A Grammar of

New Testament Greek

J. H. Moulton

Volume III

Syntax

Nigel Turner

www.continuumbooks.com

Copyright © T&T Clark Ltd, 1963

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of T&T Clark Ltd.

First published 1963

ISBN 0 567 01013 9

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

Preface

This volume on Syntax has been doomed to be delayed. Perhaps providentially, for after the revolution in Biblical studies during the first half of this century the time is most opportune to make a detailed survey of New Testament idiom. It is now over fifty years since the first edition of the Prolegomena appeared, and Dr. Moulton had perished at sea before completing Volume II. His pupil, Dr. W. F. Howard, saw that volume through the press in parts, from 1919 to 1929, but before he had opportunity to lay many plans for Volume III he himself died in 1952; and then, on condition that he had the assistance of someone who would collect the necessary material, Dr. H. G. Meecham assumed responsibility for the Syntax. It was on Dr. G. D. Kilpatrick’s suggestion that I was permitted to help at this point, and we had done no more than compile a provisional bibliography when Dr. Meecham died in 1955. By the kind invitation of the publishers I then worked alone and broke the spell by living to complete Volume III. It was a privilege for me, both to bring Dr. Moulton’s task to fruition in a new age, and to be associated with the distinguished name of Messrs. T. and T. Clark.

My care has been lightened by the publishers’ trust in me, their generosity and wise guidance; and I am grateful to the specialist printers who, faced with many typographical problems, so promptly achieved such excellent craftsmanship.

Nigel Turner.

Hitchin, Corpus Christi, 1962.

Chronological Bibliography

General works on syntax. See separate chapters for detailed bibliography

1. G. Pasor, Grammatica Graeca Sacra Novi Testamenti Domini nostri Jesu Christi, Amsterdam 1655 (the first NT Grammar; wise use is made of the LXX).

2. G. B. Winer, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Sprachidioms7, Leipzig 1867 (1st ed. 1822; the first scientific NT Grammar).

3. A. Buttmann, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Sprachgebrauchs, Berlin 1859 (Eng. tr. by Thayer 1873). Good use of LXX.

4. W. Schmid, Der Attizismus in seinen Hauptvertretern (4 vols. and Index), Stuttgart 1887–97.

5. J. Viteau, Étude sur le grec du NT. Le verbe: Syntaxe des propositions, Paris 1893.

6. E. de W. Burton, Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in NT Greek, Edinburgh 1894.

7. G. B. Winer, Gramm. des nt. Spr. (see 2): 8th ed. by P. W. Schmiedel, I.1894, II 1.1897, II 2.1898.

8. A. N. Jannaris, ...

§2. The Number of Nouns3

Singular: (1) In LXX and pre-Christian papyri, a generic sing. may appear with persons or races, and in the pap. with numbers (like our six foot). The usage is not unclass., especially in the historians, and dates from Homer (Schw. II 41): with ὁ Ἰουδαῖος Ro 3:1 (the Jew as a Jew) cp. ὁ Συρακόσιος and ὁ Ἀθηναῖος Thuc. 6, 78, 1, ὁ Χαλκιδεύς 6, 84, 3, ὁ Ἕλλην Hdt 1, 69, and the proverb Romanus sedendo vincit, etc. With ὁ ἀγαθὸς ἄνθρωπος and ὁ πονηρὸς ἄ. Mt 12:35, ὁ ἀσθενῶν Ro 14:1, τὸ ἀγαθὸν ἔργον 13:3, and ὁ δίκαιος and ὁ ἀσεβής 1 Pt 4:18, cp. ὁ δικαστής Lycurg. 79. Generic also are the class. κέραμος Thuc. 2, 4, 2 and ἄμπελος 4, 90, 2. With class. ἡ ἵππος Hdt 1, 80, cp. LXX Ge 14:11 cavalry, Ex 8:6 ἀνεβιβάσθη (ὁ)ἡ βάτραγος frogs. 1 Pt 2:24 LXX τῷ μώλωπι ἰάθητε Rev. 11:8 πτῶμα αὐτῶν.

It is not possible to classify here ὁ πτῶχος Jas 2:6 or ὁ δίκαιος 5:6; these refer to an individual example (e.g. 2:2).

We demur also at 1 Co 6:5 ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ αὐτοῦ: it is less likely to be generic than a combined result of Semitic influence and abbreviation thereof (full: between brother and brother), because in LXX we find e.g. ἀ.μ. ὕδατος καὶ ὕδατος Ge 1:6 and ἀ.μ. ποίμνης καὶ ποίμνης 32:16. It is not a great step to omit the repeated noun.

(2) Contrary to normal Greek and Latin practice, the NT sometimes follows the Aram. and Heb. preference for a distributive sing. Something belonging to each person in a group of people is placed in the sing.: as τὸ σῶμα ὑμῶν 1 Co 6:19, καρδίᾳ αὐτῶν Lk 1:66. On the other hand, NT does frequ. exhibit the pl., e.g. καρδίαι Mt 9:4.

(e) Relative pronouns. Already in the Koine the distinction between the relative pronoun of individual and definite reference (ὅς and ὅσος) and that of general and indeterminate reference (ὅστις and ὁπόσος) has become almost completely blurred. Indeed in general relative clauses ὅς is the rule, and although ὅστις is still used occasionally in its proper sense of whoever, it is nearly always misused, by Attic standards, of a definite and particular person (Mayser II 1, 76. Pernot Études 150–180). Moreover the use of ὅστις for ὅς is very old in Ionic Greek (e.g. Hdt II 99).

The same development proceeds in the NT. Complete indifference to the distinction is shown by Matthew who writes ἀνθρώπῳ βασιλεῖ ὅς in one place (18:23) and ἀνθρώπῳ βασιλεῖ ὅστις in another (22:2) after exactly the same phrase; and by Luke who writes πόλιν Δαυὶδ ἥτις καλεῖται Βηθλέεμ (2:4) where to translate utpote quae (class.) is obviously wrong. Ὅστις is almost limited to the nominative in all writers, though least of all in John who uses ὅς (sing. and pl.) nom. 16, acc. 50, gen. 6; dat. 2 times. Ὅσος is restricted, except in Hebrews, to nom. and acc. In LXX ὅστις is confined to nom. and accus. In Luke the indef. forms are restricted to ἥτις οἵτινες αἵτινες; this may have been a general rule (perhaps to avoid confusion with the article) since we note the following interchange in Heb 9:2 ἐν ᾗ … ἥτις, 9 ἥτις … καθʼἥν, 13:7 οἵτινες … ὧν, Eph 5:5 ὅς (ὅ vl) becoming in Col 3:5 ἥτις, Ro 4:16 ὅς ἐστιν πατήρ becoming in Ga 4:26f ἥτις ἐστὶν μήτηρ. Heb 11:33 οἵ is the sole exception in that book. Cadbury1 explains the few exceptions to this rule in Lucan writings as due in part to doubtful readings, in part to Luke having drawn some of his material from Mark (e.g. Lk 8:13=Mk 4:16), and in part to euphonic considerations for avoiding a clash with a previous τινες (e.g. Lk 8:2 γυναῖκές τινες αἳ ἦσαν …). The rule is effective for Paul too, except that he has ἅτινα for ἅ: Ro 16:3ff is particularly revealing, viz. οἵτινες … οἷς … ὅς … ἥτις … οἵτινες … (οἵ in 7, but notice the vl ὅς p46 and τοῖς DG) … ἥτις. It is effective for John, except that he has ὅ τι and ἅτινα; and except for ὅστις 8:53 (D ὅ τι), where however it might be excused by class. standards (Zerwick § 165). As to Matthew, in general relative clauses he observes the rule in respect of ὅς in 10:14 23:16. 18, but not in respect of ὅστις in 5:39. 41 7:15. 24 10:33 etc.1, nor πᾶς ὅστις 7:24 10:32 19:29. He breaks the rule with πᾶν ῥῆμα ἀργὸν ὅ 12:36, πᾶσα φυτεία ἥν 15:13. The Ptolemaic pap. follow the same rule, irrespective of general or individual reference. The conclusion is that we must not in exegesis read into ὅστις any shade of meaning like quippe qui (because); e.g. Ac 17:11 they were not more noble because they received the message, but simply who received the message, whatever ...