greek.
The modern Greek does not know it at all. Instead it uses and the subjunctive.1 But in
general in the N. T. the participle is still used in thorough accord with the ancient idiom
so far as the tenses are concerned.2 In the papyri I note it more frequently than in the N.
T. Cf. , P. Goodsp. 4 (ii/B.C.); [], P. Tb. 33 (B.C.
(c) Cases. There is no need to tarry here to prove the verbal force of the participle as
to cases. Precisely the same cases occur with the participle as with the finite modes of
the verb. Cf. (Mk. 5:40) and (5:41).
These illustrations illustrate the point and that is enough.
(d) The Supplementary Participle. The term supplementary or complementary is
used to describe the participle that forms so close a connection with the principal verb
that the idea of the speaker is incomplete without it. The participle does not differ in
reality from the adjective in this respect, and it is still an adjective like (2
Tim. 2:13). But it is the verbal aspect of the participle that is here accented. The
participle fills out the verbal notion.
() The Periphrastic Construction. The general aspects of this idiom were treated in
chapter on Tense (cf. also Conjugation of Verbs). It is only necessary here to stress the
close connection between this participle and the principal verb as in
(Lu. 11:14). In Ac. 19:36,
, we have two examples of this idiom. Cf. Lu. 13:11. Sometimes we find the
periphrastic participle alone without the copula as in (Ac. 2:29), (1 Pet.
1:6). But note (Mt. 12:4) and (Ac. 19:36). So (Mt.
3:15). Particularly interesting is (Heb. 7:23). The periphrastic participle,
as already noted, was far more common in the N. T. and the LXX than in the older
Greek. But the reverse is true of certain verbs frequently so used in the Attic.
adermacher3 thinks that the commonness of the periphrastic participle in the N. T. is
3 There is an expectant note in (Mt. 26:28).
1 Cf. Jebb in V. and D., p. 335.
2 The fut. part. is rare in the inscr. Cf. Granit, De Inf. et Partic, in Inscr. Dial. Graec.
Questiones Synt., 1892, p. 122.
3 N. T. Gk., p. 166.
due to the rhetorical tendency. This might apply to Hebrews, but surely not to the
Synoptic Gospels and Acts. Moulton (Prol., p. 226) admits that the Semitic sources of
part of the Gospels and Acts account for the frequency of the periphrastic imperf. (cf.
Aramaic). Certainly the LXX is far ahead of the classic Greek and of the in
general. The papyri (Moulton, Prol., p. 226) show it often in fut. perfects and in past
perfects. Schmid (Attic., III, p. 113 f.) finds it rare in literary save in fut. perfects.
Moulton finds periphr. imperf. in Matthew 3 times, Mark 16, Luke 30, John 10, Acts
(112) 17, Acts (1328) 7, Paul 3. And even so some of these examples are more
adjectival than periphrastic. Cf. Ph. 2:26. See p. 888.
() A Diminution of the Complementary Participle. This decrease is due partly to the
infinitive as with , . See discussion in this chapter on Relation between
the Inf. and the Participle. But it is due also to the disappearance of the personal
construction and the growth of the impersonal with or . In Mk. 2:1,
, the personal construction
is retained even with the circumstantial participle. Cf. also 2 Cor. 3:3,
. But it is vanishing with the verbs where it was once so
common. See under Infinitive, 5, (e), for further remarks. Jannaris1 has made a careful
study of the facts in the later Greek. It may be noted that does not occur at all in
the N. T., though the LXX (and Apocrypha) has it 24 times, twice with the inf. It
disappeared from the vernacular. As to it occurred only once with the
participle (2 Macc. 3:9). It has the inf. as well as () in the later Greek, though it is
very abundant with the participle in the papyri.2 Cf. [] , P. B. M.
84 (ii/A.D.). But without occurs also in the (Radermacher, N.
T. Gr., p. 169). Curiously enough appears once with the participle in the LXX
(Tob. 12:13) as in the N. T. (Heb. 13:2). In the the inf. supplants the part. as it
had already gained a foothold in the old Greek.3 Note also the adverb as in
(Ac. 16:37). continued in use through the , but with the
sense of arrive, reach, not the idiomatic one arrive before. This latter notion
appears in (cf. ), which has it once only in the N. T. (Mt.
17:25), while the inf. is seen in (Mk. 14:8). As early as Thucydides
the inf. is found with , and see also 1 Ki. 12:18. It is common in the .4 The
tendency to reverse the construction by using one of these verbs in the participial form
is seen in (participial adverb) in 1 Cor. 16:6. It is possible that still
shows the participial construction in Mt. 6:16, 18, but not in Ro. 7:13, where the
participle is circumstantial, not complementary. The impersonal construction gains1 on
Schmid SCHMID, W., Der Atticismus in seinen Hauptvertretern. 4 Bde. (18871897).
the personal in the . In the N. T. we no longer have nor .
But we do have in Mt. 1:18. has lost the part. in the N. T., but
holds on to it, but not in the sense of begin, rather of existing. Cf. both
adjective and part. in Jas. 2:15 and 1 Tim. 4:3. It tends to sink into the level of as an
auxiliary verb with the periphrastic participle, as in Ac. 8:16; 19:36. The same thing is
true of in Lu. 23:12, but not in Ac. 8:9 where is circumstantial.
We have seen that is true to the part. (cf. Lu. 5:4; Ac. 5:42, etc.) and that the
part. occurs also with (Jo. 8:7), (Mt. 11:1), and that has the
adj. without (Ac. 27:33). Cf. also in Lu. 7:45. See also the part. with
in Gal. 6:9; 2 Th. 3:13. The part. with in Heb. 11:27 is
circumstantial, as is that with in 1 Cor. 4:12 and with in Heb. 12:3.
The doubtful participle with in 1 Tim. 5:13 has already been discussed
(Relation between Inf. and Part., 3, (d)). Moulton2 is positive that the absolute
construction advocated by Weiss is intolerable and that we must either admit the
supplementary participle here or boldly insert with Blass. Moulton3 is probably
right in opposing the incorrectness of the part. with in Ac. 15:29,
. At bottom this is the same idiom as we have in
10:33, . Cf. also Ph. 4:14; 2 Pet. 1:19; 3 Jo. 6. Blass4 is
right in including here (Mk. 11:5), (Ac. 21:13),
(Mt. 27:4).
() Verbs of Emotion. As a matter of fact it is not beyond controversy that the part.
with these verbs of emotion is the supplementary and not the circumstantial participle.
At any rate the idiom comes to the border-line between the two constructions. I do not
wish to labour the point and so treat the construction as complementary. The connection
is not, however, so close with these verbs as is true of those in the two preceding lists.
Indeed, the connection varies with different verbs and with the same verb in different
contexts. It seems clear enough in Ac. 16:34, , and in 2 Pet.
2:10, . The examples with (Mt. 21:15, etc.)
and (Mt. 2:10, etc.) all seem to be circumstantial.1 The same thing is true of
. The participle does not occur in the N. T. with . The step over to the
circumstantial participle of manner or cause is not very far to take.2
() Indirect Discourse. This participle is clearly supplementary and in the N. T. is
usually connected with the object of the principal verb. The nom.3 of the part.
appears with the passive in Mt. 1:18 as noted above. The active in the N. T.
would have had and the ind., if the reference was to Mary. The classic Greek could
have said , but the N. T. Greek, . Cf. also
in Ph. 2:8. But 1 Tim. 5:13 has to be noted. This subject was treated in detail
under Indirect Discourse (see Modes). See that discussion for details about the different
verbs, some of which, besides the participial construction, may instead use the inf. or
3 Blass, ib., p. 247.
and the indicative. Here it is sufficient to give enough illustrations of this participle
in indirect discourse with verbs of mental action to show the real complementary nature
of the participle. The tense, of course, represents the tense of the direct. With most of
these verbs (especially4 , , ) the participle is giving way to the
inf. or , but still the idiom is common enough to attract notice in all parts of the N. T.
Cf. , P. B. M. 356 (i/A.D.). It is common to explain this
participle as the object of the principal verb after the analogy of the inf. in indirect
discourse. So Jannaris5 calls it the objective participle and Burton6 the substantive
participle as object. Blass7 more correctly perceives that it is the substantive or
pronoun that is the object while the participle is a predicate adjective agreeing with this
object. It is easy to see this point where no indirect discourse occurs, as in Heb. 7:24,
, where does not mean to opine and where the
verbal adj. occurs. But see the participle in 5:14,
, or, still better, Lu. 14:18, , where means consider
and we have the participle. Cf. Mk. 3:1; Ac. 9:21, . See
also 24:27. Then note Ph. 2:3, .1 The addition of
does not change the real construction as in
, 2 Cor. 10:2; , 2 Th. 3:15. In principle it is the double
accusative, too common with some verbs, only the second acc. is a predicate adj., not a
substantive. Cf. Ro. 10:9 (margin of W. H.), , and 2 Jo.
7, . The presence or absence of the
copula does not materially change the construction when an adj. or substantive is the
second acc. Thus note 2 Cor. 8:22, , and Mk. 6:20,
. So we have no part. after in Jo. 1:50; Mt. 25:37, 38,
39; Ac. 8:23; 17:16. Blass2 calls this an ellipse of the participle, an idiom common in
classical Greek. It is hardly necessary to appeal to the ellipse to explain it. The
predicate force of comes out well in Ac. 8:23. If no substantive or adjective is
used, the participle is itself the full predicate and represents the predicate of the direct
discourse. Cf. Mk. 12:28 , (Lu. 8:46)
. The point to note is that even here in indirect discourse, where
the participle represents the verb of the direct, the participle is still an adjective though
the verbal force has become prominent. The examples are too numerous to discuss in
detail or even to quote in full. As representative examples see Mt. 16:28 after
(, but Mk. 9:1 has ), Mk. 5:30 after , 7:30 after
(cf. also Lu. 23:2), Lu. 10:18 after (cf. in particular Ac. 7:56), Jo. 1:38
after , 7:32 after , Ac. 19:35 after , 24:10 after , Heb.
2:9 after , Heb. 13:23 after , 2 Cor. 8:22 after , Ph. 2:3 after
, 2 Jo. 7 after . The punctiliar idea is present as in in Lu.
4 The pap. show the same tendency. Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 229. See Radermacher, N.
T. Gr., p. 169.
1 Cf. Goodwin, M. and T., pp. 359 ff.
10:18, or the linear as in (Heb. 10:25), or the perfected state as in
(Rev. 9:1). Cf. also Ac. 2:11; 24:18; Mk. 9:38; 1 Jo. 4:2. Burton3 explains as
the substantive participle (see 4, (d)) also Jo. 4:39, , and
Heb. 8:9, . The first example is really the attributive
participle like (Mt. 21:4). The second example is more
difficult, but it is a quotation from the LXX (Jer. 31:32) and is not therefore a model of
Greek. The has to be taken with and the participle would be a circumstantial
temporal use. It is probably suggested by the original Hebrew, as Moulton (Prol., p. 47)
admits. Cf. Barn. 2:28, . Cf. , B. G.
U. 287 (A.D. 250). The reference of Burton to Josephus, Ant. 10, 4. 2, does not justify
the interpretation which he gives.
(e) The Circumstantial Participle or Participial Clauses.
() The General Theory. There is but one difference between the supplementary and
the circumstantial participle. It lies in the fact that the circumstantial participle is an
additional statement and does not form an essential part of the verbal notion of the
principal verb. The circumstantial participle may be removed and the sentence will not
bleed. It is still a true participle, predicate adjective as well as circumstantial addition to
the verb. In point of agreement the circumstantial may be related to the subject of the
principal verb or the object, or indeed any other substantive or pronoun in the sentence.
It may have also an independent construction with a substantive or pronoun of its own
(genitive or accusative absolute) or have no substantive or pronoun at all. Once again
the participle may be so independent as to form a sentence of its own and not merely be
a subordinate clause. See the section on The Independent Participle as a Sentence. Here
we are dealing with the independent participle in a subordinate clause with various
stages of independency from mere addition and agreement with a substantive or
pronoun to complete isolation though still subordinate. Some of the grammars, Burton1
for instance, call this the adverbial participle. There is a slight element of truth here,
but only so far as there is a sort of parallel with the subordinate conjunctional clauses
which are adverbial (cf. , , , etc.). But it is distinctly misleading to treat this
participle as adverbial. In fact, there is a constant tendency to read into this
circumstantial participle more than is there. In itself, it must be distinctly noted, the
participle does not express time, manner, cause, purpose, condition or concession. These
ideas are not2 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 clauses. The vernacular increasingly preferred the
co-ordinate or the subordinate clause with conjunctions to the rather loose
circumstantial participle.1 We see the triumph of this analytic tendency in the modern
Greek.2 But it remains true that the participial clause was one of the great resources of
1 N. T. M. and T., pp. 169 ff.
2 Jebb, in V. and D., p. 333.
the Greek language and in contrast the Latin seems very poor.3 The English comes next
to the Greek in its rich use of the circumstantial participle. Moulton4 notes the failure of
the English, even with the help of auxiliary verbs, to express the precise difference
between and ( and , for instance, in Mt. 25:18, 24).
He rightly also calls attention to the weakness of the Greek because of its wealth of
participles, since so much ambiguity is possible. Does a given circumstantial participle
bear the notion of because or although? Only the context can tell, and men do not
always interpret the context correctly. One more remark is necessary. By means of the
circumstantial participle the sentence may be lengthened indefinitely. Good illustrations
of this freedom may be seen in the periodic structure in Thucydides, Isocrates, Lysias
and Demosthenes. But the N. T. itself has examples of it as is seen in 2 Pet. 2:1215,
, , , .
() Varieties of the Circumstantial Participle. Here are treated only those examples
which have syntactical agreement in case with some substantive or pronoun in the
sentence. It may be repeated that this participle does not express the ideas called by the
usual classification into participles of time, manner (means), cause, purpose, condition,
concession. Hence it is proper to group the examples together. The classification is only
justified by the context and occasional use of a particle.5 The same classification is
possible also for the absolute use of the participial clause. The examples are too
numerous for exhaustive treatment. A few must suffice.
Time. It is not the tense that is here under discussion, though naturally the different
tenses will vary in the way that time is treated (antecedent, simultaneous, future), as
already shown. The point more exactly is whether a given circumstantial participle
occurs in a context where the temporal relation is the main one rather than that of cause,
condition, purpose, etc. It is usually a mistake to try to reproduce such participles by the
English when, after, etc., with the indicative. To do this exaggerates the nuance of
time as Moulton1 observes. It is generally sufficient to preserve the English participle or
to co-ordinate the clauses with and. The slightness of the temporal idea is well seen in
the pleonastic participles (Mt. 26:62), (Mt. 3:15, very common in
the Synoptic Gospels. John usually has as in 1:49), (Mt.
13:46), (13:31, cf. verse 33), (21:6). Here the notion is temporal,
but very slightly so. Cf. also in Lu. 19:11. The use of as a
note of time is seen in Mt. 20:8 f.; Lu. 23:5; 24:47; Ac. 1:22. In Ac. 11:4,
, the part. is slightly pleonastic,2 but note contrast with
as with in Mt. 20:8. Cf. [] , P. Tb. 421
(iii/A.D.). Sometimes the temporal idea is much more prominent, as in
(Ac. 17:1), (Jo. 16:8). So also Mt. 6:17,
. Here the descriptive force of the participle is distinctly temporal. In
examples like Mk. 1:7 , Ac. 21:32
4 Ib. Cf. Alexander, Partic. Periphrases in Attic Orators (Am. Jour. of Philol., IV, p. 291
f.).
5 Certainly we cannot admit the idea that the part. itself has different meanings. Cf.
Paul, Prin. of the Hist. of Lang., p. 158.
, there is precedence in order of time, but it is mere priority with
no special accent on the temporal relation.3 Cf. Mt. 2:16; 13:2. In Ac. 24:25 f. we have
some interesting examples of the participle. In we see the temporal
notion of while with the genitive absolute. In the temporal notion in
this attributive part. is due to . In it is mere antecedence with
(almost simultaneous, in fact). In the attributive participle again
has the temporal idea due to the words themselves. In we have antecedence
emphasized by . In we have the linear notion stressed by .
In the note of repetition in
reappears in participle and verb. An interesting example is also seen in
Heb. 11:32, , where in a poetic way time is
described as going off and leaving the writer discoursing about Gideon and the rest. In 1
Pet. 5:10, , the adverb of time makes it clear. The note of time may
appear in any tense of the participle and with any tense in the principal verb. It is not
always easy to discriminate between the temporal participle and that of attendant
circumstance or manner. Moulton1 and Blass2 make no distinction. These two uses are
the most frequent of all. A good example of this ambiguity occurs in Ac. 21:32, where
(cf. in ancient Greek) may be regarded as merely the attendant
circumstance. So also the notion of occasion wavers between time and cause. Cf.
(Lu. 4:28). For with this participle see 1 Cor. 7:29 ff.
Manner. The ancient use of in the sense of with occurs in Mt. 15:30
, Mk. 14:3 , Ac. 21:23
. Cf. also in Jo. 19:39. In Jo. 18:3 we have used in practically
the same sense as in Mt. 26:47. Cf. also in Mt. 25:1. In Lu. 1:64,
, the part. is one of manner, as in Mt. 19:22 , (Mk. 1:22)
, where makes the point plainer, (1:4) , where the
participle is not the periphrastic construction with , (1:5) , (Ac.
3:5) (a picturesque bit of description), (2 Th. 3:11)
(a real pun). It is hard to tell how to classify a
participle like that in Gal. 6:3, . It makes sense as temporal, causal or modal.
But there is no doubt in a case like Lu. 19:48 or Ac. 2:13
or (1 Cor. 9:26). This notion of manner
appears in the participles that have an adverbial notion like (Lu. 19:5 f.),
(Mk. 14:72), (1 Cor. 16:6), (Mt. 13:14);
(Lu. 19:11). Cf. also in verse 5. So also the pleonastic participles like
(see above) may be looked at either as temporal or modal or even adverbial.
See further (Ac. 5:30), (9:22) as good examples of the modal
participle. Burton3 makes a separate division for the participle of attendant
circumstance, but this is not necessary and leads to overrefinement. These examples
are either temporal as in (Mk. 16:20), (Ac. 15:22) or modal
as (Lu. 4:15), (2 Tim. 4:11) or pleonastic as
3 N. T. M. and T., p. 173. Cucuel and Riemann (Rgles Fondamentales de la Synt.
Grecque, 1888, p. 110) consider this notion an exception, but it is not necessary to do
(Mt. 25:9). Blass term conjunctive (Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 249) throws no
particular light on the point. In 1 Tim. 1:13 is manner. In Ac. 18:18,
, we have in truth both the temporal and the modal. But it is easy to split
hairs over the various circumstantial participles and to read into them much more than is
there. Cf. 2 Cor. 4:1 f. See and in Mt. 28:19 f. as modal
participles. So in 1 Tim. 1:13. Cf. in Ac. 3:17.
Means. It is usual1 to distinguish means from manner in the participle. There is a
real point, but it is not always clear where manner shades off into means. But some
instances are clear. Cf. Mt. 6:27, ; So also
in Ac. 16:16. Thus the maid furnished the revenue for her masters. In
Heb. 2:10 and 2:18 we may also have instances of this notion, but
the first may be temporal and the second causal. Jannaris2 blends the treatment of
manner and means and notes how this participle disappears in the later Greek.
Cause. The ground of action in the principal verb may be suggested by the
participle. Cf. , Mt. 1:19;
, 27:4; , Jo. 20:20. As a matter of fact this
idiom is very frequent. Cf. further Mt. 2:3, 10; Jo. 4:45; 21:12; Ac. 4:21; 9:26; 24:22,
, Ro. 6:6, , and 9, ; 2 Pet. 3:9; Col. 1:3 f.; 1 Tim. 4:8;
Jas. 2:25. For with this participle see 1 Cor. 7:25, . In Ac. 24:22
may be taken as wishing to know, though Felix may also have actually had some
knowledge of Christianity (cf. Pauls appearance before Gallio). So also (24:22)
may mean wishing to know. The N. T. no longer has , , with the part. as
classic Greek did.3 In Jo. 5:44 a causal participle is co-ordinate with
Purpose. The use of the participle to express aim or design has already been
discussed several times from different points of view (Tense, Final Clauses, Tense of
the Participle). This fine classic idiom is nearly gone in the N. T. Purpose is expressed
chiefly by or the inf. For the future part. of purpose see Mt. 27:49; Ac. 8:27; 22:5;
24:11, 17. In Heb. 13:17, , there is as much cause as purpose. Blass4
wrongly accepts in Ac. 25:13. The present part. is also used in the sense of
purpose where the context makes it clear. So Ac. 3:26, .
Cf. Lu. 13:6 f.; Ac. 15:27; Ro. 15:25. But it is not absent from the papyri. Cf. P.
Goodsp. 4 (ii/B.C.) . So also the present part., P.
Oxy. 275 (A.D. 66), [] [].
Condition. The use of the conditional disappeared more rapidly than the temporal
and causal in the later Greek.1 It is only the protasis, of course, which is here
considered. It is still a common idiom in the N. T. In Mt. 16:26 we have
, while in Lu. 9:25, we find . Here it is the
condition of the third class plainly enough. See , ., in B. G. U. 596 (A.D.
84). In 1 Cor. 11:29, , it may be the first class condition with that is the
3 3 Cf. Goodwin, M. and T., p. 335.
equivalent, but one cannot always be certain on this point. Cf. Ro. 2:27, ; Gal.
6:9, ; 1 Tim. 4:4, ; Heb. 2:3, ; 7:12,
. Moulton2 denies that the participle stands in the N. T. for a condition of
the second class (unreal condition). In Lu. 19:23,
, the participle is part of the apodosis, while the condition is implied in the
preceding question. Moulton3 rightly notes that one can no longer decide by the
presence of with the participle that it is conditional or concessive, since has come
in the to be the usual negative of participles. There is no instance of with the
participle in the N. T., though Moulton (Prol., p. 167) quotes one in a inscr., I. M.
A. iii, 174, (in a despatch of Augustus). For see
Particles with Participles.
Concession. This is also a frequent construction. Cf. Mt. 14:9, . The
context calls for the adversative idea in 7:11, . See further Mt. 26:60;
14:5; Mk. 4:31; Jo. 12:37; 21:11; Jas. 3:4; Ac. 13:28; Ro. 1:21, 32; 9:22; 1 Cor. 9:19;
Jude 5. To avoid ambiguity the Greek often used particles to make the concessive idea
plain, and this idiom survives in the N. T. Cf. (Ac. 17:27),
(Heb. 4:3), more frequently as in Ph. 3:4; Heb. 5:8; 7:5; 12:17; 2
Pet. 1:12. In Heb. 11:12 we also have . occurs only
with the finite verb as in Jo. 4:2.4 So in Ac. 14:17. It is worth while to note the
survival of with in Ac. 17:27.5 Moulton (Prol., p. 231) admits Wellhausens
(Einl., p. 22) claim that (Mk. 2:7) is an Aramaism for two Aramaic
participles, the second of which should appear as a participle as in Lu. 22:65,
. But W. H. punctuate ; .
() The Absolute Participle in Subordinate Clauses. It is not strange that the
participle should have been used in clauses that stand apart from the rest of the sentence.
There it has its adjectival agreement. It is but a step further than the ordinary
circumstantial participle which makes an additional statement. All the varieties of the
circumstantial participle can appear in the absolute participle.
Nominative Absolute. It is possible thus to explain some examples of anacolutha in
ancient Greek1 and the N. T., though Blass2 demurs. Cf.
(Jo. 7:38); ,
(Ac. 19:34); (Rev. 3:21). Cf. also and
(Mk. 12:40). So Mk. 7:19; Rev. 2:26. At any rate it is the nominativus
pendens, and there is not any special difference. In the modern Greek (Thumb, Handb.,
Wellhausen WELLHAUSEN, J., Einl. in die drei ersten Evangelien (1905). 2. Ausg. (1911).
2 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 251. He calls it antiquated. It was never very common.
p. 169) the nominative absolute with the participle occurs, though rare, and usually a
conjunctional clause has supplanted the genitive absolute.
Accusative Absolute. This construction was used with impersonal verbs or phrases
like , , , etc. It was probably an appositional addition to the sentence.3 It
has nearly, if not quite, disappeared from the N. T. The adverb (1 Cor. 16:6) is
really an instance of it, but not so in Ac. 2:29, where is probably to be
supplied. Cf. (Mt. 12:4) and (Ac. 19:36). Cf. also
in 2 Cor. 12:1. But a possible accusative absolute is (Ac. 26:3), though it
is very rare to see the accusative absolute with a substantive of its own.4 In such
instances it was usual to have also or .5 The accusative is an old idiom,
appearing in the oldest Greek title known to us.6 But it came to be rather common in
Thucydides.7 It was rare in the Attic orators. Luke avoids the accusative absolute in Ac.
23:30, by an awkward8 use of the genitive absolute,
. The papyri use rather than .1 We do not have the acc.
absolute in Ph. 1:7, since is a resumption (apposition) of before.
Genitive Absolute. It is by no means certain that the case is always genitive. Indeed,
it is pretty clear that some of these examples are ablative. Probably some are real
genitives of time.2 The Sanskrit uses chiefly the locative in these absolute constructions.
It is possible that the Latin ablative absolute may sometimes be locative or
instrumental.3 The use of the true genitive in the Greek idiom is probably to be
attributed to expressions of time in the genitive case with which participles were used.
Then the temporal circumstantial participle was right at hand. It is in Attic prose,
5 Thompson, Synt., p. 261.
6 Deiss., Exp. Times, 1906, Dec., p. 105.
7 Lell, Der Absolut-Akkusativ im Griech. bis zu Arist., 1892, p. 17.
1 , P. Oxy. 275 (A.D. 66).
3 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 167 f.
particularly the orators, that we see the highest development of the idiom.4 The
accusative absolute was just as idiomatic as this genitive-ablative construction, but it did
not get the same hold on the language.5 See Cases for further remarks. The shows
a rapid extension of the genitive absolute. In the papyri it may often be seen forming a
string of statements, without a finite verb for several lines.6 In the N. T. different
writers vary greatly, Johns Gospel, for instance, having it only one-fourth as often as
the Acts.7 The most frequent use of the idiom is when the substantive (or pronoun) and
the participle stand apart with no syntactical connection with any part of the sentence.
Cf. Mk. 4:17,
; Ac. 12:18, ; 18:20; 7:5;
Eph. 2:20; Mk. 8:1; 2 Pet. 3:11; Heb. 9:68, 15, 19. These are perfectly regular and
normal examples. But sometimes the genitive absolute occurs where there is already a
genitive in the sentence. So Mt. 6:3, ; Jo. 4:51; Ac.
17:16. In Mk. 14:3 we find a double gen. absolute .
Even in the classical Greek the genitive absolute is found when the participle could have
agreed with some substantive or pronoun in the sentence.8 It was done apparently to
make the participial clause more prominent. The papyri show illustrations of the same
thing,1 as in B. U. 1040 (ii/A.D.) ,
. It is fairly common in the N. T. We have it even when the part. refers to
the subject of the verb, as in Mt. 1:18,
. In Ro. 9:1 the construction is regular, though and occur. In Mt.
8:1 we find . Cf. 5:1; 9:18; 17:22; 2 Cor. 4:18,
etc. Likewise the genitive and the accusative come together as in Jo. 8:30,
. Cf. also Mt. 18:25; Ac. 28:17. Quite unusual is Ac.
22:17 where we have , and . The N.
T. occasionally uses the participle alone in the genitive absolute according to the
occasional classic usage.2 In the papyri it is more frequent than in the N. T.3 In particular
note the common , P. Oxy. 275 (A.D. 66). Cf. also , B. U. 970
(ii/A.D.). See Mt. 17:14, ; 17:26, ; Ac. 21:31, . In Lu.
12:36, , we have the genitive
participle although is present. Cf. B. G. U. 423 (ii/A.D.)
, where the object of is not expressed.
(f) The Independent Participle in a Sentence. There is no doubt that the use of the
absolute participle (nominative, accusative, genitive-ablative) is a sort of implied
4 Cf. Spieker, The Genitive Abs. in the Attic Orators, Am. Jour. of Philol., VI, pp. 310
6 Moulton, Prol., p. 74.
7 Gildersl., Styl. Effect of the Gk. Part., Am. Jour. of Philol., 1888, p. 153.
1 Cf. Moulton, Prol., pp. 74, 236; Cl. Rev., XV, p. 437.
3 Moulton, Prol., p. 74. This idiom is common in Xen. Roche, Beitr., p. 128.
predication.4 It remains to be considered whether the participle ever forms an
independent sentence. We have seen that the inf. is occasionally so used. It is but a step
from the independent clause to the independent sentence. Did the participle take it? The
nominative absolute as a sort of anacoluthon appears in the ancient Greek. Cf. Plato,
Apol. 21 C, , . As the genitiveabsolute, like other circumstantial participles, retreated before the conjunctional clauses,
there was an increasing tendency to blur or neglect the grammatical case agreements in
the use of the participles. The N. T., like the in general, shows more examples of
the anacoluthic nominative participle than the older Greek.5 The mental strain of so
many participles in rapid conversation or writing made anacolutha easy.1 Hence even
writers of systematic training could not but occasionally blunder in the use of the
circumstantial participle. Jannaris had thus concluded that the late Greek showed an
independent use of the participle as anacoluthon.2 Blass3 would go no further than this.
iteau4 found abundant illustration of the independent use of the anacoluthic participle
in the LXX. Viteau explains it as a Hebraism. But Moulton5 claims that the subject is
removed from the realm of controversy by the proof from the papyri. Thumb6 finds the
idiom in classical Greek and in the (in the LXX, N. T., papyri, inscriptions, etc.).
It is easy to be extreme on this point of dispute. In the chapter on Mode (the Imperative)
adequate discussion appears concerning the participle as imperative. That discussion
need not be repeated. It may be insisted, however, again that the participle in itself is
never imperative nor indicative, though there seem to be examples in the N. T., as in the
papyri, where, because of ellipsis or anacoluthon, the participle carries on the work of
either the indicative or the imperative. In examples like 2 Cor. 1:3, ,
either or may be supplied with the verbal adjective. It must not be forgotten
that this is the work of the interpreter to a large extent rather than of the grammarian.
The manuscripts often vary in such examples and the editors differ in the punctuation.
But the grammarian must admit the facts of usage. The papyri and the N. T. show that
sometimes the participle was loosely used to carry on the verbal function in independent
sentences.7 Cf. , (Ro. 12:9), for
instance, where we have a complete sentence without connection with anything else.
The preceding sentence is (an independent sentence itself) and it
1 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p 505.
3 Gr. of Gk. N. T., p. 283.
4 Le Verbe, pp. 200 ff.
5 Prol., pp. 180 ff., 222 ff.
6 Hellen., p. 131.
is followed by a series of independent participles (verses 1013). In verse 14 we have
abruptly (imperatives) and then the absolute infinitive
(imperatival also). The point seems to be incontrovertible. Cf. also Col. 3:16. It
is only necessary to add a word about the independent participle in the midst of
indicatives, since this use is far more frequent than the imperative idiom just noted. In
general it may be said that no participle should be explained in this way that can
properly be connected with a finite verb. In Ro. 12:6, , it is clear that we
cannot carry on the participle as subordinate to or in the preceding verses.
W. H. boldly start a new sentence. In either case, whether we have comma or period
before, we must take as imperatival or indicative, on the one hand, or, on the
other hand, supply or as is supplied in Ro. 13:11 with
.1 But other examples leave no such alternative. We may first summarize
Moultons satisfactory exposition of the matter. There is a striking similarity between
the third person plural indicative and the participle in the Indo-Germanic tongues
(*bheronti, ferunt, , bairand, etc.). The frequent ellipsis of est in the Latin
perfect and passive is to be noted also. The probability that the Latin second plural
middle indicative is really a participle which has been incorporated into the verb
inflection (cf. sequimini and ) is also suggestive. This fact may point to the
prehistoric time when the Latin used the participle as indicative. The papyri re-enforce
the argument strongly. We quote a bit from Moulton2: Tb. P. 14 (ii/B.C.),
, I gave notice in person (no verb
follows). Tb. P. 42 (ib.), (no verb follows). A. P. 78 (ii/A.D.),
, etc. (no verb). This may serve as a sample of many more like it. Moulton
(Prol., p. 223) adds that use of the part. as ind. or imper. in the papyri is not at all a
mark of inferior education. See 1 Pet. 2:12 where does not agree with the
. We may now approach the passages in dispute between Winer3 and
Moulton.4 Moulton passes by Winers suggestion that in 2 Cor. 4:13 is to be
taken with . This is probable, though awkward. So in 2 Pet. 2:1 the
participles can be joined with . But in Ro. 5:11 it is, Moulton argues,
somewhat forced to take , otherwise than as
independent. If we once admit the fact of this idiom, as we have done, this is certainly
the most natural way to take it here. Moulton is silent as to in 2 Cor. 8:20.
Winer connects it with in verse 18 and he is supported by the
punctuation of verse 19 as a parenthesis by W. H. But even so in verse 19 we have
7 Moulton, Prol., p. 180, cites Meisterh., pp. 244246, for the use of the imp. part. in
decrees. It is the nominativus pendens applied to the part.
1 Moulton, Prol., pp. 180, 183 f.
2 Ib., pp. 223 f.
3 W.-Th., p. 351 f.
(cf. Ro. 5:11) stranded with no verb. Moulton also
passes by Heb. 6:8 and 2 Pet. 3:5. In Heb. 7:1 Moulton follows W. H. in reading (not
) on the authority of C*LP against ABC2DEK 17. So he sees no
necessity for taking as an indicative. In Heb. 8:10; 10:16, Moulton takes
as parallel with , whereas Winer would resolve into a
participle. Here Moulton is clearly right. In Ac. 24:5, , we have
anacoluthon as both Winer and Moulton agree. Moulton adds: Luke cruelly reports the
orator verbatim. Moulton omits to comment on Winers explanation of the
parenthetical anacoluthon in 2 Pet. 1:17, . It is a violent anacoluthon and
Winer does not mend it. Note 2 Cor. 5:6, , where after a parenthesis we have
(resumptive). But Moulton takes 2 Cor. 7:5 as an example of
the indicative participle. So does he explain Ro. 12:6 , and in Rev. 10:2.
In Ac. 26:20 the MSS. vary between and . In Heb. 10:1
will also be independent if be read. In Ph. 1:30 has above and
halts in the case agreement. On the whole, therefore, we may conclude that, while every
instance is to be examined on its merits, a number of real examples of the idiom may be
admitted in the N. T. Viteau1 has entirely too large a list of such instances. Many of
them admit a much simpler explanation as in Ph. 1:30 above. In Revelation, it is true,
there is more than usual laxity in the agreement of the participle, especially when it is in
apposition. There is also a change from nominative to accusative between and
as in Rev. 4:15; 7:9; 14:13; 14:14, etc. But there are real examples in Rev., as
(1:16), (11:1). With all this development along a special line we must
not forget that the participle is both adjective and verb. Blass2 has a careful discussion
of the free use of the participle. In Col. 1:26 he notes that the participle
is continued by the indicative . Cf. Jo. 5:44.
(g) Co-ordination between Participles. Blass3 uses the term conjunctive
participle instead of a special use of the circumstantial participle. It is not a
particularly happy phrase. But it does accent the notion that this participle, though an
addition to the principal verb, is still joined to it in grammatical agreement. Blass4
shows clearly how identity of action may be expressed by two finite verbs, as well as by
the pleonastic participle of identical action. Cf. Jo. 1:25
(Mt. 15:23 ), 12:44 (Mt. 8:29 ),
13:21 (Ac. 13:22 ), 18:25
(Mt. 26:70 ), where John prefers the particularity of the finite verb. But
see also Lu. 6:48, , he dug and deepened=he dug deep. Cf. Jo.
8:59. There remains the relation of participles to each other when a series of them
comes together. There is no rule on this subject beyond what applies to other words.
Two or more participles may be connected by as in Ac. 3:8,
. But we have asyndeton1 in Ac. 18:23,
, . Cf. Lu. 6:38,
2 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 284 f.
. Sometimes occurs only once as in
Mk. 5:15, . There may be a subtle reason for
such a procedure as in Ac. 18:22, , ,
where the first participle stands apart in sense from the other two. Cf. also Mk. 5:32. In
a list of participles one may be subordinate to the other as in Mk. 5:30,
. This accumulation of participles
is only occasional in the Synoptic Gospels (cf. Mt. 14:19; 27:48; and, in particular, Mk.
5:2527), but very common in Acts and the Pauline Epistles. Blass2 concedes to Luke in
Acts a certain amount of stylistic refinement in his use of a series of participles, while
with Paul it is rather a mere stringing together of words, an overstatement as to Paul.
Luke was not an artificial rhetorician nor was Paul a mere bungler. When Pauls heart
was all ablaze with passion, as in 2 Corinthians, he did pile up participles like boulders
on the mountain-side, a sort of volcanic eruption. Cf. 2 Cor. 3:810; 6:9 f.; 9:11 ff. But
there is always a path through these participles. Paul would not let himself be caught in
a net of mere grammatical niceties. If necessary, he broke the rule and went on (2 Cor.
8:20). But Moulton3 is right in saying that all this is more a matter of style than of
grammar. It is rhetoric.
(h) and with the Participle. It is worth noting that in Homer4 is the
normal negative of the participle, occurring only once, Od. 4. 684, and in an optative
sentence of wish. It cannot be claimed that in Homer has won its place with the
participle. In modern Greek alone occurs with the present participle (Thumb,
Handb., p. 200). It is generally said that in classical Attic is always the negative of
the participle unless condition or concession is implied when the negative is . But if
one looks at all the facts up to 400 B.C. he will go slow before he asserts that is proof
that the participle shows a conditional or concessive force.1 Jannaris2 claims the rule
only for Attic, though even here is not rarely replaced by , that is to say, the rule
does not apply even in Attic. The use of replaced is wholly gratuitous when it is
admitted that the rule does not apply outside of Attic. It is so hard to be historical
always even in an historical grammar. If one takes the long view, from Homer with its
one use of to the modern Greek with nothing but , he sees a steady progress in the
use of which gradually ousted altogether. The Attic marks one stage, the
another. It is true that in the Attic there is a sort of correspondence between and the
participle and the indicative with on the one hand, while, on the other, and the
participle correspond to the subjunctive or the optative with . But occurred in
Homer with the subj. and persisted with the indicative. The lines crossed and the
development was not even, but on the whole gradually pushed aside from the
participle. In the N. T., as in the generally, the development has gone quite
beyond the Attic. In the Attic the use of was the more general, while in the the
use of is normal. In the N. T. there is no need to explain with the participle. That
is what you expect. Cf. Lu. 12:33 , Jo. 5:23 , Ac. 17:6
1 Howes, The Use of with the Part., Harv. Stu. in Class. Philol., 1901, pp. 277285.
, Heb. 11:13 . In the N. T. it is that calls for explanation, not
. But it may be said at once that the N. T. is in thorough accord with the on this
point. Even in a writer of the literary like Plutarch3 one notes the inroads of .
The papyri go further than Plutarch, but still have examples of , like
P. Par. (B.C. 163), O. P. 471 (ii/A.D.),
O. P. 491 (ii/A.D.), A. P. 78 (ii/A.D.).4 Moulton5
thinks that in many of these papyri examples there is the lingering consciousness that
the proper negative of a downright fact is . In general it may be said of the
that the presence of with the participle means that the negative is clear-cut and
decisive. Cf. Mt. 22:11 , (Lu. 6:42) , (Jo.
10:12) , (Ac. 7:5) , (17:27)
, (26:22) , (28:17) , (1 Cor.
4:14) , (9:26) , (2 Cor. 4:8) ,
(Ph. 3:3) , (Col. 2:19) , (Heb. 11:1)
, (11:35) , (1 Pet. 1:8) , (2:10)
. In all these we have no special departure from the Attic custom, save
that in Ac. 17:27 the participle is concessive. But we have just seen that the Attic was
not rigid about and with the participle. In two of the examples above and
come close together and the contrast seems intentional. Thus in Mt. 22:11 we have
, while in verse 12 we read . The
first instance lays emphasis on the actual situation in the description (the plain fact)
while the second instance is the hypothetical argument about it. In 1 Pet. 1:8 we read
, . Here
harmonizes with the tense of as an actual experience, while with is
in accord with the concessive idea in contrast with . Cf. Hort in loco who
holds that the change of particles here is not capricious. Though Blass thinks it
artificial to distinguish, it is hard to believe that any but a slovenly writer would have
brought in so rapid a change without a reason.1 It may be admitted further that in
Luke, Paul and Hebrews we have also to reckon with the literary consciousness of an
educated man, which left some of the old idioms even where had generally swept
them away.2 See also (Ro. 1:28) and Text. Rec.
(Eph. 5:4). Cf. and in Ac. 9:9. Blass3 notes that the Hebrew
is regularly
translated in the LXX by without any regard to the Greek refinement of meaning
between and with the participle. Hence in the N. T. quotations from the LXX this
peculiarity is to be noted. Moulton4 observes also that, while this is true, the passages
4 See further exx. in Moulton, Prol., p. 231.
Hort HORT, F. J. A., Notes on Orthography (pp. 141173, vol. II of the N. T. in the
Original Greek, 1882).
thus quoted happen to be instances where a single word is negatived by . Cf. Ro. 9:25
, (Gal. 4:27) , . A case like Ac.
19:11, , is, of course, not pertinent. It is a common vernacular
phrase,5 besides the fact that is not the negative of the participle1 any more than it is
in Ac. 19:11; 28:21. Moulton2 also rules out (2 Cor. 12:4) on the ground that it
is the equivalent of the indicative. The copula is not expressed. But note , P.
Oxy. 275 (A.D. 66). On this count the showing for with the participle is not very
large in the N. T. Luke has five times with the participle (Lu. 6:42; Ac. 7:5; 17:27;
26:22; 28:17). Paul leads with a dozen or so (Ro. 9:25; Gal. 4:27 twice; 1 Cor. 4:14;
9:26; 2 Cor. 4:8, 9; Ph. 3:3; Col. 2:19; 1 Th. 2:4). Hebrews has two (11:1, 35) and Peter
three (1 Pet. 1:8; 2:10; 2 Pet. 1:16, ). Matthew has only one (22:11), and note
in the next verse. The MSS. vary also between the negatives as in Mt. 22:11,
where C3D have which Blass3 adopts with his whimsical notions of textual criticism.
At any rate Matthew, Luke (Gospel) and John use almost exclusively with the
participle, while Mark, James, the Johannine Epistles and Revelation do not have at
all with the participle. In Ro. 8:20, , the old participle is merely an adjective
as in Heb. 9:11. In Ro. 9:25, , the negative occurs with a substantive
(quotation from LXX). The ancient Greek would usually have added .
(i) Other Particles with the Participle. The ancient Greek4 had quite a list of
adverbs (particles) that were used with the circumstantial participle on occasion to make
clearer the precise relation of the participle to the principal verb or substantive. Some of
these (like , , ) no longer occur with the part. in the N. T. But some remain in
use. These particles, it should be noted, do not change the real force of the participle.
They merely sharpen the outline. The simplest form of this usage is seen in the adverbs
of time like (Jo. 9:8); (Gal. 1:23. Cf. Eph. 2:13; Lu. 22:32);
(Ac. 24:26). In Mk. 9:20; Jo. 5:6 note other expressions of time. More
idiomatic is the use of as in (Mk. 6:25). Cf. also
(Mk. 15:42), (2 Th. 2:5) and (1 Th. 3:6).
Blass5 denies that with the participle in the N. T. suggests simultaneousness or
immediate sequence. He sees in (Ac. 24:26) only withal in the
expectation, not at the same time hoping. I question the correctness of Blass
interpretation on this point. Cf. also (27:40);
(Col 4:3), where it requires some overrefinement to refuse the classic idiom to
Luke. Under the concessive participle we saw examples of (Ac. 17:27),
(Heb. 4:3), (Heb. 5:8, etc.). There is also the use of in the principal
sentence to call attention to the concessive force of the participle (1 Cor. 14:7). So
1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 255 f.
3 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 255. Cf. Gildersleeve, Encroachments of on in later Gk., Am.
Jour. of Philol., I, p. 45 f.
points back to a participle of time or manner (Ac. 20:11). Worth noting, besides,
is as in Ro. 13:11, though here a finite verb may be implied. So also
(Heb. 11:12). There remain , , . The use of
(Ro. 6:13) and of (Ac. 2:2) is limited to condition or comparison. It is only with
that there is any freedom or abundance. Blass1 notes the absence of the accusative
absolute with in the N. T. and its absence from the future participle save in Heb.
13:17, where it is not strictly design. There is nothing specially significant in the phrase
, not as if, in Ac. 28:19; 2 Jo. 5. The N. T., like the classical Greek, uses
without the participle in abbreviated expressions like (Col. 3:23);
(Ro. 13:13); (2 Th. 2:2), etc., where the participle is easily supplied
from the context.2 In some instances one must note whether the particle does not belong
with the principal verb. But, common as is with the participle, it does not change the
nature of the participle with which it occurs.3 The participle with may be causal,
temporal, conditional, manner, etc. Then again may be used to express the notion of
the speaker or writer as well as that of one who is reported. In truth, implies nothing
in itself on that point. The context alone must determine it.4 The various uses of
itself should be recalled. There may be nothing but comparison, as in
(Mk. 1:22); (1 Cor. 9:26). So also Mk. 6:34; 2 Cor. 6:9 f.; 1 Pet.
2:13, 16. In Lu. 22:26 f. observe . The causal idea is prominent in
(1 Cor. 7:25). Cf. Heb. 12:27 and D in Ac. 20:13, . The
concessive or conditional notion is dominant in 1 Cor. 7:29 f.; 2 Cor. 5:20,
. So also in Ac. 3:12; 28:19; 2 Jo. 5. In Lu. 16:1,
, the charge is given by Jesus as that of the slanderer () and the
context implies that it is untrue (only alleged).1 Pilate makes a similar use of
in Lu. 23:14. He declines by the use of to accept the
correctness of the charge of the Sanhedrin against Jesus. For a similar use see
(Ac. 23:15); (23:20); (genitive
absolute 27:30). But in 2 Cor. 5:20 (see above) Paul endorses the notion that he is an
ambassador of God and is not to be interpreted as mere pretence. God is speaking
through Paul. There is no instance of with the participle in the N. T. as appears in
classic Greek. Winer2 notes two instances of with the participle in the LXX (2
Macc. 1:11; 3 Macc. 4:1). To these Moulton3 adds another (2 Macc. 12:4) and a genitive
absolute example in the papyri, Par. P. 26 (ii/B.C.), . Cf. also
ib., . The inscrs. show it also, O. G. I. S. 90, 23
(ii/B.C.), . Blass4 finds a genitive absolute with in Barnabas
3 Fhrer, De Particulae cum Participiis et Praepositionibus punctae Usu Thucydideo, 1889,
p. 7.
6:11. All this is interesting as foreshadowing the modern Greek use of as a
conjunction.5
5 Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 167; Hatz., Einl., p. 217.
Syntactic Relationships
Documents Similar To A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research cap 20.doc
Patrick Tian
vlad tepish
Ara Aguilera
Alejandro Sobrado Huaquino
Chiara Ragaglia
Johnny Maposse
Emily McMillan
Samarpita Roy
Alan Libert
dhea ludfita
Mohd Uzair Yahya
Geanina Popescu
ariel1555
Patxy Lopez Chacaliaza
Hùng Lê
oxygenleaves
Divjyot88
Hasanul Misbah
Cassandra Aurora Melo
Grammar - The Basics
fakkhan90
grammar - past simple vs past continuous
Kc Lee
''1. Parts of Speech(1)
Shreyansh Jain
Infinitives After Certain Verbs
Hellen Elena Sulca Z
57e895f738cf15.32321546KSSM English Form 1 Training Slides
NUR SITI ROZAIALAINA BINTI MAHAMUD
Writing Handbook
batambintan
Verb Forms
hpeter195798
Collective Noun Refers to a Collectivity or a Group of Persons
American English File 1A Workbook
Rick Brian Soto
More From cirojmed
The Apocalypse of St. John-Swete-13
The Apocalypse of St. John-Swete-Index
The Apocalypse of St. John-Swete-9
The Apocalypse of St. John-Swete-Introduction
The Apocalypse of St. John-Swete
A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Revelation of St John CHAPTER 6
A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Revelation of St John CHAPTER 5.doc
A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Revelation of St John CHAPTER 2-3
Popular in Participle
Passive Voice Examples.docx
Marijana Misic
3692 L2 Assessment Pack Writing v1
elpiratamp3
Raudhah ( in english )
Al Huda
Forms of the Verb
Xian Rou
Register Analysis in Blogs
Fiky Amirah Dhiya'
TNPSC Group 2a New Revised Syllabus
vinilaij
2nd Test English 3
Hellguz G
Materials for Session on Thurs 4th Jan
Lista de Verbos Irregulares
Jose Alberto Castañeda Garcia
6. Basic Verb Forms
BagasWicaksana
ingles.docx
tugassuper
Fadli Siregar
Free GMAT Flashcards
rekhachoca3655
Noun Phrases
Pale Vidinska
A Grammar of the Arabic Language (1874)
Ignacio Leaño
SVBF Sanskrit 06
jjit
detailed lesson plan for printing.pdf
Anonymous 6O55pR
Advanced Sentence Correction for GMAT SC
harshv3
Nav a2 Cb Contents
2012 Fourth Quarter Plantilla
Salome Lucas
Active and Passive Voice
Neeta Duggal
The Ways of Expression Adverbial Modifier in Ol
Katy Leto
TOEFL Structure and Written Expression (1)
Daniel Perez Villaseñor
From participles to gerunds
arthrakia
A Russian Manual for Self-Tuition Containing 1000053104
Dulasirisen
Understanding and Using English Garmmar 5th-Betty Azar-Answer-Key-PDF.pdf
Hadi Davari
Longman for TOEFL ITP
Rayane Sorrentino
Grammar Unit 6 1star- 2 - Copia
Maryechu