Mark of a Substantive Participle (Heb 1:2-3)

Post Reply
klitwak
Posts: 30
Joined: November 6th, 2011, 2:03 am
Location: Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730

Mark of a Substantive Participle (Heb 1:2-3)

Post by klitwak » October 26th, 2016, 2:19 am

I am not asking anything profound. I only want to verify what I think is correct. The only way to form a substantive participle is with a a direct object, correct? You cannot do it with a noun, or a relative pronoun, or other thing, right? I am asking because I have students who want to read the three participles in Heb 1:3 as substantives:
2 ἐπ᾽ ἐσχάτου τῶν ἡμερῶν τούτων ἐλάλησεν ἡμῖν ἐν υἱῷ, ὃν ἔθηκεν κληρονόμον πάντων, δι᾽ οὗ καὶ ἐποίησεν τοὺς αἰῶνας·
3 ὃς ὢν ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης καὶ χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ, φέρων τε τὰ πάντα τῷ ῥήματι τῆς δυνάμεως αὐτοῦ, καθαρισμὸν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ποιησάμενος ἐκάθισεν ἐν δεξιᾷ τῆς μεγαλωσύνης ἐν ὑψηλοῖς,
Their basis for this is that υἱῷ + each participle forms a substantive. I have never seen any grammar that says that, and I'm unsure where they would come up with such an idea. I want to tell them you have to have a definite article AND you cannot have anything much between the definite article and the participle, except perhaps an adjective. That's valid, right? Just checking that I have not missed something. Thanks.

Ken Litwak
Gateway Seminary
Ontario, California
0 x


Kenneth D. Litwak, Ph.D.
Reference and Instruction Librarian
Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary
Mill Valley, CA 94941
kennethlitwak@ggbts.edu
Adjunct Professor of New Testament in ExL
Asbury Theological Seminary
Wilmore, KY

MAubrey
Posts: 986
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 8:52 pm
Location: Washington
Contact:

Re: Mark of a Substantive Participle (Heb 1:2-3)

Post by MAubrey » October 26th, 2016, 11:52 am

Assuming you mean with a definite article (not a direct object)?

Yes, you need an article for a substantial participle. Or at least the situations where you wouldn't are rare enough that you could get away with saying that. And when there isn't an article, there isn't going to be some other marker. Instead it'll just be a bare participle (see below).

But you can have things between the article and the participle. Participles function as little clauses with all the the usual word orders regular clauses can have.

Here are a couple extreme examples:

Rom 2:7 τοῖς μὲν καθʼ ὑπομονὴν ἔργου ἀγαθοῦ δόξαν καὶ τιμὴν καὶ ἀφθαρσίαν ζητοῦσιν
Heb 5:14 τῶν διὰ τὴν ἕξιν τὰ αἰσθητήρια γεγυμνασμένα ἐχόντων πρὸς διάκρισιν καλοῦ τε καὶ κακοῦ.

The Hebrews example is a little nuts because you have a bare substantival participle without an article as the object of a substantival participle with an article.

This is also true of adjectival participles also:

Acts 21:28 ὁ ἄνθρωπος ὁ κατὰ τοῦ λαοῦ καὶ τοῦ νόμου καὶ τοῦ τόπου τούτου πάντας πανταχῇ διδάσκων
0 x
Mike Aubrey, Linguist
Koine-Greek.com

Stirling Bartholomew
Posts: 945
Joined: August 9th, 2012, 4:19 pm

Re: Mark of a Substantive Participle (Heb 1:2-3)

Post by Stirling Bartholomew » October 26th, 2016, 5:54 pm

Goetchius §221 anarthrous participles used substantively

Rom. 8:38 πέπεισμαι γὰρ ὅτι οὔτε θάνατος οὔτε ζωὴ οὔτε ἄγγελοι οὔτε ἀρχαὶ οὔτε ἐνεστῶτα οὔτε μέλλοντα οὔτε δυνάμεις

Rom. 10:14 Πῶς οὖν ἐπικαλέσωνται εἰς ὃν οὐκ ἐπίστευσαν; πῶς δὲ πιστεύσωσιν οὗ οὐκ ἤκουσαν; πῶς δὲ ἀκούσωσιν χωρὶς κηρύσσοντος;


Rom. 8:38 (NRSV) For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor rulers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers,

Rom. 10:14 (NRSV) But how are they to call on one in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in one of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone to proclaim him?
0 x
C. Stirling Bartholomew

Robert Crowe
Posts: 108
Joined: January 8th, 2016, 11:06 am
Location: Northern Ireland

Re: Mark of a Substantive Participle (Heb 1:2-3)

Post by Robert Crowe » October 27th, 2016, 10:44 am

Thanks for these gems, Clay.

Wallace, GGBB, p619, states that "The substantival participle may or may not be articular, although most are." But gives no examples.

Rom 8:38 also includes ἐνεστῶτα.
0 x
Tús maith leath na hoibre.

Barry Hofstetter
Posts: 1564
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 1:48 pm

Re: Mark of a Substantive Participle (Heb 1:2-3)

Post by Barry Hofstetter » October 27th, 2016, 12:12 pm

klitwak wrote:I am not asking anything profound. I only want to verify what I think is correct. The only way to form a substantive participle is with a a direct object, correct? You cannot do it with a noun, or a relative pronoun, or other thing, right? I am asking because I have students who want to read the three participles in Heb 1:3 as substantives:
2 ἐπ᾽ ἐσχάτου τῶν ἡμερῶν τούτων ἐλάλησεν ἡμῖν ἐν υἱῷ, ὃν ἔθηκεν κληρονόμον πάντων, δι᾽ οὗ καὶ ἐποίησεν τοὺς αἰῶνας·
3 ὃς ὢν ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης καὶ χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ, φέρων τε τὰ πάντα τῷ ῥήματι τῆς δυνάμεως αὐτοῦ, καθαρισμὸν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ποιησάμενος ἐκάθισεν ἐν δεξιᾷ τῆς μεγαλωσύνης ἐν ὑψηλοῖς,
Their basis for this is that υἱῷ + each participle forms a substantive. I have never seen any grammar that says that, and I'm unsure where they would come up with such an idea. I want to tell them you have to have a definite article AND you cannot have anything much between the definite article and the participle, except perhaps an adjective. That's valid, right? Just checking that I have not missed something. Thanks.

Ken Litwak
Gateway Seminary
Ontario, California
Ken, it sounds as though you have interesting students. You've already gotten good responses here. I would say your answer is generally correct, but with certain exceptions as already noted. The participles above do not directly modify υἱῷ, but shift into the nominative because of the relative pronoun being the subject of ἐκάθισεν in the clause. They are descriptive participles showing the nature and activity of the Son in the context of the claims the author is making. While the rare anarthrous substantive participle is possible, the context here completely contraindicates any such usage.
0 x
N.E. Barry Hofstetter
Instructor of Latin
Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
Χαίρετε ἐν κυρίῳ πάντοτε· πάλιν ἐρῶ, χαίρετε

Stirling Bartholomew
Posts: 945
Joined: August 9th, 2012, 4:19 pm

Re: Mark of a Substantive Participle (Heb 1:2-3)

Post by Stirling Bartholomew » October 29th, 2016, 12:25 am

Some potential examples of the anarthrous substantive participle.
Matt. 2:5 οἱ δὲ εἶπαν αὐτῷ· ἐν Βηθλέεμ τῆς Ἰουδαίας· οὕτως γὰρ γέγραπται διὰ τοῦ προφήτου· 6 καὶ σὺ Βηθλέεμ, γῆ Ἰούδα, οὐδαμῶς ἐλαχίστη εἶ ἐν τοῖς ἡγεμόσιν Ἰούδα· ἐκ σοῦ γὰρ ἐξελεύσεται ἡγούμενος, ὅστις ποιμανεῖ τὸν λαόν μου τὸν Ἰσραήλ.

Robert Horton Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church Under Persecution, p29 bottom.
Luke 16:18 Πᾶς ὁ ἀπολύων τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ καὶ γαμῶν ἑτέραν μοιχεύει, καὶ ὁ ἀπολελυμένην ἀπὸ ἀνδρὸς γαμῶν μοιχεύει.

“The anarthrous substantive participle γαμῶν with its sole particle is sequentially related to ἀπολύων. Both are governed together by the first participle’s article and the adjective πᾶς, which have a universalizing effect.”

Clay Smith, Westminster Seminary California.
http://janineandclay.com/behold-you-are ... any-woman/
Gundry's example I understand but Clay Smith's example is debatable.
0 x
C. Stirling Bartholomew

klitwak
Posts: 30
Joined: November 6th, 2011, 2:03 am
Location: Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730

Re: Mark of a Substantive Participle (Heb 1:2-3)

Post by klitwak » October 29th, 2016, 1:01 am

Thanks everyone. I was not aware that there are anarthrous substantival participles. I was fairly confident that the participles in Hebe 1:3-4 are adverbial.

Ken Litwak
0 x
Kenneth D. Litwak, Ph.D.
Reference and Instruction Librarian
Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary
Mill Valley, CA 94941
kennethlitwak@ggbts.edu
Adjunct Professor of New Testament in ExL
Asbury Theological Seminary
Wilmore, KY

Post Reply

Return to “Syntax and Grammar”