Justin Martyr: Dialogue with Trypho
1 Περιπατοῦντί μοι ἕωθεν ἐν τοῖς τοῦ ξυστοῦ περιπάτοις συναντήσας τις μετὰ καὶ ἄλλων· Φιλόσοφε, χαῖρε, ἔφη. καὶ ἅμα εἰπὼν τοῦτο ἐπιστραφεὶς συμπεριεπάτει μοι· συνεπέστρεφον δ' αὐτῷ καὶ οἱ φίλοι αὐτοῦ. κἀγὼ ἔμπαλιν προσαγορεύσας αὐτόν· Τί μάλιστα; ἔφην.
1 While walking early in the covered walkways of the Xystus, a certain man, also with other men, having encountered me, said, "Hail philosopher!" And as soon as he said this, he turned towards me and walked with me. And, his friends also turned with him. And I, on the other hand, greeted him, "What is new?"
My question involves aorist active participles, such as εἰπὼν and ἐπιστραφεὶς. Should I be more inclined to assume aorist participles should be translated into English in the indicative mood rather than assuming they should be translated into English as what they are – participles? Because, if translated as participles, the translation seems bizarre and foreign. But, translated as indicatives, the translation seens more polished.
As an example, in biblical Hebrew, the present participle is equivalent to the modern Hebrew "present tense." Is this what I should expect in Greek, whereby I may find what we commonly define as a "participle" in the Greek text, but this "participle" should probably be translated in the indicative mood?
Hopefully that's clear. I know Mr. Conrad often talks about translating the general idea of a text rather than making it woodenly literal, but I'm just trying not to inject ideas into the text (at my level).