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.

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 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.