Introduction
We start our consideration of the Greek participle, by going back to Classical Greek. For this analysis, I'm relying on van Emde Boas' Cambridge Grammar of Classical Greek, (pp. 606-35). I have supplemented with Mastronarde's Introduction to Attic Greek (pp. 225-33), which provides additional detail, with a focus on the study of Attic Greek, as well as with Hansen's Greek: an Intensive Course (pp. 208-30), which provides a lot of the same material for the study of ancient Greek. I also consulted Morwood's Oxford Grammar of Classical Greek (pp. 136-43), which I did not find particularly helpful when compared with the others.
These days, however, the study of Greek by English-speakers is heavily weighted toward the study of what is often referred to as "New Testament Greek."
Huffman's The Handy Guide to New Testament Greek (pp. 75-80) provides a concise and helpful explanation of participles. Wenham's The Elements of New Testament Greek (pp. 147-55) provides a concise description, more geared toward classroom use and, I suspect, more aimed at those just beginning their study of Greek. Machen's classic, New Testament Greek for Beginners (pp. 87-108) has three lessons on participles, diving into more detail but providing clear explanations. Notwithstanding its name, Machen's treatment is - to my mind at least - slightly more advanced than Wenham's.
Matthewson's Intermediate Greek Grammar (pp. 205-26) has a helpful chapter on participles, as does Köstenberger's Going Deeper with New Testament Greek (pp. 321-60). Wallace's Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (pp. 612-55) similarly devotes a chapter to the subject. Interestingly, both Huffman and Matthewson quote Wallace as to the view that "Mastery of the syntax of participles is mastery of Greek syntax." (Wallace, p. 613; Matthewson, p. 205; Huffman, p. 79)
For the purposes of my particular study, Blass's treatment was interesting in that relevant material was found both under the study of Tense (section 339, pp. 174-5) and Mood (sections 411-25, pp. 212-20).
Participles Generally
van Emde Boas explains (section 52.1, p. 606, bold in original, internal citation omitted):
Participles are verbal adjectives:
- they are like adjectives in that they are marked for case, number and gender, and follow the rules of agreement;
- they are like verbs in that they are marked for tense-aspect and voice, and may be construed with an object, complement, etc.; modified by adverbs; etc.
Huffman notes that, unlike finite verbs, participles do not have mood or person (p. 75). Matthewson spells it out more fully: "The participle is a nonfinite verb form, that is, like the infinitive, it is not limited by person, nor does it possess mood." (p. 205)
van Emde Boas goes on to explain (section 52.2, pp. 606-7, bold in original) that participles can have three uses: "Supplementary" (i.e., "as an obligatory constituent with verbs"), "Circumstantial" (e.g., "to express a circumstance, cause, condition, motivation, purpose, etc."), and "Attributive/substantival," as well as in "various periphrastic constructions." Hansen puts it this way (p. 204, bold in original): "There are three major uses of the participle in Greek, the attributive, the circumstantial, and the supplementary." At page 213, however, Hansen acknowledges (italics in original), "As with all adjectives, the attributive participle can be used substantively." Huffman divides the uses into adjectival, adverbial circumstantial, adverbial non-circumstantial, and independent verbal (pp. 75-78). Wenham says: "There are two uses: the adjectival participle and the adverbial participle." (p. 151) However, Wenham goes on to say: "The adjectival participle is generally preceded by an article (with which it agrees). This so-called articular participle is occasionally used in English in expressions like 'the living', 'the missing'. In the New Testament it is very common." (p. 151, italics in original) Matthew notes: "though the presence of the article guarantees that a participle is adjectival, the absence of the article does not guarantee that it is adverbial" (p. 206). Wenham cautions: "any number of qualifying words may be inserted between the article and the participle" (p. 151). Matthewson insists (p. 206, italics in original): "it is important to distinguish the form of a participle (a participle is a participle is a participle!) from the variety of ways it can function (as a substantive; attributive or adverbial modifier; predicate; etc.)." Ultimately, Matthewson classifies participles first into the categories of adjectival or verbal, and then into their sub-categories (for adjectival: attributive modifiers, predicate adjectives, and substantives; for verbal: adverbial modifiers, supplementary to verbs, and as predicates), and separately treats genitive absolutes and periphrastic constructions (p. 206). Köstenberger provides a handy chart showing up to three levels of classification of participles, in which he divides the major category of adjectival participles into "Attributive" and "Substantival" (p. 326). Wallace notes that the adjectival side of the participle "is seen in both substantival (independent) and adjectival (dependent) uses." (pp. 613-4)
Attributive/Substantival
For the purposes of my analysis, the specific sub-topic I'm most interested in is "attributive/substantival" category of usage. Machen divides these as two uses "234. The Attributive Participle" (p. 90) and "235. Substantive Use of the Participle" (p. 91). Machen provides a note about translation (p. 92, italics in original): "The Greek ὁ does not mean the man or the one or he. It means the, and it is just as simple an article as the article in the phrase the cat or the dog or the house. But in English we do not use the article with the substantive participle. Therefore we have to reproduce the idea of the Greek ὁ λέγων by a phrase of which the individual parts have absolutely nothing to do with the individual parts of the Greek phrase. It is only the total meaning of the English phrase which is the same as the total meaning of the Greek phrase." Wenham (p. 151, parenthesis in original) says: "The examples below mean literally 'the believing (ones)', 'the sowing (man)', 'the having-been-sown-by-the-wayside (man).'." In those examples, the words "ones" and "man" are provided for the reason that Machen more eloquently explains. Köstenberger explains (p. 321): "Participles usually take more than one word to translate. With a noun, for example, often a one-to-one correspondence between Greek and English can be made (ἄγγελος = angel). With a participle, however, up to six words might be needed (ὁ τεχθεὶς = "the one who has been born")."
van Emde Boas provides some examples as well as the following explanation of the attributive/substantival use: "the participle is used, normally with the article, in noun phrases, as modifier (attributive use) or head (substantival use)." (p. 607) Under the topic of "Placement of Participles," (52.3, p. 607), van Emde Boas explains that "attributive participles naturally occur in attributive position" (bold in original). Mastronarde similarly divides the uses of the participle and notes that "The substantival use of the attributive participle is extremely common in Greek" (p. 226). Huffman divides the adjectival use into "Attributive (Dependent Adjectival) Participle" (with four sub-categories), "Predicate (Dependent Adjectival) Participle" (with four subcategories), "Substantival (Independent Adjectival) Participle," and "(Pendant) Nominative Absolute Participle." (pp. 75-76) In my view, Huffman's final category could be rolled up with his third category for our purposes, though admittedly there is a nuanced difference between them. For the interested reader, p. 80 of Huffman provides a very handy "Participle Usage Identification Guide" with what amounts to a flow chart to identify usage.
Tense/Aspect of Participles
van Emde Boas also includes several sections (52.3 to 52.6) on the "Tense/Aspect and 'Mood' of Participles" (pp. 607-10). For my purposes, I'm most interested in present tense participles and their interaction with perfect tense verbs that are what I usually think of as "main verbs," but what van Emde Boas refers to as "matrix verbs." van Emde Boas explains (52.4, p. 607, bold in original, internal citations omitted) "Each of the tense-aspect stems has its own participle: the difference between the stems is aspectual (except for the future stem). In the case of the participle, these aspectual differences lead to a relative-tense interpretation in a large majority of cases: The present participle typically expresses an action simultaneous with that of the matrix verb ... The perfect participle typically refers to a state (or lasting effects), simultaneous with the matrix verb, resulting from a previously completed action ... ." Huffman makes similar observations but seems to suggest that the relative time determination is for adverbial participles (as distinct, presumably, from adjectival and substantival participles): "With adverbial participles, the relationship of its action to the main verb's action must be determined, particularly its time." (p. 75) Machen simply says, "The tense of the participle is relative to the time of the leading verb." (p. 90) Köstenberger (p. 324, fn. 5) explains what he calls the traditional view with this quotation: "'In general, time is absolute in the indicative, relative in the participles, and nonexistent in the other moods" (Wallace, 498; emphasis original)."
Köstenberger (pp. 324-5) notes two further views on time in participles, one associated with Porter and the other with Picirilli, ultimately siding with Picirilli. Porter's view, per Köstenberger, is that the order of the participle indicates the relative time (antecedent placement implying antecedent time). Picirilli's view, per Köstenberger, is that "participles never communicate time (even relative time) but that the time of the participles can only be determined by context." (p. 325) Köstenberger cites some statistical analysis showing that 80% of aorist adverbial participles and 90% of present adverbial participles "are contemporaneous with the action of the main verb." (p. 325) Wallace argues (p. 613): "The context has more influence on participles than on any other area of Greek grammar. ... One's exegetical skills get tested more with participles than with any other part of speech." Blass suggests: "Participles originally had no temporal function, but denoted only the Aktionsart; their relation to the finite verb was derived from the context." (p. 174)
By contrast to the way van Emde Boas explains things, Mastronarde suggests (p. 225, italics in original, internal citations omitted): "In most constructions, the participle (like the infinitive) conveys by its tense a distinction in verbal aspect rather than time. ... The present participle conveys the aspect of the present stem: that is, continuous or repeated action. In practice, it most often refers to an action contemporaneous with the action of the main verb of the sentence and is usually translated in English by a present participle (X'ing, being X'ed). But in the proper context, the present participle may refer to an action antecedent or subsequent to that of the main verb .... The present participle may also have conative force." Wallace borrows a keen observation regarding an important nuanced difference between the infinitive and the participle: "although participles and infinitives are often translated the same (especially when the infinitive is translated as a gerund), the is a distinct difference. 'Whereas the infinitive is abstract, specking of the act or fact of doing, the participle is concrete, speaking of the person who or thing which does.'[FN18: Williams, Grammar Notes, 50. Cf. also Robertson, Grammar, 1101-02.]"
After acknowledging that participles indicate relative time, Mathewson explains (p. 205, footnote omitted): "As with finite verbs, the key feature of participles is not time but verbal aspect, or how the author chooses to represent an action: aorist participles convey perfective aspect; present participles convey imperfective aspect; perfect participles convey stative aspect." (pp. 205-6) After briefly discussing the rare future participle, Mathewson openly disagrees with Wallace by saying: "No matter what the function of the participle (see below), it still always communicates verbal aspect.[fn3: Contra Wallace (615-16) who thinks the aspect is sometimes reduced." (p. 206) Wallace specifically notes that many nouns in Hellenistic Greek "in a former life were participles" and that the "constant pressure from the adjectival side finally caved in any remnants of verbal aspect" for such former participles (now nouns) and suggested that "when a participle is a substantival, its aspectual force is more susceptible to reduction in force." (p. 625, italics in original)
Hansen provides a third, though arguably similar, perspective (p. 203, formatting changed, italics in original): "The tense of a Greek participle for the most part shows aspect but often in context it is clear that there is a definite temporal relationship between the participle and the main verb. 1. The present participle shows progressive/repeated aspect; its action is most often simultaneous with that of the main verb, and it can usually be translated by the English present participle, e.g., "educating, educating for oneself, being educated."
Wallace, however, provides an important observation regarding a category of substantival participles: "many substantival participles in the NT are used in generic utterances. The πας ὁ ἀκούων (or ἀγαπῶν, ποιῶν, etc.) formula is always or almost always generic. As such it is expected to involve a gnomic idea. Most of these instances involve the present participle. But if they are already gnomic, we would be hard-pressed to make something more out of them-such as a progressive idea." (pp. 615-16, italics in original, footnotes omitted) Wallace goes on to point out the absurdity of suggesting that "everyone who divorces his wife" should be taken in some kind of repetitive ongoing way. In footnote, Wallace suggests that a progressive sense may still be present in a gnomic statement, suggesting that the verb to pisteuwn (believe) may be a good candidate. Wallace makes a concerted argument for this point at pp. 620-1, especially in footnote 22 on the latter page. The former page provides the amusing, but persuasive, point that calling John "the one baptizing" does not mean that John is "the one who continually baptizes", particularly in Mark 6:14, where he is referred to this way after his decapitation.
In the next section (52.5, pp. 608-9, bold in original, internal citations omitted), van Emde Boas points out that there are numerous exceptions to the general rule: "Although the relative-tense interpretation of the stems of the participle outlined above is usually valid, there are numerous exceptions. In such cases, a different interpretation of a certain tense-aspect stem takes precedence over (or is present in addition to) the conventional relative-tense interpretation. .. A present participle may be used to refer to an ongoing, habitual or repeated action preceding the action of the matrix verb; the present participle in such cases is sometimes called an "imperfect participle". An explicit indication is usually present ... . Present participles of the telic verbs may also have a conative interpretation, or an interpretation as a resultative present ... ." Köstenberger (p. 323) quotes Wallace (p. 639), who notes: "Result participles are invariably present participles that follow the main verb ...."
After discussion of the supplementary and circumstantial uses (which do not concern our present study), van Emde Boas provides greater depth regarding "The Participle in Noun Phrases" at pp. 631-4, before concluding the chapter with discussion of the periphrastic uses. van Emde Boas makes a distinction between "Attributive Use (as Modifier) and Substantival Use (as Head)" and specifically states: "The participle can be used with an article in noun phrases, either as a modifier (attributive use) or as head (substantival use). ... Note 2: some substantivally used participles developed into nouns" providing the example of archon (chief), which developed from archw (rule) (52.46, p. 631). van Emde Boas, section 52.47 (p. 632), notes: "Occasionally, attributive/substantival participles occur without an article" providing a couple of examples.
Generic Use
Important to our present study, at section 52.48, "Generic Use," van Emde Boas explains (p. 623, bold in original, internal citations omitted): "When the article is used with a participle (especially with present participles), it often has generic value, with the sense 'whoever ...'. The negative in this case is μή" and provides some examples. Morwood (p. 137 and p. 138) indicates that "The negative in both these causal cases is οὐ" while "If μή is used with the participle, it is likely to have this conditional force...." Mastronarde (p. 229) in a section on "Negation of Participles" provides a helpful discussion of the distinction between negation with οὐ as opposed to negation with μή, and states that "The negative μή is used when the participle refers to an action that is conditional or generic...." Hansen provides a similar explanation of the οὐ / μή distinction but then goes on to observe (p. 216): "Without the negative or an adverb or conjunction to help distinguish the circumstantial participles, only context allows one to chose from among all the possibilities," and offers an example in which the possibilities are "Being harmed," "When we are harmed," "Since we are harmed," "If we are harmed," and "Although we are harmed." Blass mentions that "When the participle has a generic meaning, πᾶς may be inserted, and even then the article is usually used ...." (pp. 212-3)
"Tense/Aspect of Attribute and Substantival Participles" is the next section (52.49), here van Emde Boas explains (p. 633, bold in original, internal citations and bullet formatting omitted): "The aspectual distinctions between different tense stems are fully relevant for attributive and substantival participles. Such distinctions typically typically result in an interpretation of relative sense; for instance ... γεγενημένα in (129) refers to a state simultaneous with εἴη; Not infrequently, however, other connotations of aspect are equally or more relevant." At this point, van Emde Boas offers example 137, in which example when speaking about births and deaths generically, a present participle is used, whereas when discussing concrete births and deaths, aorist participles are used.
Section 52.50 relates to "Participles in Apposition," which relates an interesting (though essentially irrelevant to the present discussion) use of participles, particularly those of εἰμί (e.g., ὤν). This is more interesting in connection with my length treatment of Revelation 16:5.
There are other sections of van Emde Boas' work that are potentially informative to our discussion, such as "The Article as Substantivizer" where, at section 28.23, van Emde Boas indicates (p. 335, bold in original, internal citations omitted) "When a word (group) other than a noun is modified by the definite article, it is 'substantivized' (i.e., 'turned into a noun'), and serves as head of a noun phrase." At section 28.25, van Emde Boas further explains (p. 335, bold in original, internal citations omitted): "The following types of word or phrase are frequently substantivized in this way: ... Participles (in any tense and voice; the article is often generic)."
Bibliography
Blass, Friedrich, and Albert Debrunner. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Translated and revised by Robert W. Funk. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961. Section 339 "The Present and Aorist Participles", (pp. 174-5); and "The Participle," Sections 411-25, pp. 212-20)
van Emde Boas, Evert; Albert Rijksbaron, Luuk Huitink, and Mathieu de Bakker. The Cambridge Grammar of Classical Greek. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, first published 2019 (version 5, April 2024). Chapter 52, "The Participle" (pp. 606-35).
Hansen, Hardy, and Gerald M. Quinn. Greek: An Intensive Course. 2nd rev. ed. New York: Fordham University Press, 1992. Unit 8, Sections 65-71 (pp. 208-30)
Huffman, Douglas S. The Handy Guide to New Testament Greek. Grand Rapids: Kregel Academic, 2012. (pp. 75-80)
Köstenberger, Andreas J., Benjamin L. Merkle, and Robert L. Plummer. Going Deeper with New Testament Greek: An Intermediate Study of the Grammar and Syntax of the New Testament. Rev. ed. Nashville: B&H Academic, 2020. Chapter 10 "Participles" (pp. 321-60).
Machen, J. Gresham. New Testament Greek for Beginners. New York: Macmillan, (originally published 1923). (Ithaca Classics 2024.) Lesson XVIII, "Present Participles. Use of Participles" (pp. 87-95), Lesson XIX, "Aorist Participles Active and Middle. Use of Participles (Continued). The Negatives οὐ and μή" (pp. 96-102), and Lesson XX, "Aorist Passive Participle. Genitive Absolute" (pp. 103-8).
Mastronarde, Donald J. Introduction to Attic Greek. 2nd ed. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2013. Unit 27, "Uses of the Participle I" (pp. 225-33)
Mathewson, David L., and Elodie Ballantine Emig. Intermediate Greek Grammar: Syntax for Students of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, (originally published 2016, paperback edition 2019). Chapter 10 "Participles" (pp. 205-26).
Morwood, James. Oxford Grammar of Classical Greek. Oxford: Oxford University Press (originally published 2001, paperback edition 2002) (pp. 136-43)
Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996. Chapter "Participles" (pp. 612-55).
Wenham, John W. The Elements of New Testament Greek. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965. Lesson 36 "Participles" (pp. 147-55)
Appendix: Item of interest
At page 209, Matthewson provides the following example (bold in original, one typo of ἀπό for ἀπὸ corrected, formatting altered):
χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ τοῦ ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος (Rev 1:4)
Grace to you and peace from the one who is and who was and who is coming.
The participles are the objects of a preposition. Notice the grammatical incongruity with the nominative used after the preposition ἀπὸ (we would expect the genitive). This incongruity is likely intentional on the part of the author and is meant to get the readers to sit up and take notice. This is probably because the author wants to draw attention to the nature of this expression as a title and its OT antecedent (Exod. 3:14).
Matthewson footnotes what I believe to be his own work on Revelation. In any event, This explanation is similar to what I've discussed in the broader context of discussing the improvement needed to the KJV at Revelation 16:5.
