Introduction

Problem Statement

When two Greek substantives appear with an equative verb in a sentence or clause, distinguishing the subject (S) from the predicate nominative (PN) can stump the best of exegetes.¹ Centered on the core principle that the subject is the known entity, a helpful system already exists for answering this question in the majority of New Testament (NT) constructions which consist of two nominatives.² However, in the case of a proper name and an articular noun, both possess a “grammatical tag” for probable subject. In addition, the presence of an article on the noun changes the semantic relationship between the two nominatives; it moves a subset proposition in the direction of a convertible one.³

This thesis examines the more specific problem of distinguishing S from PN in Koine Greek constructions consisting of an anarthrous proper noun, an articular noun, and an explicit εἰμί verb (target clusters).⁴ Which is the grammatical subject? What is the “pecking order” for these two nominatives?⁵ Is the answer syntactically determined, contextually determined (semantic analysis), or can it be determined at all? ⁶ Is there an observable practice which the author employs to point out the grammatical subject to his audience?⁷ Or does flow of thought yield the answer? To what degree, if at all, does the affected meaning of the articular noun influence this practice?⁸

This study hypothesizes that the speaker/author will tend to express the subject grammatically by placing it before the predicate nominative in the target cluster. Modifications to this falsifiable hypothesis will be presented later if textual data deem necessary.⁹

Need for Further Research

Three reasons dictate the need for this study. First, very few of the grammatical works examined address the problem of distinguishing S from PN in double nominative constructions and none offers an empirically-based solution. A few works deal with the broader manifestation of this problem (choosing between two consecutive substantives appearing in the same case) and offer a pecking order. However, only two grammars identify this precise target cluster as problematic and suggest how to resolve it.¹⁰

Second, the existing method for distinguishing S from PN affects exegesis in other areas. The observed practice for the target cluster should yield adjustments to the existing pecking order which will ripple out into treatment of other analogous constructions.¹¹ In the nominative case, the new clarification will affect decisions with verbal ellipses of double nominatives and with double nominatives which employ equative verbs like γίνομαι and ὑπάρχω or the passives of transitive verbs like καλέω, λαλέω, and λέγω. In the genitive case, it will help to distinguish subjective genitive from predicate genitive. In the dative case, it will help to distinguish subjective dative from predicate dative. In the accusative case, the results of this study will help to distinguish object from complement in double accusative object-complement constructions and help to determine subject accusative from predicate accusative in constructions with infinitives.

Third, current debates in Johannine studies have wrestled over the exact meaning, or best translation, of John 20:31 (ὅτι ᾿Ιησου)ς ἐστιν ὁ Χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ). Most translate it as, “that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God” while a few scholars prefer, “that the Christ, the Son of God, is Jesus.” Both sides appeal to grammar for their respective translations but few grammarians have actually examined this specific syntactical structure closely. At best, these previous works offer “expert” speculation. No one has provided empirical substantiation. This study of Koine Greek texts which use the target cluster hopes to identify a proclivity that brings greater stability to the grammatical ground upon which the current debates stand.

Definition of Target Cluster and Terms

Target Cluster

The target cluster is defined as any combination of an anarthrous proper noun in the nominative case, an articular singular noun in the nominative case, and the third person singular εἰμί verb in the indicative mood. It is the primary entity under examination.

Structural Types

A structural type is defined as any expression of a combination of two or more units of syntax (i.e. noun, article, proper noun,εἰμί verb). It provides the terminology for discussing syntactic configurations. For the purpose of this study, the articular noun will be treated as one syntactical unit. This results in six possible structural types: (1) N^PANV^E, (2) ANN^PV^E, (3) N^PV^EAN, (4) ANV^EN^P, (5) V^EN^PAN, and (6) V^EANN^P; where AN = articular noun, N^P = anarthrous proper noun in the nominative case, and V^E = third person singular εἰμί verb in the indicative mood.

Functional Types

A functional type is defined as any expression of a combination of two or more semantic labels (i.e. subject, copula, predicate). It provides the terminology for discussing semantic configurations. There are six functional types for this study: (1) SPNV, (2) SVPN, (3) VSPN, (4) PNSV, (5) PNVS, and (6) VPNS; where S=subject, V=copula, and PN=Predicate Nominative.

Word Order Patterns

A word order pattern refers to the order of subject and predicate nominative within a target cluster. Normal, unmarked, or default word order patterns refer to target clusters whose subject precedes the predicate. Marked or transposed word order patterns refer to target clusters whose subject follows the predicate.

These basic terms help to describe when the falsifiable hypothesis has been empirically substantiated and how it will have been shown to be true. For the purpose of this research, it will have been empirically substantiated when 200 target clusters of true SPN functional types have been identified, or when every occurrence in Koine Greek has been identified. It will have been shown to be true by showing that the majority of the target clusters function with a normal word order pattern, i.e., they function as FT1, FT2, or FT3.

Limitations of the Scope and Method of Research

Because the broader question of subject determination in equative clauses extends into the realm of SPN constructions whose component nominal substantives have already been ordered, this thesis limits itself to the specific problem of subject determination in Koine Greek equative clauses involving proper nouns and articular nouns. Regarding parameters on the proper noun, since an article will “mark” it and thereby change the semantic situation between it and the rest of the clause, sentence, or paragraph, only anarthrous proper nouns qualify for this study.¹² Similarly, regarding the non-proper noun, it must have the article because the absence of the article also affects the semantic situation.¹³ Regarding parameters on the verb, practical considerations required that it be limited to a few forms.¹⁴

For these reasons a target cluster will govern the limits to the scope of this research. It consists of an anarthrous proper noun in the nominative case, an articular singular noun in the nominative case, and the third person singular εἰμί verb in the indicative mood.

Finally, regarding boundaries on the size of a data pool, the paucity of the examples resulting from a preliminary study which covered 200 years of Greek writings dictates that a full synchronic study be performed. The new data pool includes all extant Koine Greek literature contained in the CD-ROM of Thesaurus Linguae Graecae (TLG #E). ¹⁵ In addition to being limited by the texts contained in TLG #E, the material is also limited by text-critical decisions made by this data base regarding their texts. It is beyond the scope of this thesis to deal with every question of variant readings.¹⁶

Three limits in the research method merit mentioning. First, only two grammars identify the problem with the specific target cluster under examination.¹⁷ In this regard, most of the research in primary sources (i.e., extant Greek literature from the Koine period) is original. Second, the study only consulted works written in English and may exclude material with which I am unacquainted. Finally, due to the work of Reed with an analogous situation (double accusatives and copula), this work is not purely inductive.¹⁸ It begins with a falsifiable hypothesis which will be tested for empirical veracity.¹⁹

In sum, this study places parameters on the syntactical configuration of an SPN construction through the use of a tightly defined target cluster. It sets a boundary on the scope of the data pool at 700 years of Koine Greek. And it assigns to the research method margins which keep it within the start point of a thorough survey of secondary sources relevant to the target cluster and the end point of an inductive examination of the target cluster in primary sources. Neither the scope nor the research method limitations diminish the value of this work.²⁰

---

¹ A substantive is any word used as a noun—e.g., nouns, pronouns, adjectives, participles, infinitives, and prepositional phrases. For a more thorough list, see fn. 5 in Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 38. While a substantive can exist in all five case forms, a nominative refers to the substantive in the nominative case. Substantives in the nominative case, or naming case, most often function as subjects of a sentence. See Wallace, Greek Grammar, 37-40. An additional clarification is in order; proper names refer to persons and proper nouns refer to persons and all other things namable, place/thing names (e.g., mountains, cities, and rivers). Cf. Daniel B. Wallace, “The Article with Multiple Substantives Connected by Kaí in the New Testament: Semantics and Significance,” (Ph.D. diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 1995), 165-66.

² Wallace, Greek Grammar, 42-48. Wallace lists three rules, “grammatical tags,” for distinguishing S from PN: (1) the subject will be a pronoun, (2) the subject will be articular, or (3) the subject will be a proper name. In cases where both entities possess the grammatical tag, he avers that with the exception of the interrogative pronoun, pronouns have greatest priority. He then notes that articular nouns and proper names seem to have equal priority.

³ Ibid., 41-42. In a subset proposition, the predicate nominative describes the class to which the subject belongs. For example, “Paul is an author” reflects a subset proposition because “author” describes the broader class to which Paul belongs. On the other hand, in a convertible proposition, the SPN construction indicates an identical exchange between the two entities. For example, “Paul is the author of the letter to the Galatians” is equivalent to “the author of the letter to the Galatians is Paul.” The reason why the article is said to simply move a subset proposition in the direction of a convertible one is because it is the first of several factors needed to create an identical exchange. Adding the article to the noun changes the semantic relationship by moving the noun from an unmarked substantive describing a broader class to a marked substantive referring to a more definite person. A. T. Robertson overstates the case, “In a word, then, when the article occurs with subject (or the subject is a personal pronoun or proper name) and predicate, both are definite, treated as identical, one and the same, and interchangeable” (A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, 4th ed. [Nashville: Broadman Press, 1934], 768). I think Robertson overstates the case because the article alone does not create a relationship of identical exchange. “Paul is the author” may be equivalent to “the author is Paul” but a reader can not know this without the help of context and/or additional factors. McGaughy calls these additional factors “optional items with the predicate nominative.” He lists over ten such items which expand on the predicate nominative (Lane C. McGaughy, Toward a Descriptive Analysis of Εἶναι as a Linking Verb in New Testament Greek [Nashville: Society of Biblical Literature for the Linguistics Seminar, 1972], 94-102). Broader context or any of these “optional items” help to complete the identical exchange. For an elaboration of this see the discussion on unaffected and affected meaning found in appendix two of this thesis. Goetchius sees the effect of the article differently than Robertson. He introduces the idea of “narrower reference” and seems to view definiteness as a spectrum, along which the article can move a noun from less definite to more definite (Eugene Van Ness Goetchius, The Language of the New Testament [New York: Scribner, 1965], 45-46). For an elaboration of this nuance see also the discussion on unaffected and affected meaning in appendix two.

⁴ SPN constructions lacking the verb will not be used. Testing and proving of the hypothesis will center on the εἰμί verb. More precisely, it only examines SPN constructions consisting of an anarthrous proper noun in the nominative case, an articular singular noun in the nominative case, and the third person singular εἰμί verb in the indicative mood. The discussion on structural priority found in appendix two elaborates on the reasons for this decision. From this point on, any combination of these three elements will be referred to as the target cluster without regard to the order of the nominatives. Technically speaking, it is the combination of a copula and two words in the nominative case which yield an SPN construction, where N = nominative. This does not mean the oblique cases do not exhibit analogous uses. Genitives can function as subjective genitives (Wallace, Greek Grammar, 112) and as predicate genitives with the participial form of an equative verb in the genitive (Wallace, Greek Grammar, 102). Similarly, datives can function as subject and predicate datives with the participial form of an equative verb in the dative case. Finally, accusatives also function analogously in object-complement constructions, in predicate accusative constructions with the participial form of an equative verb in the accusative case, and in infinitive constructions, since the subject of the infinitive, when explicit, is in the accusative case (Wallace, Greek Grammar, 102, 112, 152, 182, 190, 192, 195). Finally, when referring to Koine Greek, this investigation has in view the period of 400 B.C. to A.D. 300.

⁵ It should be stated by way of clarification that the pronominal ending on a verb always contains an embedded subject. Consequently, all substantives functioning as subjects are subsequent. Based on current research, these can be ordered as follows. Pronouns precede other substantives. For example, when Strabo writes, ἔχει δὲ ἱερά‚τό τε τοῦ ῎Απιδος‚ὅς ἐστιν ὁ αὐτὸς καὶ ῎Οσιρις, the relative pronoun should be taken as subject over the other substantives, “It has temples, [one of which is] that of Apis, who is the same as Osiris. . . ” (Strabo, Geographica 17.1.31.3; see also Eph 4:15; Col 1:24; 2:10; Rev 21:8; Clemens Alexandrinus, Stromata 2.6.29.1.3, and 6.14.114.2.2). There may also be a pecking order within the various types of pronouns in the nominative case; where the demonstrative is first, the relative is second, and the personal is third. I tentatively suggest that demonstrative pronouns outrank relative pronouns due to their stronger deictic force. Take for example, the relationship between the demonstrative pronoun and the relative pronoun in Τίς ἐστιν οὗτος ὃς λαλεῖ βλασφημίας and in Τίς οὗτός ἐστιν ὃς καὶ ἁμαρτίας ἀφίησιν(Luke 5:21 and 7:49, respectively). Translating them as statements shows that the demonstrative pronoun has a more natural connection to a known entity than the relative pronoun. “This, who speaks blasphemies, is who” appears to make more sense than “Who speaks blasphemies, this, is who.” Similarly, “This, who even forgives sins, is who” appears to make more sense than “Who even forgives sins, this, is who.” Personal pronouns are third. Prior to this study it was believed that proper nouns were fourth, with the only exception being ὄνομα (cf. Wallace, Greek Grammar, 43). It was also believed that articular nouns were fifth in subset propositions and that only in convertible propositions could they dethrone the proper noun for subject; this being governed by phenomenological factors. However, the research has revealed a stronger indicator for determining subject in Koine Greek equative clauses involving a proper noun and an articular noun. Finally, interrogative pronouns are never the grammatical subject because they are always the least known. Unlike the other pronouns which refer back to someone or something previously mentioned, the interrogative pronouns anticipate a substantive not yet mentioned; for a complete explanation see fn. 24 in Wallace, Greek Grammar, 44.

⁶ Syntax refers to the arrangement of words, phrases, and clauses for the purpose of conveying meaning. However, in this study it does not refer to the arrangement of sentences. Study of the organization/arrangement of sentences may more rightly fall under discourse or rhetorical analysis. For my definition of syntax see Wallace, Greek Grammar, xv. See also Robertson, Grammar, 384-85. Contextual analysis utilizes what McGaughy calls “sentence-transcending” signals (McGaughy, Descriptive Analysis, 53). Kahn’s distinctions between syntactic, semantic, and judgmental (or conceptual) notion and his contrast with topic-comment views from linguistics provide a more exhaustive description of what can be meant by analysis. He identifies five senses of the word predication: (1) syntactic, (2) semantic, (3) ontological, (4) judgmental/conceptual, and (5) topic-comment as it is used in rhetorical analysis. In addition, he makes a good case for utilizing lexical, syntactical, and semantic concepts as “points of departure for covering essentially the same ground” (Charles H. Kahn, The Verb “Be” in Ancient Greek, The Verb ‘Be’ and its Synonyms: Philosophical and Grammatical Studies, ed. John W.M. Verhaar, vol. 16, 17 vols. [Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Co., 1973], 40-46, 51).

⁷ From this point forward, this work uses the term “practice” because there is no way to show conclusively that the speaker/authors of the Koine Greek period followed a rule prescribed by their own grammarians. A. T. Robertson reminds present-day grammarians that, “The Greek grammarian is an interpreter of the facts, not a regulator of the facts” (Robertson, Grammar, 387).

⁸ “By ‘unaffected’ is meant the meaning of the construction in a vacuum—apart from contextual, lexical, or other grammatical intrusions. By ‘affected’ is meant the meaning of the construction in its environment—i.e., ‘real life’ instances” (Wallace, Greek Grammar, 2). For an elaboration see discussion on unaffected and affected meaning found in appendix two of this thesis.

⁹ Secondarily, the study reveals some additional peculiarities. On the one hand, it disproved that position in relation to the verb expresses the grammatical subject. In other words, I had speculated that when the nominatives appear consecutively before the verb, the second would be subject; and that when they appear together after the verb, the first would be subject. In this sense, the label of “first” would have been a radial one, meaning first from the verb. On the other hand, the data show that the subject does stay close to the copula, rarely appearing more than four words away. In other words, the first substantive is almost always the subject and it stays close to the verb. Winer says something similar to this with respect to narratives in NT Greek. He speculates, “a wide separation of the two principal parts of a sentence, the subject and the verb (predicate), is avoided; and, in accordance with the Hebrew mode of expression, sometimes the verb is advanced nearer to the subject, sometimes, when the subject is complex, only the principal subject precedes the verb, and the others follow (see §58, 6), lest the attention should be kept too long in suspense” (Georg Benedikt Winer, A Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament: Prepared as a Solid Basis for the Interpretation of the New Testament, rev. and ed. by Gottlieb Lünemann, trans. Joseph Henry Thayer [Andover: W. F. Draper, 1869], 547).

¹⁰ Andrew Keith Malcolm Adam, A Grammar for New Testament Greek (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1999), 63-64; Wallace, Greek Grammar, 44. Though not a grammar book, McGaughy’s monograph also addresses the target cluster when discussing the Johannine passages which are exceptions to Rule 3c (McGaughy, Descriptive Analysis, 51-52). Goetchius, from the approach of linguistic analysis rather than from grammar, does not identify it directly (Goetchius, Language, 45-47). The next chapter will elaborate on the contribution of both of these works.

¹¹ Wallace, Greek Grammar, 182-89, 195.

¹² For a more thorough explanation see the discussions on semantic situation and lexical elasticity which are found in appendix two.

¹³ Consult previous footnote regarding subset and convertible propositions.

¹⁴ The search capabilities on the data base constrained the number and forms of verb(s) which could be examined. This is further explained in the following chapter under the discussion on methodology.

¹⁵ Thesaurus Linguae Graecae Ver. #E (Los Angeles: University of California, 1999). The latest update of the CD-ROM is version #E. It was released in February of 2000 and contains 76 million words of text. The online product, which was released in April of 2001, was not used. It contains 91 million words of text. This program uses the second edition of the United Bible Society NT text and Alfred Rahlfs’ Septuagint text (Eberhard Nestle, The Greek New Testament, ed. Erwin Nestle, rev. and ed. by Kurt Aland, Matthew Black, Carlo M. Martini, Bruce M. Metzger and Allen Wikgren, The Greek New Testament, 2d ed. [Stuttgart: Württemberg Bible Society, 1968], 1-895; Alfred Rahlfs, Septuaginta, 9th ed. [Stuttgart: Württemberg Bible Society, 1935 (repr. 1971)], 1-941). Rahlfs’ text consists primarily of the important manuscripts Codex Vaticanus and Codex Alexandrinus, BA. It also provides the parallel Codex Sinaiticus, S, in places where there is significant disparity between BA and S.

¹⁶ Two NT passages are discussed in chapter three in the section on additional observations.

¹⁷ The following chapter provides a chronological review of previous research related to the target cluster and appendix one presents an expanded summary of past treatments of the broader subject matter.

¹⁸ Jeffrey T. Reed, “The Infinitive with Two Substantival Accusatives: An Ambiguous Construction?” Novum Testamentum 33 (1991): 1-27.

¹⁹ To be purely inductive, the study would not state the falsifiable hypothesis on the front end. It would build it from observed functional patterns of the six structural types.

²⁰ Appendix two, an explanation of research philosophy, provides a detailed discussion on the benefits of the limitations on scope. The following chapter explains the reasoning behind the chosen research method.

Chronological Review of Previous Research

Henry Moeller and Arnold Kramer first address the broader problem of distinguishing the semantic roles between two consecutive substantives.¹ They write, “In Koine Greek the function of a substantive is not always unanimously signaled by its inflectional form. Thus it occurs that within a given phrase-structure, two words may be similar in their inflectional terminations, yet be quite different in function. In such a case, some criterion other than form must be invoked to help determine the functions of the two otherwise formally similar items.”² The conclusion of their study provides a good launch point for future work, but not without some concerns. It is stated as follows:

Of two consecutive accusative case substantives constructed with an infinitive, the first in order functions as the subject term, the second as the predicate term, except that the predicate terms stands first in the following circumstances:

1. When one of the two accusative terms

a. is a form of τίς , τί in direct interrogative use (Pattern III, 7 exx.); or

b. is τινα (indef. Pron.), occurring with a reflexive pronoun after εἶναι (Pattern IV, 2 exx.); or

c. is κόπον with the inf. παρέχειν (cf. discussion of Pattern I, above); or

2. When the infinitive (except εἶναι, γενέσθαι, and ὑπάρχειν) follows the accusatives (unless the accusatives are preceded by δεῖ' or ἔξεστιν (Pattern I.2., 3 exx.; IIa, 1 exx.)). ³

The limitations of the study are fourfold: (1) varying semantic situations, (2) loose commitment to structural priority, (3) overemphasis on the verbal proximity theory, and (4) focus on a peripheral case form. First, the study fails to preserve the semantic situation by not focusing on one verb and by not focusing on the same types of substantive comparisons. In other words, it lacked a tightly defined cluster of syntactical units. Second, though the study makes semantic assertions for what it calls patterns and reflects a desire to give priority to structure, it can only do so much with multiple verbs (without regard for whether they are true copulas) and multiple types of substantives. Third, Moeller and Kramer’s objectives are somewhat contradictory in that they try to show that the subject is the first of the two substantives and that it is the closest substantive to the verb. This idea of verbal proximity confuses their observations. Perhaps, this is why the idea is less pronounced toward the end of the article.

Finally, the article looks at an oblique case. It is not faulted for this because such was its objective. However, methodologically speaking, it may be slightly off-center because the challenge is to distinguish subject from predicate in constructions of double substantives. Since “rules” derived from the naming case also provide solid footing for deciding between double accusatives, it makes more sense to study this problem in the nominative case. The most common use of this case is subject of a finite verb. Technically speaking, participles and infinitives take no subject.⁴ This suggests that the nominative case is the “core case form” for a study on substantives competing for subject of a clause.

Eugene Van Ness Goetchius may be the first to provide a clear statement of the core problem: “the absence of a fixed word order in Greek makes it difficult for us to distinguish which of two nouns in the nominative case is the subject of an equative verb and which is the predicate nominative.”⁵ He solves the puzzle by identifying subset propositions, noting that one substantive is more definite than the other. This becomes the key for Goetchius, asserting that the notions of definiteness and indefiniteness provide the way to identify the subject of an equative verb. He then provides a “pecking order” based on this principle:

We may lay it down as a general principle that, if two nouns in the nominative case are connected by an equative verb in Greek, the more definite of the two is the subject. Thus:

Goetchius’ work contributes much to the discussion. It provides one of the best descriptions on linguistic structure and grammatical analysis and proceeds to demonstrate a strong commitment to structural priority, as evidenced by the five-part statement of conclusions.⁶ As a result, it provides the first semblance of a pecking order, focuses on the naming case forms, and fixes the discussion on the equative verb, εἰμί. It is also the first to state clearly the principle upon which it bases its conclusion. Yet the work possesses a few gaps.⁷ First, the choice of definiteness as the discriminating principle, limits the study from the beginning. Too many of the double nominatives stump the exegete precisely on this point. They appear to have the same degree of definiteness, whether arthrous or anarthrous. Second, it provides very little empirical evidence to support each of the five parts in the pecking order. Finally, it does not address the precise problem of this investigation, SPN constructions involving the target cluster.

Moeller and Kramer’s article introduces the broader challenge of choosing a subject from consecutive double substantives with equative verbs. Goetchius focuses the study on the nominative case (the core case form of the problem). Gordon Fee starts the discussion of the exegetically significant passages of this thesis.⁸ Though heavy on text-critical issues and hardly focused on the issues of a pecking order, Fee’s article makes a couple of important observations. First, in defining the semantic situation within which an older observation regarding anarthrous uses of ᾿Ιησοῦς holds true, he indirectly expresses the view that in John 20:31 ᾿Ιησοῦς functions as subject of the clause.⁹ In effect, this statement covers the other four Johannine passages as well because three match the semantic situation exactly and one differs only by a particle of negation.¹⁰ He then adds a two-fold expansion to the comment by saying that the practice of anarthrous forms of ᾿Ιησοῦς is not unique to John and that it holds true for all personal names in the nominative case when the name precedes the verb. The significance of these statements resides in their underlying presupposition, that proper nouns take precedence over articular nouns. It appears that Fee applied Goetchius’ principle (a) rather indiscriminately by labeling the proper name as subject in John 20:31 without explaining why he did not apply principle (b).¹¹ Fee’s study concerned the use of the article with personal names in John, so the lack of explanation is understandable.

Next, Lane C. McGaughy tackles the specific problem with much better footing. Using nomenclature from Funk’s Beginner’s Grammar, he lists six kernel sentence types and then focuses on Type S-II because it reflects the copulative use of the εἰμί verb.¹² He concludes: (1) Rule 1: The subject is that word or word cluster which agrees in person and number with the personal ending (bound morpheme) of the equative verb; (2) Rule 2: The word or word cluster with head term in the nominative case is the subject; (3) Rule 3: The subject is determined by its antecedent; (4) Rule 3a: Demonstrative and relative pronouns are subjects; (5) Rule 3b: The subject is indicated by zero anaphora; (6) Rule 3c: The word or word cluster determined by an article is the subject; and (7) Rule 3d: If both words or clusters are determined by an article, the first one is the subject.¹³

His work adds to previous studies in several ways. First, it provides an excellent review of older solutions to the problem.¹⁴ Second, he presents a very fair critique of Goetchius’ work.¹⁵ Third, it pushes the discussion forward by setting out to order the rules so as to minimize conflicts. He shows how the ordering of the rules requires an understanding of the interplay between the discourse structure (sentence transcending) and the syntactic one. Fourth, McGaughy’s Rule 1 and Rule 2 hold true for all cases and are truly syntactical. Fifth, he begins a well-pronounced shift in the discussion from syntactical considerations to phenomenological ones in pursuing a solution to situations where the subject, as he contends, can not be determined purely from the sentence.¹⁶

Finally, his methodology provides a sound model for research on problems where syntax is silent. Rule 3 sprouts from the new ground of discourse analysis, a study which relies heavily on an elaborate reference system that is highly dependent on semantic configurations.¹⁷ He uses the notions of anaphora, contrast, and coordination to create the rules before coming back to the explicitly labeled “words and word clusters” which fill the functional spots of subject and predicate. In other words, he uses discourse analysis (participant identification) to determine the subject in his sample passages and then organizes what he has termed as subject to show the statistical representation of his theory. Unfortunately, this fourth advance also leads to some weaknesses.

McGaughy’s work raises a few concerns. First, he appeals much to discourse analysis, and to “participant identification” in particular, which results in the correct shift to use sentence transcending examinations in order to better understand what may be the subject in the target cluster. He explains that, in Greek, an elaborate reference system signals identification of the participants.¹⁸ He formulates the third rule largely from this system. It assumes the solution must remain outside of the sentence itself. This may be true, but McGaughy’s study does not prove this. It simply succeeds in showing that certain cases require this kind of analysis. Such conclusions fail to exhaust the potential of his approach.

Second, he defines the construction under investigation in terms of functional rather than formal nomenclature.¹⁹ Although he maintains “structural” integrity by keeping the discussion focused on S-II sentences, his work does not technically adhere to structural priority of forms (morphological and syntactical).

Finally, not only is the study not based on syntactical structure types, but McGaughy’s work does not help the present study because it does not provide a solution for five of the six target cluster passages in the New Testament. He simply labels these exceptions. Regarding their subject, he explains the variance as due to their formulaic character as early christological confessions following certain verbs. Regarding the predicate of these exceptions, he points out that the earliest occurrence of this alleged confessional statement assigns the articular word cluster a predicate function.²⁰

Although coming from a philosophical angle, focusing on Attic Greek, and not examining the specific target cluster, Charles H. Kahn still adds to the discussion in three ways.²¹ First, he continues to call attention to the challenge of determining subject from among double nominatives joined by a copula. Second, he highlights the fact that the greater challenge is with convertible propositions.²² But his more pronounced input has to do with methodology rather than with offering a solution to the problem.²³ He argues strongly against any hypothesis based on word order.²⁴ And he challenges the significance of statistical preponderance, cautioning against explaining variations thereof as special stylistic or rhetorical intentions.²⁵

Goetchius returns to the discussion with a book review of McGaughy’s dissertation.²⁶ He strongly affirms Rule 1 and only mildly refines Rule 2.²⁷ However, by urging that Rule 3 be “applied rigorously” to the so-called exceptions in Johannine literature, he launches the discussion of these passages into a new level. He suggests that ᾿Ιησοῦς is the predicate nominative in all five. To support this claim he appeals to the analogous situation involving infinitives and the accusative case (Acts 5:42, 18:5, and 18:28). However, he misses the fact that his sample passages do not match the word order of the five passages in question (a proper name, first, followed by the equative verb, followed by an articular noun). In his examples the double substantives are consecutive and the articular noun precedes the anarthrous proper name.²⁸ Goetchius also questions Rule 3d on grounds that it does not qualify as a Type S-II sentence. However, he bases this on issues of “definiteness,” the very thing for which he was critiqued by McGaughy.

Shortly after Goetchius’ book review, D. A. Carson writes an article which interacts heavily with Goetchius’ appraisal of McGaughy’s work and which references the work of Moeller and Kramer to support his translation of John 20:31.²⁹ He contributes to the discussion primarily by highlighting the exegetical significance of this thesis. His article’s stated purpose is “to examine an overlooked syntactical unit in John 20:31 and, on this basis, to suggest an alternative understanding of the first ἵνα-clause.”³⁰ Unfortunately, Carson does not identify any passages which previous works have not already discussed.³¹ Instead, he attempts to synthesize the observations from McGaughy and Goetchius in order to create a syntactical polemic for his view.

Carson begins the argument by observing that all the Johannine passages which McGaughy calls exceptions to Rule 3c are christological in nature. Next, he points out that the three passages from Acts also deal with Christology. By this he means to collect eight pieces of evidence which can be shown to adhere to McGaughy’s Rule 3c. Then he appeals to Goetchius’ review of McGaughy and, by way of corroboration, to Moeller and Kramer’s study in order to show that the subject in the Acts passages can and should be the articular noun, τὸν Χριστὸν. He then returns to the four passages in 1 John to argue from historical background that the problem John addressed was that of a protognosticism which refused to connect “the Christ” and “the Son of God” to the historical person, Jesus. Consequently, he concludes that “it is entirely understandable if the crucial christological confession, from his [John’s] point of view, is that the Messiah is Jesus (2:22b; 5:1) or that the Son of God is Jesus (4:15; 5:5c).”³²

Finally, he claims that “there is every syntactical reason for thinking that the crucial clause should be rendered, ‘that the Christ, the Son of God, is Jesus.’”³³ What he means by this is elusive. The majority of this article deals with issues of biblical theology, historical context, literary context, and textual criticism. Carson devotes two pages to the discussion on syntax and eight to implications and reflections on the purpose of John’s gospel. Very little of these two pages has anything to do with a fresh syntactical analysis of the target cluster. Of the twelve implications and reflections listed, only one truly addresses an issue of grammar.³⁴

The investigations on syntax to which he appeals have hardly established his case. As was shown above, Moeller and Kramer’s work approached the analogous problem rather imprecisely. And even so, their stronger points pertain to consecutive accusatives and not those split by the verb. As for Goetchius’ review, the problems with his conclusion are stated above. Both Goetchius and Carson make much of McGaughy’s Rule 3c but virtually ignore Rule 3d. And yet the protasis of Rule 3d better reflects the problem which the target cluster faces. Carson and Goetchius fail to see that McGaughy’s approach requires clear or strong participant identification in order to perceive the patterns which are then translated into rules. The procedure requires a way to distinguish between varying degrees of determinacy. Rule 3d confirms this.³⁵ In summary, I think Carson’s article offers little towards resolving the problem of distinguishing S from PN in the target cluster. It simply highlights the exegetical significance of the present study.

Jeffrey T. Reed provides a great example of how to proceed with the problem at hand as it relates to the accusative case.³⁶ In addition to a lucid and fair critique of Moeller and Kramer’s seminal work, Reed describes and executes a new research approach that effectively deals with the many exceptions (Moeller and Kramer) which the original study identified.³⁷ Reed’s new rule states, “Of two accusative case nominal, pronominal, or adjectival substantives with an infinitive, the first in order functions as the subject, the second as the object/predicate.”³⁸ The major contribution of this study is that it provides a great template for stating and then testing a falsifiable hypothesis, as it involves the semantic realm.³⁹ However, it is not without limitations, and is best explained by the word imprecision.

The first limitation is a loose use of functional nomenclature. Discussions of unmarked and marked word or phrase order typically employ S for subject and O for object.⁴⁰ These broad terms serve the purposes of linguistic studies quite well. However, empirically oriented grammatical studies benefit more from syntactical and functional labels which possess greater specificity. It would have been helpful to see the semantic configurations broken down into the twelve permutations of the five semantic terms (S, O, P, I^c, I^nc).⁴¹ Reed’s use of O for both predicate and object does help to display a rule which “handles the most examples and has the fewest ‘exceptions.’”⁴² But it also creates the appearance of stronger empirical substantiation than actually exists.⁴³ The lack of clarity as to how he determines the subject in each of his examples also limits the study. Some of the discussions imply that he is using linguistic analysis as well as a grammatically based pecking order. Finally, there also appears to be a lack of structural priority. The problem that all studies face, the paucity of the data, may explain why Reed looked at such a broad pool of substantives. Unfortunately, such an approach limits his study’s ability to make semantic statements about specific syntactical structures.⁴⁴ For example, it does not contribute to our understanding of the pecking order among substantives. As a matter of fact, it seems he uses a system of grammatical tags to determine which of the two substantives is subject. Then he notes its position in relationship to the other.

In his commentary, Carson’s discussion of John 20:31 maintains the position of his first article.⁴⁵ He simply states that there is high probability, on syntactical grounds, that his translation best represents the intent of the author.⁴⁶ As with his journal article, it adds little to resolving the problem of distinguishing S from PN in the target cluster.

Gordon Fee re-enters the discussion at the text-critical level with an essay entitled “On the Text and Meaning of John 20:30-31,” but not without making some relevant comments on Carson.⁴⁷ In the last footnote, he notes that his conclusion clashes with Carson’s and proceeds to argue against Carson’s over-reliance on McGaughy’s Rule 3c. Fee points to his own findings regarding Johannine use of the anarthrous ᾿Ιησοῦς as explanation for McGaughy’s exceptions. He writes, “Johannine usage on the whole suggest that ᾿Ιησοῦς functions as the subject in this clause.”⁴⁸ Because Fee addresses the topic of my thesis minimally, by way of one footnote, it is difficult to critique his comments. One concern does surface. In attempting to show the significance of his observations of proper names in Johannine ὅτι-clauses, he devalues the significance of observable tendencies within the target cluster. He avers that the tendencies of a proper noun in a ὅτι-clause are “of more significance than ‘syntactical links to ἐστίν.’”⁴⁹

Matthew A. Cripe approaches with greater clarity the question of whether word order helps to distinguish subject from object in infinitive clauses containing two accusatives.⁵⁰ His review of the Moeller and Kramer article concludes that though it is somewhat helpful, “it is still inadequate in many respects.”⁵¹ His assessment of Reed’s article is equally forthright.⁵² His inductive study shows a clear difference between copulative and non-copulative constructions. It also shows that the rules governing the naming case apply to copulative infinitive clauses involving double accusatives.⁵³ It borrows from what is known in the nominative case to make assertions about this oblique case. In this sense, it highlights the value of any work which expands our understanding of the pecking order for the nominative case. One criticism I have of this study is that it mixes functional nomenclature with formal nomenclature resulting in a confusion of what should be meant by structural type.⁵⁴

Daniel B. Wallace’s work provides the most explicit and fair treatment to date. His method for distinguishing S from PN in the target cluster addresses both subset and convertible propositions. The rule for subset propositions is as follows: (1) the subject will be a pronoun, whether stated or implied in the verb; (2) the subject will be articular; and (3) the subject will be a proper name. The pecking order for convertible propositions is as follows: (1) the pronoun has greatest priority and (2) articular nouns and proper names seem to have equal priority.⁵⁵ Wallace’s work advances the discussion in four ways. First, it states a clear core guiding principle, that the subject is the known entity. Second, it delineates the two semantic categories of SPN constructions—subset and convertible. Third, it provides the clearest statement of the problem which this study examines, pecking order #2. Finally, Wallace tentatively suggests that word order signals the subject and invites empirical substantiation. I have but one reservation. The claim that ὄνομα is an exception to #3 may be overstated. My study captured every use of this noun with the article and provides some additional insights.⁵⁶

Andrew K. M. Adam may be the latest grammarian to supply a system for distinguishing S from PN in the target cluster. He asserts, “A demonstrative pronoun or a relative pronoun is more likely to be the subject than any other nominative. A personal pronoun or proper noun is more likely to be the subject than any other of the remaining sorts of nominatives. An articular noun is more likely to be the subject than the anarthrous noun. If either nominative is distinctly more definite than the other, the linking verb may simply be equating the two, and the word that comes first is probably the subject.”⁵⁷ Adam’s system is fair in that it consistently speaks of likelihoods rather than certainties. It is insightful in that it suggests what to do in the case of convertible propositions. However, it seems archaic at the foundational level. Like Goetchius, it is based on the meaning-based principle of definiteness which McGaughy has shown to be limited. Another critique of Adam’s pecking order is that it lacks substantiation. There are no references to other works or empirical studies to support it.

Carson enters the discussion yet another time.⁵⁸ In an article awaiting publication, he claims that while the original work aspired to show the bearing of McGaughy’s research to the interpretation of John 20:31, this latest manuscript aims to respond to Fee’s essay in The Four Gospels 1992: Festschrift für Frans Neirynck.⁵⁹ Carson does just this and with an exceptionally helpful evaluation of Fee’s article on arthrous and anarthrous proper names in the Johannine corpus.⁶⁰ Unfortunately, he does not provide any new examples of the target cluster or any new insight regarding it.

Despite this lack of additional data, several of the comments added to the original piece are worth mentioning. First, Carson claims that his translation of the verse, and Goetchius’, is in line with a rising number of commentators.⁶¹ But this hardly constitutes a solidifying of the alleged grammatical grounds for his translation. It simply means that more people are agreeing with his view on the historical setting of the gospel.

Second, he adds an enigmatic comment to the original argument which garnished support from Moeller and Kramer. He writes, “In each of these contexts, the ‘given’ for the hearers is ‘the Christ.’”⁶² He is referring to the contexts of Acts 5:42, 18:5, 18:28, and John 20:31. But what he means by ‘given’ is unclear. If he is alluding to Goetchius’ underlying principle (definiteness) for determining subject, then he appeals to a deficient method. Wallace’s core guiding principle, that the subject is the known entity, produces much better results. If he is referring to McGaughy’s umbrella Rule 3, that the subject is determined by its antecedent, then he rightly identifies the subject for the Acts passages but dismisses McGaughy’s assessment that the more sensible antecedent for John 20:31 (and for the four passages from 1 John) is “Jesus.”

Third, Carson asserts that the recent work of Reed supports his translation.⁶³ But this is plain wrong. He misses the point. Reed determines the subject based on word order, and by way of improvement to the research of Moeller and Kramer, his study includes accusatives split by the infinitive. If anything, Reed’s work supports the traditional translation of John 20:31 since ᾿Ιησοῦς is the first nominative of two split by the equative verb.

Fourth, Carson acknowledges Fee’s parting comments in the 1992 essay and more importantly, offers significant interaction, albeit as rebuttal. He begins very graciously by pointing out that he does not over-rely on McGaughy’s rule, but more precisely he over-relies on an extension of it. He clarifies, “In all fairness to McGaughy, however, in his original study he saw John 20:31, and four passages in 1 John, as exceptions to his own rule. I followed Goetchius in arguing that McGaughy’s rule is better than McGaughy himself thought it was. If Fee is right on 20:31, then I am wrong, but not McGaughy. The ‘major flaw’ in my argument, if there is one, is not in my ‘reliance on L. C. McGaughy,” but in my extension beyond him.”⁶⁴

Carson then proceeds to pick apart Fee’s parting footnote, rightly showing that the absence of the article on ᾿Ιησοῦς should have no bearing on the rule, whatever it may be, governing the target cluster in question. He does so by evaluating Fee’s original study which yielded nine ὅτι-clauses in which ᾿Ιησοῦς precedes the verb.⁶⁵ However, before dismantling Fee’s case, he insightfully points out that the primary cause for disagreement in grammatical approaches to subject determination is the fact that they are based on differing constructions. He writes, “Fee is interested in all instances where ᾿Ιησοῦς precedes the verb within a ὅτι-clause; McGaughy is interested in all instances of ἐστίν as a linking verb that joins a subject and complement.”⁶⁶ Once noting this he quickly eliminates the four passages which do not use ἐστίν and highlights that Fee allows ᾿Ιησοῦς to function as predicate in John 5:15, 20:14, and 21:4. Having shown this he questions Fee’s reluctance to allow it elsewhere. Consequently, Carson sees no reason why it should not function as such in John 20:31 as well.⁶⁷

In summary, this chronological review captures some of the major discussions and advancements that relate to subject determination in equative clauses involving anarthrous proper nouns and articular nouns. It accentuates the need for the present research and informs it on how to proceed so that it will yield sound conclusions and observations regarding the behavior of the target cluster in Koine Greek.

Methodological Direction for Present Research

The fundamental question is whether an author tended toward a certain practice in expressing the grammatical S in a SPN construction involving the target cluster, the most difficult form of this question being when the target cluster is part of a convertible proposition. The falsifiable hypothesis asserts that the first nominative in target clusters functioning as SPN constructions is subject.

There are at least three approaches to proving this true—indirectly, directly, or a combination of the two. “Indirectly” refers to the use of analogy. It has been shown that corresponding challenges exist for the oblique cases. A study by analogy would gather and organize all such analogous examples and observe patterns of more broadly defined structures. Reed’s work with the accusative case provides a fitting example and excellent starting point. He expanded the limits and was able to get more samples. Rather than focusing on nouns, or pronouns, or adjectives, Reed looked for substantives of all three. The same principle can be expanded even further to include all matching case double substantives with a copulative verb. The value of this approach is that it increases the number of observable data within a given time period. It increases the chances of finding plenty of New Testament text examples of the observed practice (rule) at work. The challenge of this approach, however, is to show that the situations are in fact analogous. The other approach is to define a specific structural type, to look for it in the extant Greek literature, to record its propensity to function one way over another, and to test it against the falsifiable hypothesis. The value of this approach is the ability to make semantic assertions about specific structural types. The difficulty with this approach is the paucity of the data when such a specific syntactic structure is in view.

After careful review of the various directions taken by previous studies, it seems prudent to proceed with the latter approach. It is admittedly more arduous but promises greater clarity for the specific problem at hand. In examining all of the other studies related to the accusative case I did not see many examples, if any, of this particular target cluster in another case form. I cannot remember seeing a single example in an oblique case of the specific problem with which this research deals. This leads me to believe that it is even less common in the other cases. This is one reason why I chose to focus on the nominative case.

Another reason is that recent studies of SPN constructions in the accusative case appeal much to the rules which govern the nominative case. They look to the solid work which has already been advanced in this area for the naming case.⁶⁸ It is treated as the core case form for answering the same or similar question regarding S in an SPN construction. Focusing on the target cluster will provide additional insight. This provides some reasoning for choosing the nominative case but two more questions remain—why such restriction on the verb and why use only nouns?

Simple pragmatism stands behind the reasoning for restricting the verb so much. The preliminary research did allow for all moods of the verb. However, it yielded no examples other than the indicative. But the primary reason the verb was restricted to three forms is because of search limitations on Thesaurus Linguae Graecae #E (TLG #E).⁶⁹ Terms are not grammatically tagged in its data bank. Therefore, the case, gender, or number of a noun can not be specified for the search strings. Neither can the syntactical labels of verb, noun, or proper noun. For example, the only way to find substantives was to use each of the three nominative articles for the query. Since this provided too much data without further specification, the verb was limited to the three forms. This reduced the number of matches significantly and yet not enough. In any case, this is the primary reason why the verb is so tightly defined. By way of reiteration, the original study did utilize Accordance Bible Software 5.1 (Accordance) for searches in the Septuagint, New Testament, and Apostolic Fathers, which allowed for queries of the unrestricted verb.⁷⁰ Yet it only produced examples of the three verb forms chosen for the TLG #E.

Articular non-noun substantives were not included for a couple of reasons. The first reason is that they slightly complicate the semantic situation. With articular substantives consisting of syntactical units other than nouns, the article functions primarily to make substantive an inherently non-substantive. Therefore, it essentially adds another variable to the problem at hand. Is the article only nominalizing the non-substantive or is it also marking the syntactical unit for a specific function? The articular noun does not present this extra question. The article simply marks the syntactical unit for use, like subject or apposition. To state it differently, it affects it functionally but not lexically, as with non-substantives.

These are a few reasons why the search string was so tightly defined. One other merits mentioning. Simplicity brings clarity. In research, reduction of variables helps to achieve this. The tightly defined target cluster reflects an attempt at clarity.

---

¹ Henry R. Moeller and Arnold Kramer, “An Overlooked Structural Pattern in New Testament Greek,” Novum Testamentum 5 (1961): 25-35.

² Ibid., 25.

³ Ibid., 32.

⁴ Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 38.

⁵ Eugene Van Ness Goetchius, The Language of the New Testament (New York: Scribner, 1965), 45.

⁶ Goetchius, Language, 13-27.

⁷ In appendix two of this thesis, the review of McGaughy’s work adds to the list of three presented here.

⁸ Gordon D. Fee, “The Use of the Definite Article with Personal Names in the Gospel of John,” New Testament Studies 17 (1970-71): 168-83.

⁹ Ibid., 179. Fn. 3 explains that Wies (1913) had also noted that ᾿Ιησοῦς is anarthrous whenever it preceded the conjunction in Johannine literature but failed to state that this is the pattern only when the subject precedes the verb. And fn. 6 cites John 20:31 as one of nine examples where the subject, ᾿Ιησοῦς‚ precedes the verb in a ὅτι-clause.

¹⁰ 1 John 2:22 ( ὅτι ᾿Ιησοῦς οὐκ ἔστιν); 1 John 4:15 ( ὅτι ᾿Ιησοῦς ἐστιν) ; 1 John 5:1 ( ὅτι ᾿Ιησοῦς ἐστιν); and 1 John 5:5 ( ὅτι ᾿Ιησοῦς ἐστιν).

¹¹ In all fairness to Fee, I could not find a single reference to Goetchius in the article so it is possible that Fee may have operated on older notions for determining subject in double nominative constructions. The point, however, remains the same. It appears that Fee presupposes that the proper name is subject regardless of other factors.

¹² Lane C. McGaughy, Toward a Descriptive Analysis of Einai as a Linking Verb in New Testament Greek (Nashville: Society of Biblical Literature for the Linguistics Seminar, 1972), 21-23. McGaughy credits the six kernel sentence types to Robert Funk in fn. 1 which states, “These are the six basic sentence types of New Testament Greek as listed by Funk, Beginner’s Grammar of the Greek New Testament, §§554-571. As is clear from the above summary, the six kernel sentence types are, in fact, six predicate types. Consequently, the sub-types of S-II discussed in this study will be the different predicates occurring with S : be. N. B. S-I, etc., = Sentence Type I, etc.” (McGaughy, Descriptive Analysis, 21). Without the accompanying illustrative passages, the types are as follows: (1) S-I = S-V (S=Subject; V=Intransitive Verb), (2) S-II = S-E-SC (E=Equative Verb; SC=Subjective Complement), (3) S-III = S-V-O (V=Transitive Verb; O=Object), (4) S-IV = S-V-IO-O (IO=Indirect Object), (5) S-V = S-V-OC (OC=Objective Complement), and (6) S-VI = S-V-O-O.

¹³ McGaughy, Descriptive Analysis, 36-54.

¹⁴ Ibid., 23-26.

¹⁵ Ibid., 29-33. McGaughy states the critique in two broad statements, that Goetchius’ solution rests on meaning based-distinctions (definiteness) and that the analysis contains major difficulties. He explicates four from the latter: (1) grammatical (morphological and syntactical) categories are mixed with contextual and meaning based (semantic) ones; (2) the rules are not ordered (i.e., it does not account for conflicts like John 8:39); (3) Goetchius fails to show that the rules do derive from Jespersen’s basic principle; and (4) rule c does not actually hold true, even for the example given (therefore, rule c is “arbitrary and inadmissible”).

¹⁶ Ibid., 40-41.

¹⁷ McGaughy, Descriptive Analysis, 45. He asserts, “the following sub-rules specify the major surface signals of S-II subject identification which derive from the underlying discourse structure of Greek.”

¹⁸ According to McGaughy, this system includes nominal anaphora, pronominal anaphora, zero anaphora, contrastive pronouns, and coordinating conjunctions. He adds that an elaborate system of verb désinences, that is endings, or inflected suffixes also signals participant identification. Ibid., 42.

¹⁹ See Funk’s sentence types above.

²⁰ McGaughy, Descriptive Analysis, 51-52.

²¹ Charles H. Kahn, The Verb “Be” in Ancient Greek, The Verb ‘Be’ and its Synonyms: Philosophical and Grammatical Studies, ed. John W.M. Verhaar, vol. 16, 17 vols. (Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Co., 1973), 40-46, 51.

²² Ibid., 39.

²³ Kahn does not really provide an answer although he suggests that context and/or the article may provide the key.

²⁴ Kahn, Verb “Be”, 426.

²⁵ Ibid., 428.

²⁶ Eugene Van Ness Goetchius, “Review of Lane C. McGaughy's Toward a Descriptive Analysis of Einai as a Linking Verb in New Testament Greek,” Journal of Biblical Literature 95 (1976): 147-49.

²⁷ Goetchius points out that with “embedded sentences” consisting of the infinitive, the subject tends to be in the accusative case.

²⁸ Acts 18:5 διαμαρτυρόμενος τοῖς ᾿Ιουδαίοις εἶναι τὸν Χριστὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν (“testifying to the Jews that the Christ is/was Jesus”); Acts 18:28 ἐπιδεικνὺς διὰ τῶν γραφῶν εἶναι τὸν Χριστὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν (“showing by the scriptures that the Christ is/was Jesus”); and the verbal ellipsis Acts 5:42 εὐαγγελιζόμενοι τὸν Χριστὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν (“telling the good news that the Messiah [was] Jesus”). The falsifiable hypothesis of the present work yields the same translations Goetchius suggests, but for a different reason.

²⁹ D. A. Carson, “The Purpose of the Fourth Gospel: John 20:31 Reconsidered,” Journal of Biblical Literature 106 (1987): 639-51.

³⁰ Carson, “Purpose,” 642.

³¹ John 20:31; 1 John 2:22b; 4:15; 5:1, 5c; Acts 5:42; 18:5 and 28.

³² Carson, “Purpose,” 643.

³³ Ibid., 643.

³⁴ Carson, “Purpose,” 648-49. See number (9).

³⁵ This study aims to show that the target cluster, when found in convertible propositions, more aptly falls under McGaughy’s Rule 3d than Rule 3c.

³⁶ Jeffrey T. Reed, “The Infinitive with Two Substantival Accusatives: An Ambiguous Construction?” Novum Testamentum 33 (1991): 1-27.

³⁷ Moeller and Kramer made much of the consecutive accusatives characteristic and virtually dismissed non-consecutive examples as too ambiguous. The decision to look at all examples, including those split by the infinitive, advanced the work immensely.

³⁸ Reed, “Ambiguous Construction,” 26.

³⁹ In other words, Reed examined the data in general (combining objects and predicates under one category, objects) semantic terms (subject, copulative, non-copulative, object). The generalization not withstanding, he rightly identified the six functional types (SOI, OSI, SIO, OIS, ISO, and IOS). The present study refers to these as semantic configurations. Reed explained that his study aimed to show that ordering SO outnumbered the ordering OS. In fact, it showed SO:OS ratio = 41:2 for non-copulatives and SO:OS ratio = 46:6 for copulatives.

⁴⁰ For Reed, “unmarked” refers to the normal word order between subject and object and “marked” refers to the transposition of the two due to contextual factors. The theory is that sentence transcending items will often explain the reason for changing the normal word order. Essentially, three camps exist on this discussion—those who hold to SO being the normal word order, those who hold OS being the normal word order, and those who believe that there is no “normal” word order. For a helpful investigation on this subject see Brad Lee Van Eerden, “An Examination of Some Issues Relating to Greek Word Order and Emphasis” (Th.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1994).

⁴¹ On the surface it might seem that five terms would result in 120 combinations (5x4x3x2x1). However, this is misleading because the copulative infinitive only takes a predicate, or stated differently, a non-copulative infinitive only takes an object. Noting that two categories are in view, we see that there are really only 12 permutations (3x2x1 + 3x2x1). Reed’s Copulative table (pg. 26) may very well only represent one category S and P ordering and the Non-copulative table represents S and O ordering.

⁴² Eerden, “Examination,” 25.

⁴³ The combined total of examples is less than 100. Only 44 of the 52 copulative constructions use the equative verb, εἶναι. And only three involve a proper noun and an articluar noun. Such few examples prove little more than that the construction is rare in the New Testament. Fortunately, Reed is careful to speak more about ratios than about percentages.

⁴⁴ He spread the net wide (nouns, pronouns, and adjectives) in order to increase the number of samples but, in so doing, he limited the ability to make semantic statements about each of the various combinations of those substantives. Observation of syntactical structures helps to surface the limitations of syntax and show if, indeed, sentence-transcending features ultimately help to identify the subject.

⁴⁵ D. A. Carson, The Gospel according to John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 662.

⁴⁶ Carson still holds to rendering ὅτι ᾿Ιησου) ς ἐστιν ὁ Χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ as, “that the Christ, the Son of God, is Jesus.”

⁴⁷ Frans Neirynck and Frans van Segbroeck, eds., The Four Gospels 1992: Festschrift für Frans Neirynck, 3 vols., vol. 3 (Leuven: University Press, 1992), 2193-205.

⁴⁸ Ibid., 2205 fn. 29.

⁴⁹ Ibid.

⁵⁰ Matthew Allen Cripe, “An Analysis of Infinitive Clauses Containing both Subject and Object in the Accusative Case in the Greek New Testament” (Th.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1992). This essay contributes immensely to the discussion of the infinitive clause but only those elements which pertain to copulative constructions are highlighted.

⁵¹ Ibid., 20-24. Cripe identifies five problems with Moeller and Kramer (MK): (1) it neglects passages where the two accusatives are split by the infinitive, (2) the choice of patterns seems arbitrary and confusing, (3) the grammatical method employed included unclear or ambiguous examples and based conclusions on insufficient data, (4) it presents its results inaccurately, and (5) the statement of the rule is too complex.

⁵² Cripe, “Analysis,” 30-34. He gives five critiques of Reed: (1) it does not really provide a new rule because it only removes the exceptions disclaimer on MK’s rule, (2) it understands the MK rule exceptions in relationship to the proximity rule rather than in relationship to the word order rule, (3) the grammatical method includes ambiguous examples and slightly prejudices the results, (4) it fails to explain the contradictions to the rule, and (5) the analysis does not separate the copulative infinitive from non-copulative infinitive.

⁵³ This relies heavily on an article by Daniel B. Wallace, “The Semantic and Exegetical Significance of the Object-Complement Construction in the New Testament,” Grace Theological Journal 6 (1985): 91-112.

⁵⁴ The meaning of this is clarified below.

⁵⁵ Wallace, Greek Grammar, 43-44.

⁵⁶ These will be discussed in full in the next chapter.

⁵⁷ Andrew Keith Malcolm Adam, A Grammar for New Testament Greek (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1999), 63-64.

⁵⁸ D. A. Carson, “Syntactical and Text-Critical Observations on John 20:30-31: One More Round on the Purpose of the Fourth Gospel,” (Draft of journal article mailed to Mario Cerda on 21 January 2005, from a paper which was to be presented at the 56th Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, San Antonio, TX, 17-19 November 2004), January 2005 TMs (photocopy), Author's personal holding, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield. Carson’s new piece concludes the chronological review of past research. The reader is reminded that my survey focused on discussions relevant to the target cluster. For this reason, some of the reviews may seem minimalistic. Grammars and monographs dealing more squarely with the target cluster or with analogous constructions received more interaction than articles that simply use a syntactical postulation about it in order to advance an argument. Carson provides a fitting example. His articles attempt to support a particular position regarding the historical setting of John’s gospel. Comparatively speaking, his discussions spend little time on original or supporting evidence from new studies dealing with the target cluster.

⁵⁹ Neirynck and Segbroeck, eds., Four Gospels, 2193-205.

⁶⁰ Fee, “Definite Article,” 168-83.

⁶¹ He claims this on the onset and later reiterates by naming a few scholars that “follow [his] arguments” (Carson, “One More Round,” 4, 13). It seems that by this he means that they agree with him. However, the titles of their books suggest that they contain minimal, if any, new focused study of the target cluster. Cf. Robert Tomson Fortna, The Fourth Gospel and its Predecessor (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), 201 fn. 474, 323; Robert Gordon Maccini, Her Witness Is True: Women as Witnesses according to John (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 32; Derek Tovey, Narrative Art and Act in the Fourth Gospel (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 88.

⁶² Carson, “One More Round,” 4.

⁶³ Carson, “One More Round,” 4.

⁶⁴ Ibid., 22.

⁶⁵ John 4:1, 47; 5:15; 6:24; 7:39; 11:20; 20:14; 20:31; and 21:4.

⁶⁶ Carson, “One More Round,” 24-25. Carson uses functional terminology to describe McGaughy’s goal but McGaughy is very careful to use truly syntactical considerations (Rules 1 and 2) to determine subject. And when form fails to signal the subject, then sentence transcending considerations (Rule 3) are employed.

⁶⁷ Ibid., 22-26.

⁶⁸ Matthew Cripe’s thesis is one of the more recent studies which clearly rely heavily on Wallace’s “pecking order” for the nominative case.

⁶⁹ Thesaurus Linguae Graecae Ver. #E (Los Angeles: University of California, 1999). See first mention in chapter one for the description of Old Testament (OT) and New Testament (NT) texts it uses.

⁷⁰ Roy Brown, Accordance Bible Software Ver. 5.1 (Vancouver: OakTree Software, Inc., 2004). This program also uses Alfred Rahlfs’ 9th edition text of the Septuagint but, unlike TLG #E, it utilizes the newer Nestle-Aland 27th edition of the NT text (Alfred Rahlfs, Septuaginta, 9th ed. [Stuttgart: Württemberg Bible Society, 1935 (repr. 1971)], 1-941; Eberhard Nestle, The Greek-English New Testament, ed. Erwin Nestle, rev. and ed. by Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, 27th ed. [Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1998], 1-886). Accordance labels the manuscripts Codex Vaticanus and Codex Alexandrinus (BA) as LXX1 and Codex Sinaiticus (S) as LXX2.

Explanation of Search Method

Searching the primary sources for combinations of an anarthrous proper noun in an SPN construction can be done in a couple of ways. One is simply to create a list of all known proper nouns and search the literature with it. But this would take too long since there are over 4,000 proper names in the Bible alone.¹ An alternative method is to look for combinations of an anarthrous nominative singular noun (N), a 3rd person singular equative verb (V^E), and an articular nominative singular noun (AN).² Using Accordance Bible Software 5.1 (Accordance) and Logos Bible Software Series X (Logos), preliminary searches were conducted to identify a few samples of the construction with εἰμί that could be used to test the effectiveness of the final search parameters in Accordance.³

The preliminary searches in the NT yielded six true examples out of the 1,000 verses which were examined—John 8:39; John 20:31; 1 John 2:22; 4:15; 5:1 and 5. These matches fall within two of the five search constructs employed.⁴ Search string ANNV^E produced John 8:39, a verse which contains the articular noun followed by the anarthrous proper name followed by the equative verb SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Galaxie Unicode Greek">εἰμί. Search construct NV^EAN surfaced the other five examples. After closer examination of the verses, the matches proved that the search constructs possessed the ability to capture all six structural types defined in chapter one of this thesis.

The searches were run again in Thesaurus Linguae Graecae (TLG #E) and Accordance.⁵ The data was examined more exhaustively. With respect to searches in TLG #E, a different method was employed than was used for LXX1, LXX2, NT, and AF in Accordance. Due to the large amounts of information, TLG #E contains 76 million words, and the software’s inability to use grammatical tags, only εἰμί in the 3rd person singular indicative mood was utilized.⁶ The allowable distance between words was reduced from a ten-word radius to a five-word radius. Finally, the preliminary research did not perform a full synchronic study. It only probed into the extra-biblical texts of the 1st century B.C. With respect to searches in Accordance, the five constructs looked for three verbs—εἰμί‚ γίνομαι, and ὑπάρχω. No restriction was given to mood.

The final results of the initial study failed to provide the desired number of examples. Consequently, a full diachronic study was launched. As previously stated, this investigation defines the Koine Greek period as 400 B.C. to A.D. 300. These seven hundred years of literature in TLG#E yielded 75,918 matches which could potentially have a target cluster functioning as an SPN construction.⁷ These were filtered using the following method. First, each match was examined for the presence of an anarthrous proper noun near the copula. Second, if the copula had the proper noun, each of these was filtered one more time by looking for an articular singular noun in the nominative case near the copula.⁸ Finally, each filtered match was roughly translated to check if the sentence or clause formed an SPN construction.

During the course of this process, several potential examples were dismissed due to difficulty in verifying formal matches. This problem would have been easily solved by context, but unfortunately TLG #E search results do not provide a lot of text. Several additional steps are required to enlarge the text within which a match occurs. These matches were excluded for the sake of expediency and fortunately they were few. The presence of certain syntactical units also served to quickly dismiss some target clusters. For example, phrases involving spatial prepositions (ἐν and ἐπί) and adverbs (ο)θεν, ἐντεύθεν, and ἔνθα) at the beginning of a clause tend to complete the copula. Consequently, the two substantives tend to function in apposition to one another, rather than to function as an SPN construction. Most of these were categorically dismissed.

Analysis and Presentation of Results

The final analysis began with double checking some of the filtering steps of the search process—confirming proper nouns, verifying the articular nominative singular noun, determining that the target cluster formed an SPN construction, and identifying the structural type of each that qualified. The next step was a little more involved. The context of each verse was examined to look for the semantic subject. Many times this was straightforward and a simple reading of the text revealed the known and less known entities.⁹ But in some cases the focus point was not as clear due to lack of context.¹⁰ The first nominative of the target cluster was then compared to the semantic subject and labeled as being “the same as,” “similar to,” or “predicates on.”

Another labeling step was performed on target clusters which contained paraphrases, misquotes, or verbatim quotations of material already identified and classified by my analysis.¹¹ In some of these passages, the three labels sufficed, but in others, the labels of “related to” and “unrelated to” were also necessary. Only three first nominatives in quoted target clusters were found to be completely unrelated to the semantic subject of the quoting author. These are not included in the statistics. Next, the SPN constructions were examined for convertibility and labeled accordingly. Finally, the six functional types for SPN constructions were employed in order to further organize the data by use.

The goals of the analysis were to show: (1) that in every case the first nominative in the target cluster would match the semantic subject, (2) that none of the formally qualified SPN constructions would be subset, and (3) secondarily, that the speaker/writer would tend to keep the subject close to the verb, either before or after but more often pre-copulative.

General Observations

Perhaps the most surprising discovery is the rarity of this SPN construction. I expected to find 200 examples fairly quickly and easily. More examples may exist outside of Koine Greek, but the fact that only 76 were found in 700 years of Greek literature cautions against strong statements regarding the implications of the observed target cluster tendencies.¹²

The data do appear to support the first goal, to show that the first nominative matches the semantic subject. In other words, writers most often placed the grammatical subject first in the clause or sentence. As previously mentioned, three target clusters are not included in the statistics. This means that 73 clear examples form the basis for the analysis of function. The data show that the first nominative in the target cluster is the subject over 90% of the time.¹³ In most of the formally qualified SPN constructions, the grammatical subject was a specification of the semantic subject but not strictly identical to it.¹⁴ There are a several examples where both subjects are practically the same. In De ebrietate 128.1, Philo writes, ᾿Ααρὼν δέ ἐστιν ὁ ἱερεύς‚καὶ τοὔνομα ὀρεινὸς ἑρμηνεύεται‚μετέωρα καὶ ὑψηλὰ φρονῶν λογισμός.¹⁵ Examining this passage within its broader context, from the beginning of the paragraph to the end of the line above, showed that Aaron is also the semantic subject. Philo begins by discussing the “priestly-ness” of sobriety, in other words, commenting on the priestly duty of sobriety. He then elaborates on how God told Aaron not to drink a lot of strong wine before going into the tabernacle to execute his duties. Philo then shows the exemplary character of Aaron, the greatness of his virtue, for obeying this command faithfully and resolving to continue in obedience to it. The focal point for Philo is Aaron.

Another example can be seen in Tobit 1:22. In both LXX1 and LXX2, the verse resides within a broader context of a brief commentary on the identity and political position of Archiacharus. LXX1, more specifically Codex Alexandrinus, reads, Αχιαχαρος δὲ ἦν ὁ οἰνοχόος; and LXX2 reads, Αχιαχαρος γὰρ ἦν ὁ ἀρχιοινοχόος.¹⁶ In both of these, the proper name is translated as the grammatical subject. See appendix four of this thesis for the other examples.

The data did not validate the second goal, which was that none of the examples would be subset proposition. The research shows that 30 of the constructions are subset propositions. The majority of these, 19, are in target clusters where the verb splits the nominatives. The remaining 11 are almost equally distributed between pre-verb and post-verb adjacent nominatives.¹⁷ In other words, the research did not discover a pattern or correlation between the semantic relationship (convertible or subset) within the SPN constructions and their structural type.

As for the third goal, to show that the speaker will tend to keep the subject close to the verb, either before it or after it but more often before the verb, the data pool appears to confirm both parts of this goal. Based on the 73 clear examples, over 80% of the time the subject is in the first position, either before the verb or after it. Moreover, over 60% of the time the subject is in the first position and before the verb.¹⁸

A few other general observations are worth noting before proceeding to a presentation of the representative examples from each structural type. First, not much can be said about the structural types ST1, ST2 ST4, ST5, or ST6 because the searches produced a combined total which is less than the total number of ST3. Each has fewer than 10 examples. There is simply not enough data to make any claims about any one of these specific structural types. Target clusters with these structures are rarely utilized for SPN constructions. Their discussion below is brief.

Second, the most common structural type is ST3, proper noun followed by the verb followed by the articular noun. The data show that 58% of the target clusters use this syntactical configuration. This degree of empirical representation benefits discussions of the debated Johannine passages, since all but one of them are ST3.

Third, the most common functional type for ST3 SPN constructions is FT2. The research shows that 90% of ST3 structures function with the subject followed by verb followed by predicate nominative.¹⁹ In addition, ST3 target clusters use the present indicative mood more than the other two moods combined

Finally, some observations regarding verb tenses are also worth noting. ²⁰ The target clusters consist of the present indicative 56% of the time. Approximately 30% of clusters use the imperfect indicative and always with a normal (default) word order pattern. The future indicative is the least used, only 14% of the target clusters use this tense. However, the most interesting observation is that nine of the ten future tense clusters consist of the articular ὄνομα noun. Discussion of this noun is presented below.

Presentation of Results by Structural Type

This section presents all of the target clusters from seven hundred years of Koine Greek which function as SPN constructions.²¹ They are listed immediately under the opening paragraph of the discussion for each of the six structural types. Addresses are given with the Latin author names and titles in order to facilitate finding them in TLG #E. The Greek text and the English translation are given in the shortest form possible in order to preserve space.²²

The opening paragraph provides a summary regarding how often the structural type occurs in each of the tenses, how many are convertible propositions, how many support the falsifiable hypothesis, and how many do not. Subsequent discussions follow only to show the reader some representative examples of the process used to identify the nominative with greater saliency, the better known entity of the two nominatives.

Structural Type One (N^PANV^E)

The searches yielded five examples of ST1 target clusters. Two of them use imperfect tense, three use the present, and none used the future. Only one of the five is a convertible proposition. All five follow the normal word order pattern, the subject precedes the predicate.

Plutarch, Amatoriae narrationes 775.B.10
῎Αλκιππος τὸ μὲν γένος Λακεδαιμόνιος ἦν
“Now Alcippus was the descendant [of a] Lacedamonian . . .”

Flavius Arranius, Historia successorum Alexandri 1, 15.2
Δείναρχος δὲ ὁ Κορίνθιος ὁ κατήγορος ἦν.
“And Deinarchus, the Corinthian, was the accuser.”

Philo Judaeus Phil., De congressu eruditionis gratia 57.7
῞Αιδης ὁ τοῦ μοχθηροῦ βίος ἐστίν
“. . . Hades is the life of the bad . . .”

Origenes, Commentarii in evangelium Joannis 20.32.285.3
ὅτι ᾿Ιησοῦς ὁ χριστός ἐστιν
“. . . that Jesus is the Christ . . .”

Origenes, Fragmenta ex commentariis in epistulam i ad Corinthios 27.41
Χριστὸς δε ἡ δικαιοσύνη ἐστίν
“. . . and Christ is the righteousness [of God/us] . . .”

Philo, in De congressu eruditionis gratia 57.7, writing about the real Hades (in contrast to the mythical place his audience envisions) uses a subset proposition SPN construction to say, “καὶ γὰρ ὁ πρὸς ἀλήθειαν Αἵδης ὁ τοῦ μοχθηροῦ βίος ἐστίν‚ὁ αλάστωρ καὶ παλαμναῖος καὶ πάσαις ἀραῖς ἔνοχος.²³ The semantic subject within his context is the place to where God banishes the unjust and ungodly souls. Philo calls it the place of pleasures, lusts, and injustices. His thought moves in the direction of greater specificity and says what it is not, “a mythical place in Hades.” He then identifies the location as “true Hades,” as ὁ τοῦ μοχθηροῦ βίος. The grammatical subject most translators see is that of Hades. This is the known, not the “life of the bad.” This example functions with a normal word order pattern.

Origen provides another example in Fragmenta ex commentariis in epistulam i ad Corinthios 27.41. In the broader context, one sees a clear motion from a broader topic to a narrower one, ἢ οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι ἄδικοι θεοῦ Βασιλείαν οὐ κληρονομήσουσιν;Εἰ ἡ Βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν Χριστῷ ἐστιν‚Χριστὸς δε ἡ δικαιοσύνη ἐστίν .... The first clause begins with zero anaphora, the subject being derived from the verb itself. Therefore, Origen’s audience is the subject, ἢ οὐκ οἴδατε. He then moves to the next reference using a substantival ὅτι-clause of content, ὅτι ἄδικοι θεοῦ Βασιλείαν οὐ κληρονομήσουσιν. Recalling and applying McGaughy’s Rule 2, we see that the subject is clearly ἄδικοι. We also note that the direct object of this clause has introduced another topic, θεοῦ Βασιλείαν. Again using McGaughy’s Rule 2, it is clear that Origen’s next clause takes this item as subject, Εἰ ἡ Βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν Χριστῷ ἐστίν. The prepositional phrase of this clause then introduces the next topic, ἐν Χριστῷ. Clearly the flow of thought invites the reader to see that Χριστός is the subject of the next clause. In this sense, the first nominative is the same as the semantic subject of the immediate context.

Structural Type Two (ANNPVE)

Nine examples of ST2 target clusters were found. Four constructions use the imperfect tense, five employ the present tense, and none utilize the future tense. Five of the nine are convertible propositions. All but one of these functions with the normal word order pattern. This example of a marked target cluster is discussed below in the section on marked word order patterns.

Aristoteles, Fragmenta varia 8.44.527.3
τὸ μὲν ὄνομα αὐτῷ Τίμαρχος ἦν
“. . . the name [given] to him was Timarchus . . .”

Julius Pollux, Onomasticon 2.95.6
τὸ μὲν ὄνομα αὐτῷ Τίμαρχος ἦν
“. . . the name [given] to him was Timarchus . . .”

Origenes, Commentarii in evangelium Joannis 6.46.240.4
ὅτι ...ἡ πέτρα Χριστὸς ἦν
“. . . that . . . the rock was Christ . . .”

Origenes, Commentarii in evangelium Joannis 20.27.240.4
ἡ πέτρα Χριστὸς ἦν
“. . . the rock was Christ . . .”

Novum Testamentum John 8:39
῾Ο πατὴρ ἡμῶν ᾿Αβραάμ ἐστιν.
“. . . ‘Our father is Abraham.’”

(Cebes of Thebes), Cebetis tabula 3.3.1
ἡ γὰρ ἀφροσύνη τοῖς ἀνθρώποις Σφίγξ ἐστιν.
“For Sphinx is the folly to men.”

Lucianus, De Syria dea 15.2
ὅτι ἡ μὲν θεὴ ῾Ρέη ἐστίν
“. . . that the goddess is Rhea (or Cybelé) . . .”

Origenes, Commentarii in evangelium Joannis 20.15.125.3
῾Ο πατὴρ ἡμῶν ᾿Αβραάμ ἐστίν.
“. . . ‘Our father is Abraham.’”

Origenes, Commentarii in evangelium Joannis 20.16.132.4
῾Ο πατὴρ ἡμῶν ᾿Αβραάμ ἐστίν
“. . . ‘Our father is Abraham . . .’”

In chapter eight of his gospel, John recounts the story of Jesus’ interactions with the disbelieving religious authorities. In v. 39, he uses a convertible proposition,῾Ο πατὴρ ἡμῶν ᾿Αβραάμ ἐστιν, to record one of the Pharisees’ responses to Jesus’ judgments. The immediate context of the passage points to parental lineage as the semantic subject. Jesus claims that he comes from God the Father and points out that they want to kill him because they listen to their father. It is in response to this that the Pharisees say, “Our father is Abraham.” Through this interplay, John reveals the qualitative source of their respective activities, their respective fathers. Indeed, “fathers” are critical components of the contrast that John is calling his audience to see. The focal issue in this context is spiritual lineage, source, πατήρ and not σπέρμα.

Yet most translators opt for the inverted translation. The presence of the 1st person plural possessive personal pronoun renders this a convertible proposition which means that this ST2 can function with an FT4 pattern, “Abraham is our Father.” If translators are correct, then the Pharisees’ answer highlights their blindness to Jesus’ message. They are still thinking about a physical tie. In fact, this is the very problem Jesus is addressing. John tells his audience in v. 17 that “they did not realize that he had been speaking to them about the Father.” This may be a legitimate example of an ST2 functioning as an FT4, but I am not convinced. In 8:33, Jews introduce Abraham and state their connection to him. Jesus on the other hand brings up fatherhood in v. 16. Πατήρ appears 20 times, beginning in v. 16 and ending at v. 56. ᾿Αβραάμ appears eleven times, beginning in v. 33 and ending in v. 58. The two times immediately before v. 39, it is probably a genitive modifying σπέρμα. At least until this point in the chapter, the topic is lineage, even if the Pharisees do not see that Jesus means it in a spiritual and not a physical way. Though the subject determination process is more involved for this example than for the others, I think that McGaughy correctly identifies ῾Ο πατήρ as subject of this clause.²⁴

Structural Type Three (N^PV^EAN)

By far, ST3 target clusters are the most common in the literature examined; 45 were identified. Eight are in the imperfect tense, 27 are in the present tense, and 10 are in the future tense. Over half of these SPN constructions are convertible propositions. The majority function with the normal word order pattern.²⁵ Four function with a marked pattern. These are discussed in the following section.

Septuaginta Tobit 1:22 (BA)
Αχιαχαρος δὲ ἦν ὁ οἰνοχόος
“And Achiacharus was cupbearer. . .”

Septuaginta Tobit 1:22 (S)
Αχιαχαρος γὰρ ἦν ὁ ἀρχιοινοχόος
“For Achiacharus was chief cupbearer . . .”

Plutarchus, Vitae decem oratorum 839.E.2
᾿Ισαῖος Χαλκιδεὺς μὲν ἦν τὸ γένος
“Now Isaeus was the descendant of Chalcidice . . .”

Manetho, Fragmenta 42.1
Μανεθὼν δ ᾿ ἦν τὸ γένος Αἰγυπτιος
“But Manetho was the descendant [of an] Egyptian . . .”

Aelius Aristides, ῾Ροδιακός 552.15
ἦν χρόνος ἡνίκ ᾿ οὔπω ῾Ρόδος ἦν ἡ πόλις αὕτη
“. . . There was a time when Rhodes was not yet this city.”

Pausanias, Graeciae descriptio 5.5.9.2
ὅτι δὲ τῷ ᾿Ακίδαντι ὄνομα ᾿Ιάρδανος ἦν τὸ ἀρχαῖον
“. . . that [with respect to] the name [given] to the Acidas, Iardanus was the original . . .”

Aelius Herodianus et Pseudo, De prosodia catholica 3, 1.196.10
῎Ωλερος ἦν ἡ πόλις
“. . . Oleros was the city . . .’”

Clemens Alexandrinus, Stromata 1.16.75.1.2
Κάδμος δὲ Φοῖνιξ ἦν ὁ τῶν γραμμάτων ῞Ελλησιν εὑρετης
“And Cadmus, a Phoenician, was the inventor of the Greek characters . . .”

Septuaginta Esther 10:3c
Εσθηρ ἐστὶν ὁ ποταμός
“. . . this river is Esther . . .”

Strabo, Geographica 13.1.39.8
᾿Αχίλλειον δ ᾿ ἔστιν ὁ τόπος
“Achilleium is the place . . .”

Philo Judaeus Phil., De ebrietate 128.1
᾿Ααρὼν δέ ἐστιν ὁ ἱερεύς
“Now Aaron is the priest . . .”

Novum Testamentum John 20:31
ὅτι ᾿Ιησου)ς ἐστιν ὁ Χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ
“. . . that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God . . . .”

Novum Testamentum 1 John 2:22
ὅτι ᾿Ιησοῦς οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ Χριστός
“. . . that Jesus is not the Christ?”

Novum Testamentum 1 John 4:15
ὅτι ᾿Ιησοῦς ἐστιν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ
“. . . that Jesus is the Son of God . . .”

Novum Testamentum 1 John 5:1
ὅτι ᾿Ιησοῦς ἐστιν ὁ Χριστὸς
“. . . that Jesus is the Christ . . . .”

Novum Testamentum 1 John 5:5
ὅτι ᾿Ιησοῦς ἐστιν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ;
“. . . that Jesus is the Son of God?”

Plutarchus, De exilio 607.B.7
Φρυγία σού ἐστιν ἡ μήτηρ
“. . . Phrygia is your mother . . .”

Lucianus Annaeus Cornutus, De natura deorum 4.11
Ποσειδῶν δέ ἐστιν ἡ ἀπεργαστικὴ τοῦ ἐν τῇ γῇ καὶ περὶ τὴν γῆν ὑγροῦ δύναμις
“And Poseidon is the effectual power of the sea [which is] in and around the land . . .”

Lucianus Annaeus Cornutus, De natura deorum 12.14
Αἶσα δέ ἐστιν ἡ ἄιστος καὶ ἄγνωστος αἰτία
“Aisa (or Destiny) is the unseen and unknown cause . . .”

Lucianus Annaeus Cornutus, De natura deorum 45.4
᾿Αφροδίτη δέ ἐστιν ἡ συνάγουσα τὸ ἄρρεν καὶ τὸ θῆλυ δύναμις
“And Aphrodite is the co-leading masculine and feminine power . . .”

Flavius Josephus, Antiquitates Judaicae 9.53.4
ὅτι ᾿Ελισσαῖός ἐστιν ὁ προφήτης
“. . . that Elisha was the prophet . . .”

Tatianus, Oratio ad Graecos 17.1.3
᾿Αβδηρολόγος ἐστὶν ὁ ἀπὸ τῶν ᾿Αβδήρων ἄνθρωπος
“. . . Abderos is the man from/of the Abderas.”

Justinus Martyr, Dialogus cum Tryphone 113.1.6
ὅτι ᾿Ιησοῦς ἐστιν ὁ Χριστὸς ἡμῶν
“. . . that Jesus is our Christ . . .”

Hegesippus, Fragmenta 209.9
ὅτι ᾿Ιησους ἐστὶν ὁ Χριστός.
“. . . that Jesus is the Christ.”

Pseudo-Galenus, Definitiones medicae 19.430.11
῾Ροπάλωσίς ἐστιν ἡ κατὰ τὸ ἄκρον τῶν τριχῶν ἀμερὴς σχέσις μετὰ τοῦ μηκέτι συναύξεσθαι.
“Rhopalosis is the whole condition concerning the ends of hairs that no longer grow together.”

Pseudo-Galenus, Definitiones medicae 19.430.13
Διχοφυί∂∂α ἐστὶν διαμερὴς ἡ κατὰ τὸ ἄκρον τῶν τριχῶν σχέσις‚μετὰ τοῦ μηκέτι συναύξεσθαι.
“Dichofuia is a separate (or partial) condition concerning the ends of hairs that no longer grow together.”

Aelius Herodianus et Pseudo Herodianus, Περὶ ῥημάτων 3, 2.808.30
῎Αρης γάρ ἐστιν ὁ σίδηρος.
“. . . for Ares is the iron [writing] tool.”

Origenes, Commentarii in evangelium Joannis 19.23.151.4
ὅτι ᾿Ιησοῦς ἐστιν ὁ χριστός
“. . . that Jesus is the Christ?’ . . .”

Origenes, Commentarii in evangelium Joannis 20.37.347.4
Χριστὸς γάρ ἑστιν ἡ εἰρήνη ἡμῶν.
“For Christ is our peace.”

Origenes, Fragmenta in Lucam 18.4
᾿Ιωάννης ἐστὶν τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ.
“. . . John is his name.”

Origenes, Fragmenta ex commentariis in epistulam i ad Corinthios 25.5
᾿Ιησοῦς ὁ χριστός ἐστιν ἡ νέα ζύμη.
“The new leaven is Jesus Christ.”

Origenes, Fragmenta in Psalmos 1-150 73.11.15
Χριστός ἐστιν ἡ δεξιὰ τοῦ Πατρός
“Christ is the right hand of the Father . . .”

Origenes, Fragmenta in Psalmos 1-150 88.13.41
Θαβὼρ δὲ ἐστι τὸ ὄρος τῆς Γαλιλαίας
“And Tabor is the mountain of Galilee . . .”

Heliodorus, Aethiopica 2.14.4.1
Θύαμίς ἐστιν ὁ σφαγεύς
“. . . Thyamis is the murderer . . .”

Hippolytus, Refutatio omnium haeresium 10.34.5.1
Χριστὸς γάρ ἐστιν ὁ κατὰ πάντων θεός
“For Christ is the God above all . . .”

Septuaginta Genesis 17:15
ἀλλὰ Σαρρα ἔσται τὸ ὄνομά αὐτῆς.
“. . . but Sarah will be her name.”

Septuaginta Genesis 32:29
ἀλλὰ ᾿Ισραηλ ἔσται τὸ ὄνομά σου
“. . . but your name will be Israel . . .”

Septuaginta Genesis 35:10
ἀλλ ᾿ ᾿Ισραηλ ἔσται τὸ ὄνομά σου.
“. . . but your name will be Israel.”

Philo Judaeus Phil., Legum allegoriae 3.217.6
ἀλλὰ Σάρρα αὐτῆς ἔσται τὸ ὄνομα
“. . . but Sarah will be her name . . .”

Philo Judaeus Phil., De ebrietate 82.6
ἀλλ ᾿ ᾿Ισραὴλ ἔσται σου τὸ ὄνομα
“. . . but Israel will be your name . . .”

Justinus Martyr, Dialogus cum Tryphone 58.7.4
ἀλλὰ ᾿Ισραὴλ ἔσται τὸ ὄνομά σου
“. . . but your name will be Israel . . .”

Justinus Martyr, Dialogus cum Tryphone 58.8.12
ἀλλὰ ᾿Ισραὴλ ἔσται τὸ ὄνομά σου.
“. . . but Israel will be your name.”

Origenes, Fragmenta in evangelium Joannis 24.2
ὅτι ᾿Ιησοῦς ἔσται ὁ υἱος ᾿Ιωσὴφ ἀπὸ Ναζαρέτ
“. . . that Jesus would be the son of Joseph from Nazareth . . .”

Origenes, Epistula ad Africanum 11.73.13
ἀλλ ᾿ ᾿Ισραὴλ ἔσται τὸ ὄνομά σου
“. . . but your name will be Israel . . .”

Origenes, Scholia in Lucam 17.324.1
ὅτι ᾿Ιωάννης ἔσται τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ
“. . . that John will be his name . . .”

One clear example comes from Plutarch’s De exilio 607.B.7. In the fourth major division of this essay, he refutes those who view exile negatively. He is particularly sharp with those who enjoy ridiculing foreigners in their land. The context of the passage involves Plutarch showing how the foreigners who make the greatest contributions to a foreign land are often also the ones who are the object of jokes from simple minded citizens. So he commends Antisthenes for the quick response to someone who was making fun of him, τὸ δὲ τοῦ ᾿Αντισθένους οὐκ ἐπαινεῖς πρὸς τὸν ειπόντα ο)τι ‘Φρυγία σου ἐστιν ἡ μήτηρ‚’ ‘καὶ γὰρ ἡ τῶν θεῶν’²⁶ The known entity in this passage is Antisthenes’ supposed place of origin.²⁷ What is not known is how a bystander will use this to make fun of him. What makes the response quick is that Antisthenes takes the predicate, “your mother,” and uses it immediately to his advantage.

Structural Type Four (ANVENP)

The study yielded seven examples of ST4 target clusters. Two of them use the imperfect tense, five employ the present tense, and none used the future tense. Five of these are convertible propositions. Six functioned with the normal word order pattern. One functions with the marked pattern. It is discussed in the following section.

Pausanias, Graeciae descriptio 5.3.6.8
ὁ δὲ ἀνὴρ ἦν ῎Οξυλος Αἵμονος τοῦ Θόαντος
“And the man was Oxylus, [son of] Haemon, [son of] Thoas . . .”

Porphyrius, Vita Plotini 7.3
οὗ τὸ ὄνομα ἦν Γεντιλιανὸς τὸ κύριον
“. . . the name of whom was properly Gentilianus . . .”

Aeschines Orat., In Timarchum 111.3
ὁ μὲν ἀνήρ ἐστιν ῾Ηγήσανδρος ἐκεῖνος νυνί
“. . . The man is Hegesandrus there now . . .”

Philo Judaeus Phil., De congressu eruditionis gratia 61.2
ὁ γενάρχης ἐστὶν ᾿Ησαῦ
“. . . Esau is the progenitor . . .”

Hermas, Pastor 23.4
οὗ τὸ ὄνομά ἐστιν Σεγρί
“. . . the name of whom is Segri . . .”

(Leucius), Acta Joannis 46.21
῾Ο κύριος ἡμῶν ἐστιν ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστός
“. . . Our Lord is Jesus Christ . . .”

Hippolytus, Contra haeresin Noeti 13.4.2
τὸ θέλημα τοῦ Πατρός ἐστιν ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστός.
“. . . the will of the Father is Jesus Christ.”

The earliest example comes from Aescheines, In Timarchum 111.3. In this speech, one of the characters, Pomphilus, explains how two people are attempting to rob the city. He identifies Hegesandrus, who used to be a woman, as one of the thieves and Timarchus, whom the narrator calls a woman, as the other. He confuses the audience when he says that the thief is “a man and a woman.” In the immediate context, the underlying question is, “Who is this person?” The passage reads, θαυμασάντων δ᾿ ὑμῶν πῶς ἀνὴρ καὶ γυνὴ καὶ τίς ὁ λόγος‚εἶπε μικρὸν διαλιπών· ‘ἀvοεῖτε,’ ἔφη‚‘ὅτι λέγω;ὁ μὲν ἀνήρ ἐστιν ῾Ηγήσανδρος ἐκεῖνος νυνί,’ ἔφη‚ ‘πρότερον δ᾿ ἦν καὶ αυτ᾿τὸς Λεωδάμαντος γυνή·’²⁸ The unknown in this example is Hegesandrus and Aeschienes places him second in the target cluster.

Structural Type Five (V^EN^PAN)

The study identified two ST5 target clusters. Both are in the imperfect tense. One is a convertible proposition but both function with a normal word order pattern.

Septuaginta 1 Chronicles 23:11
καὶ ἦν Ιεθ ὁ ἄρχων
“. . . and Jahath was the first . . .”

Plutarchus, Antonius 9.7.1
ἦν δὲ καὶ Σέργιος ὁ μῖμος
“And Sergius also was the mime . . .”

The example from 1 Chronicles 23:11, is pretty straight forward. It reads, καὶ ἦν Ιεθ ὁ ἄρχων καὶ Ζιζα ὁ δεύτερος.²⁹ The semantic subject can be seen from the context, which is genealogies, in particular that of the Gershonites. The succession of names is the focus. In the immediate context, the sons of Shemei have already been named. The unknown is their order or rank. So ὁ ἄρχων predicates on the name. But we can not be certain if the author’s choice reflects a practice in the Greek language to use the first nominative to signal subject or if it reflects a practice in the translators to preserve the Hebrew syntax. The word order is identical to ויהי־יחת הראש, which is read from right to left and says, “And Jahath was the first . . . .”

Structural Type Six (V^EANN^P)

Eight ST6 target clusters were found. Four are in the imperfect tense, one is in the present tense, and three are in the future tense. Only three are convertible propositions. All eight ST6 target clusters function with a normal word order pattern.

Plutarchus, Sulla 3.4.8
ἦν δὲ ἡ γραφὴ Βόκχος
“The engraving was Bocchus . . .”

Dio Chrysostomus, Orationes 43.9.3
ἦν δὲ ὁ κατηγορος Μέλητος
“Now [his] accuser was Meletus . . .”

Polyaenus, Strategemata 1.3.5.3
ἦν δὲ ὁ ποταμὸς Κηφισὸς
“And the river was Cephisus . . .”

Claudius Aelianus, De natura animalium 12.37.1
καὶ ἦν ὁ βασιλεὺς Νικομήδης ὁ Βυθυνῶν
“. . . the king was Nicomedes, the [king] of Bithynians.”

Origenes, In Jeremiam 13.3.35
ἔστι δὲ τὸ ὄρος κύριος ᾿Ιησοῦς
“And the mountain is Lord Jesus . . .”

Septuaginta Genesis 17:5
ἀλλ᾿ ἔσται τὸ ὄνομά σου Αβρααμ
“. . . but your name will be Abraham . . .”

Philo Judaeus Phil., De mutatione nominum 60.1
ἀλλ᾿ ἔσται τὸ ὄνομά σου ᾿Αβραάμ.
“. . . but your name will be Abraham.”

Origenes, Selecta in Genesim 12.116.12
ἀλλ ᾿ ἔσται το ὄνομα σου ᾿Αβραάμ.
“. . . but your name will be Abraham.”

Genesis 17:5 provides one example of this structural type. It reads, Καὶ οὐ κληθήσεται ἔτι τὸ ὄνομά σου Αβραμ‚ἀλλ᾿ ἔσται τὸ ὄνομά σου Αβρααμ.³⁰ The passage resides within the broader context of God renewing the grant covenant. In it he promised Abraham a great number of descendants. The name change means to remind him of that promise. The unknown at this point is the new name. The new name, though a proper name, also has a predicating function. This can be seen from its meaning in Hebrew which is explained immediately by the causal ὅτι-clause.³¹

Dio Chrysostomus provides another example in Orationes 43.9.3. It reads, ἀλλ ᾿ ὅμως ὑπο τοῦ δήμου‚δι ᾿ ὃν ἐκινδύνευεν‚ὕστερον εὖ πράττοντος διαβληθεὶς ὑπὸ συκοφαντῶν τινων ἀπέθανεν.ἦν δὲ ὁ κατηγορος Μέλητος‚βδελυρὸς ἄνθρωπος καὶ συκοφάντης.³² In the broader context, Chrysostomus describes the benevolence of Socrates and how the citizens of the government he helped to build ultimately betrayed him. The focus is on the accusation and ultimate execution of Socrates. As expected, the author maintains this focus by placing “the accuser” first. The underlying question is “who is responsible?” The unknown is the name and identity of the slanderer.

The Marked Word Order Pattern

The data analysis revealed that six of the 73 target cluster functioned in what has been called a marked word order pattern, or marked encoding. The interesting observation is that all six exceptions share the same semantic situation, what I am calling thematic front-loading. This simply means that the immediate context of these passages consistently highlights the second nominative either by repetition or by (re-)introduction in the immediately preceding clause(s).

The first marked pattern noted was an ST2 target cluster in Cebitis tabula 3.3.1.³³ The author writes, ἀπώλετω ὑπὸ τῆς Σφιγγός.ὡσαύτως δὲ καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς ἐξηγήρεως ἔχει ταύτης.ἡ γὰρ ἀφροσύνη τοῖς ἀνθρώποις Σφίγξ ἐστιν. The previous mention of the Sphinx is two clauses back and it is the agent of a causal prepositional phrase. This shows that it is the more salient of the two nominatives.

Esther 10:3c provides an example of an ST3 target cluster marked by obvious thematic front-loading.³⁴ It reads, ἡ μικρὰ πηγή‚ἣ ἐγένετο ποταμὸς καὶ ἦν φῶς καὶ ἥλιος καὶ ὕδωρ πολύ‚Εσθηρ ἐστὶν ὁ ποταμός.³⁵ The context reveals that the broader semantic subject is Mordeccai’s dream, whose fulfillment substantiates his claim that God is the source of Israel’s deliverance, “brought these things about.” Within this telling of the story the semantic subject clearly tightens on the details of the dream, the fountain which becomes a river. In the immediate context, there is no indication that Esther is the subject.

So why does the author use an ST3 instead of an ST4? The reasons may have to do with rhetorical effect and be better suited for a different type of analysis. However, the choice of this type of structure within this semantic situation opens the door to some grammatical speculations. It seems to reinforce the claim that the normal word order in SPN constructions of this sort is so consistent that it creates the possibility for using it as a rhetorical device. Stated differently, if word order was arbitrary this marked use of the target cluster would not cause any stir within the context of this passage.

In Fragmenta ex commentariis in epistulam i ad Corinthios 25.5, Origen gives us another example of an ST3 configuration used in the marked pattern. He writes, εἶτα μετὰ τὴν τῶν ἀζύμων ἑορτην ἡ νέα ζύμη φαίνεται.᾿Ιησοῦς ὁ χριστός ἐστιν ἡ νέα ζύμη. Origen is commenting on 1 Corinthians 5:7-8 and clearly has the topics of leavened and unleavened bread in view. Placing ᾿Ιησοῦς ὁ χριστός before the semantic subject delivers the rhetorical effect Origen undoubtedly intends.

The other two examples of ST3 clusters in the marked word order pattern are in Genesis 32:29 and 35:10. They are jointly discussed because they exemplify the same thing. Genesis 32:29 reads, εἶπεν δὲ αὐτῷ Οὐ κληθήσεται ἔτι τὸ ὄνομά σου ᾿Ιακωβ ἀλλὰ ᾿Ισραηλ ἔσται τὸ ὄνομά σου‚ὅτι ἐνίσχυσας μετὰ θεοῦ καὶ μετὰ ἀνθρωπων δυνατός. Genesis 35:10 reads, καὶ εἶπεν αὐτω ὁ θεός τὸ ὄνομά σου ᾿Ιακωβ‚οὐ κληθήσεται ἔτι ᾿Ιακωβ ἀλλ ᾿ ᾿Ισραηλ ἔσται τὸ ὄνομά σου. In both verses, the target cluster occurs within divine discourse and God introduces the topic of the name. So why does the author place it after the proper noun in the second cause? I think that it is simply to sharpen the contrast between the two names, which in the Hebrew are packed with meaning. Once again, the context is thematically front-loaded so that the subject is clearly known and so that the emphasis is fully appreciated.

The sixth example of a marked word order pattern is from Philo. The text from De congressu eruditionis gratia 61.2, κεφαλη δὲ ὡς ζῴου πάντων τῶν λεχθέντων μερῶν ὁ γενάρχης ἐστὶν ᾿Ησαῦ, is typically translated as, “And of all the members of the clan here described, Esau is the progenitor, the head as it were…” rather than rendered, “And of all the members here described, the progenitor is Esau, the head as it were.” This SPN construction is convertible due to the lexical sense of γενάρχης. Only in some highly unlikely contexts could progenitor be said to represent a category, such as man or father.

The context of this excerpt is Philo’s commentary on the body and the soul. He contrasts body to soul, which is “the legitimate life mate of reason—the true wife.” Speaking metaphorically he uses Esau as an example of the bodily passion in the body which leads to the “fainting of the soul.” Ησαῦ does appear to be the semantic subject of the immediate context. For this reason translators render it as the subject in English. If this ST4 exception functions like the example from Esther, which may reflect a break from normal practice for rhetorical purposes, then it also reinforces the claim that word order helps to determine grammatical subjects in SPN constructions.

This concludes the analysis of the various structural types. In summary, it shows that ST3 is the most common structural type. It shows that the target cluster most often appears in the present tense. Finally and more significantly, it shows that all structural types most often function in the normal word order pattern, subject preceding the predicate nominative. Only six target clusters function with the marked pattern; and these may be by reason of emphasis or for the purpose of rhetorical effect. Before examining the implications to NT passages, a couple of additional observations are offered.

Additional Observations

Some Text Critical Issues

There were two passages from the NT which were not included in the data due to textual variations. As was stated at the onset, the choice was made to examine data without delving too deeply into text critical issues. This discussion is brief and primarily concerned with making them known to the reader.

Luke 1:63b reads, ᾿Ιωαννης ἐστὶν ὄνομα αὐτοῦ and was not included in the data due to the lack of an article on the noun. A couple of 5th century manuscripts and a few other witnesses do read, τὸ ὄνομα αὐτου. But the lack of strong external evidence and the presence of internal evidence which explains the variant suggest that the anarthrous text is original.³⁶ Nonetheless, the cluster is actually represented in the data because Origen alludes to it in his commentaries on Luke, and does so with the article.³⁷

1 Corinthians 11:3b reads, ὅτι παντὸς ἀνδρος ἡ κεφαλὴ ὁ Χριστός ἐστιν. The variant omits the article on Χριστός. It has weak support in comparison to the text, which has strong support from several major early witnesses. If the text is taken as original, which it should, then this passage does not meet the qualification because the target cluster calls for an anarthrous proper noun.

If the variant is taken as original then according to my queries in the NT, this is the only example where Χριστός could be taken as the proper noun in the target cluster. And I would contend that it should predicate on the articular noun for a couple of reasons. First, the subject, broadly speaking, is headship. This is what Paul is talking about. Second, there is no evidence in the immediately preceding context that this variant target cluster should follow a marked word order pattern.

However, I am more convinced that the article is original precisely because it marks the proper noun to signal Paul’s focal points in each of the three clauses. It places it on par with ὁ ἀνήρ and ὁ θεός, which are clearly the subject in their respective clauses. The article on the first κεφαλή then simply serves to highlight it over the other predications. But the reader is reminded that this passage does not qualify as a target cluster.

The Articular Ονομα Noun

The research, by its nature, captures every occurrence of arthrous ὄνομα with a proper noun.³⁸ The target clusters consisting of this configuration display few exceptions to the normal word order pattern. I had expected to find more marked patterns in this target cluster. In addition, this noun is “affected” in every single occurrence by either a genitive or dative personal pronoun, or by a genitive relative pronoun. Consequently, every example is a convertible proposition.

The fact that they all follow so closely to the default pattern and, more significantly, the fact that each one is “affected” with a pronoun leads me to wonder if the reason this noun is always the subject is not something other than its lexical force. It seems that the pronouns import or attach a certain anaphoric quality to the noun and that this is why it is almost always the subject.

---

¹ Robert Young, Analytical Concordance to the Bible, 22d American ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 1-23 (found as repagination at the end of the book).

² This differs from the target cluster in that the anarthrous proper noun is replaced by an anarthrous unspecified noun, that is, unspecified as proper or non-proper. The software used for the preliminary research and for following research lack the ability to search for proper nouns.

³ Roy Brown, Accordance Bible Software Ver. 5.1 (Vancouver: OakTree Software, Inc., 2004); Logos Research Systems, Logos Bible Software Series X Ver. 1.1 (Bellingham: Libronix Corporation, 2002). See first mention in chapter two for the description of Old Testament (OT) and New Testament (NT) texts which Accordance employs. Logos uses Nestle-Aland’s 27^th edition of the NT text and Alfred Rahlfs’ text of the Septuagint. For the discussion in this chapter, LXX1 represents Codex Vaticanus and Codex Alexandrinus (BA) and LXX2 represents Codex Sinaiticus (S).

⁴ The Accordance search constructs for LXX1 and LXX2, the NT, and the Apostolic Fathers (AF) consisted of the three elements mentioned above and executed queries with a range of 10 words for εἰμί, 10 words for γίνομαι, and 20 words for ὑπάρχω.

⁵ Thesaurus Linguae Graecae Ver. #E (Los Angles: University of California, 1999).

⁶ See discussion on methodological direction for present research in chapter two of this thesis for reasons why the oblique mood forms were not included.

⁷ Actually, 138,700 matches were collected for the period of 400 B.C. to A.D. 400. However, this span of time was reduced for several reasons. First, 800 years seems to stretch the Koine period quite a bit. It is normally viewed as covering 330 B.C. to A.D. 330, closer to 700 years. Second, the stated goal regarding empirical substantiation was to find 200 clear examples, preferably as close as possible to the debated passages in the NT. Therefore, the initial period of study was 200 B.C. to A.D. 100. However, this failed to yield the 200 examples and signaled a need to expand the period. Third, the greater concern for this study is the tendency in the language before and during the time of the debated passages. It better pictures the existing proclivity with which we are interested. The ensuing years would undoubtedly reflect it, but do so as language “influenced” by past practices rather than as language describing established practices. Fourth, the occurrences of repeated texts (quoted material) increased with each century and this added another level of undesired complexity. Finally, since A.D. 300 to A.D. 400 contained approximately 50% of the matches and the time required to follow the first three steps (in text above) of the process was substantial, it seemed prudent to dismiss the last 100 years (especially knowing that the better data for the purposes of my study probably resided in 400 B.C. to A.D. 100).

⁸ As substantival adjectives and participles were identified, some of these were noted. These second forms of the target cluster were also scrutinized within context in order to gather evidence which could be used for correlation and, in all likelihood, for corroboration in supporting the falsifiable hypothesis. See table two in appendix four.

⁹ McGaughy’s adaptation of the Halliday’s WH- test was helpful in this step of analysis. It states that “the item for which an interrogative pronoun may be substituted is the predicate” (Lane C. McGaughy, Toward a Descriptive Analysis of Εἶναι as a Linking Verb in New Testament Greek [Nashville: Society of Biblical Literature for the Linguistics Seminar, 1972], 69). However, my approach more often resembled Levinsohn’s system of “default and marked encoding” (Stephen H. Levinsohn, Discourse Features of New Testament Greek: A Coursebook on the Information Structure of New Testament Greek, 2d ed. [Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics, 2000], 135-142). Before explaining what is meant by resembled, an explanation of his approach merits attention. He lists five default rules which the central participant, the subject in view, follows. When one of these rules is not followed, the situation is said to have a marked encoding. A marked encoding signals “the beginning of a narrative unit or highlights the action or speech concerned.” Although his rules have some value and seem to work really well for transitive action verbs, the approach is cumbersome and not as clear for intransitive and equative verbs (only one example appears to use an equative verb). It is even less helpful in convertible propositions whose nominatives have both been previously mentioned. Levinsohn provides a second “strategy of reference” known as VIP; it stands for “very important participant” (Levinsohn, Information Structure, 143). Essentially, it means that narratives can have a character so significant to the story line that once introduced, once activated; they always remain on stage, as it were. Participants that are important or prominent to the whole narrative and easily identified are said to be global VIP’s. Participants that are important or prominent to a sub-unit of the narrative and easily identified within that unit are said to be local VIP’s. According to Levinsohn the default encoding for a VIP is zero anaphora and any overt reference to the VIP as subject is marked encoding. This approach also proves to be unprofitable for most of my extra-biblical literature because it requires a deeper level of familiarity with a whole narrative and with its sub-units in order to establish the global VIP. It is also a bit subjective. As some who have tried applying it have observed, different readers will often come up with different opinions as to who is the local VIP, if any, in the many sub-units of a narrative. So what is meant by resembled? We both agree that, knowingly or unknowingly, an author uses some type of system to signal out the focal figure to the reader. In the case of this research, this encoding is related to saliency, to identifying the most known entity. Therefore, this thesis borrows Levinsohn’s label of “default encoding” and uses it to refer to target clusters whose subject precedes the predicate (functional types FT1, FT2, and FT3). Similarly, it uses the label “marked encoding” to refer to target clusters whose subject follows the predicate (functional types FT4, FT5, and FT6).

¹⁰ Fortunately, in many cases, asking “who is the author primarily talking about?” readily supplied me with a personal semantic subject. However, in some cases, I had to move back and first ask, “What is the author talking about?” and “What is he saying about what he is talking about?” before asking the question of who is most known. This often highlighted which of the two nominatives was most known.

¹¹ Only 13 of the 76 total fell in this category. In tables one and two of appendix four, for material which is original to the author, the relationship of the first nominative to the semantic subject is expressed in the following manner, “The first nominative is blank and it is the same as/is similar to/predicates on the semantic subject.” For target clusters which are a paraphrase, a misquote, or a verbatim quotation, the relationship of the first nominative to the semantic subjects is expressed in the following manner, “The first nominative is blank and it is the same as/is similar to/predicates on the original semantic subject and it is the same as/is similar to/predicates on/related to/unrelated to the quoting author’s semantic subject.”

¹² This portion of the thesis relies heavily on the data organized in appendix four. The table presents all of the verses that contain the target cluster functioning as an SPN construction; 76 examples are identified. Those not counted in the statistical analysis are labeled as NA in the Functional Type column.

¹³ 67 out of 73 target clusters are FT1, FT2, or FT3.

¹⁴ In 48 of the 67 examples they are “similar to” but not “same as.”

¹⁵ “Now Aaron is the priest and his name means ‘mountainous.’ He is the reason whose thoughts are lofty and sublime.”

¹⁶ “And Archiacharus was cupbearer, . . . ” and “For Archiacharus was chief cupbearer, . . . ”

¹⁷ In target clusters ST3 and ST4, the nominatives are separated by the verb. Target clusters ST1 and ST2 contain pre-verb adjacent nominatives and target clusters ST5 and ST6 contain post-verb adjacent nominatives

¹⁸ See table one in appendix five. First position means the subject is immediately before or after the verb (FT2, FT3, FT4, and FT5). Second position means the predicate stands between the subject and the verb (FT1 and FT6). Percentages regarding the third goal include normal (FT1, FT2, FT3) and marked (FT4, FT5, FT6) word order patterns. In the normal order functional patterns, only 13 examples had the subject in the second position, compared to 54 in the first position. In the marked order functional patterns, no example had the subject in the second position; all were in the first position.

¹⁹ This figure treats the debated passages from John as default encodings. If they are removed, the statistic drops by 1% (33/37 rather than 38/42).

²⁰ Including quoted material, the tenses break down as follows: imperfect = 22, present = 41, and future = 13.

²¹ Excepting human error, this is all of them.

²² Consult table one in appendix four for a more detailed presentation.

²³ “For the true Hades is the life of the bad, a life of damnation and blood guiltiness, and the victim of every curse.” The article preceding the preposition πρὸς makes the prepositional phrase a 1st attributive modifier. Compare to similar uses of the article on this preposition in 2nd attributive position in 2 Corinthians 1:18 and 1 Thessalonians 1:8.

²⁴ Cf. McGaughy, Descriptive Analysis, 32, 50, 68-70. Using Halliday’s WH-test, McGaughy determines that ῾Ο πατὴρ ἡμῶν is the subject.

²⁵ The three quotations which were omitted from the statistical analysis are ST3 convertible propositions and this structural type also contains the majority of the marked target clusters. Yet the percentage of SPN constructions functioning with the normal pattern remains high, 90%.

²⁶ “Do you not commend the angry reply of Antisthenes to the one who said, “Phrygia is your mother,” retorting, “for indeed she is the mother of the gods?”

²⁷ It is unclear if he was in fact from Phrygia or if Phrygia was a common figure for some derogatory idea. In both cases, the unknown is predicate nominative. It is what makes it a joke.

²⁸ “When you cried out, ‘How “a man and a woman,” what are you talking about?’ after a little while he continued, ‘Understand,’ he said, ‘What I say. The man is Hegesandrus there now,”’ he said, ‘but before he was also Laodamas’ woman,’ . . .”

²⁹ “Jahath was the first and Zizah the second . . .”

³⁰ “No longer shall your name be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham.”

³¹ The Hebrew אברהם means father of a multitude. The full causal clause reads, ὅτι πατέρα πολλῶν ἐθνῶν τέθεικά σε.

³² “But nevertheless, it was by the government of the people, on whose account he then risked his life, that later on when that government was flourishing, because he had been slandered by certain false witnesses, he was put to death. Now his accuser was Meletus, a loathsome man, and a liar.”

³³ Scholars debate the authorship of this work. Many doubt that it is actually the work Cebes of Thebes so I have not assigned an author to it.

³⁴ It is v. 6 in Additions to Esther.

³⁵ “A little fountain became a river, and there was light, and the sun, and much water: this river is Esther.” This translation suggests that this might be an ST4 or ST6 SPN construction. However, the Greek shows this to be ST3, Εσθηρ ἐστὶν ὁ ποταμός. The translation picks up on the emphasis created by the immediate context.

³⁶ Luke uses the articular form five times prior to Luke 1:63. And of the nine times he uses it in the Gospel, four times it is followed by the 3rd person masculine singular genitive pronoun. It is easy to see how a scribe or future redactor quite naturally added the article. It is not so easy to see why one would drop it.

³⁷ It is unclear if he is quoting or paraphrasing or just recalling the story from memory because he uses the article and because in one comment he uses the present tense and in the other he uses the future tense (cf. Origen, Fragmenta in Lucam 18.4 and Scholia in Lucam 17.324.1)

³⁸ Aristoteles, Fragmenta varia 8.44.527.3; Septuaginta Genesis 17:5, 15; 32:29; 35:10; Philo Judaeus Phil., Legum allegoriae 3.217.6, De ebrietate 82.6, De mutatione nominum 60.1, Hermas, Pastor 23.4; Justinus Martyr, Dialogus cum Tryphone 58.7.4, Dialogus cum Tryphone 58.8.12; Julius Pollux, Onomasticon 2.95.6; Origenes, Fragmenta in Lucam 18.4, Epistula ad Africanum 11.73.13, Scholia in Lucam 17.324.1, Selecta in Genesim 12.116.12; Porphyrius, Vita Plotini 7.3.

The First Letter of John

Structurally speaking, only one New Testament writer employed the target cluster as an SPN construction. John used it six times (John 8:39; 20:31; 1 John 2:22; 4:15; 5:1, 5). All six times it is in the present tense, five times as ST3 and once as ST2. I believe that all six of these are clear examples of the normal word order pattern. The passages from the epistle are examined first. The goal is to show that the first nominative in these is the subject, meaning that the second nominative is lesser known than the first. Showing this to be the case will confirm that John followed the grammatical tendency of others who also used this type of target cluster in an SPN construction.

Unfortunately, John’s uses pose an extra challenge. Each is introduced by a ὅτιconjunction. The subordinate clauses function as the direct objects of three main verbs—believe, deny, and confess. This pushes the examination into the inner world of the characters of the gospel narrative and of the recipients of his first letter.

1 John 2:22

John describes the content of previous, present, and future proclamations and states their purpose, fellowship with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ (vv. 1-3). He then states the purpose of the letter in v. 4, ἵνα ἡ χαρὰ ἡμῶν ᾖ πεπληρωμένη. The joy to which he refers stems from a commitment to truth and godly living. Jesus embodies both. It is clear that the historical Jesus is the known entity both to John and to his audience. It is also manifest that the title Christ has begun to function as a proper name. John probably means it this way in v. 3, yet he separates the two in 1 John 2:22. His flow of thought sheds some light on how these two nominatives function in relation to one another. In v. 19, John describes those who have left the fellowship. He sets them up as a contrast to his audience in v. 20. In v. 21, he reminds his readers of who they are not. Finally, in v. 22 he elaborates on the identity of those who do not possess truth, on the question of who is “the liar?” Is it the one who denies that the Christ is Jesus or is it the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? The immediate context answers this. John has already introduced the idea of “Christ-opponents” in v. 18. Then in v. 22b he says that the liar is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son. John is not warning against the anti-Jesus but against the opponent of Christ. The immediate context strongly suggests that in v. 22, Jesus, also known as Jesus Christ, is the known entity. What is not known is that refusal to predicate the title of Christ upon him makes someone a liar, and worst of all, excludes them from fellowship.¹ This SPN construction functions with a normal word order pattern.

1 John 4:15

In contrast to the previous example, the immediate context of this verse does not provide as many clues. So what is the author talking about? John is talking about reasons why God sent His Son into the world. John must list these off because they are not known, or at least, not remembered. God sent the Son so that his children could live (v. 9). He sent the Son to be a propitiation for sins (v. 10). He sent the Son to be the Savior of the world (v. 14). Presumably, the audience knows Jesus Christ as a historical person. And they embrace Him as “the Christ” in contradistinction to the antichrists, those who oppose God’s Holy King. But now John adds more to their understanding of who Jesus is. He is also the sent Son of God. To confess Jesus as the Son of God is to agree that the Father did send him to give life, to propitiate for sins, and to be the Savior of the World. “Son of God” and all it entails is the lesser known in this example. It functions with a default word order pattern.

1 John 5:1

This passage is more difficult because the immediate context sheds little light on the flow of thought. Observations from the broader context can help. For example, in the epistle John has yet to use the title Χριστός as the subject of any sentence. The eight times it occurs, it is in conjunction with ᾿Ιησοῦς.² Looking back for either “Jesus” or “Christ” reveals that the last to be used is “Jesus,” in 1 John 4:15. Looking forward shows that “Jesus” appears again in 1 John 5:5. The readers know who the historical person is throughout the letter. What they do not know is how all of the titles and teachings regarding his identity fit together and apply practically to their lives. It makes more sense to expect readers to keep Jesus in focus and to treat all other elements surrounding his name as elaborations.³ Review of all passages that involve “Father,” “God’s Son,” “Jesus,” and “Christ” confirmed that the historical person, Jesus, remains central throughout. This functions with a default word order pattern.

1 John 5:5

The last passage introduces a shift in focus and it does so through predication. The new idea is overcoming the world which is metonymy for eternal life. John predicates on Jesus the eternal Son-ship which serves to connect his readers to eternal life. The following verses make it clear that John has stayed upon the implications of Jesus being Son of God. If Son of God had been the subject prior to v. 5 then there would have been no need for the convertible proposition. The readers need to hear this assertion because John is about to discuss this aspect of Jesus’ identity.

In summary, John introduces Jesus as God’s Son and as Christ early in the letter. He states that the purpose of proclaiming the gospel is so that hearers may have fellowship with him and others, a fellowship that they indeed enjoy “with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ.”⁴ Because his readers are believers, they know exactly who he is talking about. What they do not know is the implications of the various titles and relationships accorded to the historical Jesus. John unpacks these but keeps the One whom his eyes have seen and his hands have touched constantly before his readers.

The Gospel of John

The gospel contains two examples of the target cluster, John 8:39 and 20:31. The first has already been discussed in chapter three of this thesis. Due to recent attention on John 20:31, it will receive a more detailed review. The exegetical examination focuses on the ὅτι-clause which contains the target cluster. The exegesis of the entire verse can be found in appendix six below.

Chapter 20 contains an account of the resurrection (vv. 1-10) and of the appearances of the resurrected Christ (vv. 11-29) which purposes to persuade the original audience that Jesus, the eternal Word, the only Life, and the Light of the world, is God Incarnate. John’s gospel amasses the evidence for this proposition, places it before his audience, and beckons them to believe and to keep believing (vv. 30-31). The preceding pericope (vv. 24-29) uses Thomas as an object lesson to show that life giving faith is the goal. It took physical proof for Thomas to believe the whole truth about Jesus, that He is Lord and God. Immediately following Thomas’ confession, surely having his readers in mind, John recounts Jesus saying that, “Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe.”

Exegesis of ὅτι Ιησοῦς ἐστιν ὁ Χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ

John provides the content of what his audience is to believe by using a subordinating ὅτι-clause. It is the proposition therein which has been the subject of recent debate. The various parts of the ὅτι-clause will be examined separately before addressing various views on the meaning of the whole clause.

The small text critical (TC) question regarding the order of ἐστιν ὁ Χριστὸς ὁ υἱός may have led some to suggest the translation, “that Jesus the Messiah is the Son of God.”⁵ However, Carson agrees with C. K. Barrett that the two substantial witnesses to a different word order, D and W, do not agree.⁶ This TC question contributes little to the debate about purpose.

Few scholars comment on the proper name, Ιησοῦς.⁷ John’s audience is presumed to know Him as a real historical person. As for ὁ Χριστός, it first appears in the gospel without the article in John 1:17. It follows the proper name Ιησοῦς. It cannot be determined if it had become equivalent to a proper name by the time John wrote the gospel.⁸ However, John the Baptist’s rejection of this label in John 1:19-34 suggests that it had not lost its function as a very significant title within the Jewish religious elite and within Jewish community at large.⁹ The term is used as an adjective outside of Christian literature but always as a noun within it, either as an appellative or as a proper noun.¹⁰

The expression ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ first appears, though textually suspect, in John 1:34.¹¹ The internal evidence definitely favors ὁ ἐκλεκτός and “the Chosen One of God” is a better rendering.¹² However, supposing that the accounts in the Synoptic Gospels accurately portray what John the Baptist experienced right after baptizing Jesus (Matt 3:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22), then this point in the Jesus narrative offers some insight.

The scene occurs immediately after John the Baptist denies being the Christ and points to Jesus, who baptizes with the Spirit, as the Lamb of God. This means that the idea of Jesus’ unique connection to the Father and to the Spirit occurred early, at the beginning of his ministry. It means that a historical event first called attention to him having more than a royal relationship to God. In his gospel, John introduces this scandalous idea of Jesus being intimately related to God in the prologue when he declares καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ‚δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός .¹³

The first undisputed occurrence of ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ is in John 1:49. Here, the emphasis is on the confession itself, rather than on the content. The passage highlights how easily and simply Nathaniel believed upon Jesus and confessed him both Son and King (allusion to ὁ Χριστός).¹⁴ In John’s mind, ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ and ὁ Χριστός are hardly inseparable in terms of reference, since both apply to Jesus. But in terms of sense, he seems to pronounce them subtly distinct by stating through Nathaniel’s exclamation the major implication of Jesus being the Messiah, that He is the king of Israel.

The final question regarding the meaning of the ὅτι-clause has to do with how its components are to be ordered. Proposals for the functional relationship of the nominatives to each other and to the verb vary. Carson argues that there is “firm syntactical evidence” in favor of rendering the clause as “that Christ, the Son of God, is Jesus.”¹⁵ However, this is an overstatement.

Only six examples exhibit a marked word order and the semantic situation for them is very similar. Carson bases his statements on works that examined analogous structures.¹⁶ These did not look at the exact structural equivalent of our target cluster. As has been shown, data for the exact target cluster reflects a tendency in authors to place the subject first in this type of SPN structure.¹⁷ This passage also functions with a normal word order pattern.

None of the passages from 1 John match the semantic situation of the marked order passages discussed in chapter three. Similarly, there is very little, if any, thematic front-loading in the immediate context of John 20:31 which highlights “the Christ, the Son of God” over “Jesus.” John 8:39 does build up the topic of spiritual lineage. I would describe it as thematically front-loaded. But the author chose to maintain the normal word order and placed the most salient of the two nominatives first. In sum, every target cluster from the Johannine literature functions with a normal word order.

---

¹ McGaughy sees in this verse, and the other four, evidence of an early christological confession which can be traced back to Peter’s confession in Matt 16:16-17 (Lane C. McGaughy, Toward a Descriptive Analysis of Einai as a Linking Verb in New Testament Greek [Nashville: Society of Biblical Literature for the Linguistics Seminar, 1972], 51-52).

² As a matter of fact, in all three epistles he only uses it as a proper name once, in 2 John 9.

³ 1 John 1:3, 7; 2:1, 22; 3:23; 4:2, 3, 15; 5:1, 5, 6, 20.

⁴ 1 John 1:3.

⁵ Xavier Léon-Dufour, The Gospels and the Jesus of History, trans. John McHugh (New York: Doubleday, 1970), 81.

⁶ D. A. Carson, “The Purpose of the Fourth Gospel: John 20:31 Reconsidered,” Journal of Biblical Literature 106 (1987): 641.

⁷ Commentators like Bernard, Brown, Carson, Keener, Moloney, and Morris do not address it at all (J. H. Bernard, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St. John, ed. A.H. McNeile, International Critical Commentary, ed. S. R. Driver, A. Plummer, and C. A. Briggs, 2 vols. [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1928], 2:686; Raymond Edward Brown, The Gospel according to John (xiii-xxi), 1st ed., Anchor Bible, ed. William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman, vol. 29A [Garden City: Doubleday, 1966], 1056, 1059-61; D. A. Carson, The Gospel according to John [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991], 661-63; Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, 2 vols. [Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2003], 2:1215-16; Francis J. Moloney, The Gospel of John, Sacra Pagina Series, ed. Daniel J. Harrington, vol. 4 [Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1998], 544; Leon Morris, The Gospel according to John, Rev. ed., The New International Commentary on the New Testament, ed. Ned B. Stonehouse, F. F. Bruce, and Gordon D. Fee [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995], 755-56).

⁸ Bernard comments very little on John 1:17, if not only to point out Pauline origin. He also fails to address it in John 1:20 and in 20:31 (Bernard, John, 1:29-30, 36-37; 2:685-86). Brown follows Bernard and others by suggesting that John 1:17 was added later as an editorial explanation of John 1:16c (Raymond Edward Brown, The Gospel according to John (i-xii), 1st ed., Anchor Bible, ed. William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman, vol. 29 [Garden City: Doubleday, 1966], 16, 35-36). In discussing John 1:20, Brown seems to understand the title as a reference to an anointed Davidic king (Brown, John (i-xii), 43, 46-47). He says nothing about it while commenting on John 20:31. He simply translates it as “Messiah” (Brown, John (xiii-xxi), 1059). Carson’s commentary on John 20:31 refers back to comments on John 1:41 where he points out that the Greek word for the transliteration of the Hebrew or Aramaic “Messiah” also means anointed one (Carson, John, 661). It derives from the Greek verbχρίω, which means to anoint. He adds that Jesus is the anointed one par excellence – Prophet, Priest and King (Carson, John, 156). Keener’s discussions on John 1:17, 20 imply that he sees in the title a simple reference to the Jewish concept of Messiah (Keener, John, 1:421-22, 433-34). In John 20:31, he refrains from commenting on it, presumably because it is well understood by John’s audience by this point in the narrative (Keener, John, 2:1215-16). Moloney also does not comment extensively on what the title means, either in John 1:17, 20 or in John 20:31 (Moloney, John, 40-41, 46, 52, 58, 544). Morris’ comments on John 1:17 provide the best and most succinct review of ὁ Χριστός (and of ∆Ιησοῦς). He essentially assigns the appellative a messianic reference (Morris, John, 99). In John 20:31, he sees the title as a reference to the typical Jewish view of Messiah, anointed Davidic king, a reference deliberately placed next to an ascription not typically found in Jewish religious understanding of Messiah, that of Son-ship (Morris, John, 756).

⁹ Cf. John 1:20, 25, and 41.

¹⁰ Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, rev. and ed. by Frederick William Danker, 3d ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 1091.

¹¹ Bernard sees in this expression a title of Messiah. He implies that, when observed within the contexts of John’s uses, the phrase seems to move the emphasis from theocratic king to Yahweh’s Son. Commenting on John 20:31, he notes that it carries a deeper significance than when Martha confessed it as a title for Messiah in John 11:27. It points to the identity previously described (Bernard, John, 1:52; 2:685-86). Carson’s commentary on John 20:31 refers the readers back to John 1:49. He comments that the expression “son of …” can have a wide range of meanings but that in the gospel, the “Son of God” expression is both messianic and metaphysical. It may be an allusion to Jesus as true Israel (cf. Exod 4:22-23; Deut 1:31; 32:6; Jer 31:9, 20; Hos 11:1). It definitely designates Messiah by linking son-ship to royalty (cf. 1 Sam 26:17, 21, 25; 2 Sam 7:14; Ps 2:7). He adds, John’s audience “will quickly learn that the categories ‘Son of God’ are used to depict the unique oneness and intimacy between Jesus and His Father” (Carson, John, 161-62, 661). In his article, he observes that scholars who believe the gospel was written to unbelieving Jews tend to see it as synonymous with Messiah and that those who think it was written to unbelieving Gentiles or to a church see in it a deeper meaning. He concludes that one’s view on the meaning of ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ does not necessarily affect the question of purpose of the gospel (Carson, “Purpose,” 641-42). Keener believes that John 1:34 captures the message of the heavenly voice recounted in the Synoptic Gospels, that it calls attention to Christ’s post resurrection enthronement. He does not see a very strong connection to intimacy from familial relationship (Keener, John, 1:463-65). He does not address it in the commentary section on John 20:31 (Keener, John, 2:1215-16). Moloney also does not comment on the expression in John 20:31. But in John 1:34, he notes John uses the expression to introduce the idea that Jesus “has his origins in God and brings the Holy Spirit into the human story” (Moloney, John, 53). For Moloney, this element of Jesus’ identity shatters existing Jewish messianic expectations.

¹² The most common translation, “Son of God,” reflects the decision of Bruce Metzger and Committee regarding the TC problem in this verse. They preferred the reading ὁ υἱός on the basis of external evidence, age and the diversity of witnesses, and due to strong congruence with the biblical theology of John’s gospel (Bruce Manning Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2d ed. [Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994], 172). However, the discussion of this TC problem in the NET bible is quite persuasive to the contrary (Biblical Studies Press., NET Bible: New English Translation, First Beta ed. [Spokane: Biblical Studies Press, 2001], 1937-38 fn. 25tc). In short, they present recent papyri discoveries to show that ὁ ἐκλεκτός has early attestation and effectively argue that the variant best explains the text. The weight of their argument is in the internal evidence. Given the immediate preceding context (cf. Synoptic Gospels) and the tendency for John to use ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, it is more likely that scribes moved in the direction of ὁ ἐκλεκτός to ὁ υἱός, rather than vice versa. The former better explains the latter.

¹³ John 1:14, cf. John 1:18.

¹⁴ John 1:43-51.

¹⁵ Carson, John, 90, 662.; Carson, “Purpose,” 642-44.

¹⁶ See discussion of past research in chapter two.

¹⁷ I believe that the arguments surrounding the question of the purpose of John’s gospel must come from arenas other than syntax. The section following the commentary in appendix six interacts with a few of those arguments.

Summary and Conclusion

In sum, the minimal discussion in grammars regarding the problematic nature of subject determination involving anarthrous proper nouns and articular nouns in Koine Greek equative clauses has now been replaced with an exhaustive cataloguing of this target cluster. However, given the tight parameters assigned to this investigation, more work remains to be done in the core case form, the nominative case. For example, the behavior of verbal ellipses with proper names and articular nouns is of particular interest. In theory, they should follow the same unmarked word order pattern of the target cluster. Another area ripe for research pertains to the relationship of the anarthrous proper noun to adjectival and participial articular substantives. Preliminary examinations indicate that they possess the same unmarked word order pattern.¹ The research has yielded several helpful results and observations.

First, the analysis has shown that subject-predicate nominative (SPN) constructions involving a proper noun are very rare. The 75,918 matches examined for the period 400 B.C. to A.D. 300 yielded less than .2% instances involving proper nouns. SPN constructions involving an anarthrous proper noun and an articular noun occur even less frequently, less than .1% of the data qualified as a target cluster. This should caution exegetes from overstressing any of the observations and conclusion(s) of this study.

Second, the most common structural type employed for SPN constructions is ST3 (proper noun, verb, articular noun). This benefited my study of the exegetically and theologically significant passages because most of them are an ST3 target cluster. The data from this structural type alone is enough to confirm the presence of an unmarked (i.e., normal) word order pattern. The preponderance of this syntactical configuration across the three tenses allows one to make additional observations based on the tense of the verb. The percentages of unmarked patterns ranged from 100% in the imperfect tense to 70% in the future tense, which leads to the next observation. Third, the six syntactical configurations of the target utilize the present tense twice as many times as either of the other two tenses. The future tense consists almost exclusively of clusters involving the articular o[noma noun and the imperfect tense never deviates from normal word order, tentatively suggesting that time and aspect may limit an author’s use of the marked word order pattern. Fourth, convertible propositions are just as common as subset propositions. However, the concentration is higher for target clusters split by the verb.²

In conclusion, the analysis did in fact verify the falsifiable hypothesis. All but six of the 73 clear examples functioned with an unmarked word order pattern. The proclivity of authors to place the subject before the predicate in Koine Greek equative clauses involving proper nouns and articular nouns serves as a starting point for subject determination in analogous clauses. But exegetes are reminded that in thematically front-loaded semantic situations, the stage may be set for surprise.

---

¹ Twenty six clusters consisting of an anarthrous proper noun and an articular participial or adjectival substantive were examined for the purpose of corroboration. As with the target cluster, the majority are ST3-P. In all but one, the first substantive was the same as or similar to the semantic subject. The majority are in the imperfect tense. Imperfect Tense = 21/26; Present Tense = 9/26; Future Tense = 0. See table two in appendix four.

² The marked examples have a ratio of three to three and the unmarked examples have a ratio of 37 convertible to 30 subset. The percentage of convertible propositions rises and falls when viewed according to structure—ST1 = 20%, ST2 = 56%, ST3 = 62%, ST4 = 70%, ST5 = 50%, and ST6 = 37%.

Summary of Treatment in Secondary Sources

The first step in the research involved examining several beginning, intermediate, and advanced grammars, as well as related works, for the purpose of collecting any past and current postulations on how to distinguish subject (S) from predicate nominative (PN) in constructions consisting of an anarthrous proper noun (N^P), an articular noun (AN), and the equative verb (V^e), εἰμιv.¹ As previously stated, few grammars address the problem. The survey looked for three things: (1) a presentation of a “pecking order” for distinguishing S from PN in any double nominative combination with V^e, (2) treatment of specific problem with target clusters, and (3) the nature of proposed solution (namely, is it empirically based or an informed speculation?).² The second step involved consulting secondary sources which examined more closely the components (proper nouns, article, and εἰμί) and relevant topics (word order, indefiniteness, qualitativeness, definiteness, and sample passages) of the research problem.³

Donaldson’s 1859 monograph does not provide a method for distinguishing S from PN in the target clusters.⁴ Like many other grammars, his simply suggests that the article typically marks the subject, and that the absence of an article marks the PN. He notes an exception, that a subject can be anarthrous if it is a proper noun.⁵ The second volume of Jelf’s grammar provides a helpful discussion on the nature of a simple Greek sentence and addresses SPN constructions but does not delve into problematic situations like that of this study.⁶ The only relevant remark asserts that as a general rule S has the article while PN does not.⁷

In A Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament, Winer’s treatment of the nominative case hardly hints at a pecking order when two or more substantives appear together. His discussions about sentence structure and about word order offer nothing on the matter.⁸ Moulton’s translation of Winer adds nothing new from the sections on the nominative case, sentence structure, and word position.⁹ Buttmann’s discussion of the noun in SPN constructions and of the nominative case fails to mention a pecking order for distinguishing S from PN in target clusters.¹⁰

Votaw’s doctoral dissertation provides one of the first discussions on what to do when an infinitive has an expressed subject. He observes that the first of two accusatives is most often subject.¹¹

The first part of Gildersleeve’s work covers the uses of the nominative case but nowhere says anything about a pecking order for distinguishing S from PN in target clusters.¹² The second part of his work reviews the uses of the article but also fails to provide a pecking order.¹³ Surprisingly and similarly, Abbott is completely silent on the matter.¹⁴

Thompson, a classicist, does not deviate much from the view of his day, distinguishing S from PN based on definiteness. He sees the article as the determinative tag for definiteness but does not elaborate on the various possibilities of double nominative clusters where both are definite.¹⁵

Moulton’s introductory work briefly addresses some uses of the nominative case but does not treat SPN constructions.¹⁶ His major work only looks at special uses of the nominative case and is likewise silent.¹⁷

From a linguistics bent, Jespersen dubs definiteness as the key to determining grammatical subject.¹⁸ In addition, he may be the first to wrestle with the question of convertible propositions, “perfect identity.” He concludes that perfect identity or identical exchange is rare and that in most cases involving proper names, the name is more “special,” i.e., the subject. As to be expected, Howard’s work does not address this syntactical question since his work deals primarily with morphology of Greek words.¹⁹

Goodwin addresses the basic structure of a Greek sentence using the eijmiv verb as an example, inadvertently addressing an SPN construction, but hardly addresses the question of how to distinguish S from PN when two nouns appear together in the nominative case.²⁰

Robertson briefly mentions double nominatives in his discussion on the nominative case and does not provide a system for choosing S from the two.²¹ However, in the section on the article, he interacts with Gildersleeve’s and Winer’s (Treatise) opposing views regarding its effect on the predicate. Siding with Gildersleeve, he asserts that, with the exception of proper names and pronouns, the articular noun is the subject regardless of the word order.²² This may be the first semblance of a pecking order, albeit, based on informed speculation.

Nelson presents the arguments for and against the view that the article serves to identify S between two nominatives. However, he does not specifically address the problem of distinguishing the S from PN in target clusters. This is because he excludes proper names from his study by reason that they possess inherent definiteness, whether marked or unmarked by an article.²³

Funk’s doctoral dissertation addresses the related issue of identifying the predicate noun by the absence or presence of the article but does not deal with the specific problem of this study.²⁴ Volume 2 of his grammar labels SPN construction as Type II sentences, questions the ‘traditional’ definition of S (the performer of the verb action), and provides three simplistic signals of S. The primary signal is person and number agreement with the main verb. The secondary signal is that the case is nominative (he mentions the exception with infinitives). Finally, he advises that one look at the whole sentence because context also signals S. However, he does not provide a pecking order for the double nominative scenario.²⁵

Smyth proposes the general rule that a PN has no article and is, thereby, distinguished from the S.²⁶ But he never really addresses the problem of distinguishing the S from PN in target clusters.²⁷ Dana and Mantey also omit any discussion of this situation.²⁸

Moule does not set forth a pecking order per se, but touches on the issue while discussing Colwell’s work with the Greek article.²⁹ More specifically, he comments that “proper names usually lack the article in the predicate.”³⁰ But Moule simply delineates observations gleaned from Colwell’s journal article, hardly meaning to address the question of distinguishing the S from PN in target clusters.

Blass and Debrunner observe that PN’s usually lack the article, but they do not treat the topic of this study.³¹ Blum’s work on difficulties with the Greek article does not cover the problem of pecking order between an articular noun and a proper name.³²

Zerwick notes the role of the article in identifying the S from PN; but unlike previous grammarians, he qualifies his statements. He says that it is not a rule but a key that helps most of the time. Yet like most other works, his does not provide a true pecking order for locating S.³³

Turner’s first addition to Moulton’s grammar follows Zerwick by noting the tendency for the PN to be anarthrous while at the same time pointing out that articular PN do exist.³⁴ Goetchius provides a new paradigm, that of discussing grammar on the basis of form rather than function.³⁵ And with respect to the question of how to distinguish subject from predicate nominative, he provides one of the first treatments which sets forth a pecking order. However, Goetchius does not provide a sound empirical basis for his postulation nor is he consistent with the founding principle upon which it is based.³⁶ Nida does not speak to the matter of distinguishing subject from PN in target clusters.³⁷

McGaughy’s monograph squarely examines a broader problem, identifying the S in any double nominative sentence.³⁸ He offers a pecking order based on 174 sentences in 30 passages but provides no method for identifying S in the target clusters. Interestingly, he comments indirectly on all six of the New Testament occurrences. While discussing his Rule 3c, he avers that John 8:39 follows the rule and that the other five are simply exceptions “due to their formulaic character.”³⁹

Kahn, coming from a philosophical, though somewhat grammatical, perspective identifies the ambiguity in Greek when two nominatives are joined by a copula.⁴⁰ He speculates that context and or the article solves the problem. Indirectly, he affirms the “article determines the subject” rule. Moreover, he alludes to the problematic nature of convertible propositions, “But we must be prepared to admit that in some cases of N is N sentences in Greek the distinction between subject and predicate noun may be undefined. These are in general the cases where is may be read as is identical with.”⁴¹ Finally, he strongly objects to any “rule” based on word order and argues against the use of empirical evidence as evidence for such a thing.⁴²

Dixon’s work interacts with Robertson’s statement regarding articular subjects and predicates and even uses John 8:39 to explain his view. However, he does not add anything toward the solution of the specific problem of this work.⁴³ Goetchius reappears with an insightful review of McGaughy’s dissertation. He highlights McGaughy’s failure to apply Rule 3c “rigorously” to the five Johannine passages. In addition, he points out that Rule 3d does not match McGaughy’s definition of Type II sentences because it deals with two substantives which are equally definite. However, he adds very little to his original pecking order.⁴⁴

Turner’s final volume on style adds nothing to the discussion.⁴⁵ McKay’s work provides no pecking order for distinguishing S form PN in target clusters. His discussions on subject and predicate, word order, and the nominative case barely even mention SPN constructions.⁴⁶

Conybeare’s work on the Septuagint (LXX) provides no help since he strongly asserts that as a whole the LXX translation contains very little Greek syntax.⁴⁷ And when treating the nominative case, he omits discussion of the common uses such as S and PN.⁴⁸ Givon’s work covers copulative sentences and issues of definiteness but does not address the target cluster of this study.⁴⁹

Levinsohn’s first edition provides a pecking order of sorts, but it is presented in the terminology of discourse/rhetorical (D/R) analysis. He says that the topic (S) precedes the nonverbal constituents of the comment (potentially the PN) about the topic. He bases this on what his field of study calls the “The Principle of Natural Information Flow.”⁵⁰ This principle arranges referents on a hierarchy based on “animacy.” In this ordering, 1st and 2nd person pronouns come first, 3rd person pronouns come second, proper names third, humans fourth, animate objects fifth, and inanimate objects sixth. But this ordering has to do with constituents comprising the comment itself and, therefore, exclude those which reside within the topic. This study seeks a pecking order to establish priority between a constituent in the topic and one in the comment. In the chapter on the article, again using terminology from D/R analysis, he explains why S tends to be arthrous and PN tends to be anarthrous.⁵¹ Unfortunately, both of these observations add little to this study because they are based on a completely different kind of analysis, what Kahn calls topic/comment predication.⁵²

Levinsohn’s next work follows suit and offers little insight to distinguishing S from PN in a target cluster.⁵³ However, it reflects a clear understanding of the core principle involved, prominence. The key to this study’s problem is not definiteness but saliency, which constituent is best known. Levinsohn admits that his study concerns functional, rather than structural, observations. The work does not “tackle Greek in the traditional way, but rather approaches it from the position of descriptive linguistics.”⁵⁴

Voelz’s beginner’s grammar barely addresses the topic of SPN construction and, hence, offers nothing to the discussion.⁵⁵ Similarly, Brooks’ grammar covers the existence of the simple SPN sentence but does not venture into the problems of distinguishing S in such constructions.⁵⁶ His later work, though called a reference grammar, does not address syntax. It solely presents NT Greek morphology, or accidence.⁵⁷

Wallace provides the most exhaustive treatment of the broader challenge of distinguishing S from PN in double nominative clusters. His pecking order reflects a clear understanding of the core principle, known entity, from which the postulations emanate. It also reflects a strong commitment to structural priority and sufficient data base as is demonstrated by the tentativeness with which it suggests that word order may determine S from PN in the target clusters.⁵⁸

Andrew K. Adam also provides a pecking order. His is based on the general rule that “the more definite of the words linked to εἰμιv is the subject [and] the less definite is the predicate.”⁵⁹ With less hesitation than Wallace, he states that if the two nominatives possess equal definiteness then the word that comes first is probably the subject. However, he provides no statistical evidence to substantiate his postulations. The survey of secondary sources highlights a concern or pitfall which others have noted. It is the lack of attention to structural priority.

Helma Dik’s “Interpreting Adjective Position in Herodotus,” in Grammar as Interpretation, certainly shows that this oversight can lead to “loopholes” which render a study fruitless.⁶⁰ She contests one of Leif Bergson’s claims by examining the method behind his conclusion.⁶¹ After looking at terms based on structure (constituent or word order) and semantics (only considered adjectives functioning attributively), she concludes that the post-posed position is the default position for attributive adjectives. Contrary to Bergson, she shows that it is more proper to label adjectives as normal (less affected term) or marked (more affected) based on this data rather than on the semantic categories (“determining” and “qualifying”) employed by Bergson. Wallace echoes Helma Dik’s appeal to maintain syntactical focus, “The grammatical features of a language will be a surer guide than the lexical or semantic features that change from author to author and from time to time (and from interpreter to interpreter!)”⁶²

In sum, review of all this literature benefits the study in two ways. It shows that little work exists on the topic of the substantive “pecking order” in an SPN construction. With the exception of two or three grammars, the majority have very little to say about it. In addition, the review of methodology employed by these secondary sources confirms the need for proceeding with a strong commitment to structural priority in this research project.

---

¹ Henceforth, target cluster refers to any combination of these morphemes.

² The summaries are in chronological order according to original publication date of the last revision. In cases where an author produced several books relevant to the topic(s) or subsequent editions of the same book, their works will be presented together. The survey of secondary sources is intentionally diachronic in hopes of capturing any discussion pertinent to the subject matter.

³ Egbert J. Bakker, ed., Grammar as Interpretation: Greek Literature in Its Linguistic Contexts (New York: Brill, 1997); Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, rev. and ed. by Frederick William Danker, 3d ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000); D. A. Carson, “The Purpose of the Fourth Gospel: John 20:31 Reconsidered,” Journal of Biblical Literature 106 (1987); D. A. Carson, The Gospel according to John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 90-91, 167, 202, 351-52, 556, 564, 660-63; Gordon D. Fee, “The Use of the Definite Article with Personal Names in the Gospel of John,” New Testament Studies 17 (1970-71); Stephen A. Janssen, “The Greek Article with Proper Names in Matthew” (Th.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 2003); Henry R. Moeller and Arnold Kramer, “An Overlooked Structural Pattern in New Testament Greek,” Novum Testamentum 5 (1961); Frans Neirynck and Frans van Segbroeck, eds., The Four Gospels 1992: Festschrift für Frans Neirynck, 3 vols., vol. 3 (Leuven: University Press, 1992), 2193-2205; Jeffrey T. Reed, “The Infinitive with Two Substantival Accusatives: An Ambiguous Construction?” Novum Testamentum 33 (1991); and Julie Katherine Woodson, “The Discourse Function of the Greek Article: A Consideration of Its Use with Common Personal Nouns in Acts” (Th.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 2005).

⁴ John William Donaldson, A Complete Greek Grammar for the Use of Students, 2d ed. (Cambridge: Deighton Bell, 1859), 341, 346-47, 396.

⁵ Ibid., 346-47.

⁶ William Edward Jelf, A Grammar of the Greek Language, 4 ed., vol. 2: Syntax, 2 vols. (London: James Parker, 1866), 28-35, 52, 121-26, 137-38, 149-50.

⁷ Ibid., 137.

⁸ Georg Benedikt Winer, A Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament: Prepared as a Solid Basis for the Interpretation of the New Testament, rev. and ed. by Gottlieb Lünemann, trans. Joseph Henry Thayer (Andover: W. F. Draper, 1869), 181-84, 512-36, 546-61.

⁹ Georg Benedikt Winer, A Treatise on the Grammar of New Testament Greek: Regarded as a Sure Basis for New Testament Exegesis, trans. W. F. Moulton, 3d ed. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1882), 226-28, 644-56, 684-702.

¹⁰ Alexander Buttmann, A Grammar of the New Testament Greek, trans. Joseph Henry Thayer (Andover: W. F. Draper, 1876), 123, 138-41.

¹¹ Clyde W. Votaw, “The Use of the Infinitive in Biblical Greek” (Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, 1896), 58.

¹² Basil Lanneau Gildersleeve, Syntax of Classical Greek from Homer to Demosthenes, vol. 1: The Syntax of the Simple Sentence, Embracing the Doctrine of the Moods and Tenses, 2 vols. (New York: American Book Co., 1900-11), 1-5, 9, 30-32, 35, 46.

¹³ Ibid., vol. 2: The Syntax of the Simple Sentence, Embracing the Doctrine of the Article, 215-16, 226, 229, 324-28.

¹⁴ Edwin A. Abbott, Johannine Grammar (London: Adam and Charles Black, 1906), 107-8, 178, 315-18, 382, 538. He focuses on text critical issues in both, John 8:39 and 20:31. He does not cover any of the 1 John passages (2:2, 4:15, 5:1, and 5:5).

¹⁵ Francis Edward Thompson, A Syntax of Attic Greek (London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1907), 6, 9-10, 46, 90-93.

¹⁶ James Hope Moulton, An Introduction to the Study of New Testament Greek, 2d ed. (London: Charles H. Kelly, 1903), 167-68.

¹⁷ James Hope Moulton, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, 3d ed., 4 vols, vol. 1: Prolegomena, by J. H. Moulton, 69-70.

¹⁸ Otto Jespersen, The Philosophy of Grammar (London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1924), 150-54.

¹⁹ Moulton, Grammar: Accidence, 195, 222.

²⁰ William Watson Goodwin, Greek Grammar, rev. by Charles Burton Gulick (Boston: Ginn and Co., 1930).

²¹ A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, 4th ed. (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1934), 400, 417-18, 456-61.

²² Ibid., 767-68.

²³ Dotson M. Nelson, “The Articular and Anarthrous Predicate Nominative in the Greek New Testament,” (Th.D. diss., Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1944), 5, 17.

²⁴ Robert Walter Funk, “The Syntax of the Greek Article: Its Importance for Critical Pauline Problems,” (Ph.D. diss., Vanderbilt University, 1953), 43.

²⁵ Robert Walter Funk, A Beginning-Intermediate Grammar of Hellenistic Greek, 2 ed., vol. 2: Syntax, 3 vols. (Missoula: Society of Biblical Literature, 1973), 378-79, 395, 398, 419, 707.

²⁶ Herbert Weir Smyth, Greek Grammar, rev. by Gordon M. Messing (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1956), 292.

²⁷ Ibid., 256-57, 259, 261, 285-87, 289.

²⁸ H. E. Dana and Julius R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament (New York: Macmillan, 1957), 65, 68-69, 135-43.

²⁹ Ernest Cadman Colwell, “A Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New Testament,” Journal of Biblical Literature 52 (1933): 12-21; Charles Francis Digby Moule, An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek, 2d ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959), 30-31, 106-17.

³⁰ Moule, Idiom Book, 115.

³¹ Friedrich Blass and Albert Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, trans. and ed. by Robert W. Funk (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1961), 70, 80, 131-33, 135-36, 143, 248.

³² Edwin A. Blum, “Studies in the Problem Areas of the Greek Article” (Th.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1961).

³³ Maximilian Zerwick, Biblical Greek Illustrated by Examples, trans. Joseph Smith (Rome: Pontificio Instituto Biblico, 1963), 10, 53-56.

³⁴ Moulton, Grammar: Syntax, 165-67, 182-83.

³⁵ Eugene Van Ness Goetchius, The Language of the New Testament (New York: Scribner, 1965), 37-38, 43-47.

³⁶ Ibid., 46-47. McGaughy addresses this problem forcibly. A more detailed assessment of this pecking order and McGaughy’s reservations about it are presented above.

³⁷ Eugene Albert Nida and Charles R. Taber, The Theory and Practice of Translation (Leiden: Brill, 1969).

³⁸ Lane C. McGaughy, Toward a Descriptive Analysis ofΕἶναι as a Linking Verb in New Testament Greek (Nashville: Society of Biblical Literature for the Linguistics Seminar, 1972), 23-24.

³⁹ Ibid., 49-54. He is referring to John 20:31, 1 John 2:22, 4:15, 5:1, and 5:5. A more detailed assessment of McGaughy’s work is presented above.

⁴⁰ Charles H. Kahn, The Verb “Be” in Ancient Greek, The Verb ‘Be’ and its Synonyms: Philosophical and Grammatical Studies, ed. John W.M. Verhaar, vol. 16, 17 vols. (Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Co., 1973), 39-46, 51, 70-72, 104-9, 245-46, 249-55, 426-34.

⁴¹ Ibid., 39.

⁴² Ibid., 426-28. He severely critiques Lasso de la Vega for suggesting that a verb in final position is the “normal” order. On the basis of strong empirical evidence, Vega shows its propensity to be last in a structure consisting of a verb and two substantives.

⁴³ Paul Stephen Dixon, “The Significance of the Anarthrous Predicate Nominative in John” (Th.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1975), 5-10, 28, 30.

⁴⁴ Eugene Van Ness Goetchius, “Review of Lane C. McGaughy's Toward a Descriptive Analysis of Εἶναιas a Linking Verb in New Testament Greek,” Journal of Biblical Literature 95 (1976): 147-49.

⁴⁵ Moulton, Grammar: Style.

⁴⁶ Kenneth Leslie McKay, Greek Grammar for Students: A Concise Grammar of Classical Attic with Special Reference to Aspect in the Verb (Canberra: Department of Classics Australian National University, 1977), 101, 104, 119.

⁴⁷ Frederick Cornwallis Conybeare and George William Joseph Stock, A Grammar of Septuagint Greek (Boston: Ginn and Co., 1905. Reprint, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1980), §38. They write, “We have therefore to deal with a work of which the vocabulary is Greek and the Syntax Hebrew.”

⁴⁸ Ibid., §38, §40-41, §44, §50-53.

⁴⁹ Talmy Givón, Syntax: A Functional-Typological Introduction (Amsterdam: Benjamins, 1984), 91-92, 396, 397-406.

⁵⁰ Stephen H. Levinsohn, Discourse Features of New Testament Greek: A Coursebook (Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics, 1992), 69, 74-75.

⁵¹ Levinsohn, Discourse Features, 97-98.

⁵² Of the five kinds of predication which Kahn identifies, this study only employs the concepts of syntactic and semantic predication. Cf. Kahn, Verb “Be”, 40-46, 51.

⁵³ Stephen H. Levinsohn, Discourse Features of New Testament Greek: A Coursebook on the Information Structure of New Testament Greek, 2d ed. (Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics, 2000), 29-30, 37-38, 42, 45, 148-51.

⁵⁴ Ibid., vii. For those interested in a brief but no less instructional summary on the distinctive elements of discourse analysis, I suggest reading the complete introduction to Levinsohn, Information Structure, vii-x.

⁵⁵ James W. Voelz, Fundamental Greek Grammar, 2d ed. (St. Louis: Concordia, 1993), 87, 88-89.

⁵⁶ James A. Brooks and Carlton L. Winbery, Syntax of New Testament Greek (Lanham: University Press of America, 1979). Brooks and Winbery, Syntax, 4-7, 139-41.

⁵⁷ James A. Brooks and Carlton L. Winbery, A Morphology of New Testament Greek: A Review and Reference Grammar (Lanham: University Press of America, 1994).

⁵⁸ Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 40-48.

⁵⁹ Andrew Keith Malcolm Adam, A Grammar for New Testament Greek (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1999), 13, 63-64. He places demonstrative and relative pronouns first, personal pronouns and proper nouns second, articular nouns third, and anarthrous nouns fourth. He goes on to imply that in convertible propositions the nominative which appears first is the subject.

⁶⁰ Bakker, ed., Grammar, 55-76. Bakker’s collection of essays contains one by Helma Dik which evaluates a comment by Bergson regarding the hackneyed value of adjectives in Herodotus’ Histories 1.53.3 and 1.60.5.

⁶¹ He writes, “Banaler Wert des Adjektivs—‘ohne irgendein logisch (durch Antithese u. dgl.) oder affektiv bedingte Hervorhebung’” (Leif Bergson, Zur Stellung des Adjektivs in der älteren Griechischen Prosa [Stockholm: Almqvist Wiksell, 1960], 65).

⁶² Wallace, Greek Grammar, 42 fn. 16; italics mine.

Explanation of Philosophical Under girding

A certain philosophy regarding issues of sufficient data base, semantic situation, unaffected vs. affected meaning, synchronic priority, and structural priority governs the approach of this study.¹ These topics along with issues of lexical elasticity and some problematic data are addressed below.

Sufficient Data Base

This research attempts to identify 200 clear examples of SPN constructions consisting of the target cluster, or to find every occurrence in Koine Greek. The goal expresses the belief that only hard data can substantiate semantic assertions for any of the six possible structural types in question. The data pool of an initial study using Accordance Bible Software 5.1 included the New Testament (NT), the Septuagint, and the Apostolic Fathers (AF).² A search of these sources did not yield the sought number of examples. Consequently, Thesaurus Linguae Graecae #E was used to expand the scope of the search to include extra-biblical works from the first century B.C.³ But this yielded a total of 21 examples. Therefore, the data pool was expanded to include all texts from the Koine Greek period.⁴

Semantic Situation

This criterion simply addresses the issue of the environment within which practices or “rules” are said to hold true. Solutions for many engineering problems, static or dynamic in nature, require that certain boundary conditions be known and fixed. The same holds true for grammatical studies. Formal statements about meaning of certain syntactical structures must be expressed as only true for examples that parallel the semantic situation of the entity under review. Conversely, functional statements about the diverse structures which convey similar meanings must be expressed as only true for examples that parallel the semantic situation of the entity under review. A few elements which define a semantic situation are context, genre, figures of speech, and morpho-syntactical features. The desire to adhere to this consideration, preserving the same or similar semantic situation, contributed to several decisions regarding the scope of this study, namely regarding three topics: (1) arthrous proper nouns, (2) a narrowly defined verb, and (3) the mood of the equative verb.

Review of secondary sources revealed that it is not uncommon for a proper name to appear with an article—for example when the proper name has been previously mentioned, when its identity has been made clear from context, or when it is well known.⁵ If traditional etymological theories are correct, the article derives from the demonstrative pronoun and initially functioned deictically (singled out or pointed out). Nominalization and definitizing uses may have grown out as natural by-product, or secondary uses. In reality the article has many other uses. Many grammars rightly describe it as primarily a function-word. By nature, function words create a semantic relationship between the word to which it is related and the rest of its environment. In this sense, it affects the semantic situation significantly. Since a proper noun is already definite, an article related to it most probably works only as a function-word, adding one more semantic relationship to the environment. Several grammars called this “marking” the proper name. Consequently, this study will omit marked proper nouns so as to search for a pecking order between a proper noun and an articular noun in a relatively well fixed semantic situation.

Similarly, focusing the study on the εἰμί verb alone also helps to maintain the same semantic situation. In fact, there are other verbs that might have been examined since they can also yield SPN constructions. Verbs like γίνομαι and ὑπάρχω can function in the same way as the equative verb, εἰμί, within certain semantic situations. Their lexical domains certainly allow it and their predicates usually agree with their subject in case. The fact is that all equative verbs function somewhere on the gradient of “purely copulative” to “truly predicative.”⁶ Dotson Nelson uses the labels of “form-word” and “idea-word” to explain the difference, and concludes that a true copulative verb simply connects a subject to predicate with minimal to zero importation of meaning in the process.⁷

The initial study revealed that, unlike εἰμί, γίνομαι and ὑπάρχω never show up as copulatives between a proper noun and an articular noun.⁸ In other words, they more often function as “idea words” in such cases. This raises the suspicion that they might never truly function as “pure” copulas in an SPN construction. In this sense, should they appear in SPN construction in an expanded data pool, preservation of the semantic situation may be suspect.

Most grammarians will note the absence of verbless constructions in this study. Indeed, verbal ellipses do form SPN constructions as Winer observes, “Of the three constituent parts of a proposition, the subject and predicate are indispensable; but the simple copula is implied in the mere juxtaposition of the subject and predicate.”⁹ Several reasons precipitated the decision to leave verbal ellipses out of the study. First, the searches yielded too many matches for these types of search constructs. Second, and by way of consequence, these types of matches required too much interpretation on the use of the nominatives.¹⁰ Both of these make identifying this type of SPN construction practically cumbersome. Third, the grammars and cursory review of the search results for verbless constructions suggest that there is a low probability of finding any examples of our problem case from this sample pool. This is because the predicate is frequently anarthrous in these SPN constructions.¹¹

Finally, the mood of the equative verb also affects the semantic situation. The previously mentioned preliminary study also revealed that in every case of the examples found, the verb was in the indicative mood. Therefore, in order to maintain the same semantic situation, as it is affected by the mood of the verb, the study only considers sets/combinations of the nominative anarthrous proper noun and articular singular noun with the 3rd person singular equative verb in the indicative mood.

Unaffected Vs. Affected Meaning

“By ‘unaffected’ is meant the meaning of the construction in a vacuum—apart from contextual, lexical, or other grammatical intrusions. By ‘affected’ is meant the meaning of the construction in its environment—i.e., ‘real life’ instances.”¹² Herein resides the crux of the hypothesis. What is the difference between the anarthrous proper noun and the articular singular noun in the nominative case? In an SPN construction, does one exist ontologically or merely phenomenologically? The study attempts to answer this question.

The Greek verb contains both subject and predicate, the simplest sentence represented by the word, εἰμί. Several grammarians agree that any “subject” in a Greek sentence stands in apposition to the pronoun ending of the verb. Dana and Mantey write, “The original function of the nominative was to lend more specific identification to the subject [expressed by verb ending] of a finite verb.”¹³ They continue the thought by saying, “Consequently when we express a noun subject of the verb, it is in apposition with the subject implied in the verb itself.”¹⁴ For example, Παῦλος ἐστιν ὁ δοῦλος can be translated “He, namely Paul, is the bond-servant.” The proper noun assumes the verb’s embedded subject and the articular noun asserts something about it. The question arises, can this sentence be translated “He, namely the bond-servant, is Paul?” At the unaffected level, it can be translated as such only if it can be shown that the proper noun asserts more than the articular noun. To put it another way, the translation is valid if it can be shown that the articular noun assumes more than the proper noun.¹⁵

Unfortunately, the validation process for this kind of question is somewhat problematic. Ontological statements regarding the “assumption” or “assertion” level of a proper noun or of an articular noun must “be made on the basis of carefully scrutinized and representative phenomena.”¹⁶ This is nearly impossible to do with convertible propositions. The previous example can be embellished to create a stand alone convertible proposition; “He, namely the author of Romans, is Paul.” But notice that it stands alone only to the degree that the mind of the reader is familiar with the intrusions “the author” or “of Romans.” It shows that the grammatical subject cannot be determined apart from phenomenological factors.

By way of further example, note the citations given as exceptions to the proper name priority rule in Wallace’s grammar.¹⁷ The nouns in ᾿Ιωάννης ἐστὶν ὄνομα αὐτοῦand in οὐχ οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ τοῦ τέκτονος υἱός;οὐχ ἡ μήτηρ αὐτοῦ λέγεται Μαριάμ trump the proper names as subjects.¹⁸ This is primarily due to intrusions, namely the αὐτοῦ in each verse. Furthermore, the lexical force of the anarthrous ὄνομα in Luke 1:63 also constitutes an intrusion to the construction under examination. Again, this shows that in a convertible proposition the subject is best determined from context.¹⁹

In summary, this study focuses on affected constructions rather than on unaffected ones. This is because convertible propositions are by definition largely influenced by phenomenological factors. Perhaps, this is more reason to proceed with extreme care and respect for structural priority.

Synchronic Priority

A diachronic study will not be used in this research because it is more interested with the “syntactical phenomena embedded in the NT.”²⁰ The original research aimed at finding a minimum of 100 or more clear examples of the target cluster (nominative anarthrous proper noun, the 3rd person singular equative verbs, and the articular singular noun in the nominative case). However, preliminary studies of the original sample pool only produced a total of twenty-one target clusters, fifteen of which were convertible propositions. The initial results support the project’s falsifiable hypothesis but do not meet the sufficient data base goal. Consequently, a full synchronic study was executed using TLG #E and other resources to search for the same target cluster in the Koine Greek period.²¹

Structural Priority

“The starting point of [this] investigation will be the given structure from which [it hopes] to make semantic conclusions.”²² The target cluster under examination for this study consists of an anarthrous proper noun in the nominative case, an articular singular noun in the nominative case, and the 3rd person singular equative εἰμί, verb in the indicative mood. This basic set yields six “given structures” from which the study will make semantic conclusions. In order to keep the number of structural types at six, this study will omit cases where the proper noun is arthrous. “Marking” the proper noun with the article adds another variable to the analysis.

Lexical Elasticity

For the purpose of this study, terms are taken to be nouns, as opposed to being adjectives or participles, when they are so defined by Bauer’s or Scott-Liddell’s respective lexicons.²³ Articular adjectives and participles functioning as substantives are not included as primary evidence for empirical substantiation.²⁴ Furthermore, terms in biblical literature are treated as proper nouns only if they can be found in Young’s Analytical Concordance to the Bible.²⁵ For the non-biblical literature, when indexes of names were provided at the end of any translated book, they too were consulted along with the lexicons. Place/thing names and proper names are labeled proper nouns, and treated as equivalent syntactical units.²⁶

By way of further clarification, θεός is not treated as a proper name. Studies by Philip Harner, Paul Dixon, and Wallace have shown that θεός can span the semantic fields of indefinite, qualitative, or definite noun.²⁷ It seems that this kind of lexical elasticity is not shared by most proper names. In order to ensure the “tightest” target cluster sense possible, this study does not consider SPN constructions consisting of an equative verb, an articular noun, and θεός.

Similarly, even though Paul uses Χριστός often as a name for Jesus, it is not technically a proper name.²⁸ In conjunction with ᾿Ιησοῦς, it definitely carries the force of a proper name but this is not lexically driven. In the Septuagint, the word also functions as an adjective.²⁹ And while it is more often used as a noun in the NT, it is in the insipient stages of becoming a proper name. In this sense, it is also more lexically elastic than most proper names. In order to preserve the integrity of the structural types, it seems best not to consider it as a proper name for the NT literature and to allow it for post-NT literature where context clearly shows that the author employs it as such.³⁰

Problematic Data

There are several passages which were close but did not qualify, formally speaking. For example, John 18:40 contains an article before the proper name, ἦν δὲ ὁ Βαραββᾶς λῃστής. If it belongs to the proper name for the reasons of re-introduction then the following noun is anarthrous, which disqualifies this datum.³¹ If the article belongs to the noun, then this is a peculiar structural type, VAN^PN. Several verses like these were discovered. However, they were excluded in order to preserve structural priority.³² Technically speaking, Mark 10:47 formally qualifies,ὅτι ᾿Ιησοῦς ὁ Ναζαρηνός ἐστιν. But due to the idiomatic nature of ὁ Ναζαρηνός (“of Nazareth” rather than “the Nazarene”), it is best to pull the subject out of the verb and place the articular noun in apposition to the proper name, “that it was Jesus the Nazarene.”³³

---

¹ Borrowed from Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 1-7.

² Roy Brown, Accordance Bible Software Ver. 5.1 (Vancouver: OakTree Software, Inc., 2004). This program uses Alfred Rahlfs’ text of the Septuagint and Nestle-Aland’s 27^th edition of the NT text (Alfred Rahlfs, Septuaginta, vol. 1 & 2, 9th ed. [Stuttgart: Württemberg Bible Society, 1935 (repr. 1971)]: 1-941; Eberhard Nestle, The Greek-English New Testament, ed. Erwin Nestle, rev. and ed. by Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, 27th ed. [Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1998], 1-886). Rahlfs’ text consists primarily of the important manuscripts Codex Vaticanus and Codex Alexandrinus, BA. It also provides the parallel Codex Sinaiticus, S, in places where there is significant disparity between BA and S. For the discussion in this chapter, LXX1 represents BA and LXX2 represents S.

³ Thesaurus Linguae Graecae Ver. #E (Los Angles: University of California, 1999). The latest update of the CD-ROM, version #E, was released in February of 2000. It contains 76 million words of text. The online version was released on April 2001. It contains 91 million words of text. This program uses the second edition of the United Bible Society NT text and Alfred Rahlfs’ Septuagint text (Eberhard Nestle, The Greek New Testament, ed. Erwin Nestle, rev. and ed. by Kurt Aland, Matthew Black, Carlo M. Martini, Bruce M. Metzger and Allen Wikgren, The Greek New Testament, 2d ed. [Stuttgart: Württemberg Bible Society, 1968], 1-895; Alfred Rahlfs, Septuaginta, 9th ed. [Stuttgart: Württemberg Bible Society, 1935 (repr. 1971)], 1-941). Rahlfs’ text consists primarily of the important manuscripts Codex Vaticanus and Codex Alexandrinus, BA. It also provides the parallel Codex Sinaiticus, S, in places where there is significant disparity between BA and S.

⁴ The sample pool from the original study yielded 3,810 matches and only seven qualified as target clusters functioning in SPN constructions. Since the goal of this thesis is to identify 200 examples, the scope was expanded to cover 700 hundred years. These produced 75,918 potential matches.

⁵ Edwin A. Abbott, Johannine Grammar (London: Adam and Charles Black, 1906), 57-58; Alexander Buttmann, A Grammar of the New Testament Greek, trans. Joseph Henry Thayer (Andover: W. F. Draper, 1876), 86-87; H. E. Dana and Julius R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament (New York: Macmillan, 1957), 142-44; Basil Lanneau Gildersleeve, Charles William Emil Miller, and Peter Stork, Syntax of Classical Greek: From Homer to Desmosthenes, Reprint ed. (Groningen: Bouma's Boekhuis B.V., 1980), 229-42; Stephen A. Janssen, “The Greek Article with Proper Names in Matthew” (Th.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 2003); Stephen H. Levinsohn, Discourse Features of New Testament Greek: A Coursebook (Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics, 1992), 98-99, 217; Dotson M. Nelson, “The Articular and Anarthrous Predicate Nominative in the Greek New Testament” (Th.D. diss., Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1944), 5; Herbert Weir Smyth, Greek Grammar, rev. by Gordon M. Messing (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1956), 289-91; A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, 4th ed. (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1934), 759-61, 791; Georg Benedikt Winer, A Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament: Prepared as a Solid Basis for the Interpretation of the New Testament, rev. and ed. by Gottlieb Lünemann, trans. Joseph Henry Thayer (Andover: W. F. Draper, 1869), 112-14; Georg Benedikt Winer, A Treatise on the Grammar of New Testament Greek: Regarded as a Sure Basis for New Testament Exegesis, trans. W. F. Moulton, 3d ed. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1882), 139-40.

⁶ See definition #7, #8 and #10 for γίνομαι in Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, rev. and ed. by Frederick William Danker, 3d ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 199. See definition #2 for ὑπάρχω, also in Bauer, Lexicon, 1029. Cf. William Watson Goodwin, Greek Grammar, rev. by Charles Burton Gulick (Boston: Ginn and Co., 1930), 198; James Hope Moulton, An Introduction to the Study of New Testament Greek, 2d ed. (London: Charles H. Kelly, 1903), 168; Robertson, Grammar, 394.

⁷ Nelson, “Predicate Nominative,” 14-15. Perhaps this is another way to distinguish between functional (copulative) and lexical (predicative) characteristics.

⁸ The first query searches in the LXX1, LXX2, NT and AF of Accordance 5.1 looked for SPN constructions involving any of the three verbs. For γίνομαι, the ANN^PV^G search construct yielded 64 verses (LXX1=30, LXX2=4, NT=24, AF=36). None qualified as an SPN construction. The ANV^GN^P search construct yielded 87 verses (LXX1=47, LXX2=4, NT=27, AF=9). None qualified as an SPN construction. The N^PV^GAN search construct yielded 89 verses (LXX1=47, LXX2=5, NT=30, AF=7). None qualified as an SPN construction. The V^GANN^P search construct yielded 86 verses (LXX1=68, LXX2=3, NT=11, AF=4). None qualified as an SPN construction. The V^GN^PAN yielded 107 verses (LXX1=86, LXX2=1, NT=16, AF=4). None qualified as an SPN construction. For ὑπάρχω, the ANN^PV^U search construct yielded 5 verses (LXX1=3, LXX2=2, NT=0, AF=0). None qualified as an SPN construction. The ANV^UN^P search construct yielded 4 verses (LXX1=4, LXX2=0, NT=0, AF=0). None qualified as an SPN construction. The N^PV^UAN search construct yielded 0 verses (LXX1=0, LXX2=0, NT=0, AF=0). None qualified as an SPN construction. The V^UANN^P search construct yielded 0 verses (LXX1=0, LXX2=0, NT=0, AF=0). None qualified as an SPN construction. The V^UN^PAN yielded 1 verses (LXX1=1, LXX2=0, NT=0, AF=0). None qualified as an SPN construction. By way of contrast, 14 examples were found for εἰμί. The ANN^PV^E search construct yielded 377 verses with potential matches (LXX1=231, LXX2=17, NT=93, AF=36). One from the NT qualifies as an SPN construction. The ANV^EN^P search construct yielded 358 verses (LXX1=264, LXX2=12, NT=82, AF=28). One from the AF qualifies as an SPN construction. The N^PV^EAN search construct yielded 396 verses (LXX1=250, LXX2=14, NT=101, AF=31). A total of ten qualified - five from the NT, four from the LXX1, and one from the LXX2. The V^EANN^P search construct yielded 361 verses (LXX1=229, LXX2=10, NT=95, AF=27). One from the LXX1 qualified. The V^EN^PAN yielded 390 verses (LXX1=239, LXX2=18, NT=106, AF=27). One from the LXX1 qualified.

⁹ Winer, Grammar, 521. Cf. Buttmann, Grammar, 136-37; and Goodwin, Grammar, §879.

¹⁰ The most common interpretive problem involves deciding whether the verbless cluster is a SPN construction or if the two nominatives are in simple apposition.

¹¹ A. T. Robertson and others have observed that in the majority of SPN constructions, the predicate noun was anarthous. However, this statistic holds true largely due to the inclusion of verbless constructions in their studies, an observation confirmed by Edwin A. Blum, “Studies in the Problem Areas of the Greek Article” (Th.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1961), 21.

¹² Wallace, Greek Grammar, 2.

¹³ Dana and Mantey, Manual Grammar, 68-69.

¹⁴ Ibid., 69.

¹⁵ Some additional research is needed in this area. For example, identifying all the unambiguous examples of simple apposition for the nominative, genitive, and accusative case will show patterns of proximity in these constructs. I speculate that the speaker’s more probable choice for expressing “assumption” rather than “assertion” between two nouns is to place them as close as possible to one another. In other words, the subject in an SPN construction will be both first in order (focus, emphasis) and not too far removed from the verb (greater “assumption”).

¹⁶ Wallace, Greek Grammar, 2.

¹⁷ Ibid., 43, 45.

¹⁸ Luke 1:63 reads, “His name is John.” And Matthew 13:55 reads, “Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary . . .” As previously stated, my research captured every occurrence of the articular ὄνομα and raises some questions regarding the claim that it is an exception to Wallace’s proper name rule. Regardless, the Luke passage is used here because it makes the point quite well.

¹⁹ In addition to these see Josephus, Antiquitates Judaicae 1.248.3. The passage describes how Abraham’s servant came to know the identity of the maiden for whom he was sent. The semantic subject from the context of 1.242-249 is the discovering of Rebecca’s lineage. In other words, the question lingering in the mind of the reader after a maidservant offers the servant water (and after she reveals her name, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ γένος ἀπεσήμαινε καὶ “῾Ρεβέκκα μέν‚”φησίν‚“ἐγὼ καλοῦμαι, . . .”) is “is she ‘the’ Rebecca?” At this point Josephus’ audience asks, “Is she related to Abraham? Who is her father?” The rest of her words provide the answer, πατὴρ δέ μοι Βαθουῆλος ἦν:ἀλλ᾿ ὁ μὲν ἤδη τέθνηκε‚Λάβανος δὲ ἀδελφός ἐστιν ἡμέτερος τοῦ τε οἴκου παντὸς σὺν τῇ μητρὶ προνούμενος καὶ τῆς ἐμῆς παρθενίασ ἐπιμελόμενος. The broader context, the immediate context (i.e., Rebecca giving her name), and the possessive pronoun show that “father” is the subject. Interestingly, the first nominative is the semantic subject in every one of these examples of convertible propositions.

²⁰ Wallace, Greek Grammar, 4.

²¹ Most define this as the period of 330 B.C. to A.D. 330. However, for the purposes of this investigation I have shifted it back to cover 400 B.C. to A.D. 300.

²² Wallace, Greek Grammar, 5.

²³ Bauer, Lexicon; Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, rev. by Henry Stuart Jones and Roderick McKenzie, 9th ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996).

²⁴ The primary reason for disqualifying substantival participles and adjectives from the target cluster is that compared to the anarthrous noun substantive they are affected rather than unaffected elements. However, Wallace’s explanation of the inherent differences may provide another reason to exclude them from the target cluster. Substantival participles “tend to focus on activities within an (often unstated) time-frame which may or may not be characteristic” and substantival adjectives “tend to focus on character, while nouns tend to accent identity” (Daniel B. Wallace, “The Article with Multiple Substantives Connected by Kaí in the New Testament: Semantics and Significance” [Ph.D. diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 1995], 142-43, 233-36). Some examples of substantival adjectives and participles are provided nonetheless in table two in appendix four for the purpose of corroboration.

²⁵ Robert Young, Analytical Concordance to the Bible, 22d American ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 1-23 (found as repagination at the end of the book). The characteristic of nonpluralization is a generally accepted criterion and sufficient identifier for whether a noun is proper but Wallace insightfully comments, “[T]he necessity of nonpluralization needs to be nuanced. On the one hand, simply because a particular word does not occur in the plural in the extant literature is no guarantee that it is a proper name . . . . On the other hand, it is possible on a rare occasion for even a proper name to be pluralized” (Wallace, “Article,” 164, see esp. his fn. 207). However, he rightly points out that these occurrences are rare and that “it may be taken as a principle of Greek grammar that proper names do not pluralize” (Wallace, “Article,” 165).

²⁶ Wallace provides a very helpful discussion on the major difference between place names and proper names. Essentially, place names have the characteristic of “referential overlap” while proper names do not (Wallace, “Article,” 166). For example, Mt. Whitney and California both incorporate Mt. Whitney in the reference. However, the semantic difference between place names and proper names does not significantly affect the aim of my investigation primarily because, at the unaffected level, place names denote more than they connote; they have “reference but not sense” (Wallace, “Article,” 85, 100, 165).

²⁷ Philip B. Harner, “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1,” Journal of Biblical Literature 92 (1973); Paul Stephen Dixon, “The Significance of the Anarthrous Predicate Nominative in John” (Th.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1975); Wallace, “Article.”. The classic and much debated example is in John 1:1c, which Wallace persuasively argues to be qualitative (Wallace, Greek Grammar, 266-69). Much of this work can be more fully appreciated by consulting his doctoral dissertation (Wallace, “Article,” 101, 164-65, 260-63).

²⁸ The noun appears quite a bit through out the NT (χριστός appears 529 times by itself and 107 times with ᾿Ιησοῦς).

²⁹ Bauer, Lexicon, 1091. Cf. Wallace, “Article,” 164, 165, 261 fn. 24.

³⁰ This tentativeness may be philosophically analogous to Wallace’s approach to discussing the validity of Granville Sharp’s rule regarding article-substantive-καί-substantive constructions, where Wallace first examines data which do not contain christologically significant texts. See Wallace, Greek Grammar, 273-77.

³¹ Levinsohn, Discourse Features, 100.

³² Cf. Barnabas 8:2 and Ignatius: To the Philadelphians 8:2

³³ One lexicon labels Ναζαρηνός as an adjective. See Bauer, Lexicon, 664. For similar constructions see John 5:15, 11:2, and 18:14.

Organization of target clusters by Structure and Verb Tense

Structural Type	>ἦν< * >ὁ< | >ἡ< | >τὸ< Potential Target Cluster Matches = 16,990	>ἐστιν< * >ὁ< | >ἡ< | >τὸ< Potential Target Cluster Matches = 49,871	>ἐσται< * >ὁ< | >ἡ< | >τὸ< Potential Target Cluster Matches = 9,057
ST1 (NPANVE)	Plutarchus, Amatoriae narrationes 775.B.10 Flavius Arranius, Historia successorum Alexandri 1,15.2 2	Philo Judaeus Phil., De congressu eruditionis gratia 57.7 Origenes, Commentarii in evangelium Joannis 20.32.285.3 Origenes, Fragmenta ex commentariis in epistulam i ad Corinthios 27.41 3	0
ST2 (ANNPVE)	Aristoteles, Fragmenta varia 8.44.527.3 Julius Pollux, Onomasticon 2.95.6 Origenes, Commentarii in evangelium Joannis 6.46.240.4 Origenes, Commentarii in evangelium Joannis 20.27.240.4 4	Novum Testamentum John 8:39 <Cebes> (of Thebes), Cebetis tabula 3.3.1 Lucianus, De Syria dea 15.2 Origenes, Commentarii in evangelium Joannis 20.15.125.3 Origenes, Commentarii in evangelium Joannis 20.16.132.4 5	0
ST3 (NPVEAN)	Septuaginta Tobit 1:22 in Text Family BA Septuaginta Tobit 1:22 in Text Family S Plutarchus, Vitae decem oratorum 839.E.2 Manetho, Fragmenta 42.1 Aelius Aristides, ῾Ροδιακός 552.15 Pausanias, Graeciae descriptio 5.5.9.2 Aelius Herodianus et Pseudo, De prosodia catholica 3,1.196.10 Clemens Alexandrinus, Stromata 1.16.75.1.2 8	Septuaginta Esther 10:3c Strabo, Geographica 13.1.39.8 Philo Judaeus Phil., De ebrietate 128.1 Novum Testamentum John 20:31 Novum Testamentum 1 John 2:22 Novum Testamentum 1 John 4:15 Novum Testamentum 1 John 5:1 Novum Testamentum 1 John 5:5 Plutarchus, De exilio 607.B.7 Lucianus Annaeus Cornutus, De natura deorum 4.11 Lucianus Annaeus Cornutus, De natura deorum 12.14 Lucianus Annaeus Cornutus, De natura deorum 45.4 Flavius Josephus, Antiquitates Judaicae 9.53.4 Tatianus, Oratio ad Graecos 17.1.3 Justinus Martyr, Dialogus cum Tryphone 113.1.6 Hegesippus, Fragmenta 209.9 Pseudo-Galenus, Definitiones medicae 19.430.11 Pseudo-Galenus, Definitiones medicae 19.430.13 Aelius Herodianus et Pseudo Herodianus, Περὶ ῥημάτων 3, 2.808.30 Origenes, Commentarii in evangelium Joannis 19.23.151.4 Origenes, Commentarii in evangelium Joannis 20.37.347.4 Origenes, Fragmenta in Lucam 18.4 Origenes, Fragmenta ex commentariis in epistulam i ad Corinthios 25.5 Origenes, Fragmenta in Psalmos 1-150 73.11.15 Origenes, Fragmenta in Psalmos 1-150 88.13.41 Heliodorus, Aethiopica 2.14.4.1 Hippolytus, Refutatio omnium haeresium 10.34.5.1 27	Septuaginta Genesis 17:15 Septuaginta Genesis 32:29 Septuaginta Genesis 35:10 Philo Judaeus Phil., Legum allegoriae 3.217.6 Philo Judaeus Phil., De ebrietate 82.6 Justinus Martyr, Dialogus cum Tryphone 58.7.4 Justinus Martyr, Dialogus cum Tryphone 58.8.12 Origenes, Fragmenta in evangelium Joannis 24.2 Origenes, Epistula ad Africanum 11.73.13 Origenes, Scholia in Lucam 17.324.1 10
ST4 (ANVENP)	Pausanias, Graeciae descriptio 5.3.6.8 Porphyrius, Vita Plotini 7.3 2	Aeschines Orat., In Timarchum 111.3 Philo Judaeus Phil., De congressu eruditionis gratia 61.2 Hermas, Pastor 23.4 (Leucius), Acta Joannis 46.21 Hippolytus, Contra haeresin Noeti 13.4.2 5	0
ST5 (VENPAN)	Septuaginta 1 Chronicles 23:11 Plutarchus, Antonius 9.7.1 2	0	0
Appendix 3—Continued
Structural Type	>ἦν< * >ὁ< | >ἡ< | >τὸ< Potential Target Cluster Matches = 16,990	>ἐστιν< * >ὁ< | >ἡ< | >τὸ< Potential Target Cluster Matches = 49,871	>ἐσται< * >ὁ< | >ἡ< | >τὸ< Potential Target Cluster Matches = 9,057
ST6 (VEANNP)	Plutarchus, Sulla 3.4.8 Dio Chrysostomus, Orationes 43.9.3 Polyaenus, Strategemata 1.3.5.3 Claudius Aelianus, De natura animalium 12.37.1 4	Origenes, In Jeremiam 13.3.35 1	Septuaginta Genesis 17:5 Philo Judaeus Phil., De mutatione nominum 60.1 Origenes, Selecta in Genesim 12.116.12 3

Notes: The names of authors and titles are as they appear in Thesaurus Linguae Graecae #E (TLG #E).¹ This includes their special characters to show doubt of authorship. In some instances parenthesis are used to express my own doubts regarding authorship. Text family B represents Codex Vaticanus, text family S represents Codex Sinaiticus, and text family A represents Codex Alexandrinus. Rows organize the data by the six structural types. Columns organize the data by the three search strings used in TLG #E. The 75,918 potential matches were filtered down to actual target clusters which function as SPN constructions using a four step process. The first step identified those samples which had an anarthrous proper noun near the copula. The second step involved identifying a corresponding articular noun in the nominative case. When spatial prepositions (e.g., ἐν and ἐπί) and adverbs (e.g., ο)θεν, ἐντεῦθεν, and ἔνθα) begin a sentence or clause, they often complete the copula and the two substantives in the target cluster function in apposition to one another rather than predicate one upon the other. Consequently, the third step categorically dismissed these. Finally, the remaining sentences or clauses which utilize the target cluster were examined within context and confirmed to be SPN constructions.

---

¹ Thesaurus Linguae Graecae Ver. #E (Los Angles: University of California, 1999).

Analysis of data for semantic subject and function

Table 1. Complete List of Target Clusters Functioning as SPN Constructions in Koine Greek
Date	Author and Title	Greek Text with English Translation	Relationship of First Nominative (FN) to the Semantic Subject (SS)	ST	FT	SPN T
400 B.C.	Aristoteles, Fragmenta varia 8.44.527.3	ὁ δὲ Νικοκλέους τοῦ Κυπρίου πατήρ‚ ᾧ τὰς παραινέσεις ὁ ᾿Αθηναῖος σοφιστὴς ἔγραψεν‚ τὸ μὲν ὄνομα αὐτῷ Τίμαρχος ἦν‚ [cf. Pollux Onom. 2. 95] “And the father of the Cyprian Nicocles, (concerning whom the Athenian sophist, Isocrates, wrote the addresses) the name given to him was Timarchus,”	The SS is showing that a king’s sons and brothers are usually called lords and that his female relatives are usually called ladies. The FN is “the name” and is similar to the SS.	2	1	Conv
400 B.C. (ca. 346 B.C.)	Aeschines Orat., In Timarchum 111.3	Θαυμασάντων δ ᾿ ὑμῶν πῶς ἀνὴρ καὶ γυνὴ καὶ τίς ὁ λόγος‚ εἶπε μικρὸν διαλιπών: “ἀγνοεῖτε‚” ἔφη‚ “ὅτι λέγω; ὁ μὲν ἀνήρ ἐστιν ῾Ηγήσανδρος ἐκεῖνος νυνί,” ἔφη‚ “πρότερον δ ᾿ ἦν καὶ αὐτὸς Λεωδάμαντος γυνή:” “When you cried out, ‘How is it you say “a man and a woman,” what are you talking about?’ after a little while he continued, ‘Understand,’ he said, ‘What I say. The man is Hegesandrus there now,’ he said, ‘but before he was also Laodamas’ woman,’”	The SS is Pamphilus’ revealing of the identity of two thieves, a man who used to be a woman and Timarchus who the narrator calls a woman. The FN is “the man” and is similar to the SS.	4	2	Sub
250 B.C. A.D. 100	Septuaginta Genesis 17:5	Καὶ οὐ κληθήσεται ἔτι τὸ ὄνομά σου Αβραμ‚ ἀλλ᾿ ἔσται τὸ ὄνομά σου Αβρααμ‚ “No longer will your name be called Abram, but your name will be Abraham,”	The SS starts with the renewing of the grant covenant to multiply Abraham exceedingly. It then focuses on the name change as a reminder of that covenant promise. The FN is “the name” and is similar to the SS.	6	3	Conv
250 B.C. A.D. 100	Septuaginta Genesis 17:15	Εἶπεν δὲ ὁ θεὸς τῷ Αβρααμ Σαρα ἡ γυνή σου‚ οὐ κληθήσεται τὸ ὄνομά αὐτῆς Σαρα‚ ἀλλὰ Σαρρα ἔσται τὸ ὄνομά αὐτῆς. “And God said to Abraham, ‘Sarai, your wife, will not be called by her name Sarai, but Sarah will be her name.’”	The SS begins with God reminding Abraham of His grant covenant. It then focuses on Sarai, his wife. The FN is Sarah and is similar to the SS.	3	2	Conv
250 B.C. A.D. 100	Septuaginta Genesis 32:29	εἶπεν δὲ αὐτῷ Οὐ κληθήσεται ἔτι τὸ ὄνομά σου ᾿Ιακωβ‚ ἀλλὰ ᾿Ισραηλ ἔσται τὸ ὄνομά σου‚ ὅτι ἐνίσχυσας μετὰ θεοῦ καὶ μετὰ ἀνθρωπων δυνατός. “And He said to him, ‘your name will no longer be called Jacob, but your name will be Israel because you have grown strong (or regained strength) along with (or by) God and are strong among men.’”	The SS is the event that led to (or the background behind) Jacob’s name change. The FN is Israel and predicates on the SS.	3	5	Conv
250 B.C. A.D. 100	Septuaginta Genesis 35:10	Καὶ εἶπεν αὐτω ὁ θεός τὸ ὄνομά σου ᾿Ιακωβ‚ οὐ κληθήσεται ἔτι ᾿Ιακωβ‚ ἀλλ ᾿ ᾿Ισραηλ ἔσται τὸ ὄνομά σου. “And God said to him, ‘Your name is Jacob; it will no longer be called Jacob, but your name will be Israel.’”	The SS starts with reviewing the Grant Covenant. Then it focuses on the significance of changing Jacob’s name. The FN is Israel and predicates on the SS.	3	5	Conv
250 B.C. A.D. 100	Septuaginta 1 Chronicles 23:11	καὶ ἦν Ιεθ ὁ ἄρχων καὶ Ζιζα ὁ δεύτερος “…and Jahath was the first and Zizah the second…”	The SS is the telling of the order of Shimei’s sons. The FN is Jahath and is similar to the SS.	5	3	Sub
250 B.C. A.D. 100	Septuaginta Esther 10:3c	ἡ μικρὰ πηγή‚ ἣ ἐγένετο ποταμὸς καὶ ἦν φῶς καὶ ἥλιος καὶ ὕδωρ πολύ‚ Εσθηρ ἐστὶν ὁ ποταμός‚ “A little fountain became a river, and there was light, and the sun, and much water: this river is Esther,”	The SS begins with the claim that God is the source of deliverance. It then moves into the description of a dream about a little fountain which becomes a river. The FN is Esther and predicates on the SS.	3	5	Sub
250 B.C. A.D. 100	Septuaginta Tobit 1:22 in Text Family BA	Αχιαχαρος δὲ ἦν ὁ οἰνοχόος “And Achiacharus was cupbearer…”	The SS is Achiacharus (Ahikar). The FN is Achiacharus is the same as the SS.	3	2	Sub
250 B.C. A.D. 100	Septuaginta Tobit 1:22 in Text Family S	Αχιαχαρος γὰρ ἦν ὁ ἀρχιοινοχόος “For Achiacharus was chief cupbearer…”	The SS is Achiacharus (Ahikar). The FN is Achiacharus is the same as the SS.	3	2	Conv
100 B.C. A.D. 100 (ca. A.D. 24)	Strabo, Geographica 13.1.39.8	πῶς γὰρ ἂν αἱρεθῆναι διαιτητὴν τὸν προσπολεμοῦντα; ᾿Αχίλλειον δ ᾿ ἔστιν ὁ τόπος ἐν ᾧ τὸ ᾿Αχιλλέως μνῆμα‚ κατοικία μικρά. “For how could the opponent of the Athenians have been chosen as arbiter? Achilleium is the place where the monument of Achilles stands and it is only a small settlement.”	The SS is a little ambiguous, but appears to be an argument against the claim that Periander fortified Achilleium. The FN is Achilleium and is similar to the SS.	3	2	Conv
Table 1—Continued
Date	Author and Title	Greek Text with English Translation	Relationship of First Nominative (FN) to the Semantic Subject (SS)	ST	FT	SPN T
100 B.C. A.D. 100	Philo Judaeus Phil., Legum allegoriae 3.217.6	εἶπεν ὁ θεὸς τῷ ᾿Αβραάμ: “Σάρα ἡ γυνή σου οὐ κληθήσεται Σάρα‚ ἀλλὰ Σάρρα αὐτῆς ἔσται τὸ ὄνομα: εὐλογήσω αὐτὴν καὶ δώσω σοι ἐξ αὐτῆς τέκνον.” “God said to Abraham, ‘Sarai, your wife, will not be called Sarai, but Sarah will be her name: I will bless her and will give you a child of her.’”	The SS is the description of an example of “virtue” (Sarah) pregnant with “joy” (Isaac). The FN is Sarah in this non-verbatim (Greek or Hebrew) quotation of Genesis 17:15. It is the same as the original SS and is the same as Philo’s SS.	3	2	Conv
100 B.C. A.D. 100	Philo Judaeus Phil., De ebrietate 82.6	ἐπήχησαν οἱ χρησμοί: “οὐ κληθήσεται τὸ ὄνομά σου ᾿Ιακώβ‚ ἀλλ ᾿ ᾿Ισραὴλ ἔσται σου τὸ ὄνομα‚ ὅτι ἴσχυσας μετὰ θεοῦ καὶ μετὰ ἀνθρώπων δυνατός” ᾿Ιακὼβ μὲν οὖν μαθήσεως καὶ προκοπῆς ὄνομα‚ ἀκοῆς ἐξηρτημένων δυνάμεων‚ ῾Ισραὴλ δὲ τελειότητος‚ ὅρασιν γὰρ θεοῦ μηνύει τοὔνομα. “Then it was that the oracles rang out their proclamation, ‘Your name will not be called Jacob, but Israel will be your name because you have been strong along with (or by) God and have been strong among men.’ Now Jacob is a name for learning and progress, gifts depending on the hearing; Israel is a name for perfection, for the name expresses the vision of God.”	The SS begins with the calling to consider the exchange(s) seen in Jacob. It then converges on an explanation about the significance of Jacob’s name change. The FN is Israel in this non-verbatim (Greek or Hebrew) quotation of Genesis 32:29. It predicates on the original SS and is similar to Philo’s SS.	3	2	Conv
100 B.C. A.D. 100	Philo Judaeus Phil., De ebrietate 128.1	᾿Ααρὼν δέ ἐστιν ὁ ἱερεύς‚ καὶ τοὔνομα ὀρεινὸς ἑρμηνεύεται‚ μετέωρα καὶ ὑψηλὰ φρονῶν λογισμός‚ “Now Aaron is the priest and his name means ‘mountainous.’ He is the reason whose thoughts are lofty and sublime,”	The SS starts with a description of the priestly duty of sobriety. It then converges on showing Aaron as example of priestly sobriety. The FN is Aaron and is the same as the SS.	3	2	Sub
100 B.C. A.D. 100	Philo Judaeus Phil., De congressu eruditionis gratia 57.7	καὶ γὰρ ὁ πρὸς ἀλήθειαν ῞Αιδης ὁ τοῦ μοχθηροῦ βίος ἐστίν‚ ὁ ἀλάστωρ καὶ παλαμναῖος καὶ πάσαις ἀραῖς ἔνοχος. “For the true Hades is the life of the bad, the accursed wretch and blood-guilty man and the one subject to every curse.”	The SS starts with Philo describing the place to where God sends the vanished unjust and godless souls. It then converges on claiming that it is, “not mythical but” a life ill lived. The FN is Hades and is similar to the SS.	1	1	Sub
100 B.C. A.D. 100	Philo Judaeus Phil., De congressu eruditionis gratia 61.2	κεφαλὴ δὲ ὡς ζῴου πάντων τῶν λεχθέντων μερῶν ὁ γενάρχης ἐστὶν ᾿Ησαῦ‚ “And of all the members of the clan here described, Esau is the progenitor,”	The SS begins with giving examples of passion in the “Body” which lead to the fainting of the “Soul.” It then focuses on how Esau is the Biblical example of these metaphors. The FN is “the progenitor” and predicates on the SS.	4	5	Conv
100 B.C. A.D. 100	Philo Judaeus Phil., De mutatione nominum 60.1	κλῆρον ἀποφήνας τῶν λαμβανόντων ἑαυτόν‚ οὓς εὐθέως καὶ προσρήσεως ἑτέρας ἠξίωσε. λέγεται γὰρ ὅτι “οὐ κληθήσεται τὸ ὄνομά σου ᾿Αβράμ‚ ἀλλ᾿ ἔσται τὸ ὄνομά σου ᾿Αβραάμ.” “…Himself the portion of those who receive Him. On these He presently bestows as their due a different name. For it says, ‘Your name will not be called Abram, but your name will be Abraham.’”	The SS begins with the description of how God offers the highest form of covenant to some people. It then focuses on how these people get a different name, explaining the significance of the name change. The FN is “the name” and is similar to the SS.	6	3	Conv
A.D. 100	Novum Testamentum John 8:39	᾿Απεκρίθησαν καὶ εἶπαν αὐτῶ‚ ῾Ο πατὴρ ἡμῶν ᾿Αβραάμ ἐστιν. Λέγει αὐτοι)ς ὁ ᾿Ιησου)ς‚ Εἰ τέκνα τοῦ ᾿Αβραάμ ἐστε‚ τὰ ἔργα τοῦ ᾿Αβραὰμ ἐποιεῖτε: “They answered and said to Him, ‘Our father is Abraham.’ Jesus said to them, ‘If you are Abraham’s children, do the deeds of Abraham,’”	The SS concerns relationships to Abraham and the identity of Abraham’s true seed. The FN is “our father” and is similar to the SS.	2	1	Conv
A.D. 100	Novum Testamentum John 20:31	ταῦτα δὲ γέγραπται ἵνα πιστεύ[σ]ητε ὅτι ᾿Ιησου)ς ἐστιν ὁ Χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ‚ καὶ ἵνα πιστεύοντες ζωὴν ἔχητε ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι αὐτοῦ. “but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.”	The SS is a statement of the two reasons for recording the signs that Jesus did. The FN is Jesus and is similar to the SS.	3	2	Conv
A.D. 100	Novum Testamentum 1 John 2:22	Τίς ἐστιν ὁ ψεύστης εἰ μὴ ὁ ἀρνούμενος ὅτι ᾿Ιησοῦς οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ Χριστός; οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἀντίχριστος, ὁ ἀρνούμενος τὸν πατέρα καὶ τὸν υἱόν. “Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son.”	The SS is a description of how to identify the antichrist. The FN is Jesus and is similar to the SS.	3	2	Sub
A.D. 100	Novum Testamentum 1 John 4:15	ὃς ἐὰν ὁμολογήσῃ ὅτι ᾿Ιησοῦς ἐστιν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ‚ ὁ θεὸς ἐν αὐτῷ μένει καὶ αὐτὸς ἐν τῷ θεῷ. “Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God.”	The SS is the assertion that God is love and that His children abide in love. The FN is Jesus and is similar to the SS.	3	2	Conv
A.D. 100	Novum Testamentum 1 John 5:1	Πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων ὅτι ᾿Ιησοῦς ἐστιν ὁ Χριστὸς ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ γεγέννηται‚ καὶ πᾶς ὁ ἀγαπῶν τὸν γεννήσαντα ἀγαπᾷ [καὶ] τὸν γεγεννημένον ἐξ αὐτοῦ. “Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and whoever loves the Father loves the child born of Him.”	The SS is a description of who is rightly related to God and how. The FN is Jesus and is similar to the SS.	3	2	Sub
A.D. 100	Novum Testamentum 1 John 5:5	τίς [δέ] ἐστιν ὁ νικῶν τὸν κόσμον εἰ μὴ ὁ πιστεύων ὅτι ᾿Ιησοῦς ἐστιν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ; “Who is the one who overcomes the world, but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?”	The SS is a description of who is rightly related to God and how. The FN is Jesus and is similar to the SS.	3	2	Conv
A.D. 100 (ca. A.D. 75)	Plutarchus, Sulla 3.4.8	ἦν δὲ ἡ γραφὴ Βόκχος μὲν παραδιδούς‚ Σύλλας δὲ παραλαμβάνων τὸν ᾿Ιογόρθαν. “The engraving was Bocchus the deliverer and Sylla the receiver of Jugurtha.”	The SS is the signet ring which Sulla wore in commemoration of his handing over Jugurtha to Marius from Bocchus. The FN is “the engraving” and is the same as the SS.	6	3	Sub
Table 1—Continued
Date	Author and Title	Greek Text with English Translation	Relationship of First Nominative (FN) to the Semantic Subject (SS)	ST	FT	SPN T
A.D. 100 (ca. A.D. 75)	Plutarchus, Antonius 9.7.1	ἦν δὲ καὶ Σέργιος ὁ μῖμος τῶν μέγιστον παρ ᾿ αὐτῷ δυναμένων‚ “And Sergius also was the mime of greatest influence over him,”	The SS is the description of Antonius’ shady company of drinking buddies, among whom were several mimes. The FN is Sergius and is similar to the SS.	5	3	Conv
A.D. 100 (ca. A.D. 75)	Plutarchus, De exilio 607.B.7	τὸ δὲ τοῦ ᾿Αντισθένους οὐκ ἐπαινεῖς πρὸς τὸν εἰπόντα ὅτι “Φρυγία σού ἐστιν ἡ μήτηρ,” “καὶ γὰρ ἡ τῶν θεῶν;” “Do you not commend the angry reply of Antisthenes to the one who said, ‘Phrygia is your mother,’ retorting, ‘for indeed she is the mother of the gods?’”	The SS is the showing of how individuals from foreign lands make great contributions to the places in which they currently reside. The FN is Phrygia and is similar to the SS.	3	2	Sub
A.D. 100 (ca. A.D. 75)	Plutarchus, Amatoriae narrationes 775.B.10	῎Αλκιππος τὸ μὲν γένος Λακεδαιμόνιος ἦν: “Now Alcippus was the descendant of a Lacedamonian,”	The SS is Alcippus. The FN is Alcippus and is the same as the SS.	1	1	Sub
A.D. 100 (ca. A.D. 75)	Plutarchus, Vitae decem oratorum 839.E.2	᾿Ισαῖος Χαλκιδεὺς μὲν ἦν τὸ γένος‚ παραγενόμενος δ ᾿ εἰς ᾿Αθηνας καὶ σχολάσας “Now Isaeus was the descendant of Chalcidice, but came to Athens and to school...”	The SS is Isaeus. The FN is Isaeus and is the same as the SS.	3	2	Sub
A.D. 100	Lucius Annaeus Cornutus, De natura deorum 4.11	Ποσειδῶν δέ ἐστιν ἡ ἀπεργαστικὴ τοῦ ἐν τῇ γῇ καὶ περὶ τὴν γῆν ὑγροῦ δύναμις‚ “And Poseidon is the effectual power of the sea which is in and around the land,”	As the title suggests, the broader SS is a description of how various gods came to be. The immediate SS is Poseidon, the earth-shaker and ruler of water. The FN is Poseidon and is the same as the SS.	3	2	Sub
A.D. 100	Lucius Annaeus Cornutus, De natura deorum 12.14	Αἶσα δέ ἐστιν ἡ ἄιστος καὶ ἄγνωστος αἰτία τῶν γινομένων- “Aisa [Destiny] is the unseen and unknown cause of the ones who have come into existence-”	As the title suggests, the broader SS is a description of how various gods came to be. The immediate SS concerns fate and/or destiny. The FN is Aisa and is the same as the SS.	3	2	Sub
A.D. 100	Lucius Annaeus Cornutus, De natura deorum 45.4	᾿Αφροδίτη δέ ἐστιν ἡ συνάγουσα τὸ ἄρρεν καὶ τὸ θῆλυ δύναμις‚ “And Aphrodite is the co-leading masculine and feminine power,”	As the title suggests, the broader SS is a description of how various gods came to be. The immediate SS concerns goddesses whose etymology is related to various observable traits of the sea (namely, Nereus) such as the foam created by the waves. The FN is Aphrodite and is similar to the SS.	3	2	Sub
A.D. 100 (ca. A.D. 93)	Flavius Josephus, Antiquitates Judaicae 9.53.4	μηδὲ ὑποεῖν αὐτὸν ὡς πρὸς τὸν ἐχθρὸν αὐτοῦ κατειρηκότας τὴν ἔκπεμψιν τῶν ἀναιρησόντων αὐτούς‚ ἀλλὰ γινώσκειν ὅτι ᾿Ελισσαῖός ἐστιν ὁ προφήτης ὁ πάντα μηνύων αὐτῷ καὶ φανερὰ ποιῶν τὰ ὑπ ᾿ αὐτοῦ βουλευόμενα‚ προσέταξε πέμψας μαθεῖν ἐν τίνι πόλει τυγχάνει διατρίβων ᾿Ελισσαῖος. “...and that he should not suspect them of having told his enemy of the sending out of the men who were to kill him, but should know that Elisha was the prophet who had informed him of everything and had revealed to him the things to be done against him. So he [Adados] gave orders to send men to learn in what city Elisha was living.”	The SS is the recounting of how one of Adados’ own men revealed to him that Elisha was the one who had ruined his plot to kill king Joram and not his co-conspirators, as Adados was claiming. The FN is Elisha and is similar to the SS.	3	2	Conv
(unknown)	<Cebes> (of Thebes), Cebetis tabula 3.3.1	ἡ γὰρ ἀφροσύνη τοῖς ἀνθρώποις Σφίγξ ἐστιν. “For Sphinx is the folly to men.”	From the immediately preceding line, the SS appears to be the Sphinx. The FN is “the folly” and predicates on the SS.	2	4	Sub
(unknown)	Manetho, Fragmenta 42.1	Μανεθὼν δ ᾿ ἦν τὸ γένος Αἰγυπτιος‚ ἀνὴρ τῆς ῾Ελληνικῆς μετεσχηκὼς παιδείας‚ ὡς δῆλός ἐστι: γέγραφε γὰρ ῾Ελλάδι... [Josephus Contra Apionem I, 14 (ca. A.D. 93 or A.D. 100)] “But Manetho was the descendant of an Egyptian, and a man who had been transformed by Greek upbringing, as it is clear, for he wrote in Greek…”	The SS is Josephus’ description of Manetho’s credibility as an Egyptian historian and of his ability as a Greek writer/translator. The FN is Manetho and is similar to the SS.	3	2	Sub
A.D. 100 (ca. A.D. 95)	Dio Chrysostomus, Orationes 43.9.3	ἀλλ ᾿ ὅμως ὑπο τοῦ δήμου‚ δι ᾿ ὃν ἐκινδύνευεν‚ ὕστερον εὖ πράττοντος διαβληθεὶς ὑπὸ συκοφαντῶν τινων ἀπέθανεν. ἦν δὲ ὁ κατηγορος Μέλητος‚ βδελυρὸς ἄνθρωπος καὶ συκοφάντης. “But nevertheless, it was by the government of the people, on whose account he then risked his life, that later on when that government was flourishing, because he had been slandered by certain false witnesses, he was put to death. Now his accuser was Meletus, a loathsome man, and a liar.”	The SS begins with the retelling of how even Socrates experienced betrayal while trying to help the people whose government ultimately killed him. The FN is “the accuser” and is similar to the SS.	6	3	Sub
A.D. 200 (ca. A.D. 130)	Flavius Arrianus, Historia successorum Alexandri 1,15.2	Δείναρχος δὲ ὁ Κορίνθιος ὁ κατήγορος ἦν. “And Deinarchus, the Corinthian, was the accuser.”	The SS is a bullet point description of Demades’ role in the condemnation of Demosthenes (and others) and in his own condemnation. The FN is Deinarchus and is consistent with the clause constructions of the preceding bullet point accounts, in which most of the grammatical subjects are proper names.	1	1	Sub
A.D. 200 (ca. A.D. 150)	Hermas, Pastor 23.4	διὰ τοῦτο ὁ κύριος ἀπέστειλεν τὸν ἄγγελον αὐτοῦ τὸν ἐπὶ τῶν θηρίων ὄντα‚ οὗ τὸ ὄνομά ἐστιν Σεγρί‚ “Therefore the Lord sent his angel who has authority over the beasts, the name of whom is Segri,”	The SS begins with the describing of the Shepherd’s great faith. It converges on showing the angel’s authority over the beast to deliver the Shepherd. The FN is “the name” and is not similar to the SS.	4	2	Conv
Table 1—Continued
Date	Author and Title	Greek Text with English Translation	Relationship of First Nominative (FN) to the Semantic Subject (SS)	ST	FT	SPN T
A.D. 200 (ca. A.D. 150)	(Leucius), Acta Joannis 46.21	Κἀκείνῳ τρόμῳ καὶ φρίκῃ συνεχόμενος εἶπε Ναὶ κύριε‚ ῥίψας ἑαυτὸν εἰς τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ. Καὶ ὁ ᾿Ιωάννης: ῾Ο κύριος ἡμῶν ἐστιν ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστός‚ ὅστις τὴν δύναμιν αὐτοῦ δείξει ἐν τῷ νεκρῷ σου συγγενεῖ ὁ ἀναστήσας αὐτόν. “Having been overcome with trembling and fear, he said, ‘Yes, lord;’ and he cast himself at his feet. And John said, ‘Our Lord is Jesus Christ, who will show his power in your dead relative by raising him up.’”	The story is a description of how John knew the heart of an Ephesian who had postponed the burial of his dead relative in order to hear John preach, and perhaps even get him to raise him from the dead. Upon hearing John expose his very intentions, he falls to John’s feet and calls him, “lord.” The tighter SS is the question of “who is Lord.” The FN is “the Lord of us” and is the same as the SS.	4	2	Conv
A.D. 200 (ca. A.D. 150)	Tatianus, Oratio ad Graecos 17.1.3	ὅτι κατὰ τὸν κοινὸν λόγον ᾿Αβδηρολόγος ἐστὶν ὁ ἀπὸ τῶν ᾿Αβδήρων ἄνθρωπος “…that according to the common saying, Abderos is the man from/of the Abderas.”	The SS is the description of a comparison between Hercules’ friend and “those who boast of the Magian Ostanes.” Their fate will be the same. The FN is Abderos and is similar to the SS.	3	2	Conv
A.D. 200 (ca. A.D. 160)	Justinus Martyr, Dialogus cum Tryphone 58.7.4	ἄν μή με εὐλογήσῃς. εἶπε δὲ αὐτῷ: Τί τὸ ὄνομα σου ἐστίν; ὁ δὲ εἶπεν: ᾿Ιακώβ. εἶπε δὲ αὐτῷ: Οὐ κληθήσεται τὸ ὄνομά σου ᾿Ιακώβ‚ ἀλλὰ ᾿Ισραὴλ ἔσται τὸ ὄνομά σου: ὅτι ἐνίσχυσας μετὰ τοῦ θεοῦ‚ καὶ μετὰ ἀνθρώπων δυνατὸς ἔσῃ. ἠρώτησε δὲ ᾿Ιακὼβ καὶ εἶπεν: ᾿Ανάγγειλόν μοι τὸ ὄνομά σου. “[And when he saw that he could not overcome him, He touched the sinew of his thigh while they wrestled, and forthwith it became numb. And He said to him, ‘Let me go for it is the break of day.’ He answered, ‘I will not let you go] except/until you bless me.’ He said, ‘What is your name?’ And he said, ‘Jacob.’ And He said to him, ‘Your name will not be called Jacob, but your name will be Israel because you have grown strong along with God, and you will be powerful among men.’ And Jacob asked and said, ‘Tell me your name.’”	The broader SS is an argument showing that God is also called “Angel” and “Lord.” The FN in this non-verbatim (Greek or Hebrew) quotation of Genesis 32:29 is Israel. It predicates on the original SS and is unrelated to Justin Martyr’s SS.	3	NA	Conv
A.D. 200 (ca. A.D. 160)	Justinus Martyr, Dialogus cum Tryphone 58.8.12	ὅτε παρεγένετο ἐν Μεσοποταμίᾳ τῆς Συρίας‚ καὶ εὐλόγησεν αὐτόν. καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ ὁ θεός: Τὸ ὄνομά σου ᾿Ιακὼβ οὐ κληθήσεται ἔτι‚ ἀλλὰ ᾿Ισραὴλ ἔσται τὸ ὄνομά σου. θεος καλεῖται καὶ θεος ἐστι καὶ ἔσται. “[And God appeared again to Jacob,] after he returned from Mesopotamia of Syria, and He blessed him. And God said to him, ‘Your name will no longer be called Jacob, but Israel will be your name.’ He (Angel/Lord) is called God, and He is and always will be God.”	The broader SS is an argument showing that God is also called “Angel” and “Lord.” The FN in this non-verbatim (Greek or Hebrew) quotation of Genesis 35:10 is Israel. It predicates on the original SS and is unrelated to Justin Martyr’s SS.	3	NA	Conv
A.D. 200 (ca. A.D. 160)	Justinus Martyr, Dialogus cum Tryphone 113.1.6	οὐδὲ νῦν‚ ἀκούων ὅτι ᾿Ιησοῦς ἐστιν ὁ Χριστὸς ἡμῶν‚ συλλογίζῃ οὐκ ἀργῶς οὐδ ᾿ ὡς ἔτυχεν ἐκείνῳ τεθεῖσθαι τοὔνομα. “and even now, though you hear that Jesus is our Christ, you do not consider that the name was bestowed on Him not purposelessly nor by chance.”	The SS concerns the name change of Osee, the son of Nun, into Joshua and his taking Israel into the promised land. Thus he was a type of Jesus the Christ. The FN is Jesus and is similar to the SS.	3	2	Conv
A.D. 200 (ca. A.D. 163)	Polyaenus, Strategemata 1.3.5.3	῾Ηρακλῆς Μινύαις πολεμῶν‚ ἦσαν δὲ ἱππομαχεῖν ἐν πεδίῳ Μινύαι δεινοὶ‚ μάχην συνάψαι μὴ θαρρῶν ποταμὸν ἐπαφῆκεν. ἦν δὲ ὁ ποταμὸς Κηφισὸς ὁρίζων ὄρη δύο‚ Παρνασσὸν καὶ ῾Ηδύλιον. “Heracles, wanting to take away fields of battles against the Mydians (and Mydians were dreadful warriors to fight on horseback in the open fields), not being confident to join in a battle immediately, he had previously let loose a river upon the battlefield. And the river was Cephisus which divided two mountains, Parnassus and Hedylius.”	The SS is a river which Heracles used to increase his chance at winning open field battles against the Mydians. The FN is “the river” and is the same as the SS.	6	3	Sub
A.D. 200 (ca. A.D. 170)	Hegesippus, Fragmenta 209.9 (ex incerto libro)	τίς ἡ θύρα τοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ: καὶ ἔλεγε τοῦτον εἶναι τὸν Σωτῆρα. ἐξ ὧν τινὲς ἐπίστευσαν‚ ὅτι ᾿Ιησους ἐστὶν ὁ Χριστός. “[Now some persons belonging to the seven sects existing among the people (which have been previously described by me in the notes) asked him,] ‘What is the door of Jesus?’ And he replied that He was the Saviour. In consequence of this answer, some believed that Jesus is the Christ. [But the previously mentioned sects did not believe, either in a resurrection or in the coming of One to requite every man according to his works; but those who did believe, believed because of James. So, when many even of the ruling class believed, there was a commotion among the Jews, and scribes, and Pharisees, who said: ‘A little more and we shall have all the people looking for Jesus as the Christ.’]”	The SS is Jesus. The FN in this allusion to John 20:31 and/or 1 John 5:1 is Jesus. It is the same as the original SS and is the same as Hegesippus’ SS.	3	2	Conv
A.D. 200	Aelius Aristides, ῾Ροδιακός 552.15	οἵᾳ πρόσθεν‚ ἐκεῖνο λέγω‚ καὶ μηδεὶς τραχυνθῇ πρὸς τὸν λόγον‚ ἦν χρόνος ἡνίκ ᾿ οὔπω ῾Ρόδος ἦν ἡ πόλις αὕτη‚ ὡς μὲν οἱ ποιηταί φασιν‚ οὐδε ἡ νῆσος αὕτη‚ ἀλλ ᾿ ἦν ταῦτα θαλαττα ψιλὴ ποτέ. “[To those of you who think that life is certainly eroding unless they live in a country] such as the one in which they formerly lived, I say the following, and no one should be exasperated with the account. There was a time when Rhodes was not yet this city. As the poets tell it, it was not even this island, but this was once a barren sea.”	The immediate SS is the fact that all is not lost, that the Rhodian people still have “a place to stand.” The FN is Rhodes and is similar to the SS.	3	2	Conv
Table 1—Continued
Date	Author and Title	Greek Text with English Translation	Relationship of First Nominative (FN) to the Semantic Subject (SS)	ST	FT	SPN T
A.D. 200 (ca. A.D. 174)	Pausanias, Graeciae descriptio 5.3.6.8	ὁ δὲ ἀνὴρ ἦν ῎Οξυλος Αἵμονος τοῦ Θόαντος: Θόας δὲ ἦν οὗτος ὃς καὶ τοῖς ᾿Ατρέως παισὶν ἀρχὴν συγκαθεῖλε τὴν Πριάμου‚ “And the man was Oxylus, son of Haemon, son of Thoas. This was the Thoas who helped the sons of Atreus to destroy the empire of Priam,”	The SS is the “one with three eyes” which the oracle identified as the man who would lead the Dorian army on their return to Peloponnesus. The FN is “the man” and is the same as the SS.	4	2	Sub
A.D. 200 (ca. A.D. 174)	Pausanias, Graeciae descriptio 5.5.9.2	ὅτι δὲ τῷ ᾿Ακίδαντι ὄνομα ᾿Ιάρδανος ἦν τὸ ἀρχαῖον‚ αὐτὸς μὲν οὐδαμόθεν συνεβαλόμην‚ ἀκούσας δὲ ἀνδρὸς ᾿Εφεσίου λέγω τὸν λόγον. “Though I can not support it in any way, having heard it from an Ephesian man, I repeat the statement that with respect to the name given to the Acidas, Iardanus was the original.”	The broader SS is the tributary Acidas and how it can support edible fish life. The immediate SS appears to be its name. The FN is Iardanus and is similar to the immediate SS	3	2	Sub
A.D. 200 (ca. A.D. 177)	Julius Pollux, Onomasticon 2.95.6	ὁ δὲ Νικοκλέους τοῦ Κυπρίου πατήρ‚ ᾧ τὰς παραινέσεις ὁ ᾿Αθηναῖος σοφιστὴς ἔγραψεν‚ τὸ μὲν ὄνομα αὐτῷ Τίμαρχος ἦν‚ διστοίχους δ ᾿ εἶχεν ἄρα τῷ ᾿Αριστοτέλους (frg 527R) λογῳ τοὺς ὀδοντας‚ κατὰ δὲ τὴν ῎Ιωνος τοῦ Χίου (T G F p 738.30N) δόξαν τρισοίχους ῾Ηρακλῆς. “And the father of the Cyprian Nicocles, (concerning whom the Athenian sophist, Isocrates, wrote the addresses), the name given to him was Timarchus; And, by Aristotle’s account, he who had a two-fold threshold (but according to the opinion of Ionus of Chius, had a three-fold threshold), his name was Heracles (i.e., Hercules).”	As the work’s title suggests, the SS is “the name of” various historical and literary figures. The FN is “the name” and is the same as the SS.	2	1	Conv
A.D. 200	Lucianus, De Syria dea 15.2	῎Εστιν δὲ καὶ ἄλλος λόγος ἱρός‚ τὸν ἐγὼ σοφοῦ ἀνδρὸς ἤκουσα‚ ὅτι ἡ μὲν θεὴ ῾Ρέη ἐστίν‚ τὸ δὲ ἱρὸν ῎Αττεω ποίημα. ῎Αττης δὲ γένος μὲν Λυδὸς ἦν‚ πρῶτος δὲ τὰ ὄργια τὰ ἐς ῾Ρέην ἐδιδάξατο. “There is also another wonderful story, which I heard from a wise man, that the goddess is Rhea (Cybelé) and the temple is the work of Attis. And now Attis was racially a Lydian, and first taught the rituals pertaining to Rhea.”	The broader SS is the telling of who are the gods of the great sanctuary in “the holy city.” Lucian records that he was told several stories (De Syria dea 11.1-3). The immediate SS is the telling of one of those stories. The FN is “the goddess” and is similar to the SS.	2	1	Sub
A.D. 200 A.D. 300	Pseudo-Galenus, Definitiones medicae 19.430.11	῾Ροπάλωσίς ἐστιν ἡ κατὰ τὸ ἄκρον τῶν τριχῶν ἀμερὴς σχέσις μετὰ τοῦ μηκέτι συναύξεσθαι. “Rhopalosis is the whole condition concerning the ends of hairs that no longer grow together.”	The SS is the description of various hair diseases by name. The FN is Rhopalosis and is similar to the SS.	3	2	Conv
A.D. 200 A.D. 300	Pseudo-Galenus, Definitiones medicae 19.430.13	Διχοφυί∂∂α ἐστὶν διαμερὴς ἡ κατὰ τὸ ἄκρον τῶν τριχῶν σχέσις‚ μετὰ τοῦ μηκέτι συναύξεσθαι. “Dichofuia is a separate (or partial) condition concerning the ends of hairs that no longer grow together.”	The SS is the description of various hair diseases by name. The FN is Dichofuia and is similar to the SS.	3	2	Conv
A.D. 200 A.D. 300	Aelius Herodianus et Pseudo, De prosodia catholica 3,1.196.10	περὶ ἧς Ξενίων ἐν Κρητικοῖς φησι “πορρώτερω δὲ τῆς ῾Ιεραπύτνης ῎Ωλερος ἦν ἡ πόλις ἐφ ᾿ ὑψηλοῦ μὲ ᾠκισμένη τόπου.” “…concerning which Xenion says in the work known as ‘Cretans,’ ‘further on from Ierapytna, Oleros was the city, having resided in me, upon a high location (i.e., held in high regard).’”	The SS is an explanation of how various cities in Lycia, Illyria, and Crete came to be known by name. The FN is Oleros and is similar to the SS.	3	2	Sub
A.D. 200 A.D. 300	Aelius Herodianus et Pseudo, Περὶ ῥημάτων 3, 2.808.30	τινὲς δὲ διὰ τοῦ ω γράφουσιν αὐτὸ λέγοντες ὅτι ἔχει ὄνομα πρου+ποκείμενον τὸ ῎Αρης‚ ῎Αρης γάρ ἐστιν ὁ σίδηρος. “And some write it using the W, saying that it has a name which subsisted before ‘Ares,’ for Ares is the iron writing tool.”	The broader SS is a description of how certain words evolved but the tighter SS from the preceding clause shows that Ares is in focus. The FN is Ares and is the same as the SS.	3	2	Sub
A.D. 200 A.D. 300	Claudius Aelianus, De natura animalium 12.37.1	Οἰνοχόου βασιλικου (καὶ ἦν ὁ βασιλεὺς Νικομήδης ὁ Βυθυνῶν) ἀλεκτρυὼν ἠράσθη Κένταυρος ὄνομα‚ καὶ λέγει Φίλων τοῦτο. “And Philo says this, a rooster named Centaurus fell in love with the royal cupbearer (the king was Nicomedes, the king of Bithynians).”	The broader SS is the telling of how animals fall in love with humans. The immediate SS is the identity of the royal cupbearer. The FN is “the king” and is similar to the SS.	6	3	Sub
A.D. 200 A.D. 300	Clemens Alexandrinus, Stromata 1.16.75.1.2	Κάδμος δὲ Φοῖνιξ ἦν ὁ τῶν γραμμάτων ῞Ελλησιν εὑρετης‚ ὥς φησιν ῎Εφορος‚ ὅθεν καὶ Φοινικήια τὰ γράμματα ῾Ηρόδοτος κεκλῆσθαι γράφει: οἳ δὲ Φοίνικας καὶ Σύρους γράμματα ἐπινοῆσαι πρώτους λέγουσιν. “And Cadmus, a Phoenician, was the inventor of the Greek characters, as Ephorus says. For this reason Herodotus also writes that they were called Phoenician characters. But others say that Phoenicians and Syrians invented the first characters.”	The SS is the non-Greek origins of certain skills of the known civilized world. The FN is Cadmus and is similar to the SS.	3	2	Conv
Table 1—Continued
Date	Author and Title	Greek Text with English Translation	Relationship of First Nominative (FN) to the Semantic Subject (SS)	ST	FT	SPN T
A.D. 300 (ca. A.D. 240)	Origenes, Commentarii in evangelium Joannis 6.46.240.4	Διὰ τὰ παραδεδομένα ἡμῖν περὶ τοῦ ᾿Ιορδάνου‚ ὅς τύπος ἦν τοῦ τὴν κατάβασιν ἡμῶν καταβάντος λόγου‚ λεκτέον ὅτι παρὰ τῷ ἀποστόλῳ σαφῶς ἡ πέτρα Χριστὸς ἦν‚ ἥτις τῇ ῥάβδῳ δὶς πλήσσεται‚ ἵνα δυνηθῶσιν πιεῖν ἀπὸ τῆς “πνευματικῆς ἀκολουθούσης πέτρας.” “[But if someone should take offense at the expression, ‘He stuck the water,’] because of the assertion among us about the Jordan, which was a type of the Word who condescended to our descent, we must say that, by the Apostle, clearly the rock was Christ, which to be sure is struck twice with the staff in order that they might be able to drink from the ‘spiritual rock which follows.’”	The broader SS is an explanation of archetypal objects in the Old Testament which were somehow “struck.” The FN is “the rock” and is similar to the SS.	2	1	Sub
A.D. 300 Origen (ca. A.D. 240)	Origenes, Commentarii in evangelium Joannis 19.23.151.4	τί δὲ τὸ αἴτιον τοῦ ἐν ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις αὐτῶν ἀποθνήσκειν ἀνθρώπους‚ ἢ τὸ μὴ “πιστεύειν ὅτι ᾿Ιησοῦς ἐστιν ὁ χριστός;” αὐτὸς γάρ φησιν: “ ᾿Εὰν μὴ πιστεύσητε ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι‚ ἀποθανεῖσθε ἐν ταῖς ἁ μαρτίαις ὑμῶν.” “And why do men die guilty in their sins if not because they do not ‘believe that Jesus is the Christ?’ For he himself declares, ‘if you do not believe that I am he, you are dead in your sins.’”	The SS is a commentary on Jesus’ words to His disciples in John 8:24. The FN in this allusion to John 20:31 and/or 1 John 5:1 is Jesus. It is the same as the original SS and is similar to Origen’s SS.	3	2	Conv
A.D. 300 (ca. A.D. 240)	Origenes, Commentarii in evangelium Joannis 20.15.125.3	ὅπερ οὐ πεποιήκασιν οἱ ἐλεγχόμενοι ἐπὶ τῷ μὴ ὑγιῶς εἰρηκέναι: “ ῾Ο πατὴρ ἡμῶν ᾿Αβραάμ ἐστιν.” “[Therefore, Abraham went forth from his father’s house, the very thing] that those who are reproved for having incorrectly said, ‘Our father is Abraham,’ have not done. [For if the children of Abraham do the works of Abraham, and the…]”	The SS is a commentary on what Jesus meant by telling the Jews to do the works of their father after they had claimed to be children of Abraham. The FN in this quotation of John 8:39 is “our father.” It is similar to the original SS and is similar to Origen’s SS.	2	1	Conv
A.D. 300 (ca. A.D. 240)	Origenes, Commentarii in evangelium Joannis 20.16.132.4	φιλονεικότερον ἀπεκρίναντο: εἰπόντες γὰρ πρότερον τὸ “Σπέρμα ᾿Αβραάμ ἐσμεν‚” καὶ οἷον τοῦτο τρανότερον ὁμολογήσαντες διὰ τοῦ “ ῾Ο πατὴρ ἡμῶν ᾿Αβραάμ ἐστιν‚” ἀκούσαντες πρὸς τοῦτο τὸ “Εἰ τέκνα τοῦ ᾿Αβραάμ ἐστε‚ τὰ ἔργα τοῦ ᾿Αβραὰμ ποιεῖτε‚” “[Now it seems to me that] they answered rather contentiously. For though they had said first, ‘We are Abraham’s seed,’ and later acknowledged this more clearly by saying, ‘Our father is Abraham,’ upon hearing this from Jesus, that ‘If you are Abraham’s children, then do the works of Abraham,’”	The broader SS is a commentary on why the Jews responded vindictively in John 8:41 to Jesus’ claims that their desire to kill Him showed that they were doing the work of their real father. The FN in this quotation of John 8:39 is “our father.” It is similar to the original SS and is similar to Origen’s SS.	2	1	Conv
A.D. 300 (ca. A.D. 240)	Origenes, Commentarii in evangelium Joannis 20.27.240.4	τῇ ἀληθείᾳ προτρέπων ὁ κύριος Μωσέα εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτόν: “ ᾿Ιδοὺ τόπος παρ ᾿ ἐμοί‚ καὶ στήσῃ ἐπὶ τῆς πέτρας:” εἰ γὰρ ἡ πέτρα Χριστὸς ἦν‚ Χριστὸς δέ φησιν: “ ᾿Εγώ εἰμι ἡ ἀλήθεια‚” μήποτε τὸ “στήσῃ ἐπὶ τῆς πέτρας” ἴσον δύναται τῷ “στήσῃ ἐπὶ τῆς ἀληθείας.” μόγις δέ ποτε τοῦτο καὶ μετὰ πολλὰ ἐγγίγνεταί τινι. “The Lord, urging Moses [to stand on this, that is] in the truth, said to him, ‘Behold , there is a place by me, and you will stand on the rock.’ For if the rock was Christ, and Christ says, ‘I am the truth,’ then perhaps the statement, ‘you will stand on the rock,’ can be equivalent to the statement, ‘you will stand on the truth.’ But with toil and pain this is presumably possible for someone and after many trials.”	The broader SS is a commentary on what it means to stand on the truth. Origen allegorizes an OT passage to show that Moses stood on truth when he stood on a rock by the Lord’s side. The argument is rock = Christ = truth. The FN is “the rock” and is similar to the SS.	2	1	Sub
A.D. 300 (ca. A.D. 240)	Origenes, Commentarii in evangelium Joannis 20.32.285.3	Κατανοοῦντες δὲ τί τὸ κυρίως πιστεύιν καθ ᾿ ὃ “Πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων ὅτι ᾿Ιησοῦς ὁ χριστός ἐστιν‚ ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ γεγέννηται‚” καὶ αἰσθανόμενοι ὅσῳ τοῦ οὕτως πιστεύειν ἀπολειπόμεθα‚ ταῦτα ἀποκρινώμεθα‚ παρακαλοῦντες τὸν τῶν τῆς ψυχῆς ὄψεων ἰατρὸν τῇ ἑαυτοῦ σοφίᾳ καί φιλανθρωπίᾳ “But when we contemplate what believing is in the proper sense, insofar as ‘everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God,’ and when we perceive how far short we fall of believing in this manner, let us respond as follows, exhorting the physician of the eyes of the soul by his wisdom and beneficence…”	The SS is a commentary on Jesus’ words to His disciples in John 8:46 which describes the nature and object of believing. The FN in this non-verbatim quotation of 1 John 5:1 is Jesus. It is similar to the original SS and is similar to Origen’s SS.	1	1	Conv
A.D. 300 (ca. A.D. 240)	Origenes, Commentarii in evangelium Joannis 20.37.347.4	καὶ δάκνων καὶ καταιτιώμενος καὶ κατεσθίον τὸν πλησίον καὶ πεπληρωμένος τῆς ἐν τῷ ἡγεμονικῷ ἑαυτοῦ στάσεως τῶν παθῶν‚ καὶ τούτῳ ἂν λεχθεῖν τὸ “ ῾Υμεῖς ἀτιμάζετέ με.” Χριστὸς γάρ ἑστιν ἡ εἰρήνη ἡμῶν. “[But if someone should be argumentative,] and biting, and accusing, and devouring the neighbor, and having been filled by passionate discord by his own readiness (i.e., ambition) to lead; to this one also it would be said, ‘You dishonor me.’ For Christ is our peace.”	The broader SS is a commentary on what Christ means by “you dishonor me” in John 8:49. The FN is Christ and is similar to the SS.	3	2	Sub
Table 1—Continued
Date	Author and Title	Greek Text with English Translation	Relationship of First Nominative (FN) to the Semantic Subject (SS)	ST	FT	SPN T
A.D. 300 (ca. A.D. 240)	Origenes, Fragmenta in evangelium Joannis 24.2	Οὐ τοῦτο δὲ εἰπεῖν βούλεται‚ ὅτι οἱ προφῆται οὕτως ἔγραψαν ὅτι ᾿Ιησοῦς ἔσται ὁ υἱος ᾿Ιωσὴφ ἀπὸ Ναζαρέτ‚ ἀλλ ᾿ ἀντὶ τοῦ “Τὸν ᾿Ιωσὴφ υἱὸν” “τὸν ἀπὸ Ναζαρὲτ” τοῦτον εὑρήκαμεν ὄντα ἐκεῖνον περὶ οὗ Μωϋ>σῆς τε ἐν τῷ νόμῳ καὶ οἱ προφῆται εἶπον. “But it did not mean to say this, that the prophets had thus written that Jesus would be the son of Joseph from Nazareth; for instead of the statement, ‘the son of Joseph,’ we found this statement, ‘the one from Nazareth,’ to be that about which Moses and the prophets spoke in the law.”	The SS is a commentary on John 1:45 and focuses on what the prophets and Moses really said about Jesus. The FN is Jesus and is similar to the SS.	3	2	Conv
A.D. 300 (ca. A.D. 240)	Origenes, Fragmenta in Lucam 18.4	ἀπόλλυσι τὴν φονήν‚ <ἀνα>λαμβάνων αὐτὴν καὶ παυόμενος τῆς ἐπιπόνου σιωπῆς‚ ὅτε γεννᾶται ὁ πρόδρομος‚ τοῦ λόγου φωνή‚ καὶ ὅτε γράφει‚ ὅτι “ ᾿Ιωάννης ἐστὶν τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ.” ἐνωτίζεσθαι οὖν δεῖ φωνήν‚ ἵν ᾿ ὁ νοῦς τὸν ὑπ ᾿ αὐτῆς δεικνύμενον δέξηται λόγον. “…loses his speech. Then after regaining it, his speech, and ceasing from the painful silence, when the forerunner is born he writes, ‘John is his name.’ Therefore, a voice is necessary for speaking out, in order that the mind might glorify the one who reveals the message by speech (lit. her).”	The SS is a commentary on what it means that John came as a forerunner in the spirit and in the power of Elijah. The FN in this quotation of Luke 1:63 is John. It is similar to the original SS and is similar to Origen’s SS.	3	2	Conv
A.D. 300 (ca. A.D. 240)	Origenes, In Jeremiam 13.3.35	Συμπαραληφθῆναι Σοδομίταις‚ μήποτε εἰς τὰ ὀπίσω στραφῇς μηδὲ στῇς ἐν τῇ περιχώρῳ Σοδόμων μηδὲ ἀλλαχοῦ γένῃ ἢ εἰς τὸ ὄρος: ἐκεῖ γάρ ἐστι μόνον σωθῆναι. ἔστι δὲ τὸ ὄρος κύριος ᾿Ιησοῦς‚ ᾧ ἐστιν ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας. ᾿Αμήν. “[If you do not want] to be taken with the Sodomites, never turn back to the things of the past, nor stay in the surrounding countryside of Sodom nor with people of other places elsewhere, rather turn to the mountain. For there, it is the only place to be saved. And the mountain is Lord Jesus, to whom is the glory and the power to the ages. Amen.”	The SS is an exhortation to save oneself as Lot did by looking towards the mountain to which he fled rather than looking back to Sodom. The FN is “the mountain” and is similar to the SS.	6	3	Sub
A.D. 300 (ca. A.D. 240)	Origenes, Fragmenta ex commentariis in epistulam i ad Corinthios 25.5	᾿Ιησοῦς ὁ χριστός ἐστιν ἡ νέα ζύμη. “The new leaven is Jesus Christ.”	The SS begins with a commentary on 1 Corinthians 5:7 which elaborates on the metaphors of old leaven, unleavened bread, and the new leaven. It then focuses on the appearing of the new leaven. The FN is Jesus and predicates on the SS.	3	5	Sub
A.D. 300 (ca. A.D. 240)	Origenes, Fragmenta ex commentariis in epistulam i ad Corinthios 27.41	[vi 9] ἢ οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι ἄδικοι θεοῦ Βασιλείαν οὐ κληρονομήσουσιν; Εἰ ἡ Βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν Χριστῷ ἐστιν‚ Χριστὸς δε ἡ δικαιοσύνη ἐστίν‚ ὁ δίκαιος βασιλείαν θεοῦ κληρονομεῖ ἐν Χριστῷ δικαιοσύνῃ ὄντι: καὶ ακολούθως ὁ ἐν τῇ ἐναντίᾳ καταστάσει‚ οὗτος οὐ κληρονομεῖ βασιλείαν θεοῦ. “[vi 9] ‘Or do you not know that the unrighteous one will not inherit the kingdom of God?’ If the kingdom of God is in Christ, and Christ is the righteousness of God/us, then the righteous one inherits the kingdom of God in Christ who is righteousness; and consequently, the one in an opposite condition, this one does not inherit the kingdom of God.”	The SS in the immediate context is Christ, the person in whom is the kingdom of God. The FN is Christ and is the same as the SS.	1	1	Sub
A.D. 300 (ca. A.D. 240)	Origenes, Fragmenta in Psalmos 1-150 73.11.15	τί ἀπεκρύβης‚ φησὶ πρὸς τὸν Πατέρα‚ τὸν Υἱόν σου ἐν τῷ κόλπῳ σου; Χριστός ἐστιν ἡ δεξιὰ τοῦ Πατρός: “‘…why did you hide,’ he says to the Father, ‘your Son in your bosom?’ Christ is the right hand of the Father;”	The SS appears to be the Son. The FN is Christ and is similar to the SS.	3	2	Conv
A.D. 300 (ca. A.D. 240)	Origenes, Fragmenta in Psalmos 1-150 88.13.41	Θαβὼρ δὲ ἐστι τὸ ὄρος τῆς Γαλιλαίας‚ ἐφ ᾿ οὗ μετεμορφώθη ὁ Χριστός. ῾Ερμωνιεὶμ δέ ἐστιν ὄρος ἐφ ᾿ οὗ κει)ται ἡ πόλις Ναὶ∂ν‚ ἐν ᾗ ἤγειρε τὸν τῆς χήρας υἱὸν ὁ Θεός. “And Tabor is the mountain of Galilee on which Christ was transfigured. And ‘Little Hermon’ is a mountain against which the city Nain lies, in which God raised the son of the widow.”	The SS of the Psalm 88:13 (89:12 in English) and of Origen’s commentary is Tabor and “Little Hermon.” The FN is Tabor and is the same as the SS.	3	2	Conv
A.D. 300 (ca. A.D. 240)	Origenes, Epistula ad Africanum 11.73.13	Τί τὸ ὄνομα σου; ῾Ο δὲ εἶπεν: ᾿Ιακώβ: εἶπε δὲ αὐτῷ: Οὐ κληθήσεται ἔτι τὸ ὄνομά σου ᾿Ιακώβ‚ ἀλλ ᾿ ᾿Ισραὴλ ἔσται τὸ ὄνομά σου, ὅτι ἐνίσχυσας μετὰ θεοῦ‚ καὶ μετὰ ἀνθρώπων δυνατὸς. ᾿Ηρώτησε δὲ ᾿Ιακὼβ‚ καὶ εἶπεν: ᾿Ανάγγειλόν μοι τὸ ὄνομά σου: “What is your name? And he said, ‘Jacob.’ And He said to him, ‘Your name will no longer be called Jacob, but your name will be Israel because you have grown strong along with God and have been strong among men.’ And Jacob asked and said, ‘Tell me your name.’”	The broader SS is an argument to show that Daniel spoke by revelation coming from both inspiration and encounters (dreams or appearances) with Angelic beings. It then focuses on Jacob’s encounter with God as an example. The FN in this quotation of Genesis 32:29 is Israel. It predicates on the original SS and is unrelated to Origen’s SS.	3	NA	Conv
A.D. 300 (ca. A.D. 240)	Origenes, Selecta in Genesim 12.116.12	Καὶ οὐ κληθήσεται ἔτι τὸ ὄνομά σου ᾿Αβρὰμ‚ ἀλλ ᾿ ἔσται το ὄνομα σου ᾿Αβραάμ. “And your name will no longer be called Abram, but your name will be Abraham.”	The broader SS is whether or not the significance of the name change is ascertainable. The FN in this quotation of Genesis 17:5 is “the name.” It is similar to the original SS and is similar to Origen’s SS.	6	3	Conv
Table 1—Continued
Date	Author and Title	Greek Text with English Translation	Relationship of First Nominative (FN) to the Semantic Subject (SS)	ST	FT	SPN T
A.D. 300 (ca. A.D. 240)	Origenes, Scholia in Lucam 17.324.1	Μετὰ τὸ γράψαι δηλονότι ἐν δέλτῳ ὅτι ᾿Ιωάννης ἔσται τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ‚ ἐλύθη ἡ δεδεμένη φωνή. “After he wrote in the tablet, namely, that John will be his name, the mouth, having been giving back, was loosed.”	The SS is a commentary on how both Elizabeth and Zacharias divinely received the appellation (ποσηγορία) for their child and obediently gave it to him. The FN in this allusion to Luke 1:63 is John. It is similar to the original SS and is similar to Origen’s SS.	3	2	Conv
A.D. 300	Heliodorus, Aethiopica 2.14.4.1	Καὶ ὁ Κνήμων ἄγαν ἐσπουδασμένως “Θύαμίς ἐστιν ὁ σφαγεύς” ἔλεγεν‚ ἀπολύσασθαι τῆς ὑποψίας ἑαυτὸν ἐπειγόμενος‚ καὶ μαρτύριον ἐπεδείκνυ τὸ ξίφος ὅ παρὰ “And Cnemon very hastily said, ‘Thyamis is the murderer,’ for he was eager to absolve himself of suspicion, and displayed as a testimony/evidence the sword which [had been found by the corpse.]”	The context includes an account of how Thyamis killed Thisbe because he mistook her for Charicleia. It then focuses on Thermouthis’ description (to Theagenes and Cnemon) of how he had fought to protect Thyamis, barely escaped with his life, and hurried back to look for Thisbe, whom he had found dead. Thermouthis suspects Theagenes and Cnemon to be the killers so the immediate SS is the dispelling of this notion. The FN is Thyamis and is similar to the SS.	3	2	Sub
A.D. 300	Hippolytus, Contra haeresin Noeti 13.4.2	εἰ δὲ οὖν Λόγος ἀποστέλλεται διὰ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ‚ τὸ θέλημα τοῦ Πατρός ἐστιν ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστός. “[And that he was sent, Peter declares to the centurion Cornelius when he says: ‘God sent out his Word to the sons of Israel, through the preaching of Jesus Christ. He it is who is God, the Lord of all.’] But if it is the Word who is sent out through Jesus Christ, then the will of the Father is Jesus Christ.”	The SS is the Incarnate Word as the manifest representation of the idea/purpose/intention (νοοῦμεν) of the Father. The FN is “the will” and is similar to the SS.	4	2	Conv
A.D. 300	Hippolytus, Refutatio omnium haeresium 10.34.5.1	φιλεχθ<ρ>ήσητε τοίvυν ἑαυτοῖς‚ ἄνθρωποι‚ μηδὲ <περὶ> τὸ παλινδρομεῖν διστάσητε. Χριστὸς γάρ ἐστιν ὁ κατὰ πάντων θεός: ὃς τὴν ἁμαρτίαν ἐξ ἀνθρώπων ἀποπλύvνειν προσέταξε‚ νέον “τὸν παλαιὸν ἄνθρωπον” ἀποτελῶν‚ “Therefore, be not inflamed, O ye men, with enmity one towards another, nor hesitate to retrace with all speed your steps. For Christ is the God above all, and He has arranged to wash away sin from human beings, rendering regenerate ‘the old man.’”	The SS is an assertion that every human possesses divinity by virtue of being created in the image of God. The FN is Christ and is similar to the SS.	3	2	Conv
A.D. 300	Porphyrius, Vita Plotini 7.3	῎Εσχε δὲ ἀκροατὰς μὲν πλείους‚ ζηλωτὰς δὲ καὶ διὰ φιλοσοφίαν συνόντας ᾿Αμέλιόν τε ἀπὸ τῆς Τουσκίας‚ οὗ τὸ ὄνομα ἦν Γεντιλιανὸς τὸ κύριον‚ αὐτὸς δὲ διὰ τοῦ ρ ᾿Αμέριον αὐτὸν καλεῖν ἠξίου ἀπὸ τῆς ἀμερείας ἢ τῆς ἀμελείας πρέπειν αὐτῷ καλεῖσθαι λέγων. “And he (Plotinus) was letting loose (gaining) more hearers to be sure, and even zealous ones and ones who by means of philosophy were enjoined, such as Amelius of Tuscia, the name of whom was properly Gentilianus. But he, by use of the Rho called himself Amerius, saying he thought it to be clearly seen for him to be called of the unity rather than of the indifference/negligence.”	The SS is the careful identification, by name, of key people who studied under Plotinus. The FN is “the name” and is similar to the SS.	4	2	Conv

Notes: The names of authors and titles are as they appear in Thesaurus Linguae Graecae #E (TLG #E).¹ This includes their special characters to show doubt of authorship. In some instances parenthesis are used to express my own doubts regarding authorship or the dating of a particular work. Text family B represents Codex Vaticanus, text family S represents Codex Sinaiticus, and text family A represents Codex Alexandrinus.

Table 2. Corroborating Data from Clusters Containing Participial or Adjectival Articular Substantives
Date	Author and Title	Greek Text with English Translation	Relationship of First Substantive to the Semantic Subject (SS)	ST	FT	SPN T
400 B.C. (ca. 330 B.C.)	Demosthenes, De corona 21.4	αλλ ᾿ ὁ μὲν πρῶτος εἰπὼν καὶ μνησθεὶς ὑπὲρ τῆς εἰρήνης ᾿Αριστόδημος ἦν ὁ ὑποκριτής‚ ὁ δ ᾿ ἐκδεξάμενος καὶ “But the first one who addressed the question of peace was Aristodemus, the actor, and the one who next…”	The SS is the cause of present troubles, namely, the peace which Philip offered. The first substantive is “the first one who addressed” and is similar to the SS.	P2	1	Conv
400 B.C. (ca. 330 B.C.)	Demosthenes, De corona 127.2	Εἰ γὰρ Αἰακος ἢ ῾Ραδάμανθυς ἢ Μίνως ἦν ὁ κατηγορῶν‚ ἀλλὰ μὴ σπερμολόγος‚ “For if Aeacus, or Rhadamanthus, or Minos, had been the one who accused me, instead of a scrap-monger,”	The SS concerns the identity of Aeschines, the narrator’s accuser. The first substantive is “Aeacus, or Rhadamanthus, or Minos” and is similar to the SS.	P3	2	Sub
400 B.C.	Demosthenes (or Apollodorus), Contra Nicostratum 21.5	Οὗτοι ἢ ὀπώραν πρίαιντο ἢ θέρος μισθοῖντο ἐκθερίσαι ἢ ἄλλο τι τῶν περὶ γεωργίαν ἔργων ἀναιροῖντο‚ ᾿Αρεθούσιος ἦν ὁ ὠνούμενος και μισθούμενος ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν. ὡς δ ᾿ ἀληθῆ λέγω‚ καὶ τοὺτων ὑμῖν τοὺς μάρτυρας παρέξομαι “[Furthermore, from this you will see that the men belong to Arethusius.] For when they bought the produce of an orchard, or hired themselves out to reap a harvest, or undertook any other piece of farming work, Arethusius was the purchaser and the one who paid the wages on their behalf. And I speak as truth, and I will also bring to you witnesses of these facts.”	The SS concerns showing that a group of workers belong to Arethusius. The first substantive is Arethusius and is the same as the SS.	P3	2	Sub
400 B.C. (ca. 350 B.C.)	Aristoteles, ᾿Αθηναίων πολιτεία 23.4.4 (Athênaiôn Politeia)	ἐπι δὲ τὴν ἀπόστασιν τὴν τῶν ᾿Ιώνων ἀπὸ τῆς τῶν Λακεδαιμονίων συμμαχίας ᾿Αριστείδης ἦν ὁ προτρέψας‚ τηρήσας τοὺς Λάκωνας διαβεβλημένους διὰ Παυσανίαν. “But in regard to the secession of the Ionian states from the Lacedaemonian alliance, Aristeides was the one who promoted it, having brought Lacedaemonian imprisonment through Pausanias.”	The SS begins with showing how Themistocles and Aristeides came into their roles of general and counselor, respectively. It then converges on showing that Aristeides is the cause for secession leading to taxation. The first substantive is Aristeides and is the same as the SS.	P3	2	Sub
A.D. 100 (ca. A.D. 75)	Plutarchus, Sulla 3.3.7	ὁ μὲν οὖν θριαμβεύων ἐπὶ τούτῳ Μάριος ἦν‚ ἡ δὲ δόξα τοῦ κατορθώματος‚ ἣν ὁ Μαρίου φθόνος Σύλλᾳ προσετίθει‚ παρελύπει τὸν Μάριον ἡσυχῇ. “It is true that the one who celebrated a triumph for this was Marius, but those who envied him attributed the glory of the success to Sulla, and this secretly annoyed Marius.”	The SS is the recounting of how Sulla came to rob Marius’ fame in the matter of Jugurtha’s capture. The first substantive is “the one who celebrated” and is related to the SS.	P2	1	Sub
A.D. 100 (ca. A.D. 75)	Plutarchus, Caesar 21.2.3	και γὰρ ὁ κίνδυνος ἐφάνη μέγας ἐθνῶν ἅμα τοσούτων ἀναρραγέντων‚ καὶ τὸ νίκημα λαμπρότερον‚ ὅτι Καῖσαρ ἦν ὁ νικῶν‚ ἡ πρὸς ἐκεῖνον εὔνοια τῶν πολλῶν ἐποίει. “For the danger was seen to have been great when so many nations at once had broken out in revolt, and because Caesar was the victor, the good will of the multitude towards him made his victory more splendid.”	The SS is the unprecedented celebrating of Caesar’s recent daring military success against the Nervii. The first substantive is Caesar and is the same as the SS.	P3	2	Sub
A.D. 100 (ca. A.D. 75)	Plutarchus, Caesar 61.9.2	ὁ δὲ δῆμος εἵπετο κροτῶν καὶ Βρούτους ἀπεκάλει τοὺς ἄνδρας‚ ὅτι Βροῦτος ἦν ὁ καταλύσας τὴν τῶν βασιλέων διαδοχὴν καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς βουλὴν καὶ δῆμον ἐκ μοναρχίας καταστήσας. “Moreover, the people followed the tribunes with applause and called them Brutuses, because Brutus was the man who put an end to the royal succession and brought the power into the hands of the senate and people instead of a sole ruler.”	The SS is the recounting of how Caesar offended tribunes by stripping them of their offices and insulted the people by calling them brutes. The first substantive is Brutus and is similar to the SS (a word play).	P3	2	Conv
A.D. 100 (ca. A.D. 75)	Plutarchus, Antonius 22.1.4	οὐθεν ἔργον ἐφανη μέγα τοῦ καίσαρος‚ ἀλλ ᾿ ᾿Αντώνιος ἦν ὁ νικῶν πάντα καὶ κατορθῶν. “…no work of Caesar’s appeared great, but Antonius was the one victorious and successful in all things.”	The SS is the description of the superiority of the outcome of Antonius’ efforts over those of Caesar. The first substantive is Antonius and is similar to the SS.	P3	2	Sub
A.D. 100 (ca. A.D. 75)	Plutarchus, De Pythiae oraculis 405.B.3	οὐ γὰρ εἶχεν ῞Ομηρος τὴν αὐτὴν Πανδάρῳ διάνοιαν‚ εἴ γε Πάνδαρος ἦν ὁ ποιήσας “θεοῦ θέλοντος κἂν ἐπὶ ῥιπὸς πλέοις žEur. fr. 397Ÿ:” ἀλλ ᾿ ἐγίνωσκεν ἄλλας πρὸς ἄλλα δυνάμεις καὶ φύσεις γεγενημένας‚ ὧν ἑκάστη κινεῖται διαφόρως‚ κἂν ἓν ᾖ τὸ κινοῦν ἁπάσας. “For the fact is that Homer did not have the same idea as Pandarus (Pindar), if indeed Pandarus was the one who wrote, ‘God willing, you may voyage on a mat;’ but Homer recognized the fact that some faculties and natures have been created for some purposes and others for others, and each of these is moved differently, even if the power that moves them all be one and the same.”	The SS is Pandorus. The first substantive is Pandorus and is the same as the SS.	P3	2	Sub
A.D. 100 (ca. A.D. 75)	Plutarchus, Demetrius 16.5.2	Ε᾿ν δὲ τούτοις ἡ περιβόητος ἦν Λάμια‚ “And the famous one among this booty, was Lamia,”	The SS is the description of the richness and splendor of Demetrius’ spoils after defeating Ptolemy. The first substantive is “the famous one” and is similar to the SS.	A4	2	Sub
A.D. 100 (ca. A.D. 97)	Flavius Josephus, Josephi vita 124.5	οἱ δὲ Γάβαρα κατοικοῦντες προστίθενται τῷ ᾿Ιωάννῃ: Σίμων δ ᾿ ἦν ὁ παρακαλῶν αὐτούς‚ πρωτεύων μὲν τῆς πόλεως‚ ὡς φίλῳ δὲ καὶ ἑταίρῳ τῷ ᾿Ιωάννῃ χρώμενος. “…while the inhabitants of Gabara did go over to John. And Simon was the one who persuaded them, both because he was head of the city and because he was noted as a friend and companion to John.”	The SS is the description of how the people of Gabara switched to John’s side. It was through the persuasion of Simon. The first substantive is Simon and is similar to the SS.	P3	2	Sub
Table 2—Continued
Date	Author and Title	Greek Text with English Translation	Relationship of First Substantive to the Semantic Subject (SS)	ST	FT	SPN T
A.D. 100	Heraclitus, Allegoriae 69.16.1 (id. Quaestiones Homericae)	Ποσειδῶν δ ᾿ ἐστὶν ὁ ῥυόμενος παρ ᾿ ῾Ηφαίστου τὸν ῎Αρη πιθανῶς‚ “And Poseidon is the one who plausibly delivers Ares from Hephaestus,”	The broader SS is a description of the relationship of Hephaestus (the god of fire) to Ares (also called iron) and then tightens on the possible relationship of Poseidon (the god of the sea/water) to Hephaestus and Ares. The first substantive is Poseidon and is similar to the SS.	P3	2	Sub
A.D. 200	Aelius Aristides, Πρὸς Πλάτωνα ὑπὲρ τῶν τεττάρων 217.4	ὁ δὲ πρεσβεύων ἦν ᾿Αλέξανδρος Μακεδόνων Βασιλεύς. “The one sent as ambassador was Alexander, king of Macedon.”	The SS is the account of peace negotiations between Persia and Greece after the battle at Salamis. The first substantive is “the one who was sent as ambassador” and is similar to the SS.	P4	2	Sub
A.D. 200	Aelius Aristides, Πρὸς Πλάτωνα ὑπὲρ τῶν τεττάρων 218.20	Θεμιστοκλῆς ἐστιν ὁ βεβαιώσας αὐτὴν ἅπασι τοῖς ῞Ελλησιν‚ “Themistocles is the one who established her (deliverance) to all the Greeks,”	The SS is the recounting of the people’s support of Themistocles. The first substantive is Themistocles and is similar to the SS.	P3	2	Conv
A.D. 200	Aelius Aristides, Πρὸς Πλάτωνα ὑπὲρ τῶν τεττάρων 232.9	Νῦν δὲ ᾿Αρχύτας ἦν ὁ κωλύσας καὶ Διονύσιος “And now Archytas was the one who prevented it and Dionysius…”	The immediate SS is the “Italian man” or “him in Sicily.” The first substantive is Archytas and is similar to the SS.	P3	2	Sub
A.D. 200 (ca. A.D. 150)	(James), Protevangelium Jacobi 38.1	Καὶ εὑρων ἤνεγκεν ἀπὸ ὀρεινῆς καταβαίνουσαν. Καὶ εἶπεν ᾿Ιωσὴφ τῇ μαίᾳ ὅτι “Μαρία ἐστὶν ἡ μεμνηστευμένη μοι‚ ἀλλὰ σύλλημμα ἔχει ἐκ Πνεύματος ἀγίου‚ ἀνατραφεῖσα ἐν ναῷ Κυρίου.” “And when he found her it came about that she was coming down from the hill. And Joseph said to the midwife, ‘Mary is the one who is betrothed to me, but that which is conceived and in the womb she has from the Holy Spirit; she is the one who was raised in the temple of the Lord.’”	The SS is the midwife wanting to know if Mary, the pregnant one, is Joseph’s wife. The first substantive is Mary and is similar to the SS.	P3	2	Sub
A.D. 200 (ca. A.D. 160)	Justinus Martyr, Dialogus cum Tryphone 113.4.6	ὅτι γὰρ ᾿Ιησοῦς ἦν ὁ Μωυσεῖ καὶ τῷ ᾿Αβραὰμ καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις ἁπλῶς πατριάρχαις φανεὶς καὶ ὁμιλήσας‚ τῷ τοῦ πατρὸς θελήματι ὑπηρετῶν‚ ἀπέδειξα: “For I showed that Jesus was the one who appeared to and talked with Moses, Abraham, and, in short, with all the other Patriarchs, adhering to the will of the Father;”	The SS is the name change of Osee the son of Nun into Joshua (a form of Jesus) and his stopping of the sun as evidence that he had received power from Jesus’ Spirit. The first substantive is Jesus and is similar to the SS.	P3	2	Conv
A.D. 200 (ca. A.D. 174)	Pausanias, Graeciae descriptio 3.24.10.6	λέγοντι δὲ ἐπ ᾿ ἀληθείᾳ Πάτροκλός ἐστιν ὁ τὸν Λᾶν ἀποκτείνας: οὗτος γὰρ καὶ ὁ μνηστευσάμενός ἐστιν ῾Ελένην. “But in fact, the one who killed Las is Patroclus, for indeed he is the one who courted Helen.”	The SS is the testing of the claim that Achilles killed Las and courted Helen, in other words, the SS is the true identity of Las’ killer/murder and Helen’s courter. The first substantive is Patroclus and predicates on the SS.	P3	5	Conv
A.D. 200 (ca. A.D. 174)	Pausanias, Graeciae descriptio 7.23.6.6	ὅτι Εἰλείθυιά ἐστιν ἡ ἐς φῶς ἄγουσα τοὺς παῖδας. “…that Eileithyia is the one who brings children to light.”	The SS is the careful description of Eileithyia’s statue and the possible significance of the torch in her hand. The first substantive is Eileithyia and is similar to the SS.	P3	2	Sub
A.D. 200 (ca. A.D. 185)	Hermogenes, Περὶ ἰδεων λόγου 2.7.150	‚ οἷον “εἰ γὰρ Αἰακὸς ἢ ῾Ραδάμανθυς ἢ Μίνως ἦν ὁ κατηγορῶν‚ ἀλλὰ μὴ σπερμολόγος‚ περίτριμμα ἀγορᾶς‚ ὄλεθρος γραμματεύς” μέθοδος δέ τις οἶμαι καὶ αὕτη‚ δι ᾿ ἣν οὔτ ᾿ “such as: ‘For if Aeacus, or Rhadamanthus, or Minos, had been the one who accused me, instead of a scrap-monger, a loafer from the market place, a wretched scribe,’ and this also, I suppose, is a method whereby the one [who uses abusive language does not seem to give offense because …]”	The SS is the demonstration of passages with spontaneous expressions of emotions. The first substantive in this quotation of De corona 127.2 is “Aeacus, or Rhadamanthus, or Minos.” It is similar to the original SS and is unrelated to Hermogenes’ SS.	P3	NA	Sub
A.D. 200 A.D. 300	Aelius Herodianus et Pseudo, De prosodia catholica 3,1.154.2	Θέων δέ θησιν ὅτι ῎Αλος θεράπαινα ἦν ᾿Αθάμαντος ἡ μηνύσασα τὴν ᾿Ινὼ φρύγειν τὰ σπέρματα‚ ἧς εἰς τιμὴν τὴν πόλιν ὠνόμασεν. “And by the Gods, he says that Alos, a handmaiden of Athamas, was the one who showed Ino to roast seed, and the one in whose honor the city is named.”	The SS is an account of how the names, Alos and Alope, came to be given to the two cities in Phthiotis. The first substantive is Alos and is similar to the SS.	P3	2	Conv
A.D. 200 A.D. 300	Clemens Alexandrinus, Eclogae propheticae 24.1.1	Καῖσαρ δέ ἐστιν ὁ πρόσκαιρος ἄρχων‚ “And Caesar is the one who rules temporarily,”	The immediate SS is Caesar. The first substantive is Caesar and is the same as the SS.	P3	2	Sub
A.D. 300 (ca. A.D. 240)	Origenes, Commentarii in evangelium Joannis 13.57.392.2	καὶ τάχα ὁ Βασιλικὸς ᾿Αβραὰμ ἦν ἢ ᾿Ιακώβ‚ ὧν υἱόν-ὄντα τὸν λαόν-‚ μετὰ <τὸ> τὸ πλήρωμα τῶν ἐθνῶν εἰσελθεῖν‚ σώσει ἐπὶ τέλους “[The former occurred that He might gladden those who feasted with Him; and the second, that He might restore the son who was near death, not the son of a king, but of some royal official.] And perhaps the royal official was Abraham or Jacob, whose son (being the people) he will save at the end after the fullness of the Gentiles has entered.”	The SS is an allegorization of the royal official and his son in John 4:26. The first substantive is “the royal official” and is similar to the SS.	A2 or A4	1 or 2	Sub
A.D. 300 (ca. A.D. 240)	Origenes, In Jeremiam 14.7.11	οὐκοῦν κἂν δικάζηται Χριστιανὸς οὐ δι ᾿ ἄλλο τι‚ οὐ διὰ τὰς ἰδίας ἁμαρτίας‚ ἀλλ ᾿ ὅτι Χριστιανός ἐστι‚ Χριστός ἐστιν ὁ δικαζόμενος. ἐν πάσῃ οὖν τῇ γῇ δικάζεται Χριστὸς ᾿Ιησοῦς: “So then, if a Christian is judged not for something else, nor for their sins, but because he is a Christian, Christ is the one who is judged. Therefore, in all the earth Christ Jesus is judged.”	The SS is a description of how Jesus Christ is the one who is judged every time a martyr is judged. The first substantive is Christ and is similar to the SS.	P3	2	Sub
Table 2—Continued
Date	Author and Title	Greek Text with English Translation	Relationship of First Substantive to the Semantic Subject (SS)	ST	FT	SPN T
A.D. 300 (ca. A.D. 240)	Origenes, In Jeremiam 14.7.13	ἐν πάσῃ οὖν τῇ γῇ δικάζεται Χριστὸς ᾿Ιησοῦς: καὶ ὁσάκις οὖν Χριστιανὸς δικάζεται‚ Χριστός ἐστιν ὁ δικαζόμενος: οὐ μόνον ἐπὶ τούτων τῶν δικαστηρίων‚ ἀλλὰ φέρε συκοφαντεῖσθαι Χριστιανὸν [ἃ δεῖ] περί τινος ἐγκαλούμενον‚ καὶ τότε Χριστὸς ἀδικος “Therefore, in all the earth Christ Jesus is judged. And as often as a Christian is judged, Christ is the one who is judged; not only before these judges/judgments. But suppose a Christian is slandered and accused [unjustly] for something, then Christ unjustly…”	The SS is the description of how Jesus Christ is the one who is judged every time a martyr has been judged. The first substantive is Christ and is similar to the SS.	P3	2	Sub
A.D. 300	(Heliodorus), Aethiopica 8.12.5.4	ἔφη “δεῖ λόγων ἀλλὰ τουτὶ τὸ γράμμα ἀναγίνωσκε λαβὼν καὶ πρό γε τούτου τῆς σφραγῖδος τοὐπίσημον ἀναγνώριζε καὶ ὡς ᾿Οροονδάτης ἐστὶν ὁ κελεύων πίστευε καὶ τὰ ἐπεσταλμένα πρᾶττε νυκτὶ καὶ τάχει συμμάχοις εἰς τὸ λαθεῖν ἀποχρώμενος.” “[Bagoas] said, ‘There is need of words but this, take and read the letter, but first recognize the seal of this signet ring. And as though Oroondates himself is the one who commands it, believe and execute those things which have been sent by letters (i.e. the orders). You will be sufficiently supplied with the helps of the night and speed in order to go (or with the result of going) unnoticed.”	The broader SS is Oroondates sending Bagoas and 50 horsemen to Memphis with letters ordering the release of Charicleia and Theagenes. The immediate SS is the arrival of Bagoas with the letters for Euphrates and Arsace. The first substantive is Oroondates and is similar to the SS.	P3	2	Sub

Note: The names of authors and titles are as they appear in TLG #E. This includes their special characters to show doubt of authorship. In some instances parenthesis are used to express my own doubts regarding authorship or the dating of a particular work.

Bibliography

Bauer, Walter. A Greek-English Lexicon Of The New Testament And Other Early Christian Literature. Revised And Edited By Frederick William Danker. 3d Ed. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press, 2000.

Bernard, J. H. A Critical And Exegetical Commentary On The Gospel According To St. John. Edited By A.H. Mcneile International Critical Commentary, Ed. S. R. Driver, A. Plummer And C. A. Briggs. 2 Vols. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1928.

Brown, Raymond Edward. The Gospel According To John (Xiii-Xxi). 1st Ed. Anchor Bible, Ed. William Foxwell Albright And David Noel Freedman. Vol. 29a. Garden City: Doubleday, 1966.

Carson, D. A. “The Purpose Of The Fourth Gospel: John 20:31 Reconsidered.” Journal Of Biblical Literature 106 (1987): 639-51.

Carson, D. A. The Gospel According To John. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991.

Harris, W. Hall. “Exegetical Commentary On John.” Unpublished Class Notes In Nt 325 Gospel Of John. Dallas Theological Seminary, 2005.

Keener, Craig S. The Gospel Of John: A Commentary. 2 Vols. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2003.

Metzger, Bruce Manning. A Textual Commentary On The Greek New Testament. 2d Ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Biblegesellschaft, 1994.

Moloney, Francis J. The Gospel Of John Sacra Pagina Series, Ed. Daniel J. Harrington. Vol. 4. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1998.

Morris, Leon. The Gospel According To John. Rev. Ed. The New International Commentary On The New Testament, Ed. Ned B. Stonehouse, F. F. Bruce And Gordon D. Fee. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995.

Thesaurus Linguae Graecae #E. University Of California, Los Angles.

Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond The Basics: An Exegetical Syntax Of The New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996.

---

¹ Thesaurus Linguae Graecae Ver. #E (Los Angles: University of California).

Tabulation of Data by Function and Verb Tense

Functional Type	ἦν	ἐστιν	ἐσται
FT1 (SPNV)	6	7	0
FT2 (SVPN)	10	29	5
FT3 (VSPN)	6	1	3
FT4 (PNSV)	0	1	0
FT5 (PNVS)	0	3	2
FT6 (VPNS)	0	0	0

Note: The tabulation does not include the three quotations whose first nominative in the target cluster had no visible relationship to the semantic subject of the quoting author.

---

Interpretative Translation:

³¹ ταῦτα δὲ γέγραπται ἵνα πιστεύ[σ]ητε ὅτι Ιησοῦς ἐστιν ὁ Χριστὸς ὁ υἱος)τοῦ θεοῦ‚καὶ ἵνα πιστεύοντες ζωὴν ἔχητε ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι αὐτοῦ.

³¹“. . . but these [things] have been written in order that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you should have life in His name.”

Exegetical Proposition:

The two-fold purpose for which John wrote an account of Jesus’ glorious works was in order that the early church might believe the truth about Him and in order that by believing the truth about Him they should experience true life in Him.

Outline:

I. The purpose for which John wrote an account of Jesus’ glorious works was in order that the early church might believe the truth about Him (20:31a).

II. The purpose/result for which John wrote an account of Jesus’ glorious works was in order that by believing the truth about Him that the early church should experience true life in Him (20:31b).

Exegesis:

Up to this point in the gospel, John has highlighted that believing upon hearing is better than believing because of seeing. Now in John 20:30-31, he effectively says, “Now on the one hand there are many signs which the apostles witnessed and, for some, these led to their belief; but on the other hand only some of those signs are told here so that by hearing of them you may believe the truth about Jesus and truly live.” The first half (v. 30) of the concluding remark sets up a “on the one hand A, but on the other hand B” relationship which provides a nice transition from the example of Thomas to the purpose statement in v. 31.

ταῦτα δὲ γέγραπται. The δὲ conjunction can function in one of two ways. If the μὲν of v. 30 is taken as an emphatic particle then δὲ can be treated as an adversative conjunction, contrasting the many unwritten works of Christ with the few select works presented in the Gospel. However, δὲ can also be taken as the second in a pair of correlative conjunctions (μὲν … δὲ). The latter use may imply a subtly different contrast, “Now on the one hand Jesus performed many signs in the presence of his disciples… but on the other hand I am only writing to you about these [few]…” Since the question is “How should one respond to Jesus,” and not “Did John write about all the signs Jesus performed,” the latter makes better contextual sense. Just as Jesus purposefully provided many signs for his witnesses, so John purposefully presents a few for his readers.

There is nothing special about γέγραπται. It is a very common word. However, a few observations are worth noting. First, it is singular while the demonstrative pronoun is plural. This might suggest that the subject is “this book” and that the pronoun is actually the direct object. However, the passive voice of the verb suggests a breach of concord where a singular verb uses a plural subject, something not too uncommon. Second, many translations (ASV, ESV, KJV, NCV, NIV, NKJV, NLT, RSV) choose to translate the verb as a present rather than as a perfect (ISV, NASB). The intensive perfect makes better sense of the context because it emphasizes result or present state. Keener notes that the use of the perfect for “written” often referred to Scripture.¹

ἵνα πιστεύ[σ]τηε. Few scholars contest that the first ἵνα clause is a ἵνα+subjunctive purpose clause. The translation above, “in order that . . . might . . . ” does not reflect a decision about the text critical (TC) problem which surrounds the verb. Neither does it reflect uncertainty, in other words, the “might” could also be rendered “will.” It simply represents an acceptable gloss for a ἵνα+subjunctive purpose clause.²

The TC question in this clause involves tense. Did the original read aorist πιστεύσητε (text) or present πιστεύητε(variant)? The aorist is better attested geographically but the present depends on the earlier manuscripts. Examination of internal evidence allows for a variety of explanations. One explanation for the variant is that the copyist may have wanted to match the present tense of the following ἵνα+subjunctive clause. But there are no clear authorial tendencies warranting such a decision. Apart from this verse, John uses either combination almost equally. He uses the ἵνα-clause with a 2nd person present subjunctive five times (John 6:29; 13:34; 15:12, 17; and 20:31b). He uses the ἵνα-clause with the aorist subjunctive six times (John 10:38; 11:15; 13:19; 17:15 (2 times); and 19:4).

In summary, the external evidence lines up pretty evenly and the internal evidence is equally inconclusive. Consequently, Metzger and Committee assign the text a C rating.³ The significance of the TC question is that an aorist subjunctive allows for a translation of “might come to believe,” which implies John addresses an unbelieving audience. On the other hand, the present normally means “might continue to…,” implying John addresses a believing audience. However, Carson contends that John uses theseἵνα-clause combinations interchangeably for both senses.⁴ Admittedly, this interchangeability renders the TC question immaterial to the debate regarding purpose of the Gospel.

Another question surrounding the ἵνα-clause has to do with the precise meaning of “believe.” John uses it in a variety of ways, covering 14 of the 20 nuances presented in A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (BDAG). So how does he use it in this verse? BDAG takes it to mean to consider something as true and therefore worthy of one’s trust where the “something” is presented by means of a ὅτι-clause.⁵ However, the question is better answered from the perspective of Biblical theology. In other words, how does John tend to use it in the gospel? When John uses “believe” in similar contexts, he has a continuous idea in mind. The belief he has in mind is an enduring trust. The object of that trust is both a person and a proposition regarding their identity.⁶ Therefore, BDAG’s gloss is quite acceptable.

ὅτι ∆Ιησοῦς ἐστιν ὁ Χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ. This clause is examined above, in the main body of the thesis.

ἵνα πιστεύοντες ζωὴν ἔχητε. The second ἵνα introduces aἵνα+subjunctive purpose/result clause. The translation above, “that…should…” stems from biblical theology rather than from grammar, though the grammar allows it. It attempts to convey that John’s gospel closely associates true believing, that is sustained belief, with divine activity.⁷ The participle, πιστεύοντες, most likely functions as a participle of means. It is the means by which the main verbal idea takes place.⁸ As previously stated, John uses this term in variety of ways. BDAG classifies it as to entrust oneself to an entity in complete confidence, believe (in), trust, where the object is not expressed.⁹ This reflects the observation that John tends to use the preposition εἰς rather than ἐν when supplying the object of the verb.

The term zwhvn is in the accusative case which indicates that it is the direct object of the subjunctive. A question of reference surrounds this term. It occurs 135 times in the NT. BDAG classifies them within two broad categories, physical life and transcendent life, which are broken down into seven sub-categories. John uses it 49 times, 35 in the gospel. Context clearly suggests that John has the second broad category in mind but which specific nuance? Given the association to belief as a persevering faith, he mostly likely has eternal life in view (which may explain the textual variant, αἰώνιον). For John, this includes more than life after death.¹⁰ It encompasses a fullness of life which the regenerate experience by continually depending and communing with Christ (the “abiding” principle) prior to death (John 10:10b).

ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι αὐτοῦ. This prepositional phrase presents a few questions. First, to what does it refer or what does it mean? Second, to which verbal idea within the clause does it belong, the main verb or the participle?¹¹ Finally, how does it function in relationship to either of the verbs?

The complete phrase occurs once in the Johannine corpus. It occurs 12 times without αὐτοῦ and only in the gospel.¹² He uses a similar prepositional phrase, εἰς τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ, two times (John 1:12 and 2:23) and two more times without αὐτοῦ (John 3:18 and 1 John 5:13). The expression is more often used of the Son’s name (13 times) than of the Father’s (3 times; John 5:43; 10:25; 17:11-12).¹³ This makes an incredible statement about Jesus. John essentially avers that the person of Jesus shares the same character and power as the person of Father. Brown’s discussion of John 5:43 suggests that when Christ uses it of himself, he may have the “I AM” in mind.¹⁴ The assertion fits especially well with John 17:11-12.

The last two questions can be combined into one. How does the phrase function? One view relates it to the participle and takes it to function as a preposition of reference/respect, providing a direct object for participle (Bernard implies this by treating the exchange of εἰς for ἐν as an acceptable one); or to function as a preposition of space/sphere, modifying the realm of belief (Brown). Another view relates it to the subjunctive verb and takes it to function as a preposition of space/sphere. The first view has a couple of problems. The distance between the phrase and participle makes the relationship seem strained. And more significantly, when John provides the content for the verb “believing”, he most often uses a ὅτι-clause (14 times) or an εἰς-prepositional phrase (37 times). The only other time that he may be using the ἐν preposition is in John 3:15. Interestingly, the verb is also a participle in this verse. Yet notice that even in this case, when the phrase immediately follows the participle, it makes just as much sense to associate it with the main verb as it does to assign it to the participle.¹⁵

Brief Discussion on Purpose of John’s Gospel

There are essentially three major camps on the purpose of John’s gospel. One contends that it was written solely to evangelize Jewish unbelievers.¹⁶ A second camp believes that it was written to a primarily Christian community who needed perspective and encouragement to keep believing.¹⁷ A third group of scholars observes that John had a broader audience in mind, one comprised of both believers and unbelievers.¹⁸ The discussion will use Carson’s view and defense as a guide for addressing the various arguments given in support of his view.

Carson asserts the gospel “aims in particular to evangelize Jews and Jewish proselytes.”¹⁹ His article, “The Purpose of the Fourth Gospel: John 20:31 Reconsidered,” elaborates on this position.²⁰ First, it presents three points of interest in the verse which affect the question of purpose. These have been treated above with conclusions as follows: 1) the πιστεύ[σ]τηε TC question is immaterial to the debate, 2) the TC question regarding different word order in D and W is inconsequential, and 3) it makes little difference to the question of purpose whether “Christ” and “Son of God” are taken as synonymous, though this paper believes the latter to be a crucial expansion of Jewish expectations regarding the former. Carson arrives at similar conclusions and, therefore, proceeds to argue his position on grammatical grounds. Second, Carson argues that on firm syntactical grounds the firstἵνα-clause should be translated “that the Christ, the Son of God, is Jesus. The discussion above has already shown this to be overstated.

Third, the article engages in implications and reflections that surface additional arguments. His first implication presupposes a Jewish audience and shows that this audience would not ask what kind of Messiah is Jesus, nor would they ask that the claim that Messiah had come be proven to them by supplying the name of this messiah. The answer to the first question, the Messiah is like Jesus, requires that John’s audience was completely familiar with His life story. The answer to the second question can be given by a convertible proposition, Jesus is the Messiah, and therefore allows for Carson’s interpretation of John 20:31. Carson fails to see that from a rhetorical analysis standpoint there are simply too many examples of irony to discount that John’s audience was familiar with Jesus’ story.

His second reflection looks at the implications of a different question to his presumed underlying question. He notes that the question, “Who is Jesus?” also has an evangelistic edge to it in that it implies that the readers are partially or completely ignorant to Jesus’ full identity regardless of ethnicity. He looks at three possible audiences: 1) docetic Christians, 2) Gentile non-Christians, and /or 3) non-Christian Jews. He concludes that the third is the most plausible. The biggest problem with this is that John’s narrative spends so much time addressing the “Apostles in process,” the representative believers in the making. The object lesson from Thomas’ confession is completely lost.

The third implication concerns the various explanations and translations of Semitic words (John 1:38, 41; 4:25; 19:13, 17). He presents a good argument for how this does not prove that the audience was completely Hellenistic, “a Greek-speaking Jew with no knowledge of Hebrew or Aramaic might well appreciate the translations.”²¹ He concludes that a non-Christian Hellenistic Jewish audience could account for these linguistic observations. His points are valid but they work equally well for a converted Hellenistic Jewish audience.

The fourth implication claims that the presumed underlying question, who is the Messiah, fits better with the prologue. But this claim can also be made by those who see an audience of Jewish and Gentile believers needing encouragement in their faith. Furthermore, “Jesus” and “Christ” appear for the first time in the same verse (John 1:17). Given the date of the gospel and the development of the “Christ” title from noun to a proper name, it is highly like that John uses the terms “Jesus Christ” together as a proper name for the historical person who is the subject of this gospel. In this sense, the underlying question presumed by this paper, “Who is Jesus?” fits equally well with the prologue.

The fifth implication admits that John’s expanded depiction of the Messiah surpassed the 1st century Jewish view/expectation of the messiah. It notes that such a description is unexpected and perhaps inconsistent for someone trying to show that the Messiah is Jesus. The approach risked failure since connecting Jesus to current messianic expectations would be far more persuasive. It replies to the potential objection by saying that from John’s perspective, “he was in line with the scriptures (John 5:39-40, 46), and he was therefore rightly harnessing messianic expectation and rightly identifying who the Messiah really was, while his opponents did not understand the scriptures.”²² This response does not validate his view; it simply handles a perceived objection to it. The issue is an important one since the same objection can be made against the claim that John wrote to converted Jews who were wondering if they had trusted in the right messiah. Carson’s response also supports the view of the third group which believes that John had a broader audience in mind, one comprised of both believers and unbelievers, and Jews and Gentiles.

The sixth implication deals with the meaning of ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, a subject which has already been addressed above. The seventh implication (strong attacks against Jewish leaders), like the fifth, provides an explanatory defense rather than supporting validation. The eighth (meaning of life) and ninth (question of syntax regarding SPN constructions) implications have already been addressed above.

The tenth implication deals extensively with the difficult question of what to do with chapters 14-17. Carson’s admits that few would judge this as primarily evangelistic. He provides five explanations that make his view viable. His defense proves only that there are reasonable ways to explain objections to his view.

The eleventh implication deals with Barrett’s argument against the view of a primarily non-Christian Jewish audience. Barrett notes that the many Hellenistic and Gnostic overtones suggest a non-Jewish audience. Carson rightly rebuts by highlighting that the overtones would also befit a diverse and syncretistic Diaspora Judaism. However, this explanation also befits a Christian audience coming out of this type of Diaspora Judaism. Finally, the last implication rightly observes that an argument in support of the second or third view based on experience and history of the gospel’s immense help to the believer confuses purpose and result.

After reviewing a few commentaries and Carson’s article, this paper opines that the third view provides the best solution to the question of purpose. John wrote to witness to and to build up an ethnically mixed audience. Hall Harris provides a helpful summary of the reasoning supporting this view.²³

First, the use and purpose of signs seems to mark the margins of the literary context. The first is performed in the presence of the disciples (John 2:11). And the desired response to the many of them is explained in reference to disciples (John 20:30). This implies that John has believers in mind. Second, the immediate context also uses a disciple, Thomas, to show that persevering faith must confess Jesus as none other than God Incarnate (vv. 26-29). Third, John spends so much time dealing exclusively with the disciples (chaps. 13-17) that it is difficult to see how he only had non-Christians in view. Fourth, the fact that John repeatedly shows the disciples to be “believers in process” supports the view that some in John’s audience were not yet true believers. Fifth, the rhetorical devices of double entendre and irony suggest that John assumes his audience was familiar with the basic story of Jesus. Finally, and also in defense of an evangelistic purpose, John 20:31 emphasizes that the real issue is truly believing (sustained trust, persevering faith) that Jesus is God Incarnate so as to possess/obtain eternal life in Him.

---

¹ Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, 2 vols. (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2003), 2:1215.

² Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 472.

³ Bruce Manning Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2d ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994), 219-20.

⁴ D. A. Carson, The Gospel according to John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 661; D. A. Carson, “The Purpose of the Fourth Gospel: John 20:31 Reconsidered,” Journal of Biblical Literature 106 (1987): 640. Citing John 13:15, Brown also agrees (Raymond Edward Brown, The Gospel according to John (xiii-xxi), 1st ed., Anchor Bible, ed. William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman, vol. 29A [Garden City: Doubleday, 1966], 1056).

⁵ Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, rev. and ed. by Frederick William Danker, 3d ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 816-17.

⁶ John 11:27; 16:27

⁷ John 1:13; 6:44, 63-65; 10:28-30; 12:32; and 15:16, 19. Daniel B. Wallace notes that many times New Testament (NT) writers use language that reflect their theology, “what God purposes is what happens, so a i{na+subjunctive can be used to express both divine purpose and result” (Wallace, Greek Grammar, 473). Bernard sees this clause as a purpose statement only (J. H. Bernard, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St. John, ed. A.H. McNeile, International Critical Commentary, ed. S. R. Driver, A. Plummer, and C. A. Briggs, 2 vols. [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1928], 2:686). Brown and Keener also classify it as such (Brown, John (xiii-xxi), 1055-61; Keener, John, 2:1215-16). And Morris implies a resultative nuance in addition to purpose (Leon Morris, The Gospel according to John, Rev. ed., The New International Commentary on the New Testament, ed. Ned B. Stonehouse, F. F. Bruce, and Gordon D. Fee [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995], 756).

⁸ Bernard, John, 2:686; Brown, John (xiii-xxi), 1056; Morris, John, 754.

⁹ Bauer, Lexicon, 817.

¹⁰ Bernard notes the textual variant but does not elaborate on what John may mean here (Bernard, John, 2:686). Similarly, Brown briefly addresses the TC question but does not explain what John has in mind (Brown, John (xiii-xxi), 1056). Carson does not address the TC question. For meaning of the term, he refers the reader back to his discussion when it first appears in John 1:4 and to his discussion of it in John 3:15, 16 (Carson, John, 661). For John 1:4 he gives various possibilities – resurrection life, spiritual life, and a reference to creation (i.e. God speaking, a metonymy of effect for cause). However, he does not choose one. For John 3:15, 16 he proposes, “The eternal life begun by the new birth is nothing less than the eternal life of the eternal world.” He clarifies that it refers to resurrection life but that this life can be experienced before the end (Carson, John, 118-19, 202). Moloney sees a reference to an eternal life which begins when the “reader” fully embraces what John proposes, that Jesus is the divine Messiah, intimately related to the Father (Francis J. Moloney, The Gospel of John, Sacra Pagina Series, ed. Daniel J. Harrington, vol. 4 [Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1998], 544). Morris sees a reference to “real life,” an abundant life that can “be had only though Christ” (Morris, John, 756). He obviously takes ζωήν to mean more than a life after death experience. It is in Christ and for the here and now of the one who truly believes.

¹¹ When commenting on John 20:31, Bernard and Brown address the second question of verbal relationship but do not address the first question of referent (Bernard, John, 2:686; Brown, John (xiii-xxi), 1056). Similarly, Carson, Keener, and Molony do not address the first question of meaning in John 20:31. Morris believes it to be a reference to personhood and then refers readers back to his discussion of the expression in John 1:12 (Morris, John, 756). His discussion of the first occurrence of “the name” adds that expressions found in non-biblical papyri carry with it an idea of possession, so to believe in “the name” conveys that believers yield themselves up to be possessed by Him in whom they have believed (Morris, John, 88). On the meaning ofἐν τῷ ὀνόματι in John 5:43, Bernard provides a very helpful discussion. To the Hebrew mind, “the name” connoted intimate and mysterious connection with the bearer of the name. For someone to come in the name of someone else was to express the name bearer’s personality, even to being an outright revelation of that person. So Bernard concludes that when Christ claims to come in the Father’s name, he claims more than mere representation of the Father. “It conveys the idea that the Incarnate Son reveals the Father in His character and power” (Bernard, John, 1:255).

¹² See John 5:43 (2 times); 10:25; 14:13, 14, 26; 15:16; 16:23, 24, 26; 17:11, and 12.

¹³ It is a ratio of 13:3.

¹⁴ Brown, John (xiii-xxi), 758-59, see esp. 764.

¹⁵ Bernard notes that order suggests that the second view is correct but he chooses to endorse the first view (Bernard, John, 2:686). His logic is unpersuasive. All of the passages he cites as similar use an εἰς-prepositional phrase (John 1:12; 1 John 5:13). And the passages containing the ἐν-prepositional phrase use a different verb and the phrase usually follows it (John 16:23, 24, 26). Brown notes both positions but chooses neither (Brown, John (xiii-xxi), 1056). And Morris relates it to the subjunctive (Morris, John, 756).

¹⁶ Carson’s commentary states this as his view and lists several others who agree, such as K. Bornhaüser, Willem Cornelis van Unnik, J. A. T. Robinson, Davis D. C. Braine, and George J. Brooke (Carson, John, 91 fn. 2).

¹⁷ Bernard, John, 2:685-886; Brown, John (xiii-xxi), 1055-56; Keener, John, 2:1215-16; Moloney, John, 542-44.

¹⁸ W. Hall Harris, “Exegetical Commentary on John” (unpublished class notes in NT 325 Gospel of John, Dallas Theological Seminary, 2005), 227-28.

¹⁹ Carson, John, 91.

²⁰ Carson, “Purpose,” 639-51.

²¹ Carson, “Purpose,” 646.

²² Carson, “Purpose,” 647.

²³ Harris, “Class Notes,” 227-28.