Chapter 3: Presentation of Research Results
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 (VE), 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 ANNVE 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 NVEAN 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.
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 (NPANVE)
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 22.214.171.124
ὅτι ...ἡ πέτρα Χριστὸς ἦν
“. . . that . . . the rock was Christ . . .”
Origenes, Commentarii in evangelium Joannis 126.96.36.199
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 188.8.131.52
῾Ο πατὴρ ἡμῶν ᾿Αβραάμ ἐστίν.
“. . . ‘Our father is Abraham.’”
Origenes, Commentarii in evangelium Joannis 184.108.40.206
῾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 (NPVEAN)
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 220.127.116.11
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 18.104.22.168.2
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 22.214.171.124
᾿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 126.96.36.199
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 188.8.131.52
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 184.108.40.206
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 (VENPAN)
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 (VEANNP)
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 220.127.116.11
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 18.104.22.168 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.
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 27th 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.
Related Topics: Grammar