Wallace The Basics of New Testament Syntax

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

b. With Dative

• Spatial: on, upon, against, at, near

• Temporal: at, at the time of, during

• Cause: on the basis of

c. With Accusative

• Spatial: on, upon, to, up to, against

• Temporal: for, over a period of

➡9. Katav

ExSyn 376–77

Basic uses (with genitive and accusative)

a.With Genitive

• Spatial: down from, throughout

• Opposition: against

• Source: from

b. With Accusative

• Standard: in accordance with, corresponding to

• Spatial: along, through (extension); toward, up to (direction)

• Temporal: at, during

• Distributive: “indicating the division of a greater whole into individual parts”

• Purpose: for the purpose of

• Reference/Respect: with respect to, with reference to

➡10. Metav

ExSyn 377–78

Basic uses (with genitive and accusative)

a. With Genitive

• Association/Accompaniment: with, in company with

• Spatial: with, among

• Manner (Attendant Circumstance): with

b. With Accusative

• Temporal: after, behind

• Spatial (rare): after, behind

➡11. Parav

ExSyn 378

Basic uses (with genitive, dative, and accusative)

a. With Genitive

Generally, the idea is from (the side of) (almost always with a personal object).

• Source/Spatial: from

• Agency: from, by

The Prepositions 169

BAGD, s.v. katav II.3 (406).

01_Basics.Part 1 4/16/04 1:22 PM Page 169

b. With Dative

In general, the dative uses suggest proximity or nearness.

• Spatial: near, beside

• Sphere: in the sight of, before (someone)

• Association: with (someone/something)

• Virtually equivalent to simple dative

c. With Accusative

• Spatial: by, alongside of, near, on

• Comparison: in comparison to, more than

• Opposition: against, contrary to

➡12. Periv

ExSyn 379

Basic uses (with genitive and accusative)

a. With Genitive

• Reference: concerning

• Advantage/Representation: on behalf of, for (= uJpevr)

b. With Accusative

• Spatial: around, near

• Temporal: about, near

• Reference/Respect: with regard/reference to

13. Prov

ExSyn 379

Basic uses (with genitive only)

• Spatial: before, in front of, at

• Temporal: before

• Rank/Priority: before

➡14. Provß

ExSyn 380–82

a. Basic uses (with accusative almost exclusively). This preposition occurs

only once with the genitive and only six times with the dative case, but almost 700

times with the accusative. Our treatment will be restricted thus to the accusative

case (for the other cases used, see BAGD’s treatment).

• Purpose: for, for the purpose of

• Spatial: toward

• Temporal: toward, for (duration)

• Result: so that, with the result that

• Opposition: against

• Association: with, in company with (with stative verbs)

The Basics of New Testament Syntax170

01_Basics.Part 1 4/16/04 1:22 PM Page 170

b. A significant passage involving

pprroovvßß..

One of the more significant and,

at the same time, most misunderstood passages (at least in popular circles) involv-

ing provß is Rev 3:20. The text reads: ∆Idou© e{sthka ejpi© th©nquvran kai© krouvw…

ejavn tiß ajkouvsh/ thçß fwnhçß mou kai© ajnoivxh/ th©nquvran, kai© eijseleuvsomai

pprroo©©ßß

aujto©n kai© deipnhvsw met j aujtouç kai© aujto©ß met j ejmouç (“Behold, I stand at the

door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to

him and will dine with him and he [will dine] with me”). The crucial phrase for

our purposes is “I will come in to him.” This text has often been taken as a text

offering salvation to a lost sinner. Such a view is based on two assumptions: (1)

that the Laodiceans, or at least some of them, were indeed lost, and (2) that eijse-

leuvsomai provß means “come into.”

Both of these assumptions, however

, are based on little evidence. With refer-

ence to the first assumption, that those in the Laodicean church were not believ-

ers, it is important to note that in the preceding verse, the resurrected Lord

declares, “Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline.” Here filevw is used for

“love”

—a term that is never used of God/Jesus loving unbelievers in the NT. This

filevw must be applied to the Laodiceans here, for the verse concludes, “Be zeal-

ous, therefore, and repent.” The inferential ou\n connects the two parts of the verse,

indicating that the Laodiceans are to repent because Christ loves (filevw) them!

The second assumption is that eijseleuvsomai provß means “come into.” Such

an assumption is based on a less than careful reading of the English text! The

ASV,

NASB, RSV, NRSV, for example, all correctly renders it “come in to” (note the space

between the prepositions). The idea of “come into” would be expressed with eijß

as the independent preposition and would suggest a penetration into the person

(thus, spawning the idea of entering into one’s heart). However, spatially provß

means toward, not into. In all eight instances of eijsevrcomai provß in the NT, the

meaning is “come in toward/before a person” (i.e., enter a building, house, etc.,

so as to be in the presence of someone), never penetration into the person him-

self/herself.

➡15. Suvn

ExSyn 382

Basic use (with dative only). The predominant usage of this preposition is to

indicate accompaniment/association: with, in association (company) with.

➡16. ÔUpevr

ExSyn 383–89

a. Basic uses (with genitive and accusative)

(1) W

ITH GENITIVE

• Representation/Advantage: on behalf of, for the sake of

• Reference/Respect: concerning, with reference to (= periv)

• Substitution: in place of, instead of (= ajntiv) (such instances also involve

representation)

The Prepositions 171

For a more detailed discussion, see ExSyn 380–81.

01_Basics.Part 1 4/16/04 1:22 PM Page 171

(2) WITH ACCUSATIVE

• Spatial: over, above

• Comparison: more than, beyond

b. Significant passages involving

uuJJppeevvrr

: concerning the substitutionary

atonement (

uuJJppeevvrr

+ gen.).

The normal preposition used in texts that purport-

edly deal with Christ’s substitutionary atonement is uJpevr (though ajntiv is used in

Matt 20:28 / Mark 10:45). However, the case for a substitutionary sense for uJpevr

is faced with the difficulty that the preposition can bear several other nuances

that, on a lexical level, at least, are equally plausible in the theologically signifi-

cant passages. It is to be noted, however, that BAGD does consider uJpevr to have

a substitutionary sense on occasion (though they list only one text that bears on

the atonement—2 Cor 5:14).

ÔUpevr is, in fact, naturally suited to the meaning of substitution and is used

in several passages dealing with the nature of Christ’s atonement. On behalf of

the view that uJpevr has at least a substitutionary sense to it in passages dealing with

the atonement are the following arguments.

• The substitutionary sense is found in extra-NT Greek literature. It rarely

bears this force in classical Greek, a bit more in the LXX, and extensively

in the nonliterary papyri.

As time progressed, increasingly uJpevr

encroached on ajntiv’s domain. Indeed, one reason for previous resistance

to the idea of a substitutionary uJpevr is that such instances were hard to find

in the classical era. But throughout the Koine period

uJpevr

began to encroach more

and more on the meanings of

ajntiv

, though never fully phasing it out. It was a rel-

atively common phenomenon for one grammatical or lexical form to swal-

low up the uses of another in the Hellenistic period.

Chart 39

Overlap in Uses of ∆Antiv and ÔUpevr

• ÔUpevr is used in a substitutionary sense in soteriologically insignificant pas-

sages in the NT, thus establishing such a nuance in the NT. Cf. Rom 9:3;

Philemon 13.

The Basics of New Testament Syntax172

For a more detailed discussion, along with supporting evidence, see ExSyn 383–89.

ExSyn 384–86 lists 78 papyrological references in which uJpevr is used with a substitu-

tionary sense.

Attic Greek Koine Greek

ajntiv

Jpevr

ajntiv

01_Basics.Part 1 4/16/04 1:22 PM Page 172

• ÔUpevr is used with a substitutionary force in at least one soteriologically sig-

nificant passage, admitted even by BAGD: 2 Cor 5:14. As well, there are

other soteriologically significant texts in which it is difficult to deny a sub-

stitutionary sense to uJpevr: Gal 3:13; John 11:50.

• Once uJpevr is even used with a form of luvtron that has been strengthened

by prefixing ajntiv to it: 1 Tim 2:6.

• ÔUpevr is a richer term than ajntiv. The question may be asked: If the Pauline

doctrine of the atonement is at least a substitutionary one, why does he

never choose the less ambiguous preposition ajntiv to express such an idea?

The answer involves three points. (1) ajntiv is on its way out in the NT; uJpevr

is encroaching on its domain. (2) As the papyri amply illustrate, the set idiom

for substitution employs uJpevr instead of ajntiv. (3) The reason that this

preposition was chosen was most likely that it was more elastic than ajntiv—

i.e., uJpevr could involve both ideas of substitution and representation.

In sum, although it is possible that substitution is not the sense of uJpevr in

some of the soteriologically significant texts, because this must be the sense in

many such texts, the burden of proof falls on those who would deny such a sense

in the others. In the least, in light of the well-established usage of uJpevr for sub-

stitution in Hellenistic Greek, there seems to be no reason not to adopt this

nuance as part of the Pauline doctrine of the atonement.

➡17. ÔUpov

ExSyn 389

Basic uses (with genitive and accusative)

a. With Genitive

• (Ultimate) Agency: by

• Intermediate Agency (with active verbs): through

• Means: by (rare)

b. With Accusative

• Spatial: under, below

• Subordination: under (the rule of)

The Prepositions 173

For details, see the discussion on the passive voice with agency expressed in the chapter

on voice.

01_Basics.Part 1 4/16/04 1:22 PM Page 173

Person and Number

Overview

Person . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174

✝ 1. Second Person for Third Person (Yo u = Someone)?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174

➡ 2. First Person Plural Constructions: The Scope of We . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175

a. Editorial We (Epistolary Plural) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175

b. Inclusive We (Literary Plural) Vs. Exclusive We. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176

Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177

➡ 1. Neuter Plural Subject with Singular Verb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177

➡ 2. Compound Subject with Singular Verb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178

3. The Indefinite Plural (They = Someone). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178

In general, it can be said that a verb usually agrees with the subject in both

person and number (known as concord). Such routine usage is already part of the

intermediate student’s preunderstanding and need not be discussed here.

There

are also exceptional uses. Specifically, with regard to person, the lack of agreement

is not between subject and verb, but between the linguistic person and the real

person. With regard to number, there are several instances of discord between the

verb number and the subject number. A few of the more interesting phenomena

with regard to person and number will be noted in this chapter.

Person

ExSyn 391–99

✝1. Second Person for Third Person (You = Someone)? ExSyn 392–93

In the Greek NT there is, most likely, no indefinite second person as there is in

modern colloquial English. (By “indefinite” I mean the use of the second person

for either the first or the third person.) Webster’s defines the indefinite second

person of modern English as referring to “a person or people generally: equiva-

lent in sense to indefinite one, as, you can never tell!” (New World Dictionary). The

basic exegetical point here is that the NT authors’ distinctions between second

and third person are not to be overlooked (because they will not be blurred in

Greek as they are in English).

174

See ExSyn 390–406. The following categories are sufficiently rare, which the average

intermediate Greek student may ignore: first person for the third person (391–92), the collec-

tive singular subject with a plural verb (400–401), and the categorical plural (403–6). The most

important text that may fit a first person for a third person is Rom 7:7–25 (see 392).

For a discussion, see Mounce, Basics of Biblical Greek, 116–18 (§15.3–15.5).

Some grammars address one or more of these uses in other sections, such as the episto-

lary plural in the chapter on pronouns. Since almost all such examples occur in the nom. case as

subject of the verb, thereby making an explicit pronoun dispensable (because it is embedded in

the verbal inflection), it seemed more logical to discuss such in the unit on “Verbs and Verbals.”

For a discussion of some texts, see ExSyn 393.

02_Basics.Part 2 4/16/04 1:32 PM Page 174

➡2. First Person Plural Constructions: The Scope of We ExSyn 393–99

In many situations in the NT, especially in the letters, the use of we is not

always clear. Does the author mean to include his associates (or coauthors), or his

audience, or is this simply an editorial way of referring to himself? The use of the

first person plural to refer only to the author is known as the editorial we (or epis-

tolary plural); the use of the first person plural to refer to the author and his asso-

ciates as distinct from the audience is called exclusive we; and the use of the first

person plural to refer to both author(s) and his reader(s) is called the inclusive we.

The potential referents can be diagrammed as follows.

Person and Number 175

There is, however, a morphological clue as well: the epistolary plural normally occurs in the

nominative case. Even in contexts where the oblique cases are used, the nominative usually leads

off the discourse.

a. Editorial We (Epistolary Plural) ExSyn 394–96

(1) D

EFINITION. The editorial we (also known as the epistolary plural) is the use

of the first person plural by an author when he is in reality referring only to him-

self. The use of the epistolary plural is not common in the NT letters. Many texts

are debatable; the ambiguity in such instances usually has to do with whether the

author includes his associates in the first person plural or is referring only to him-

self; not infrequently, such passages are triply ambiguous: Does the author refer

to himself alone, does he refer to himself and his associates, or does he include

the audience in the we?

(2) K

EYS TO IDENTIFICATION. The normal presupposition is that a given first

person plural is not editorial. But when an author shifts unexpectedly from the

singular to the plural, there are grounds for suspecting an epistolary plural. The

context is thus the primary factor involved in determining whether or not we is

editorial.

Chart 40

The Scope of “We” in the New Testament

“We” = “I”

(Editorial “We”)

“We” = “I and my associates”

(Exclusive “We”)

“We” = “You and I” (author[s] & reader[s])

(Inclusive “We”)

02_Basics.Part 2 4/16/04 1:32 PM Page 175

(3) ILLUSTRATIONS

Rom 1:5

eejjllaavvbboommeenn

cavrin kai© ajpostolhvn

we have received grace and an apostleship

Paul mentions only himself as author (v. 1), rendering the plu-

ral here as most likely epistolary.

2 Cor 10:11 oi|oiv

eejjssmmeenn

tw/ç lovgw/ di∆ ejpistolwçnajpovnteß, toiouçtoi kai©

parovnteß

what we are when absent in word through [our] letters, these

things also [we are] in deed when present

The preceding context speaks of Paul alone as the author of his

letters (vv. 9–10). The sudden change to the plural is thus best

explained as an editorial we.

2 Cor 10:13

hhJJmmeeiiççßß

oujkeijßta© a[metra kauchsovmeqa

we will not boast beyond the limit

Again, the preceding context speaks only of Paul boasting,

though he does seem to include reference to his companions in

other things (vv. 1–2, 8 mention Paul’s boasting/boldness; vv. 5,

7 seem to refer to Paul and his associates).

b. Inclusive We (Literary Plural) Vs. Exclusive We ExSyn 397–99

(1) D

EFINITION. The inclusive we is the use of the first person plural to include

both author(s) and audience. This contrasts with the exclusive we in which the first

person plural restricts the group to the author and his associates (whether coau-

thors, those physically present, or even those who, distinct from the audience,

have participated in some of the author’s experiences, etc.).

Resolving the issue must be done on a case-by-case basis. The context and

overall thrust of the book are the best clues. In particular, the presence of the sec-

ond person plural in the same context often signals an exclusive we (but there are

many exceptions).

(2) I

LLUSTRATIONS

(a) Of Inclusive We

Rom 5:1 dikaiwqevnteß ou\nejkpivstewß eijrhvnhn

ee[[ccoommeenn

pro©ßto©nqeovn

therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace

with God

Jas 3:2 polla©

ppttaaiivvoommeenn

a{panteß

we all stumble in many ways

The Basics of New Testament Syntax176

All of the examples of the editorial we in the NT are debatable, though some are excel-

lent candidates for this category with few detractors among the commentators. For discussion

of some of the debatable texts, see ExSyn 396–97.

For more discussion of this text, see ExSyn 395.

For a discussion of several debatable examples, see ExSyn 398–99.

02_Basics.Part 2 4/16/04 1:32 PM Page 176

(b) Of Exclusive We

1 Cor 4:10

hhJJmmeeiiççßß

we are fools for Christ, but you are wise in Christ; we are weak,

but you are strong

2 Thess 2:1

eejjrrwwttwwççmmeenn

aujtovn

Now we ask you, brothers, concerning the coming of our Lord

Jesus Christ and our gathering together with him

The first person plural passes almost imperceptibly from exclu-

sive to inclusive in this verse: “we ask you” is clearly exclusive,

while “our Lord” and “our gathering” are clearly inclusive.

Number

ExSyn 399–406

➡1. Neuter Plural Subject with Singular Verb ExSyn 399–400

Although there is a lack of concord in such constructions, they are not infre-

quent. Indeed, a neuter plural subject normally takes a singular verb. It is an exam-

ple of constructio ad sensum (construction according to sense rather than according

to strict grammatical concord). Since the neuter usually refers to impersonal

things (including animals), the singular verb regards the plural subject as a collec-

tive whole. It is appropriate to translate the subject as a plural as well as the verb

rather than translate both as singulars.

Mark 4:4 h\lqen

the birds came and devoured it

1 Cor 10:7

twçnaijwvnwn kathvnthken

the ends of the age have come

gonen

kkaaiinnaavv

if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old things have

passed away—behold, new things have come!

However, when the author wants to stress the individuality of each subject

involved in a neuter plural subject, the plural verb is used. The following are

examples of the neuter plural subject with a plural verb.

Matt 13:38

eijsin

oiJ uiJoi

the weeds are the sons of the evil one

John 10:27

my sheep hear my voice, and I know them and they follow me

Person and Number 177

02_Basics.Part 2 4/16/04 1:32 PM Page 177

➡2. Compound Subject with Singular Verb

ExSyn 401–2

When two subjects, each in the singular, are joined by a conjunction, the verb

is usually in the plural. However, when an author wants to highlight one of the sub-

jects, the verb is put in the singular. (This even occurs when one of the subjects is

in the plural.) The first-named subject is the one being stressed in such instances.

Matt 13:55 oujc

hhJJ mmhhvvtthhrr

aujtouç

Is not his mother called Mary and his brothers [called] James

and Joseph and Simon and Judas?

The use of the singular verb, levgetai, singles out Mary above

Jesus’ brothers.

John 2:2 ejklhvqh

ooJJ ∆∆IIhhssoouuççßß

kai©

Jesus was invited to the wedding and [so were] his disciples

3. The Indefinite Plural (They = Someone)

ExSyn 402–3

a. Definition. The indefinite plural is the use of the third person plural to

indicate no one in particular, but rather “someone.” This has parallels with mod-

ern colloquial English. For example, “I understand that they have discovered a

cure for cancer.” In this sentence, “they” means “someone.” Frequently it is bet-

ter to convert an indefinite plural into a passive in which the object becomes the

subject (e.g., in the sentence above, this would = “I understand that a cure for can-

cer has been discovered”). Sometimes the indefinite plural is a circumlocution for

naming God as subject.

b. Illustrations

Matt 7:16 mhvti

ssuulllleevvggoouussiinn

suçka;

they do not gather grapes from thornbushes, or figs from

thistles, do they?

Jesus had just declared that false prophets would be known by

their fruits. Since the verb sullevgousin is in concord with

“false prophets” grammatically it is possible to see it referring

back to them. But semantically this is absurd.

aajjppaaiittoouuççssiinn

ajpo© souç

in this night, they will require your soul from you

Here, “they” seems to refer to God. It is not legitimate, how-

ever, to infer from this that the Trinity is in view, for this same

usage was found in classical Greek with reference to one person.

The Basics of New Testament Syntax178

For a discussion of Acts 16:31, see ExSyn 402.

For a discussion of Mark 3:21, see ExSyn 403.

02_Basics.Part 2 4/16/04 1:32 PM Page 178