ΕΝ ΕΦΕΣΩ

This is a continuation of my series examining Devine and Stephen’s book Discontinuous Syntax: Hyperbaton in Greek. Today’s post consists of much rewriting of about 15 pages I lost back in February when my hard drive died.

See also:

Part I

Part II

Part III

Part IV

Weak Focus Y₂ Hyperbaton[1]

Most commonly, Y₂ Hyperbaton will denote weak focus on the initial head noun with the following adjective marking an additional restriction on the head noun. This additional restriction also tends to be weak focus. The first three instances of Y_­2 Hyperbaton in the New Testament provide an excellent example of this combination of syntactic structure and pragmatic meaning seen below.[2]

(1) τὸ γὰρ ἐν αὐτῇ γεννηθὲν ἐκ πνεύματός ἐστιν ἁγίου
For what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. Matt 1:20.

(2) ὁ λαὸς ὁ καθήμενος ἐν σκότει φῶς εἶδεν μέγα
The people who live in darkness have seen a great light. Matt 4:16

(3) καὶ ἰδοὺ ἄνθρωπος χεῖρα ἔχων ξηράν.
And behold, a man who had a withered hand. Matt 12:10

In these three examples, the author/speaker provides brand new information to the reader/listener. Example (50) is from the monologue of the angel to Joseph regarding the source of Mary’s pregnancy. The clause consists of the known information shared by both the Angel and Joseph: Mary is pregnant. There is a child conceived (τὸ γὰρ ἐν αὐτῇ γεννηθὲν). The predicate of this clause is the completely new, non-contrastive information: the child is from the Holy Spirit (ἐκ πνεύματός ἐστιν ἁγίου).

Example (51) is found within a quotation of Isaiah 9:1-2 in the Gospel of Matthew.[3] The discontinuous phrase appears late enough in the quotation from Isaiah to provide a large enough context for understanding the phrase’s information structure without recourse to the text of Isaiah.[4] The phrase appears following a description of the land of Israel, “Land of Zebulun and land of Naphtali, / the Way of the Sea, beyond the Jordan, / Galilee of the Gentiles— / the people living in darkness have seen a great light / on those living in the land of the shadow of death a light has dawned” (TNIV). In the greater context of the Gospel, the writer has just described Jesus as traveling through these regions, fulfilling Isaiah’s prophecy. Verse 15 is entirely accessible, known information; as does the Subject of the clause in question here (the people). The brand new, prominent information is “light” –a great one.

In the last of these examples (52), Matthew introduces a new scene within the periscope that describes Jesus’ relationship to the Sabbath. With the new scene, come new participants. Since the clause itself introduces brand new information, there is little doubt about the information status of the constituents: καὶ ἰδοὺ (and behold) marks the shift to a new Topic, ἄνθρωπος (a man), which also is the Subject of the clause. The rest of the clause is a participial clause (χεῖρα ἔχων ξηράν, “having a withered hand”) in the predicate position with ἄνθρωπος (a man).

In light of DS’s claims about the discourse function of Y_2­ ­Hyperbaton, these first three examples are rather striking because of them, only the last one even partially parallels their predicted discourse context which Y₂ Hyperbaton should occur. They write, “Two generalizations suggest themselves: first, the verbs are all intransitive, and second … they are all simple verbs of occurrence or existence.”[5] In our examples above, only example (50) is an existential verb and none of the three examples are intransitive. [6]_­

How do we deal with this? On the one hand, it is possible that DS limits their generalizations only to Weak Focus ­Y₂­ Hyperbaton examples where the discontinuous phrase bears the grammatical relation of Subject. This is not explicit in their discussion, but could easily be inferred from the text itself. Earlier they write, “In the simplest type of Y_{­2­ ­}Hyperbaton, [Y₁X] is an ordinary weak focus and the Y₂ Adjective specifies an additional restriction on the noun, and so represents a second weak focus. Some of the clearest instances involve split subject phrases.”[7]

1 Intransitive, Existential, or Occurrence Verbs

If we accept this perspective on the intention of DS, as well as assume that their two generalizations function as separate possibilities rather than two requirements, a clearer picture emerges. Of those instances of Subject ­Y₂ Hyperbaton, all of them fit their generalizations and many of the cases can be paraphrased in English with either, “an expletive there or an extraposed relative clause.”[8] Consider examples (53-55) with an existential verb from the New Testament and Josephus.

(4) καὶ ἐγένοντο ἀστραπαὶ καὶ φωναὶ καὶ βρονταὶ καὶ σεισμὸς ἐγένετο μέγας
And there was lightning and sounds and thunder and there was a great earthquake. Rev 16:18

(5) λίθος δὲ ἦν μέγας ἐπὶ τῷ στόματι τοῦ φρέατος
But there was a large stone on the mouth of the well. Gen 29:2

(6) κατὰ νυκτὸς ἐνάτην ὥραν τοσοῦτο φῶς περιέλαμψε τὸν βωμὸν καὶ τὸν ναόν, ὡς δοκεῖν ἡμέραν εἶναι λαμπράν
By the ninth hour of the night, such a light shone around the altar and the Temple, as to appear that it appeared to be bright day time. Josephus, Wars 6.290

In all three of these examples, the author is not seeking to contrast two items or events (i.e. Strong Focus), rather he is merely reporting that X exists or happened.[9]

There are also Hellenistic examples of Y₂ Hyperbaton with intransitive verbs shown in the following examples.

(7) θύρα γάρ μοι ἀνέῳγεν μεγάλη καὶ ἐνεργής
For a door has opened up to me, a wide and effective one. 1 Cor 16:7

(8) πηγαὶ συνεσχέθησαν αἰώνιοι ἐξ ἀβύσσων ἀπὸ ὀρέων ὑψηλῶν, ὅτι οὐκ ἦν ἐν αὐτοῖς ποιῶν δικαιοσύνην καὶ κρίμα.
Eternal Springs were shut up from the depths from the high mountains, because there was no one among them performing righteous and justice. Psalms of Solomon 17:19

(9) Εἰπὸν αὐτῷ ἐπὶ τῷ ἐμῷ ὀνόματι Κρύψον σεαυτόν, καὶ δήλωσον αὐτῷ τέλος ἐπερχόμενον, ὅτι ἡ γῆ ἀπόλλυται πᾶσα, καὶ κατακλυσμὸς μέλλει γίνεσθαι πάσης τῆς γῆς καὶ ἀπολέσει πάντα ὅσα ἔστʼ ἐν αὐτῇ.
Say to him [Noah] in my name, “Hide yourself!” And show him that the coming end: that the entire earth will be destroyed and a severe flood is about to come upon all the earth and will destroy everything on it. Book of Enoch 10.2

Of these three examples, (56) could easily be paraphrased as, “There is a door that has opened to me, wide and effective.” Also, example (58) is particularly striking because it states explicitly the reportive nature of the construction with the angel Uriel commanding the son of Lamech to bring this new information to Noah.

Finally, there is one clear example of Y_{2 ­}Hyperbaton with an occurrence verb in Josephus.[10]

(10) ἀσπασάμενος δὲ τὴν φωνὴν ὁ τοῦ Σαούλου παῖς ὡς νίκην αὐτῷ σημαίνουσαν παραυτίκα μὲν ἀνεχώρησαν ἐξ οὗπερ ὤφθησαν τόπου τοῖς πολεμίοις, παραμειψάμενοι δὲ τοῦτον, ἐπὶ τὴν πέτραν ἧκον ἔρημον οὖσαν τῶν φυλαττόντων διὰ τὴν ὀχυρότητα.
So Saul’s son accepted the voice, as it indicated to him victory. So he immediately came out of the place where they had been seen by their enemies; so he changed his place, and came upon a deserted rock guarded by its own strength. Josephus, Antiquities 6.112

The discontinuous phrase is “ἐπὶ τὴν πέτραν ἧκον ἔρημον” (he came upon a deserted rock). And once again, it is clear that Josephus is merely reporting what he views as the necessary new information in preparation for the more salient events which follow where Jonathan and his armor bearer route the Philistine army.

2 Challenges for DS’ Generalizations?

Now that we have covered the examples which can easily be explained by the generalizations of DS, what shall be done with the rest? Indeed, the majority of instances of Weak Focus Y­₂ Hyperbaton do not , at face value, align themselves to their description. These must be discussed and explained below, either by showing how they fit within the already stated generalization or by adapting and expanding the generalization so that all the data can be explained. This will be the focus of Part VI, which will appear in much better time than Part V did.

[2] There is one construction that could technically appear here, but will be discussed elsewhere, the construction: ἐγὼ χρείαν ἔχω X (cf. Matt 3:14). This structure is technically a Y_2­­ Hyperbaton, but the modifier constituent is so varied it cannot be discussed consistently in this section with its focus specifically on Adjectives. Secondly, the nature of the construction as a stereotyped phrase deserves it own independent discussion later on.

[3] The quotation and its word order differ from both the LXX (Rahlfs) and the Masoretic Text. The LXX reads πορευόμενος instead of καθήμενος and neither the LXX nor the MT has the discontinuous phrase we find in Matt 4:16. For this reason, I do not view this instance of Hyperbaton influenced by its Hebrew source text.

[4] This assumes, of course, that Matthew did not adapt the text himself, but drew from an Isaiah manuscript that included the discontinuous phrase.

[5] DS, 92; they provide no definition for “verbs of occurrence.” But according to Angela Downing and Philip Locke (English Grammar: A University Course [London: Taylor & Francis, 2006], 85), verbs of occurrence are those such as, “appear, disappear, go, come, arrive, depart, vanish, fade, happen…”

[6] Though according to our reading of (52), the discontinuous phrase, with its participle, functions as the semantic predicate of a nominal clause and, by definition, nominal clauses are existential.

[7] DS, 91.

[8] Ibid, 93.

[9] Of note in the Josephus example is that the existential infinitive within the discontinuous phrase is governed by an occurrence verb: to appear.

[10] Since this is the only clear example, the context is quoted more fully.

To get a better idea of the strengths & weaknesses of Muraoka’s new lexicon (Eisenbrauns – $128; Amazon $132 – actually the cheapest from “Scholar’s Source is Eisenbrauns, so you might as well support them directly) compared to the other lexicon used for the Hellenistic period, we’re going to do some comparisons between BDAG, LSJ, LEH, & the new GELS.

A couple of notes: Now, I know there are significant issues with coverage of various words since LEH & GELS are the only Lexicons completely focused on the LXX (which in of itself has its issues, cf. HERE). I’m using digital editions of BDAG, LSJ, & LEH and will provide a picture of GELS. This also means that LSJ has the revised 1996 supplement integrated back into the main body (only the Logos edition does this). Finally, the word we’re looking at are not entirely random. For one, they all appear in all four of these lexicons and they also all appear in the second half of 2 Samuel/Reigns/Kingdoms.

After I look at four or five entries in individual posts, I’ll post my more general observations and conclusions about GELS in relation to its brothers and sisters.

BDAG:

LSJ:

LEH:

GELS:

(pardon the curve from the page).

Notes:

Structure: BDAG & LSJ provide two main divisions for this wordform: “child” / “little boy” versus “young slave.” LEH makes no distinction structural distinction beyond its three provided translation glosses. GELS gives three divisions: a) young male child: “boy” b) young male: of working age – foreman and c) childhood.

Comments: 1) LEH does nothing to make distinct separate lexemes and senses other than provide multiple translation glosses. I’m rather cynical about exactly how helpful this is for understanding the usage of a word. 2) It’s striking that GELS does not provide an explicit equivalent definition that parallel’s BDAG & LSJ’s “young slave” and LEH’s “servant.” See below in my comments on the Definitions.

Definitions: BDAG & GELS are only lexicons that provide actual definitions – though this is less relevant on this entry since the cognitive concept of “child” tends to be relatively stable across languages. This is one of the few instances where “gloss” and “definition” are not that different in practice. With that said, there is still a significant difference in methodology.

Comments: 1) This first lexical entry doesn’t provide much clarity in terms of the superiority of definitions (BDAG & GELS) over standard translation glosses (LSJ & LEH). LSJ, LEH and GELS provide a usage that BDAG does not suggest ἐκ παιδαρίου from childhood (though LSJ provides the gloss “from a child,” but if you look at the text HERE, you’ll see that “childhood” is clearly the sense). Though in defense of BDAG, this phrase does not appear in the NT, Apostolic Fathers, Josephus, Philo, or Pseudepigrapha. It only occurs once in the LXX, though since its also in Plato, I’d be willing to bet that it does occur elsewhere in Hellenistic literature.

2) In this instance, LEH does not appear to be completely dependent upon LSJ for its glosses, a charge it has received elsewhere. Its first two glosses seems to come directly from LSJ, which has the exact same first two glosses, “little boy” & “child.”

3) As for GELS and its definition, “young male: of working age,” my guess is that Muraoka does not view the lexeme as distinct enough to go beyond this definition. Perhaps he views this second meaning for παιδάριον as semantically broad enough to encapsulate “servant/slave,” since the references he cites (Ruth 2.5, 6) fit would fit both his definition as well as BDAG, LSJ, & LEH.

Citations/References: BDAG provides 5 references to the LXX, 2 references to the NT, 1 for Josephus, several Pseudepigrapha citations and several from before the Hellenistic period. It also refers to the papyri generally with “Pap,” & “Oft. pap.” LSJ cites (not surprisingly) a variety of authors, mostly from the 4-6 centuries BC. It gives the fewest references for the relevant historical period with only one: PPetr.2p.128 – iii B.C. LSJ also gives the only late reference of any of the lexicons as well: with another papyri: POxy.3960.28 – A.D. 621). LEH refers only to the LXX, providing 12 occurrences – though also only LEH provides statistics with occurrences per section of the LXX (234). Finally, GELS cites 10 LXX references with another two with semantic parallels. GELS also refers the reader to SIG3 1163.5.

Comments: 1) Had you been in the room as I looked through the citations of primary sources, you would have seen me visibly disappointed. Only LSJ actually cites any papyri for this word – and then only one for the very early Hellenistic period. With that said, I suppose its to be expected. LSJ is the only lexicon of the four that claims to deal broadly with Greek texts. The other three have limited and specific group of texts. Personally, I don’t find it helpful and continue to dream of a complete lexicon of Hellenistic Greek. Right now BDAG is the closest we can get. At the very least, with its, “pap.” and “Oft. pap.” readers are aware that the word in common in the papyri (which isn’t surprising). If it wasn’t for the fact that I also have MM digitally as well and it only takes half a second to pull it up, I’d be annoyed to have to pull another book out. But its there that we find papyri references for the Hellenistic period.

2) I don’t really care either way for LEH’s statistical information. I prefer the actual definitions of GELS or references to occurrences outside of the LXX over LEH’s statistics.

Bibliography: BDAG lists G Simpson’s dissertation (Semantic Study of Words for Young Person, Servant and Child in the Septuagint and Other Early Koine Greek, diss. Sydney ’76), New Documents 1, Schmidt (Synonymik), DELG, MM, & TW (TDNT). LSJ provides no specialized bibliography. LEH lists Scholl 1983 9-12.15; Spicq 1978b, 220-224; Stanton 1988, 476-477; Wevers 1993, 567; & MM. GELS lists Schmidt (Synonymik), Shipp (Modern Greek Evidence for the Ancient Greek Vocabulary), New Documents 1, and Muraoka, 2001a. Separate from the bibliographic section, GELS also lists SIG3 1163.5

Comments: 1) SIG3 is not listed in GELS’ abbreviations. Assuming that this refers to Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum 3rd edition, ed. WDittenberger 4 vols. 1915–24 (which is reasonable), it is also not in the Bibliography. 2) No bibliography is complete. If I want to read all the literature on this word, I’d have to dig through three of these lexicons for sources and then go from there. This is less than helpful.

Other Comments: 1) In terms of derivational/etymological information, only BDAG & LSJ mention that this particular lexeme is a diminutive of παῖς.  2) LEH is the only lexicon that explicitly provides the information “Noun, Second Declension, Neuter.” 3) GELS does provide an abbreviation for the gender instead of the traditional citation of the article following the noun (cf. BDAG & LSJ). 4) Only GELS provides a helpful number of references to semantically related words, which is incredibly important for understanding the semantic range of a word. This functions as a very helpful bridge from the traditional lexicon to lexicons arranged semantically such as Louw & Nida.

For some reason, my wife picked a dandelion during her run this morning. Not knowing what else to do, I took some pictures. Here are a few:

Macro Photography is a definite hobby/interest of mine. It is so cool to see all the little details that you cannot see with your naked eye. So cool.

Anyway, they are all uploaded at a 1024×786 resolution if you want to download. The original 2560×1920. Leave a comment if you’d like one – assuming that I know who you are. I’m not just going to give them away to random strangers who merely found my blog via google.

I’ve decided I’m going to pick up at least one of my left-by-the-way-side series perhaps this next week. I’ll have a little more time on my hands now that BibleTech is passed.

I could very easily be challenge on this one, since its also something I do while I’m studying Greek. Even still, its such an important part of my daily routine that it deserves mention here. And besides, I do drink the stuff even when I’m not studying Greek.

Back when I was in college and then also when we were in Texas, my wife worked at Starbucks. Those of you who know someone who works at Starbucks already know that employees get a free pound of coffee each week. When we left Texas in June, we had collected more than 50 pounds of coffee and we gave away about half of it to family and friends in Illinois. In fact, until we moved to Canada, our cell phone was part of a family plan with my family, to whom we gave 1 pound of coffee a month as payment for it. It was a great system for the two years that we did it.

But this is all that’s left, about 14 pounds. At the rate we’re going, we’ll have to start buying coffee again in February or March.

This is a continuation of my series examining Devine and Stephen’s book Discontinuous Syntax: Hyperbaton in Greek. Today’s post fills a gap left open this past weekend in chapter two.

See also:

Part I

Part II

Part III

DS proposed as test in order to show that Y₁ Hyperbaton encodes strong focus [the BLACK cat, not the white one] by examining how certain words interact with these discontinuous phrases:

If it is correct that Y₁ hyperbaton encodes focus, then we expect association of particles and adverbials to be with Y1 when a narrowly focused adjective stands in hyperbaton (66).

Testing Y₁ Hyperbaton

Probably the most objective text for determining whether it is truly the case that Y₁ Hyperbaton marked strong focus on the Y_1­ Modifier is to examine those instances of the structure where there are other modifiers that tend to associate with strong focus. In English the words only, even, also, indeed, and various others fill this role. Thus, if DS’s claim is true for Koine Greek as well as Classical Greek, we would expect that when words such as μόνος or καί (the adverb) appear in the same clause as Y₁ Hyperbaton, they will associate themselves with the focused initial modifier. DS provide a number of examples to show that this is the case with Classical Greek. This also seems to be the case for Koine as well as seen in the following examples taken from a variety of texts.[1]

1 Y₁ Hyperbaton & μόνος

While occurrences of with Y₁ Hyperbaton in the same clause are rare, those that do appear are clearly aligned with the initial modifier. There are no exact examples of this in the New Testament, though Philippians 4:15 in example (37) is close.

(1) οὐδεμία μοι ἐκκλησία ἐκοινώνησεν εἰς λόγον δόσεως καὶ λήμψεως εἰ μὴ ὑμεῖς μόνοι
Not one church partnered with me in giving and receiving except you alone.

In this instances, μόνος is not in the same clause as the hyperbaton, but it still provides evidence for Y₁ Hyperbaton encoding strong focus. The negative quantifier, οὐδεμία, excludes all other churches with its strong focus. But then in the next clause Paul gives the one exception to this exclusive rule: the Philippian church. The effect of the strong focus hyperbaton is to make even more emphatic Paul’s commendation of the Philippians that they are the only ones who have partnered with Paul in this way. [2] Peter O’Brien recognizes the significance of the focus implicitly without any comment on the discontinuous phrase, οὐδεμία… ἐκκλησία, when he writes, “Paul’s purpose is to highlight the Philippians’ generosity. He therefore makes the point emphatically with the concluding words εἰ μὴ ὑμεῖς μόνοι (‘except you only’).”[3] In actuality, those concluding words, while important, are only a part of what highlights the Philippians generosity. It is the complete combination of Y₁ Hyperbaton, a point-counter point set[4] and the ellipsis of the verb in the final clause.[5]

Examples of other Koine texts appear below.

(2) τὸν μόνον πάμπλουτον αἰτεῖται θεόν·
He prays to the only all-wealthy God (Philo, On the Migration of Abraham §121)

(3) μέσον δʼ αὐτὸν οὐ μόνον ἐπεὶ μέσην ἐπέχει χώραν, ὡς ἠξίωσάν τινες, καλῶ, ἀλλʼ ὅτι θεραπεύεσθαι καὶ δορυφορεῖσθαι πρὸς ὑπασπιζόντων ἑκατέρωθεν ἀξιώματος ἕνεκα καὶ μεγέθους καὶ ὠφελειῶν, ἃς τοῖς ἐπιγείοις ἅπασι παρέχει, δίκαιος ἄλλως ἐστί.
I call [the sun] central not only because it stays in the middle position, as some have believed, but also because it is in other ways bound to be served and flanked by bodyguards [i.e. the other planets] on either side because of its honor magnitude, and the benefits which it gives out to everything on the earth (Philo, Heir of Divine Things §223).

(4) τῶν πάντων δὲ δικαίως μόνον καὶ πρῶτον ἥγημαι κύριον
Of all beings, I have justly determined that you are indeed the only foremost Lord (Josephus, Antiquities 20.90)

This final example is rather important since it involves a combination of both adverbial καὶ and also μόνον. The combination of these two words, in conjunction with the hyperbaton and the fronting of the explicitly stated set of alternatives, makes the strong focus of πρῶτον quite clear. But even in the other instances, the fact that μόνος is aligned with Y₁ Hyperbaton is evident.

2 Y₁ Hyperbaton &Adverbial καί

Places where Y₁ Hyperbaton occur with an adverbial καί are a challenge to find since καί is more commonly a conjunction, but the following examples have been found and there are likely more. The first, from Hebrew 8:6, is one examined above, but it deserves more attention, specifically in relation to the καί.[6]

(5) νυν[ὶ] δὲ διαφορωτέρας τέτυχεν λειτουργίας, ὅσῳ καὶ κρείττονός ἐστιν διαθήκης μεσίτης, ἥτις ἐπὶ κρείττοσιν ἐπαγγελίαις νενομοθέτηται.
But now, Jesus has obtained a more excellent ministry as much as he is also a better mediator of the Covenant, based upon better promises (Hebrew 8:6).

As predicted, the καί aligns itself with the discontinuous phrase, marking its focused status. William Lane, while not providing any explanation or discussion of the discontinuous phrase, recognizes the emphatic status of κρείττονός (better). “The new covenant is superior because it is based on better promises. This significant point is made by repeating twice the qualitative term “better” (κρείττονος and κρείττοσιν), each time in an emphatic position in its phrase.”[7]

(6) εἷς γὰρ θεός, εἷς καὶ μεσίτης θεοῦ καὶ ἀνθρώπων, ἄνθρωπος Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς
For there is one God and also one mediator for God and mankind: the man Christ Jesus (1 Tim 2.5).

Significantly in this example, the καὶ is actually the constituent dividing the noun phrase, making the alignment between καὶ and the Hyperbaton quite clear. The strong focus on εἷς places greater emphasis on the parallel with there being “one God” in the first nominal clause. Commentators have intuitively recognizes this focus on εἷς. For example, both William Mounce and George W. Knight make nearly identical statements, adding “only” into their comments on these two clauses: “V[erse] 5 possibly adds another argument to 1 Tim 2:1–7. Since there is only one God and only one mediator between God and people…”[8] and “Just as there is only one God, so there is only one mediator…”[9] Gordon Fee goes as far to provide the literal translation, “One also is the mediator between God and mankind.”[10] The focus places on εἷς by the author has been clearly been recognized by scholars, though there is never any discussion of word order.[11]

There are also instances of adverbial καὶ appearing with Y₁ Hyperbaton outside the New Testament.

(7) πολλῶν οὖν καὶ μεγάλων καὶ ἐνδόξων μετειληφότες πράξεων, ἐπαναδράμωμεν ἐπὶ τὸν ἐξ ἀρχῆς παραδεδομένον ἡμῖν τῆς εἰρήνης σκοπόν
Seeing, then, that we have also share in many great and glorious deeds, let us hasten on to the goal of peace (1 Clem 18.17).

(8) τὴν μὲν ἀνωτάτω καὶ πρώτην αἰτίαν ἴστε ἣν καὶ πάντες ἴσασιν ἄνθρωποι
You know the highest (?) and primary cause of all; which indeed all men know (Philo, Embassy §198).[12]

(9) ἡμᾶς ἀναδιδάσκει, πέντε δὲ τὰ κάλλιστα καὶ πάντων ἄριστα· πρῶτον μὲν ὅτι ἔστι τὸ θεῖον καὶ ὑπάρχει … δεύτερον δʼ ὅτι θεὸς εἷς ἐστι … τρίτον … ὅτι γενητὸς ὁ κόσμος … τέταρτον δʼ ὅτι καὶ εἷς ἐστιν ὁ κόσμος…
[Moses] teaches us five [things] that are beautiful and the best of all. First that Deity is real and exits … secondly, that there is one God … third, that the world is created … fourth, that there is also one world (Philo, Creation §170.

While some might argue that this example is not truly hyperbaton, I would argue that it is. For one, like Paul’s example in 1 Timothy 2:5 above, Philo seems to intentionally draw a parallel between the oneness of God and the oneness of the world by means of the adverbial καὶ. If this is the case, then it is reasonable to assume that Philo intends this instance to be read as a single phrase just as, “θεὸς εἷς ἐστι.”

3 Conclusions from Testing Y₁ Hyperbaton

The previous discussion sought to test whether Y₁ Hyperbaton encodes strong focus by determining whether certain particles and adverbs associated with the initial adjective in the discontinuous phrase. Specifically, we found examples of both μόνος and καί associating with hyperbaton. In the case of μόνος, the set of alternatives evoked by strong focus was explicitly excluded. When καί appeared with Y₁ Hyperbaton, the explicit implication was the meaning “not only x, but also y.”[13] This test has shown conclusively that Y₁ Hyperbaton encodes strong focus.

[2] Not that the Lexham Discourse Greek New Testament tags this as a point-counter point set, acknowledging the relationship between the two clauses (Steven Runge, The Lexham Discourse Greek New Testament (Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2008), Phil 4:15-17).

[3]Peter Thomas O’Brien, The Epistle to the Philippians: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1991), 533.

[4] Cf. chapter 4 of Steven Runge’s Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament: A Practical Introduction to Discourse Features for Teaching and Exegesis (Logos Research Systems, forthcoming),

[5] While some might object to this set of clauses as evidence of Y₁ Hyperbaton encoding focus based on the existence of other marked features, the opposite is actually the case. Redundancy of meaning in language is an essential element for determining meaning.

[6] This time around, we are focused particularly on the second instance of hyperbaton in the sentence.

[7]William L. Lane, Hebrews 1-8 (WBC 47A; Dallas, Tex.: Word, 2002), 208.

[8]William D. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles (WBC 46; Dallas, Tex.: Word, 2002), 87.

[9]George W. Knight, The Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1992), 121.

[10] Gordon D. Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus (NIBC NT 13; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1988), 65.

[11] In fact, commentaries in general say very little about word order, as if the Greeks arbitrarily or randomly threw words together in any order. Such an activity would make for a rather difficult language to understand. And if that were the case, Greek never would have become the lingua franca that it was in the Greco-Roman period.

[12] Ανωτάτω seems to be the adverb ἄνω functioning as a superlative (Cf. LSJ, definition II, where a similar example from Arrianus [ii a.d.] is provided).

[13] Thus Philo, Embassy §198 means “Not only do you know the highest and primary cause of all, but so do ALL men.” Likewise, Creation §170 means, “Not only was the world created, but there is also ONE world.” And in 1 Timothy 2:5, Paul means, “Not only is there one God, but there is also ONE mediator.”

This is a continuation of my series summarizing and examining the claims of Devine and Stephen’s Discontinuous Syntax: Hyperbaton in Greek. Part three is the longest post I’ve written thus far, though much of it consists of examples from the New Testament. For part I, see HERE and for part II, see HERE.

1. The Meaning of Y₁ Hyperbaton – Chapter 2

The previous discussion worked off the assumption that Y₁ hyperbaton encoded focus. Chapter two of DS seeks to examine that assumption in order to provide a more detail account of the phenomenon. Beginning with a discussion of types of focus, DS then move on to examine the function of the Y­₁ modifier and the Y­₂ Noun in hyperbaton and their relationship to focus before concluding with some theoretical perspectives on accounting for these discontinuous phrases for Classical Greek. They also implement a couple of tests for proving the narrow scope of focus only on the modifier in Y₁ Hyperbaton.[1]

1.1 Focus

Discontinuous Syntax delineates two general types of focus: Weak Focus and Strong Focus. The latter also has a sub type, which they refer to as Contrastive Focus.[2] Any of these types of focus can be either broad, covering an entire phrase or narrow, covering only a subconstituent of a phrase, such as an adjective.

1.1.1 Weak Focus &

According to DS, weak focus is purely informational. The response to a content question is commonly weak focus, where the answer merely fills an informational in the asker’s knowledge as in example (20).’

(1) Who was on the phone?
JOHN was on the phone.

The answer, “John,” provides new, unknown information. It fills a gap in the knowledge of the person asking the question. The information focus in such answers necessarily involves choosing between alternatives. These alternatives are basically the presuppositional knowledge of the one asking the question. Someone was the on the phone and the person to whom the question asks likely knows specifically. This kind of weak focus is particularly important in texts or discourses where the questions are implicit rather than explicit as above. Consider example (2).

(2) Speaker A: Some Greek authors are very difficult
Speaker B: I use LOEB for authors like Pindar.[3]

Speaker B’s response to A functions as the answer to an implicit question, as if A asked, “What do you do for reading difficult authors such as Pindar?” In cases such as this, Focus structure functions so as to encode various implicit questions in a discourse.[4] But example (21) also shows us that weak focus makes no claim about its completeness or exclusiveness. There may well be other (and perhaps better) ways of dealing with challenging Greek authors. Weak focus simply provides one possibility among many.

1.1.2 Strong Focus

Strong Focus takes things a step further by either implicitly or explicitly evoking the same sort of possibilities or alternatives as weak focus, but at the same time chooses one and negates the others. In English, strong focus is marked by intonational emphasis on a particular word or phrase. Let us look back at example (2) now repeated as (3). What if the person asking the question had been waiting for a call specifically from Dave and that the person answering the question had just hung up the phone.

(3) Who was on the phone?
JOHN was on the phone.

Now when the interlocutor receives the answer, not only is the basic information received that John was on the other end of the phone, but the answer also both evokes and negates the other possibility – that Dave was on the phone.

But in (3), the evocation and negation of the other possibility is only implicit based on the general context rather than an explicit statement. This is where the subcategory of Contrastive Focus comes into play. Contrastive Focus is also strong focus, but makes the negatives of alternatives directly explicit. This is seen in (4).

(4) Mike studies GREEK, but his wife prefers Latin.

In this case the alternative that Mike studies Latin is negated explicitly by means of the contrast with his wife. Contrastive focus tends to be more clearly recognized than implicit strong focus.

1.2 Focus & Y₁ Hyperbaton[5]

After a probably too brief summary Focus, we are not better equipped to examine the pragmatics of Y₁ Hyperbaton according DS and test their claims in Koine Greek texts. Previously, we saw that strong focus evokes and negates a set of alternatives. In this section we will examine how that plays out with different types of modifiers, including quantifiers (both negative and positive), demonstratives, adjectives of size, numbers, comparatives and superlatives, and other restrictive adjectives. Descriptive adjectives are rare or non-occurring in Classical Greek according to DS. Thus far, this has been proven true for Koine as well.[6]

Quantifiers exclude their opposites.

(5) καὶ ἐγένετο ἐπὶ πάντας φόβος τοὺς περιοικοῦντας αὐτούς
Fear came over all their neighbours. Luke 1:65 (not “some”)

(6) οὗτος ὁ ἄνθρωπος πολλὰ ποιεῖ σημεῖα
This man is performing many signs. John 11:47 (not merely a few)

(7) ὁ Χριστός ἅπαξ προσενεχθεὶς εἰς τὸ πολλῶν ἀνενεγκεῖν ἁμαρτίας
Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many… Heb 9:28 (not merely a few)

Demonstratives exclude others.

(8) τοιοῦτον ἔχομεν ἀρχιερέα
We have such a high priest. Heb 8:1 (not another kind of high priest)[7]

The article never appears in Hyperbaton by itself, not even as an archaic demonstrative.

Adjectives of size or dimension negate their opposite.

(9) διὰ τὸ ἐγγὺς εἶναι Ἰερουσαλὴμ αὐτὸν
Because he was near Jerusalem. Luke 19:11 (not far)

(10) ἴδετε πηλίκοις ὑμῖν γράμμασιν ἔγραψα τῇ ἐμῇ χειρί
See what large letters I write to you in my own hand. Gal 6:11 (not small letters)

Cardinal numbers exclude other possibilities.

(11) κύριε ἡ μνᾶ σου δέκα προσηργάσατο μνᾶς
Lord your mina has made ten minas. Luke 19:16 (and no less)

(12) πάντα δὲ τὰ μέλη τοῦ σώματος πολλὰ ὄντα ἕν ἐστιν σῶμα
All the members of the body, though many, are one body. 1 Cor 12:12 (and no more than one)

Comparatives and Superlatives exclude either the greater or lower points on the scale of comparison.

(13) καὶ μείζονα τούτων δείξει αὐτῷ ἔργα
And he will show them greater works than these. John 5:20 (in this example, the exclusion is explicit)

(14) τῷ ὑστερουμένῳ περισσοτέραν δοὺς τιμήν
Giving greater honor/worth to the one lacking. 1 Cor 12:24 (not lesser honor/worth)

(15) νυνὶ δὲ διαφορωτέρας τέτυχεν λειτουργίας ὅσῳ καὶ κρείττονός ἐστιν διαθήκης μεσίτης
But now Jesus has obtained a more excellent ministry as much as he is a better mediator of the Covenant. Heb 8:6.

Example (15) is particularly interesting. It has the Y₁ Hyperbaton structure twice in a row. Jesus’ ministry is more excellent (not less) and for that reason, he is a better (not worse) mediator than any other priest.

When we search for restrictive adjectives, we find examples like (16-17).

(16) ἡ γὰρ σάρξ μου ἀληθής ἐστιν βρῶσις
My flesh is true food John 6:55 (all other food is not true food)

(17) πολλάς τε ἐπιθέντες αὐτοῖς πληγὰς
Giving him a severe flogging Acts 16:23 (not a light one).

This exclusion of alternates in Y₁­ Hyperbaton does not seem to be a mere side effect of restrictive or specification properties of adjectives with weak. The speaker or author is not just conveying his belief about the audience being misinformed or unaware. He is instead making a deliberate point about the modifier in the Y­­₁ position. It is the modifier rather than its opposites that applies to the head noun. The hyperbaton structure is used, whether consciously or unconsciously, to ensure the audience is fully aware the alternatives are excluded. The structure’s appearance in texts like Hebrew and 2 Peter confirms this.

1.3 Polemic Discourse & Hyperbaton

While this section does not appear in DS, it does provide a fruitful analysis for examining the effects of strong focus in Y₁ Hyperbaton. As just mentioned, the appearance of this structure in texts such as Hebrews and 2 Peter seems to confirm the relationship between strong focus and hyperbaton. The this section examines these two texts from this perspective.

1.3.1 Hebrews

The “Letter” to the Hebrews’ main point is that Jesus has the superior priesthood to the exclusion of all alternatives. Paul Ellingworth writes these words about the purpose of Hebrews, “Christ as high priest, offering in perfect obedience to the Father the sacrifice of himself, accomplished once for all what the old priesthood and its animal sacrifices foreshadowed but could not effect.”[8] And what do we find when we look at the text, Y₁ Hyperbaton appears in Hebrew at least 18 times.[9] And the majority of those instances either refer to Christ directly or function in the warning passages against falling away from the faith.

1.3.2 2 Peter

But we must also consider 2 Peter, which Richard Bauckham describes as “a polemical document.” And he continues saying, “Its purpose is to counter the influence of a group of teachers in the churches to which it is addressed, and to this end it employs not only denunciation but also apologetic argument in defense of the eschatological teaching of the apostles against their objections.”[10] And in 2 Peter’s short three chapters, there are five instances of Y₁ Hyperbaton. This is significant when compared with the rest of the New Testament. Figure 4 shows how many occurrences of Y_1­ Hyperbaton appear in the 27 books in the New Testament per every 1000 words in the book.

Fig. 1

Figure 4 shows that Y₁ Hyperbaton is more common in 2 Peter than any other book of the New Testament with Hebrew following as a close second. Since there are only five occurrences, it would be worth it to examine all five of them. They are seen in examples (18-21).[11]

(18) τοῖς ἰσότιμον ἡμῖν λαχοῦσιν πίστιν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ
To those who have received a faith as precious as ours through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ (2 Peter 1:1).

From the very first verse, we see that 2 Peter is a polemic letter. If Y₁ Hyperbaton encodes strong focus, then it follows that the author is making it very clear who his audience is: those who have received a precious and valuable faith. The implication is that those false teachers, advancing views of “eschatological skepticism,”[12] and those who follow them have a worthless faith.

(19) διʼ ὧν τὰ τίμια καὶ μέγιστα ἡμῖν ἐπαγγέλματα δεδώρηται…
Thus he has given us, through these things, his precious and very great promises… (1:4a)

When we examine 2 Peter 1:4, we find that the concept of hyperbaton encoding strong focus builds nicely upon the themes of the book.[13] On the assumption that it does, this verse then suggests that the author wants his audience to know that God’s promises are both precious and great while excluding any other possible qualities they could have. This fits well with what we see in 3:3-6,

First of all you must understand this, that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and indulging their own lusts 4 and saying, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since our ancestors died, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation!” ⁵ They deliberately ignore this fact, that by the word of God heavens existed long ago and an earth was formed out of water and by means of water, ⁶ through which the world of that time was deluged with water and perished.

If these words about skeptics in the last days also apply to the false teachers about which Peter rights, then he has every reason to emphasize the greatness and preciousness of God’s promises.

(20) …ἵνα διὰ τούτων γένησθε θείας κοινωνοὶ φύσεως ἀποφυγόντες τῆς ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ ἐν ἐπιθυμίᾳ φθορᾶς
…so that through them you may escape from the corruption that is in the world because of lust, and may become participants of the divine nature (1:4b).

This instance of hyperbaton appears within a prepositional phrase which as a whole provides the means for escaping the corruption of the world. The significance of the Y₁ ­Hyperbaton conveys that there is only one way to escape that corruption. And because this construction both evokes and negatives the alternatives, it is as if Peter is saying, “You must participate in the divine nature to escape the world’s corruption because you sure won’t be able to do it through anything those false teachers suggest.”

(21) ταύτην ἤδη ἀγαπητοί δευτέραν ὑμῖν γράφω ἐπιστολήν ἐν αἷς διεγείρω ὑμῶν ἐν ὑπομνήσει τὴν εἰλικρινῆ διάνοιαν
This is now, beloved, the second letter I am writing to you; in this one, as in the first, I am trying to arouse your sincere intention by reminding you[14]

Thus far, this is the only instances of a descriptive adjective appearing in Y1 Hyperbaton. But the strong focus is still quite clear. This is not the first letter. Peter has been forced by these false teachers to write multiple letters. By making this point, he emphasizes the seriousness of the situation.

1.4 Modeling Y₁ Hyperbaton

The basic structural claim regarding this type of discontinuous phrase is essentially the same as provided in chapter one of DS. They consider the XP of their Y₁ XP Y₂ order to be the maximal phrase projection for this type of hyperbaton. Graphically, DS’s structure is in the following figure.

Fig. 2

Because DS assume a linguistic theory that uses movement to explain different structure configurations and their functional information, they leave an empty branch in the Genitive NP at the lowest level.

A non-transformational theory of syntax would model this phenomenon differently.[15] For example, Lexical Functional Grammar, which represents Functional information separately from constituent order, would provide the following structures for Y₁ Hyperbaton, seen in figure 6.[16]

Fig. 3

The matrix beside the tree diagram represents the functional information of the clause and allows the same word to fill multiple functions in the phrase. Thus, θείας is both the Adjective modifying φύσεως and also the focus on the phrase as a whole, avoiding the issue of movement altogether.[17] The phrase structure rule that would license this tree is below.

(22) NP => (AP_[FOC]) N (NP_[COMP])

1.5 Conclusions

A number of conclusions can be drawn from the above discussion. DS state three important conclusions rather succinctly.

“First, the distribution of pragmatic categories in Y₁ Hyperbaton is skewed relative to continuous YP structures; this proves that Y₁ Hyperbaton is not a pragmatically meaningless syntactic variant of the continuous YP structure. Secondly, the specific pragmatic categories that actually occur in Y₁ Hyperbaton are fairly consistently narrow focus on the adjective and a tail status on the Noun. Third, Y₁ Hyperbaton is optional.”[18]

If we assume that DS is correct in saying that Y₁ Hyperbaton is not a meaningless construction then a significant number of commentaries have missed and/or ignored some rather important structural facets of Koine texts, including those of the New Testament. We have seen above that Y₁ Hyperbaton place a role in both Hebrews and 2 Peter and it is not uncommon in Paul’s letters either. The fact that its less common in other NT texts does not mean that those authors did not use strong focus. As DS state, Y₁ isoptional. Thus it is possible either for the pragmatic meaning to exist without the syntax encoding it in this manner or for the text in general to avoid this kind of strong foci. With that said, there is still more to be done in terms of testing the claims of DS more precisely than has been attempted here.

[2] All definitions in this section of those of DS, though this summary makes no claims about being exhaustive on the subject of Focus, which is a much more complex topic than presented here even in DS. Section 2.1 condenses a 13 page discussion into 2 pages.

[3] DS, 37.

[4] Examining such implicit questions marked by this kind of focus would be a worthwhile task in New Testament texts, but beyond our scope presently.

[5] It might be helpful to point out once again that Y₁ Hyperbaton is defined as a discontinuous phrase where the Modifier appears in the initial position: Y₁ XP Y₂. In Y₂ Hyperbaton, which is not the subject here, the modifier appears in the second position of the discontinuous phrase.

[6] Of the couple hundred instances I’ve examined, I have only found one example of a descriptive in Y₁ hyperbaton. See below on 2 Peter 3:1.

[7] Interestingly, this is the only demonstrative used in Y₁ Hyperbaton. See also John 12:37; 1 Cor 14:10; Heb 2:3; 12:3; 13:16.

^[8]Paul Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids, Mich.; Eerdmans, 1993), 80.

[9] Heb 1:4; 2:3; 4:7; 4:11; 6:11; 7:11; 8:1, 6, 7; 9:4-5, 28; 10:2, 12, 29; 11:38; 12:3.

^[10]Richard J. Bauckham, 2 Peter, Jude (WBC 50; Dallas: Word, 2002), 154.

[11] The translation in these examples is the NRSV. It should also be noted that Opentext.org recognizes conjoined adjectives in the Y₁­ position as two instances of Hyperbaton. Thus the first two hits in 2 Peter 1:4 are treated together. And the third hit in 1:4 is treated separately.

[12] Bauckham, 154.

[13] And also Baulkham’s reconstruction described above.

[14] I’ve modified the NRSV here.

[15] Even more Functional Theories, such as Role and Reference Grammar or Functional Discourse Grammar would appear would both appear different than either DS’s representation or the LFG representation above.

[16] Information structure attributes such as TOPIC, FOCUS, BACKGROUND INFORMATION, and COMPLETIVE INFORMATION are more recently represented in a separate “Information Structure Matrix” in LFG, rather than in the Functional Structure Matrix. This is a relatively recent innovation in the theory, since the example above is only a single noun phrase, it seems more convenient to use an F-Structure. Were we to look at a larger section of discourse, an I-Structure matrix would be more appropriate.

[17] There also could be morphosyntactic information provided for the adjective θείας as well. It is not provide for space considerations.

[18] DS, 59.

Tonight’s Achievement was exciting because it was something I had never done before and it looks fantastic. Hopefully when it cools, it will taste as good as it looks!

I’ve never baked bread before. It was a surprisingly long process., particularly since I don’t have a bread maker. But I think it was worth it.

Update: It tastes fantastic.

All from scratch, baby!

I must first extent my thanks to Jesse Hillman of Zondervan, who went beyond the call of duty and gracefully sent me a review copy in spite of the fact that I’m in Canada.

The Basics of Verbal Aspect in Biblical Greek
By Constantine Campbell

Paperback: 160 pages
Publisher: Zondervan (November 1, 2008)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 031029083X
ISBN-13: 978-0310290834
Product Dimensions: 8.9 x 6 x 0.6 inches
Amazon: Basics of Verbal Aspect in Biblical Greek

I was excited to see this book come out. Many of you who have been reading my blog have problably seen some of my past discussions as Aspect, both problems that I see in the current discussion, misunderstandings, and poorly used terminology. Dr. Campbell’s new introductory book makes some improvements that are encouraging to me and he also finally provides a more accessible introduction to the topic that also combines some very helpful practical exercises and discussion. In this review, I want to first begin with what I consider weakness before moving on the the book strengths. My hope is that if I do that, you will walk away with those strengths in your mind because the strengths definitely outweigh the weaknesses.

The book itself is comprised of 10 chapters and a postscript on Tense and Proximity. The book is split in half with the first five chapters examining verbal aspect more generally and the second providing some more extended discussions of the different verb forms, exegetical implications, and practical exercises. It is with the first half the book where my contentions lie.

Following Campbell, my review is also divided in half, first examining the technical points of the book before moving on to the more practice. For those of you who are more interested in the practice, I would suggest going HERE to Part II.

The Technical Side

Chapter one is basically a brief introduction to terminology. Probably the biggest challenge for the student (or even the non-linguist Greek professor) is terminology. The fact that historically, English has either use different terminology or no terminology at all for describing aspect makes the concept harder to wrap ones mind around (My own understanding of aspect actually came after I had completed a B.A. in Koine Greek, in the beginnings of my graduate studies in linguistics).

But the fact that we don’t use the terminology of aspect in traditional English grammar doesn’t mean English doesn’t have an aspectual system. It does. In traditional terminology we make a distinction between the present and present progressive. The progressive is the English imperfective aspect. In general, Campbell does a fine job making this clear by giving a number of English examples of aspectual distinctions.

I really only have two contentions. The first issue is the debate about the aspect of “perfect.” The other is one I’ve written about a number of times is everyone’s use of the term Aktionsart (Campbell included).

The “Perfect Tense Form”

I must say right out of the gate that Campbell does an excellent job of making clear that the aspectual value of this verb form continues to be debated and he generally does well surveying the debate. But I do disagree with his statement in reference to Porter and McKay claim that the perfect form encodes a stative aspect, “Perhaps most serious of all, however, is the fact that stativity is not normally regarded as an aspectual value. Across all languages and in linguistic theory, stativity is an Aktionsart value, not an aspect” (49).

Generally, I’m extremely suspicious about blanket statements about what is said across the board in the linguistic world and in languages. For one, there is so much literature being published every year that its impossible to make such statements with the certainty that Campbell has.

In particular, it is common in much linguistic literature studying living languages to only use the term stative in reference to Aktionsart and in this sense, Campbell is correct and Porter & McKay are wrong. But if we focus primarily on Indo-European linguistics, we find the tables flipped. This is seen in a number of places, though probably most accessibly in the Encyclopedia Britannica’s article on Proto-Indo-European Verbal Inflection.

The stative aspect, traditionally called “perfect,” described states of the subject—e.g., *ste-stóH₂- ‘be in a standing position,’ *me-món- ‘have in mind.’

This is confirmed in more specialized works such as James Clackson’s Indo-European Linguistics: An Introduction.

Alongside its peculiar morphological status, the perfect appears to have been semantically distinct. In Greek the difference between the present and the aorist stem is aspectual: broadly speaking, the present stem is imperfective, and the aorist stem perfective. The perfect principally denotes a state (121, my emphasis).

So then, if Porter and McKay are actually more in line with Indo-European Historical Linguistics, the argument could easily be made that they are following better approach, considering that Koine Greek is an IE language. This must be emphasizes since it is actually Campbell’s introduction of “heightened Proximity/Remoteness” that is, as far as I’ve read, unique in linguistic literature (though I would welcome being proven wrong on that one).

But with all of that said, one must question the semantic difference between Campbell’s system and Porter’s for the (plu)perfect. And If heightened proximity “creates a super closeup view of an action” (110), what is preventing us from saying that such a narrowing in on an action is actually the depiction of that action as a state. Campbell admits, “Perfect tense-forms often end up depicting a state” (106). It almost feels like word games more than anything else, though I’m sure Campbell did not intend it as such.

The Problem of Akionsart: History and Terminology

One thing that I have seen in the majority of books on Greek aspect I have read (including but not limited to: Porter, Campbell, McKay, and Fanning) continue to state that Aktionsart means “kind of action.” Yes, this is true in a literal sense. But that’s the point, it is a literal meaning. What is clear from reading Robertson and Moulton is that the term is consistently used in a technical sense to refer to aspect whether Lexical or Morphological (this is clear in a close reading of McKay, 27; though his relative clause makes it confusing).

All this to say, I don’t understand the benefit when Campbell writes on page 21, “[Aktionsart] is a German word that literally means “type of action.” The context in which Campbell writes suggests that this is how past grammarians actually used the word (though, in a way Moulton and Robertson set themselves up to be misunderstood by giving the same sort of “literal” definition to a technical term, though it is clear that their usage was technical). The previous sentence on the same page says, “The nineteenth century answer to this question — the difference between two past tenses in Greek — is the type of action, or Aktionsart” (his italics).

The problem with these two statements is that they imply that past Grammarians actually used the term Aktionsart as if they were always referring to an objective, external view of an given action or verb. This is simple not true and I have argued the point extensively in a previous post, “On Porter’s View of the Greek Verb Part III.” It is suffice to say that the old grammarians used the term Aktionsart in a technical sense, not referring to objective view of “how an action takes place” (Campbell, 22), but covering both the lexical aspect (today’s Aktionsart) and also morphological aspect.

Campbell is inconsistent on this point. In his introductory discussion of Aktionsart on pages 21-22, he seems to imply that this definition of Aktionsart as “how an action takes places” as opposed to “how the action is viewed” (22) is the definition of both the 19th and 20th century grammarians and today’s 21st century grammarians. But when we move to his discussion of history in chapter two, we find a different side of things, one that I actually must praise him for because, unlike Porter, Campbell gets his history right. Regarding the early 20th century, he writes, “Among the issues being investigated, an important question arose concerning the range of aspect values that occur in Greek and Indo-European languages. The result of this, however, was that a multiplicity of categories was born, complete with conflicting terminology. Confusion resulted from the interchangeable usage of three terms Zeitart, Aktionsart, and aspect. (28, my italics).

Essentially the problem is that pages 21-22 imply that the grammarians of the past defined Aktionsart in the same way that it is defined today: Aktionsart represents the actual objective action of the verb. But pages 27-28 state that aspect, Zeitart, and Aktionsart were interchangeable in the early 20th century. My fear is that this kind of inconsistency has (and will continue) to cause people to misread the old grammars that use the term Aktionsart, or worse, lead people to think that the old grammars are not needed and obsolete.

Some may see this as a minor detail, but when such problems have already cause gross misunderstandings from PHD scholars, such as the quote below, the issue must be addressed and rectified. This quote comes from the RBL review of Dr. Rodney Decker’s volume on Deixis and Aspect in Mark,

Even my oversimplification of the thesis here should show that there are indeed some interesting new ideas in the study of Greek; if Porter is correct, standard works such as A. T. Robertson or Blass, de Brunner, and Funk will become of relevance mostly to scholars of the history of New Testament criticism.

Robert Paul Seesengood, review of Rodney J. Decker, Temporal Deixis of the Greek Verb in the Gospel of Mark with Reference to Verbal Aspect, Review of Biblical Literature.

There is also one minor issue with the word Aktionsart as well, though it has less to do with Campbell and more to do with linguistics in general. These days the word is used to refer both to lexical meanings and pragmatic meanings and rarely is there clarification as to which one a given author is referring to. This is seen in Campbell’s book relatively regularly. Aktionsart is referred to as pragmatic on page 23 but on page 28 it is referred to as lexical. These two distinct uses should have been described more clearly. This holds true in general for any book or article on Aspect & Aktionsart and is often a problem.

Positive Aspects

But before I appear too negative of Campbell’s book, I must move on to what I enjoyed and appreciated. I must say that I am glad to see Campbell holds that the Future is perfective, a point which I’ve argued myself in agreement with both Campbell and Wallace.

I am yet to see a valid example of a Future form that is best interpreted as imperfective – and this is something that all other positions would have to do whether they believe the Future is aspectually vague or that it encodes either perfective or imperfective aspect. If its vague, then there must be vague examples where it could be either and the same holds for those who believe can be both. There is also the morphological evidence in the sigma morpheme in both the Future and the Aorist, which must be explained as well.

In spite of the inconsistency in the historical discussion compared with the terminology discussion, Campbell provides an accurate and clear historical survey of aspect studies, which if taken seriously will hopefully prevent the neglect of past grammars discussed above that concerns me greatly.

More of the positives will be discussed in Part II, to which we now turn.

Previously, I surveyed the first half of of Devine and Stephen’s Discontinuous Syntax: Hyperbaton in Greek with the purpose of both summarizing the contents will also seeking to determine whether the argument and claims made regarding discontinuous phrases in Classical Greek carried over in the Koine Greek as well. The result of the summary showed that the phrasal discontinuity in Greek known traditionally as hyperbaton is represented in Koine at every point as it is in Classical Greek.

The implication of this is that on the basis of its uniformity, the phenomena of discontinuous phrases should not understood as proving that Greek has “free word order,” but that the Greek phrase structure has a consistent and representable pattern whether the phrase is a Noun Phrase, Verb Phrase, Adjective Phrase, or even a Prepositional Phrase.

This following post examines the second half of chapter one, which seeks to understand the word orderings of normal continuous phrases in order to lay a basis for understanding discontinuous phrases, which will be next week’s topic covering chapter two of the book.

Isn’t Greek fun?

1.1 Focus in Continuous Noun Phrases

In order to determine more accurately the meaning of Y_­1 Hyperbaton,[1] The rest of chapter 1 examines the pragmatics and syntax of focus in continuous phrases where there is no hyperbaton. This requires determining the default word order in Noun Phrases, which is a massive task in of itself.[2] The majority of the discussion is statistical and since the evaluation of DS’s use of statistics is both beyond the focus of this paper and the author’s skill, we will simply summarize their relevant conclusions and continue to compare them with what is seen in the Koine Period. Several important observations should be noted though. For one DS recognizes, “There has been a tendency to underestimate the multivariate nature of the problem of adjective-noun order. Specifically, it is not very likely that the variability of order preferences can be reduced to the direct effect of a single parameter, whether it be semantic category, syntactic structure or pragmatic salience.”[3]

1.1.1 Adjective Usage and their Relation to the Noun

DS makes a distinction between two uses of the adjective: Descriptive versus Restrictive. For the most part, these two terms are self explanatory. Restrictive adjectives are those with limit the reference of a given noun with the implication that there is another similar noun with a different quality or trait. Descriptive adjectives merely express a property of the noun with no suggestion as to whether there was another possible reference. Restrictive adjective usage suggests a choice. In the sentence, “Jane had dinner with John’s best brother,” the adjective “younger” could be either restrictive or descriptive depending on how many brothers John had. If John has only one, it is descriptive, but if he has more than one, then the context restricts the meaning of the adjective to refer to one brother over against the other. If we were to say, “Jane had dinner with John’s best friend.” The adjective “best” necessitates a restrictive reading because it implies that John does indeed have other friends.

The claim DS makes for Classical Greek is that restrictive adjectives tend to neutrally occur in the postnominal position while descriptive adjectives tend to occur in the prenominal position. They confirm their analysis of the Classical Greek data on the basis of similar phenomena in other languages that allow both prenominal and postnominal adjectives, such as French, Italian, and Modern Greek where we find the same structures.

To test whether these conclusions were viable for the New Testament, we did two searches across the New Testament for modifiers from a single semantic domain from Louw and Nida, one for prenominal modifiers and one for postnominal modifiers. The goal was to chose a semantic domain that would lend itself to a restrictive usage rather than descriptive. To that end, Domain 11, “Groups and Classes of Persons and Members of Such Groups and Classes,” was chosen.[4]

The results were rather astounding.[5] A total of 115 instances of modifiers from Domain 11 were found and only 9 of these appear in a prenominal position. Of these, one of them were descriptive rather than restrictive. There were also four that while they had possible meanings in Domain 11, the particular occurrences did not have them functioning in Domain 11.[6] The one descriptive instance is seen in example (1) below.

(1) ἐπιλαβόμενοί τε αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τὸν Ἄρειον Πάγον ἤγαγον
And they brought him to the Areopagus [lit. Ares’ Hill] Acts 17.19

This sort of modifier usage with Πάγον (hill) would normally be restrictive, but in this case, usage had become so stereo typed that the modifier is only descriptive, the proper name of a particular location.

The other eight instances are restrictive in nature. A few representative examples are below.

(2) τινὲς δὲ καὶ τῶν Ἐπικουρείων καὶ Στοϊκῶν φιλοσόφων συνέβαλλον αὐτῷ
Some of the Epicurean and Stoic Philosophers engaged in discussion with him. Acts 17:18.

(3) ψυχὴν δικαίαν ἀνόμοις ἔργοις ἐβασάνιζεν
He was tormented in his righteous soul by their lawless deeds. 2 Pet 2:8

(4) ἀλλʼ ἡ τελεία ἀγάπη ἔξω βάλλει τὸν φόβον
But perfect love casts out fear. 1 John 4:18

It is examples like this and their relation to hyperbaton that is the focus of the rest of the chapter for DS. If restrictive adjectives by default appear postnominally, why is it that they are placed before the noun here?

The answer from DS is that it’s a question of pragmatic focus. When there is no focus on the adjective or when there is only a broad focus on the entire phrase (“A BLACK CAT walked into the room;” as opposed to a brown dog, with focus on the entire NP), the restrictive adjective will appear after the noun. When there is a narrow focus on the adjective (A BLACK cat walked into the room;” as opposed to a white cat, with focus placed narrowly in the adjective), the restrictive adjective will precede the noun.[7]

But how does this fit with our previously examples; repeated below as example 5-7?

(5) τινὲς δὲ καὶ τῶν Ἐπικουρείων καὶ Στοϊκῶν φιλοσόφων συνέβαλλον αὐτῷ
Some of the Epicurean and Stoic Philosophers engaged in discussion with him. Acts 17:18.

(6) ψυχὴν δικαίαν ἀνόμοις ἔργοις ἐβασάνιζεν
He was tormented in his righteous soul by their lawless deeds. 2 Pet 2:8

(7) ἀλλʼ ἡ τελεία ἀγάπη ἔξω βάλλει τὸν φόβον
But perfect love casts out fear. 1 John 4:18

In example (5), it is clear that we have a restrictive, narrow focus on the words “Epicurean and Stoic”. Luke is intentionally highlighting these specific philosophical schools. This understanding is confirmed in commentaries. “The mention of these schools is not incidental. Paul would take up some of their thought in his Areopagus speech, particularly that of the Stoics, and thoroughly redirect it in line with the Creator God of the Old Testament.”[8] Likewise in example (6), ἀνόμοις explicitly has a narrow focus, contrasting it with the adjective δικαίαν. This same explicitness is seen in (7). The entire verse is says,

(8) φόβος οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν τῇ ἀγάπῃ ἀλλʼ ἡ τελεία ἀγάπη ἔξω βάλλει τὸν φόβον
There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear.

The first half makes a claim about love in general, while the second puts the focus specifically on God’s love, which is perfect or complete. B. R. Westcott, intuitively recognized the distinctiveness of the construction in his commentary on John’s Epistles, “The arrangement ἡ τελ. ἀγ., which is common, for example, in 2 Pet., is unique in the Epistle…. It expresses a shade of meaning, as distinct from ἡ ἀγ. ἡ τελ., which is evidently appropriate here.”[9]

There is one other similar construction in the New Testament that can be explained by means of the thesis formulated by DS, shown in example (18)

(9) τὴν τοῦ θεοῦ δικαιοσύνην
“Righteousness of God” Rom 10:3

This particular construction is not discussed specifically by DS, but deserves discussion here, since its rather frequent in Koine Greek.[10] The genitive modifier Noun Phrases normally occur postnominally. The is a rather undisputable fact and easily documented. But what is interesting, in light of DS’s description of postnominal adjectives as typically restrictive rather than descriptive, Stanley Porter’s discussion of the genitive case in his grammar. “[T]he essential semantic feature of the genitive case is restriction.”^[11] On the assumption that this claim is correct, the logical result is that in the numerous places where a genitive NP occurs between an article and its noun, the genitive NP has narrow focus. And example (19) shows this to be explicitly true with Rom 10:3 quoted in full.

(10) ἀγνοοῦντες γὰρ τὴν τοῦ θεοῦ δικαιοσύνην καὶ τὴν ἰδίαν [δικαιοσύνην] ζητοῦντες στῆσαι, τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ τοῦ θεοῦ οὐχ ὑπετάγησαν
Since they did not know God’s righteousness and they sought to establish their own righteousness, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. Rom 10:3.

Whether the variant in brackets is accepted as original or not, there is an explicit contrast between righteousness that is God’s and righteous that is not God’s.[12] Thus, Paul places the genitive NP, τοῦ θεοῦ, in the narrow focused position.

1.1.2 Implications for understanding Hyperbaton

Essentially, if the understanding of focus in continuous noun phrases is combined with the understanding of focus in Y₁ Hyperbaton, DS argues, “it becomes obvious that we are not dealing with two separate phenomena but with a single syntactic process.”[13] The narrow focus position for restrictive adjectives is simply a lower position in a hierarchy of specifier-type positions. New Testament examples of this are shown below in examples 11-13.

(11) τί γὰρ ὠφεληθήσεται ἄνθρωπος ἐὰν τὸν κόσμον ὅλον κερδήσῃ τὴν δὲ ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ (N A X)
What is a manʼs profit if he gains the whole world, but forfeits his soul? Matt 16:26

(12) ἐπιστάτα διʼ ὅλης νυκτὸς κοπιάσαντες οὐδὲν (A N X)
Master, we toilded all night and caught nothing. Luke 5:5

(13) ὅλη συγχύννεται Ἰερουσαλήμ (A X N)
“All Jerusalem was in confusion” Acts 21:31

Each of these examples contains the restrictive adjective. The first has the adjective in its unmarked or default restrictive position (N A). The second has the adjective in its more marked narrow focused restrictive position (A N). Finally, the third clause has the adjective in the most marked position, Y₁ hyperbaton.

1.2 Conclusions for Chapter One

The fact that for every example given by DS for describing this phenomena, a similar example can be given from Koine texts makes it clear that more likely than not, we are dealing with the exact same pragmatic/syntactic phenomena. In the examples surveyed parallel examples show that the same sort of restrictive focus can be seen in the New Testament as it can in Classical texts several hundred years previously. When we move to examine chapter two, we’ll examine the phenomenon’s significance and meaning.

[2] The task is too massive, in fact, for most of their analysis to be discussed here. What follows only includes the most relevant details specifically for studying hyperbaton. What is left out is probably one of the most impressive and concise discussions of Greek word order in the Noun Phrase. Much of their data comes from Helma Dik’s Word Order in Ancient Greek: A Pragmatic Account of Word Order Variation in Herodotus (ASCP 5; J C Leiden, 1995) and her other articles.

[3] DS, 21.

[4] Johannes P. Louw and Eugene Albert Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains (electronic ed. of the 2nd edition; New York: United Bible societies, 1996, c1989), 1:119-135. The reasoning behind this choice was the claim, “[T]he neutral position for restrictive adjectives is postnominal. This is particularly so for intersective adjectives; these are prototypically simple properties denoting an extensional class determined for the most part independently of the noun they modify; for instance, adjectives of … nationality” (DS, 20). This claim seems intuitionally accurate. If one is description a particular class of something, more likely than not there will be another class that is then implicitly rejected.

[5] It must be acknowledge that statistics must be used with caution, particularly by those who have not been trained in statistical analysis, such as myself.

[6] Specifically, they were all instances of the word ἀλλότριος, with typically means “other” or “another,” but can carry the Domain 11 meaning, “stranger” in some contexts. The Lexham Greek-English Interlinear tags only three instances of this word as having the meaning “stranger” in John 10:5 (2); Heb 11:9. In each case, the word is used as a substantive rather than a modifier.

[7] This fits with what I have written previously about Adjective word orderings, HERE. But it also does not mean that all prenominal adjectives are restrictive with a narrow focus. As noted previously, descriptive adjectives will appear pronominally as well. This fact fits well with the comment by Dr. Rich Rhodes HERE.

^[8]John B. Polhill, Acts (NAC 26; Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1992), 367.

^[9] Brooke Foss Westcott, The Epistles of St. John: The Greek Text With Notes and Essays (4th ed.; London: Macmillan, 1902), 159.

[10] Occurring 1322 times in the New Testament, LXX, Apostolic Fathers, Philo, and Josephus.

^[11]Stanley E. Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament (Sheffield: JSOT, 1999), 92 (italics his).

[12] The case actually grows stronger if the bracketed reading is accepted because then we have two focused position modifiers: the τοῦ θεοῦ and then ἰδίαν.

[13] DS, 31.