Verbal Aspect Theory and the Prohibitions in the Greek New Testament.pdf

Verbal Aspect Theory and the Prohibitions in the Greek New Testament

Douglas S. Huffman (Ph.D., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School) serves as Professor and Associate Dean of Biblical and Theological Studies at the Talbot School of Theology at Biola University in La Mirada, California, where he teaches courses in New Testament and Greek. His research interests include Luke-Acts, worldview and apologetics, and New Testament Greek. Huffman is author of several scholarly articles in books and journals, co-editor of God Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents God (2002), contributing editor of How Then Should We Choose? Three Views on God’s Will and Decision Making (2009), and contributing editor of Christian Contours: How a Biblical Worldview Shapes the Mind and Heart (2011).

16 Huffman

The end of the twentieth and the beginning of the twenty-first centuries have involved much discussion on overhauling and refining a scholarly understanding of the verbal system for first-century Greek. These discussions have included advances in verbal aspect theory and other linguistic approaches to describing the grammatical phenomena of ancient languages. This volume seeks to apply some of that learning to the narrow realm of how prohibitions were constructed in the first-century Greek of the New Testament. Part 1 “The Great Prohibition Debate” seeks to demonstrate that verbal aspect theory has a better explanation than traditional Aktionsart theory for authorial choices between the negated present imperative and the negated aorist subjunctive in expressing prohibitions in the Greek New Testament. Part 2 “All the Prohibitions in the Greek NT” continues to examine prohibitions, but is more of an exercise in functional linguistics. That is, rather than apply verbal aspect theory to the grammar of prohibition constructions, Part 2 seeks only to survey the (initially surprising) wide variety of ways prohibitions can be expressed in koine Greek: more than a dozen different constructions. To do this, the NT prohibitions are grouped in their varying grammatical-syntactical and/or pragmatic constructions, all of which function—in varying degrees—in a prohibitory fashion. This taxonomy may prove to be the beginnings of further investigations into how biblical Greek communicates commands.

PETER LANG

www.peterlang.com

Studies in Biblical Greek


Douglas S. Huffman

PETER LANG



D. A. Carson

General Editor Vol. 16

This book is a volume in a Peter Lang monograph series. Every title is peer reviewed and meets the highest quality standards for content and production.

PETER LANG

New York  Washington, D.C./Baltimore  Bern Frankfurt  Berlin  Brussels  Vienna  Oxford

Douglas S. Huffman


PETER LANG

New York  Washington, D.C./Baltimore  Bern Frankfurt  Berlin  Brussels  Vienna  Oxford

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Huffman, Douglas S. Verbal aspect theory and the prohibitions in the Greek New Testament / Douglas S. Huffman. pages cm. — (Studies in Biblical Greek; Vol. 16) Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. Greek language, Biblical—Verb. 2. Greek language, Biblical—Aspect. 3. Greek language, Biblical—Grammar. 4. Bible. New Testament—Language, style. I. Title. PA847.H83 487’.4—dc23 2014002011 ISBN 978-1-4331-2358-0 (hardcover) ISBN 978-1-4331-0763-4 (paperback) ISBN 978-1-4539-1400-7 (e-book) ISSN 0897-7828 Bibliographic information published by Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek. Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the “Deutsche Nationalbibliografie”; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de/. Scripture quotations marked “ESV” are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a division of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved. Scripture quotations marked “HCSB” have been taken from the Holman Christian Standard Bible®, copyright © 1999, 2000, 2002, 2003 by Holman Bible Publishers. Used by permission. Scripture quotations marked “NASB” are from the New American Standard Bible, updated edition, copyright © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation. Used by permission. (www.Lockman.org). All Scripture quotations marked “NIV” are from the Holy Bible, New International Version ®, copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc. Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved. Scripture quotations marked “NKJV” are from the New King James Version, copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved. Scripture quotations marked “NLT” are taken from the Holy Bible, New Living Translation, copyright © 1996. Used by permission of Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., Wheaton, Illinois 60189. All rights reserved. Scripture quotations marked “NRSV” are from the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyright © 1989 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. Used by permission. All rights reserved. The paper in this book meets the guidelines for permanence and durability of the Committee on Production Guidelines for Book Longevity of the Council of Library Resources.

© 2014 Peter Lang Publishing, Inc., New York 29 Broadway, 18th floor, New York, NY 10006 www.peterlang.com All rights reserved. Reprint or reproduction, even partially, in all forms such as microfilm, xerography, microfiche, microcard, and offset strictly prohibited. Printed in the United States of America

For my parents, Barbara J. & David I. Huffman, those who lovingly first taught me the meaning of “Don’t do that!” and always encouraged me with plenty of “You can do it!”

—CONTENTS— LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................ xi EDITOR’S PREFACE .................................................................................................. xv AUTHOR’S PREFACE .............................................................................................. xvii ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................... xxiii

PART 1: THE GREAT PROHIBITION DEBATE INTRODUCTION TO PART 1—Understanding Prohibitions ........................... 3 CHAPTER 1—The Aktionsart View of Greek Prohibitions: “Stop doing that.” vs. “Do not start that.” .............................. 7 1.1 A Brief History of the General Aktionsart Verbal Theory ......... 7 1.2 Various Aktionsart Understandings of Greek Prohibitions ...... 14 1.3 Initial Conclusions about Aktionsart on Prohibitions ................. 29 CHAPTER 2—The Failures of the Aktionsart View: Verb Tense-Forms ≠ Kind of Action ...................................... 31 2.1 Contextual Incongruence .................................................................... 35 2.2 Unparallel Synoptic Parallels ............................................................. 43 2.3 Contextual Grammatical Interchanges ............................................ 50 2.4 Conclusion on the Failures of the Aktionsart View .................... 56 CHAPTER 3—Verbal Aspect Theory & Greek Prohibitions: “Do not be doing that.” vs. “Do not do that.” ....................... 59 3.1 A Brief History of General Verbal Aspect Theory ...................... 61 3.2 Various Aspectual Understandings of Greek Prohibitions ....... 74 3.3 Initial Conclusions about Verbal Aspect on Prohibitions ....... 103 CHAPTER 4—The Successes of a Verbal Aspect View: Verb Tense-Forms ≈ Author’s Perspective .......................... 105 4.1 Contextual Congruence ..................................................................... 105 4.2 Unparallel Synoptic Parallels ........................................................... 107 4.3 Contextual Grammatical Interchanges .......................................... 112 4.4 Conclusion on the Success of the Verbal Aspect View ........... 116

viii

PROHIBITIONS IN THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

PART 2: ALL THE PROHIBITIONS IN THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION TO PART 2—Lots of Ways to Say, “Don’t do that.” ...... 123 CHAPTER 5—The Negated Present Tense Prohibitions ............................ 131 5.1 The Negated Present Imperative: “Do not be doing that.” .... 133 5.2 An Assessment of the Negated Present Constructions ........... 171 CHAPTER 6—The Negated Aorist Tense Prohibitions .............................. 173 6.1 The Negated Aorist Subjunctive: “Do not do that.” ................ 175 6.2 The Negated Aorist Imperative: “He must not do that.” ......... 196 6.3 An Assessment of the Negated Aorist Constructions ............. 199 CHAPTER 7—Prohibitions Using Other Negated Verb Constructions ...... 201 7.1 The Negated Future Indicative: “You shall not do that.” ....... 202 7.2 The Negated Hortatory Subjunctive: “Let us not do that.” ... 206 7.3 The Negated Optative: “May it not be!” ...................................... 209 7.4 The Negated Infinitive: “I am telling you not to do that.” .... 212 7.5 The Negated Participle: “... not doing that.” .............................. 229 CHAPTER 8—Prohibitions Using Negated Dependent Clause Constructions .......................................................... 243 8.1 Negated Object Clauses: “... that you not do that.” ................. 243 8.2 Negated Final Clauses:“... in order that you not do that.”..... 259 CHAPTER 9—Lexical Prohibitions: “Refrain from that.” ......................... 283 9.1 Prohibitions Using Lexically Negated Imperative Verbs ....... 285 9.2 Lexically Negated Terms in Other Prohibitory Contexts ......... 294 9.3 Lexical Prohibitions in Indirect Discourse ................................... 303 9.4 Lexical Reports of Prohibitions ....................................................... 308 9.5 Lexically Implied Indirect Discourse Prohibitions .................... 317 CHAPTER 10—Prohibitory Emulation Statements: “We do not do that.” ......................................................... 323 10.1 Negated Statements of Lawfulness or Obligation ................... 324 10.2 Negated Verbs of Will or Desire .................................................. 332 10.3 Other Prohibitory Emulation Statements ................................... 334 10.4 Prohibition Reports Using Negated Verbs of Permission ..... 346 CHAPTER 11—Prohibitory Questions: “Why are you doing that?” ......... 349

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ix

CHAPTER 12—Warnings & Promises as Prohibitions: “Those who do that will be punished.” ............................. 381 12.1 Prohibitory Woes ................................................................................ 382 12.2 Prohibitory Warnings ........................................................................ 391 12.3 Prohibitory Promises ......................................................................... 431 CHAPTER 13—Other Negative Expressions as Prohibitions: “No, don’t!” ....................................................................... 435 13.1 Negatives Dependent upon Earlier Prohibitions ...................... 435 13.2 Miscellaneous Negated Adverbial Phrases ............................... 440 13.3 Miscellaneous Negated Complements ........................................ 448 13.4 Miscellaneous Prohibitory Exclamations ................................... 454 CHAPTER 14—Conclusion: Summary & Prospects .................................. 465 14.1 Summary of Findings ........................................................................ 465 14.2 Prospects for Future Research ........................................................ 467 14.3 A Final Word ....................................................................................... 474 APPENDIX A—Tracing Aktionsart Views of Prohibitions ........................ 475 APPENDIX B—Comparing Verbal Aspect Models .................................... 511 APPENDIX C—Guidelines for Counting NT Prohibitions .......................... 517 APPENDIX D—All the Perfect Imperatives in Biblical Greek .................... 519 BIBLIOGRAPHY .......................................................................................... 525 SCRIPTURE INDEX ..................................................................................... 543 AUTHOR INDEX ......................................................................................... 567

—LIST OF TABLES— 1.1 A TIME-BASED OUTLINE OF THE GREEK TENSE-FORMS, 1848 ............. 8 1.2 THE GREEK TENSE-FORMS BY KIND OF ACTION & TIME, 1740 ............ 9 1.3 THE GREEK TENSE-FORMS BY KIND OF ACTION & TIME, 1852 ........... 11 1.4 THE GREEK TENSE-FORMS BY KIND OF ACTION & TIME, 1902 ........... 13 1.5 THE TYPICAL AKTIONSART OUTLINE OF THE GREEK TENSE-FORMS ..... 14 1.6 THE TRADITIONAL AKTIONSART PROHIBITION DISTINCTION ................ 21 1.7 THE VARIETY OF AKTIONSART PROHIBITION DISTINCTIONS ................. 25 1.8 A SURVEY OF GREEK GRAMMAR STATEMENTS SINCE 1805 ................ 27 2.1 ASSESSING THE CONTEXTS OF NT Μή + PRESENT IMPERATIVE .......... 36 2.2 REASSESSING THE CONTEXTS OF NT Μή + PRESENT IMPERATIVE ...... 37 2.3 AKTIONSART CONTEXTUAL CONGRUENCE FOR NT PRESENT IMPERATIVE PROHIBITIONS .................................................... 38 2.4 AKTIONSART CONTEXTUAL CONGRUENCE FOR NT AORIST SUBJUNCTIVE PROHIBITIONS .................................................... 40 2.5 AKTIONSART CONTEXTUAL CONGRUENCE FOR NT AORIST PROHIBITIONS (SUBJUNCTIVE + IMPERATIVE) ......................... 41 2.6 AKTIONSART CONTEXTUAL CONGRUENCE FOR NT PRESENT & AORIST PROHIBITIONS ........................................................ 42 3.1 THE GREEK TENSE-FORMS IN GENERAL VERBAL ASPECT THEORY .... 69 3.2 BASIC PROHIBITIONS IN GENERAL VERBAL ASPECT THEORY ............. 74 5.0 COUNTING THE PROHIBITIONS OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT ............................................................. 128 5.1 NT PROHIBITIONS USING THE NEGATED PRESENT IMPERATIVE ........ 133 5.2 AKTIONSART CONTEXTUAL CONGRUENCE FOR NT PRESENT IMPERATIVE PROHIBITIONS .................................................. 172

xii


6.1 NT PROHIBITIONS USING THE NEGATED AORIST TENSE .................... 175 6.2 AKTIONSART CONTEXTUAL CONGRUENCE FOR NT AORIST SUBJUNCTIVE PROHIBITIONS .................................................. 199 6.3 AKTIONSART CONTEXTUAL CONGRUENCE FOR NT AORIST IMPERATIVE PROHIBITIONS .................................................... 200 7.0 NT PROHIBITIONS USING OTHER NEGATED VERB CONSTRUCTIONS ........................................................................ 201 7.1 NT PROHIBITIONS USING THE NEGATED FUTURE INDICATIVE .......... 203 7.2 NT PROHIBITIONS USING THE NEGATED HORTATORY SUBJUNCTIVE ................................................................. 208 7.3 NT PROHIBITIONS USING THE NEGATED OPTATIVE ........................... 210 7.4 NT PROHIBITIONS USING THE NEGATED INFINITIVE .......................... 213 7.5 NT PROHIBITIONS USING THE NEGATED PARTICIPLE ......................... 230 8.0 NT PROHIBITIONS USING NEGATED DEPENDENT CLAUSES ............... 243 8.1 NT PROHIBITIONS USING NEGATED OBJECT CLAUSES ....................... 244 8.1.1 NT PROHIBITORY OBJECT CLAUSES WITH VISION VERBS ............... 246 8.1.2 NT PROHIBITIONS IN INDIRECT DISCOURSE ..................................... 252 8.1.3 NT PROHIBITORY OBJECT CLAUSES WITH FEARING VERBS ............ 256 8.2 NT PROHIBITIONS USING NEGATED FINAL CLAUSES ......................... 260 8.2.1 NT PROHIBITIONS USING NEGATED FINAL CLAUSES WITH ἵνα ................................................................. 261 8.2.2 NT PROHIBITIONS USING NEGATED FINAL CLAUSES WITH µήποτε .......................................................... 274 9.0 LEXICAL PROHIBITIONS IN THE NT ..................................................... 285 9.1 NT PROHIBITIONS USING LEXICALLY NEGATED IMPERATIVE VERBS ............................................................. 286 9.2 NT PROHIBITIONS USING OTHER LEXICALLY NEGATED TERMS......... 294 9.3 NT LEXICAL PROHIBITIONS IN INDIRECT DISCOURSE ......................... 303 9.4 NT REPORTS OF PROHIBITIONS ............................................................ 309 10.0 NT PROHIBITORY EMULATION STATEMENTS ................................... 323

TABLE OF CONTENTS

xiii

11.0 NT PROHIBITORY QUESTIONS ........................................................... 349 12.0 NT WARNINGS & PROMISES AS PROHIBITIONS ................................. 382 12.3 WARNINGS & PROMISES: EXHORTATIVE VS. PROHIBITORY ............. 431 13.0 OTHER NEGATIVE EXPRESSIONS AS PROHIBITIONS IN THE NT ......... 435 13.3.1 NT PROHIBITIONS INVOLVING (OR PRESUMING) VERBS OF BEING ............................................................................ 448 13.3.2 NT PROHIBITIONS USING DIRECT COMPLEMENTARY CONSTRUCT ..................................................... 450 13.4 MISCELLANEOUS PROHIBITORY EXCLAMATIONS IN THE NT ............ 456 A.1.7 THE VARIETY OF AKTIONSART PROHIBITION DISTINCTIONS ........... 476 B.1 PORTER’S VERBAL ASPECT MODEL .................................................. 513 B.2 FANNING’S VERBAL ASPECT MODEL ................................................. 514 B.3 OLSEN’S VERBAL ASPECT MODEL ..................................................... 514 B.4 CAMPBELL’S VERBAL ASPECT MODEL .............................................. 515 B.5 HUFFMAN’S VERBAL ASPECT MODEL ................................................ 515

—EDITOR’S PREFACE— Studies in Biblical Greek is an occasional series of monographs designed to promote and publish the latest research into the Greek of both Testaments. The Series does not assume that biblical Greek is a distinct dialect within the larger world of koine: on the contrary, the assumption is that biblical Greek is part and parcel of the Hellenistic Greek that dominated the Mediterranean world from about 300 B.C. to A.D. 300. If the Series focuses on the corpora of the Old and New Testaments, it is because these writings generate major interest around the world, not only for religious but also for historical and academic reasons. Research into the broader evidence of the period, including epigraphical and inscriptional materials as well as literary works, is welcome in the Series, provided the results are cast in terms of their bearing on biblical Greek. In the same way, the Series is devoted to fresh philological, syntactical and linguistic study of the Greek of the biblical books, with the subsidiary aim of displaying the contribution of such to accurate exegesis. The present volume, Verbal Aspect Theory and the Prohibitions in the Greek New Testament, breaks ground on several fronts. Dr Huffman pushes back by about a century the history of an Aktionsart approach to prohibitions. His analysis also demonstrates that Aktionsart theory in prohibitions has never been just one thing: there are three different analyses that claim the rubric. More importantly, in demonstrating the superior explanatory power of aspect theory in analyzing the differences between negated present imperatives and negated aorist subjunctives, Dr Huffman nestles the conversation within a much broader discussion: there are approximately 175 for the former prohibitions in the New Testament, and 89 of the latter, but the total number of prohibitory statements in the New Testament is about 1416. Huffman’s taxonomy will provide a starting place for all future discussion. It is a pleasure to welcome this important work to the SBG series. D. A. Carson Trinity Evangelical Divinity School

—AUTHOR’S PREFACE— At the outset, I have several things to say about this volume that will hopefully anticipate a few questions regarding its origins and approach. A Word about the Origins of this Study The original work on this project began when I was a student in D. A. Carson’s “Advanced Greek Grammar” course at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in the fall term of 1988. Coming into that course as a master’s level student, I already had a love for studying the Greek New Testament, and the course expanded my horizons by exposing me to verbal aspect theory. That 1988 term was just prior to the publication of the important works by Stanley Porter and Buist Fanning, reinvigorating the application of verbal aspect theory to the Greek of the New Testament.1 In fact, since Carson was serving at that time as a reader for Porter’s dissertation work, my fellow classmates and I felt like we were on the cutting edge of Greek language study. In addition to the resurgence of verbal aspect theory as applied to the Greek of the New Testament, in the 1980’s GRAMCORD was in its infancy as a computer application for the study of the New Testament. As part of the course work, Professor Carson required each student to use GRAMCORD to assess a different Greek construction in the New Testament. Thus, I learned to use GRAMCORD before Windows® software made it more user-friendly; rather, I wrote “command files” in DOS code in order to search GRAMCORD’s morphologically tagged Greek New Testament to find all the prohibitions for my contribution to the course. I am grateful for the labors of Paul Miller who brought GRAMCORD to the scholarly world of biblical studies, building upon the grammatical tagging system of James L. Boyer.2 ——— 1

Stanley E. Porter, Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, with Reference to Tense and Mood (Studies in Biblical Greek 1; New York: Lang, 1989; 2nd ed. 1993) = VAG; Buist M. Fanning, Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek (Oxford Theological Monographs; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990) = VANT. 2 Also noteworthy is Boyer’s initial statistical work on various Greek constructions (published in Grace Theological Journal, 1984–88), which was somewhat ground-breaking and impacts our work here. As we move along, our research will be compared to Boyer’s.

xviii


Now the power of GRAMCORD has been enhanced and made accessible to the Apple® world with a product called Accordance. These tools I have used to check, refine, and expand my previous work. We can add here, too, that beyond the more tedious gathering of examples from classical grammars, concordances, and lexicons (how did those scholars do their massive work prior to computers?!), I have occasionally accessed Thesaurus Linguae Graecae—a helpful and ever-growing electronic database of Greek texts dating from the ancient world up to the Byzantine period—to explore prohibition constructions in extra-biblical Greek.3 A Word about the Greek Language in View in this Study This book is aimed at discussing “New Testament Greek,” that is, the Greek of the New Testament, which was written in the first century A.D. This language study is, in turn, set in the broader literary environment of what some call “biblical Greek.” “Biblical Greek” is so named because the Hebrew Bible—the Old Testament Scriptures—was translated into Greek about 250–300 years B.C., called the Septuagint (abbreviated LXX).4 Thus, after the New Testament documents were collected, the entire Bible could be ——— 3

See particularly the grammars in the bibliography by P. Buttmann, W. W. Goodwin, L. Radermacher, A. T. Robertson, H. W. Smyth, J. M. Stahl, F. E. Thompson, J. Thompson, among works like those by E. A. Sophocles. Thesaurus Linguae Graecae is based at the University of California–Irvine and has made the current database available on CDs for searching virtually all extant ancient Greek texts from Homer (8th century B.C.) to A.D. 600 and a large number of texts deriving from the period between A.D. 600 and 1453. This amounts to more than 80 million words of literature. For more information, go to the Web page for Thesaurus Linguae Graecae (a.k.a. TLG) at http:// stephanus.tlg.uci.edu/canon/fontsel. 4 For a brief and yet thorough introduction to the Septuagint, see Stanley E. Porter, “Septuagint/Greek Old Testament,” in DNTB (2000), 1099–106. The classic book-length introduction to the Septuagint is Henry Barclay Swete, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek: With an Appendix Containing the Letter of Aristeas (rev. Richard Rusden Ottley; ed. Henry St. John Thackeray; reprinted in the Cambridge Library Collection–Religion; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010 [1st ed., 1900]); see also Henry St. John Thackeray, A Grammar of the Old Testament in Greek According to the Septuagint, Vol. 1: Introduction, Orthography and Accidence. Cambridge: University Press, 1909. For updated introductions to the Septuagint see the works of Karen H. Jobes and Moisés Silva, Invitation to the Septuagint (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000); Natalio Fernandez Marcos, The Septuagint in Context: Introduction to the Greek Version of the Bible (trans. Wilfred G. E. Watson; Leiden: Brill, 2000); and Jennifer M. Dines, The Septuagint (Understanding the Bible and Its World; London: T&T Clark, 2004). See also the project conducted by the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies (IOSCS) and their “NETS” product: A New English Translation of the Septuagint (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007).

AUTHOR’S PREFACE

xix

read in Greek. This does not imply that “biblical Greek” is to be considered as its own dialect of the Greek language. Rather, it should be understood in the broader cultural environment of “Hellenistic Greek,” the Greek language that Alexander the Great made the lingua franca of the world beginning in about 300 B.C. and that remained internationally significant even into the Roman era (particularly in the eastern part of Roman empire) when Latin began to gain international influence.5 In discussing the Greek language, it is sometimes possible to forget that Greek, like all other human languages, has a tendency to undergo changes over time. The various forms of the language can be labeled according to their time periods with such descriptions (and approximate dates) as Linear B (1500–1200 B.C.), Archaic (800–500 B.C.), Classical (500–330 B.C.), Postclassical (330 B.C.–A.D. 330), Medieval (A.D. 330–1453), and Modern (A.D. 1453–present). Some scholars use more culturally related labels roughly corresponding to the time periods just mentioned: Mycenaean, Epic, Attic, Hellenistic, Byzantine, and Neohellenic. Some use labels given to various dialects and/or dialectic stages of the language: e.g., Achaic, Attic, Ionic, Doric, Æolic, Koine, and Demotic. Finally, some are more concerned with particular authorial corpi: e.g., Homeric Greek, Platonic Greek, poetic Greek, and biblical Greek. Our use of “biblical Greek” is in this authorial corpus sense, all the while acknowledging that the New Testament falls into the post-classical, Hellenistic time period of koine Greek. Recognition of the evolution of the Greek language leads us to refer to scholarship on classical Greek grammar because of its impact on scholarship regarding biblical Greek.6 The focus here is not to discuss the differences between various periods of the Greek language nor to reconstruct in great detail how certain constructions came to be used in Greek over time. The ——— 5 On biblical Greek, see Adolf Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East: The New Testament Illustrated by Recently Discovered Texts of the Graeco-Roman World (trans. Lionel R. M. Strachan; 4th ed.; London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1927 [1st ed., 1908]) and the classic essays collected together in Stanley E. Porter, ed. The Language of the New Testament: Classic Essays (JSNTSup 60; Sheffield, England: JSOT Press, 1991). 6 We appreciate the warning of James Swetnam, who qualifies his own observations of the NT Greek verbal system by realizing that “at the time of the New Testament the Greek language had a long history of change and development. The interpretation which searches for general patterns should always be ready to take into account the factor of unique phenomena. … there is no guarantee that the New Testament authors all used the Greek verbal system in exactly the same way”; James Swetnam, An Introduction to the Study of New Testament Greek, Part One: Morphology (2 vols.; 2nd ed.; Subsidia Biblica 16; Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1998), 1:463.

xx


focus is on the prohibition constructions as they stand in the biblical Greek of the New Testament.7 A Word about Secondary Literature Citations in this Study I have tried for some consistency in quoting old grammar and syntax texts. What the authors have emphasized in their texts, I have kept so emphasized by their methods (italics or bold or underline). Where they insert footnotes or parenthetical references to other sections of their own works (e.g. “§123”), however, I have removed such items without notation for more smooth flowing quotation. The same goes for outline letters and numbers, if the inclusion of them is disruptive for our purposes here. Naturally, if their ——— 7

Regarding the development of the Greek language over time, some of the more technical grammatical works often have brief treatments of the language’s progression: e.g., BDF 1–6; MHT 1:1–41; DM 1–15; and ATR 1–139. For brief and readable introductions, see also Stanley E. Porter, “Greek of the New Testament,” in DNTB (2000), 426–35; idem, “The Greek Language of the New Testament,” in Handbook to Exegesis of the New Testament, ed. Stanley E. Porter (NTTS 25; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 99–130; and Murray J. Harris, Prepositions and Theology in the Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012), 25–26. For more thorough investigations of the history of the Greek language, we recommend Antonius N. Jannaris, An Historical Greek Grammar: Chiefly of the Attic Dialect as Written and Spoken from Classical Antiquity Down to Present Time: Founded upon the Ancient Texts, Inscriptions, Papyri and Present Popular Greek (London: Macmillan, 1897; reprint, Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1987); Carl Darling Buck, The Greek Dialects: Grammar, Selected Inscriptions, Glossary (rev. ed.; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1955); Procope S. Costas, An Outline of the History of the Greek Language: With Particular Emphasis on the Koine and the Subsequent Periods (Chicago: Ukrainian Society of Sciences of America, 1936; reprint, Chicago: Ares, 1979); Leonard Robert Palmer, The Greek Language (The Great Languages; Atlantic Highlands, N.J.: Humanities Press, 1980); Geoffrey C. Horrocks, Greek: A History of the Language and Its Speakers. 2nd ed. Malden, Mass.: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010); Chrys C. Caragounis, The Development of Greek and the New Testament: Morphology, Syntax, Phonology, and Textual Transmission (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006); Pascale Hummel, De Lingua Graeca: Histoire de L’histoire de la Langue Grecque (Bern: Lang, 2007); and the massive tome edited by Anastassios-Fivos Christidis, A History of Ancient Greek: From the Beginnings to Late Antiquity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007 [original in Greek, 2001]). For specific elements of language development more closely related to our subject here, see such works as B. Forssman, “Der Imperativ im Urindogermanischen Verbalsystem,” in Grammatische Kategorien: Funktion und Geschichte (ed. B. Schlerath; Wiesbaden: Reichert, 1985), 181–97; K. Strunk, “Zur Diachronischen Morphosyntax des Konjunktivs,” in In the Footsteps of Raphael Kühner: Proceedings of the International Colloquium in Commemoration of the 150th Anniversary of the Publication of Raphael Kühner’s Ausführlihe Grammatik der Griechischen Sprache, II. Theil: Syntaxe (ed. Albert Rijksbaron et al.; Amsterdam: J. C. Gieben, 1988), 291–312; and Laurence Stephens, “The Origins of a Homeric Peculiarity: µή Plus the Aorist Imperative,” TAPA 113 (1983): 69–78.

AUTHOR’S PREFACE

xxi

notes are more than section references but inconsequential to the reason for my citing the quotation, I generally use ellipses (…) as expected. Most writers have used accents with their Greek citations, but some have not; when including their examples of Greek text, I simply cite the scholars as they have written. Likewise, I try to keep to their use of capitalization: some authors capitalize the tenses and moods while others do not. I also try to keep to their vocabulary and spelling. For example, some of the old grammars refer to the subjunctive mood as the “conjunctive” and/or the “primary conjunctive”; some prefer the term “mode” instead of “mood.” All in all, however, I aim for this book to be understood by those who have already mastered an understanding of Greek achieved at the second-yearlevel of study; thus, I only rarely provide editorial glosses in brackets [ ] where I deem such to be helpful. A Word of Gratitude for Help with this Study Many people have been helpful to me in the production of this volume. I revived this twenty-five-year-old project during a sabbatical from my teaching and administrative duties at University of Northwestern—St. Paul, Minnesota, and I am grateful for the support of my institution and my colleagues there. A good piece of the work on this project was performed at Tyndale House in Cambridge, England, and I am grateful to them for their kind hospitality and willing service in support of biblical research. I have now completed the work while a new faculty member at the Talbot School of Theology at Biola University in La Mirada, California, and I am freshly grateful for the support and encouragement of my new colleagues. My gratitude extends to five student workers who helped me with some of the tedious tasks in this project: Catherine J. Rivard, Lance M. Kramer, and David D. Danielson II at University of Northwestern—St. Paul, and Isaac D. Blois and Jamie N. Hausherr at the Talbot School of Theology of Biola University. At Peter Lang Publishing, executive editor Heidi Burns and production supervisor Jackie Pavlovic have merited grateful kudos for their extreme patience with multiple delays in this project. Of course, I owe gratitude to D. A. Carson, who saw this project at its very beginning days and now at its culmination these twenty-five years later has accepted it into the Studies in Biblical Greek series that he has edited for almost that entire length of time. In all of this, for my wife Deb’s partnership in life and her enduring support during the years of labor over grammatical minutae, I am inadequately grateful. And finally, for the pleasures of wrestling with understanding the Bible better, I may not yet be satisfied, but I am grateful to our Lord Jesus Christ.

xxii


A Word about the Positive Purpose of this Study At one point in contemplating various titles for this publication, I considered the possibility of using the rather negative but simple phrase “Don’t Do That!” as the main title (and using as a subtitle what has turned out to be the book’s main title).8 “Don’t Do That!” would be constructed with the Greek aorist subjunctive as “µὴ ποιήσῃς.” This construction actually occurs in the Greek New Testament as a variant reading at Rev 19:10 and again at Rev 22:9.9 In the contexts of both these passages, the writer John has fallen down to worship before an angel and the angel instructs him not to do so: “See that you don’t do that; I am a fellow servant with you and your brethren” (ὅρα µή· σύνδουλός σού εἰµι καὶ τῶν ἀδελφῶν σου). The “brethren” in these two passages are described as those “who hold the testimony of Jesus” (τῶν ἐχόντων τὴν µαρτυρίαν Ἰησοῦ; Rev 19:10) and as “the prophets” (τῶν προφητῶν; Rev 22:9), and in the latter passage the group is expanded to include “those who keep the words of this book” (καὶ τῶν τηρούντων τοὺς λόγους τοῦ βιβλίου τούτου; Rev 22:9). In both passages the angel instructs John, “Worship God” (τῷ θεῷ προσκύνησον). While the “this book” of Rev 22:9 quoted above is about Scripture, this book—i.e., the book in your hands—will certainly not measure up to the accuracy of Scripture. Its errors are mine, and I will gladly receive corrections. While a technical work for scholars and students of NT Greek, my prayer is that it would nevertheless somehow benefit the broader group of those who hold to the testimony of Jesus and that it would thus eventually impact our worship of God. Yes, that’s right, even though the book is about negative commands, my prayer is that it will have positive effects. Soli Deo gloria Talbot School of Theology at Biola University La Mirada, California

Douglas S. Huffman August 2013

——— 8 The publisher and series editor, however, have wisely suggested that I drop this idea and that I employ as the book’s main title what I had proposed as the (more positive and informative) subtitle. This advice I have eagerly followed. 9

Cf. in LXX Gen 22:12; Jer 47:16; Sir 8:16, 18; 33:30. The accepted readings of the critical texts at both Rev 19:10 and 22:9 lack the verb ποιήσῃς (“do”) and have merely the negative µή (“not”) as the object of the present impv. ὅρα (“see to it”); see in section 8.1.1 of Chapter 8. If I had followed this as a model for the title of this book, it would be “See to It that You Don’t!” or more simply—and more harshly—“Don’t!” See also section 13.4 of Chapter 13 for other prohibitory exclamations in the NT.

—ABBREVIATIONS— Unless otherwise noted here, this volume uses the standard abbreviations outlined in Patrick H. Alexander et al., The SBL Handbook of Style: For Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical, and Early Christian Studies (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1999). When referring to published sources, the listing below uses shortened titles and provides the publication years; see the bibliography for full bibliographic entries. Bibliographic Abbreviations: ANRW

Temporini & Haase, Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt (1972–)

ATR

Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek NT in the Light of Historical Research (1914)

BAGD

Bauer, Ardnt, Gingich & Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the NT (1979)

BDAG

Bauer, Danker, Ardnt & Gingich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the NT (2000)

BDF

Blass, Debrunner & Funk, Greek Grammar of the NT (1961)

DM

Dana & Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek NT (1955)

DNTB

Evans & Porter, Dictionary of NT Backgrounds (2000)

EDNT

Balz & Schneider, Exegetical Dictionary of the NT (1990–93)

GGBB

Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (1996)

LN

Louw & Nida, Greek–English Lexicon of the NT: Based on Semantic Domains (1988)

MHT

Moulton, Howard & Turner, Grammar of NT Greek (1908–76)

TDNT

Kittel & Friedrich, Theological Dictionary of the NT (1964–74)

VAG

Porter, Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the NT (2nd ed., 1993)

VANT

Fanning, Verbal Aspect in NT Greek (1990)

xxiv


Bible Texts and Versions: ESV

English Standard Version (2001)

HCSB

Holman Christian Standard Bible (2003)

LXX

Septuagint, à la Rahlfs, ed., Septuaginta (2 vols. in 1, 1979)

MT

Masoretic Text, à la Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (4th ed., 1997)

NA27 / 28

Nestle–Aland, Novum Testamentum Graece (27th ed., 1993; 28th ed., 2012)

NASB

New American Standard Bible (1995)

NIV

New International Version (1984 and 2011)

NKJV

New King James Version (1982)

NLT

New Living Translation (1996)

NRSV

New Revised Standard Version (1989)

SBLGNT

Holmes, The Greek NT: SBL Edition (2010)

UBS4

Aland, et al., The Greek NT (4th ed.; United Bible Societies, 2001)

Other Terms: acc.

accusative

GS

act.

active

adj.

O

Offers no distinction

impf. imperfect

OT

Old Testament

adjective(-al)

impv. imperative(-al)

pass. passive

adv.

adverb(ial)

ind.

indicative

per.

person(al)

aor.

aorist

inf.

infinitive

pf.

perfect

art.

articular

masc. masculine

pl.

plural

CI

Cessative—Ingressive

mid.

middle

plup. pluperfect

dat.

dative

MX

Mixed

pres. present

dep.

deponent

neut. neuter

ptc.

participle

DP

Durative—Punctiliar

nom. nominative

sg.

single

fem.

feminine

NT

New Testament

subj. subjunctive

fut.

future

obj.

object(ive)

VA

Verbal Aspect

gen.

genitive

opt.

optative

voc.

vocative

General—Specific

PART 1: THE GREAT PROHIBITION DEBATE

—INTRODUCTION TO PART 1— Understanding Prohibitions Prohibitions are a primary form of human interaction in both spoken and written communication. In fact, for many children, the repeated use of the single-word prohibition “No!” results in that term becoming their first spoken vocabulary word. As children grow, prohibitions become more complex in grammatical formulations and more nuanced in intensity as well. Prohibitions are part of everyday life for adults, too. Even our faith practices are not devoid of negative commands, and this is with good precedence: eight of the Ten Commandments written by God himself are expressed as prohibitions (see Exod 20:1–17 and Deut 5:6–21).1 So we take up here an investigation of prohibitions, and for reasons of space and time constraints, we are limiting the investigation to the Scriptures of the New Testament. There are several ways to think about and examine the prohibitions in the New Testament. One way is to consider them in their literary contexts. This would result in two categories. Ethical prohibitions are those that readers should consider incorporating into their own lifestyles, such as Paul’s instruction in Rom 12:21, “Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.” Narrative prohibitions are those found in historical accounts that may have no immediate ethical bearing on lives of the readers. For example, the demoniac’s request of Jesus, “Do not torment me,” in Luke 8:28 is reported as directed to Jesus and not to the readers of Luke’s Gospel. Appreciating the differences between the “context of situation” from the “co-text” of a given prohibition (i.e., the storyline’s historical environment for a prohibition vs. the surrounding words used by the author to frame the prohibition in his particular cultural setting), allows us to combine the above categories to form two more categories, which are perhaps subsets of the first two.2 Ethical prohibitions in narrative contexts are those given in historical ——— 1 The LXX translation of the Ten Commandments and the NT citations of its prohibitions use negated future tense verbs: “You will not....” See more on this in section 7.1 of Chapter 7. 2 On “context of situation” vs. “co-text,” see John Cunnison Catford, A Linguistic Theory of Translation: An Essay in Applied Linguistics (Language Arts & Disciplines; New York:

4


accounts but that have on-going ethical implications. For example, Jesus’ ethical instruction about following false messiahs in the narrative context of Luke 17:23, “Do not go and do not follow,” was clearly applicable to Jesus’ first listeners in the narrative, but it is still ethically applicable to any follower of Jesus reading Luke today. The second subset is similar and can be labeled conversely, narrative prohibitions in didactic contexts. For example, Paul’s narrative instructions about Timothy in the didactic context of 1 Cor 16:10– 11, “No one should refuse to accept him,” are hardly applicable to modern readers of Paul. Despite the complexity of these subsets, they are simply combinations of the two main categories with one type of prohibition found in the context of the other kind of literature.3 While unable to extricate itself completely from the concerns of literary contexts and the content of the NT prohibitions, such concerns are nonetheless, not the primary interest of this volume. Rather, this volume examines the NT prohibitions in their grammatical-syntactical and semantic contexts. Closer to our concerns here, and cutting across the categories mentioned above, is another two-fold taxonomy for prohibitions. Direct prohibitions are statements that actually make a negative command, whether in narrative or in didactic settings. So by this reckoning, the prohibitory remarks in all four passages quoted above are direct. On the other hand, indirect prohibitions are statements that report negative commands having been made or that otherwise indicate prohibitions. Indirect prohibitions can also occur in narrative literature (e.g., “… we threatened them not to speak again in this name to anyone,” Acts 4:17) or in didactic literature (e.g., “And it is not fitting for the Lord’s servant to quarrel but to be gentle with all,” 2 Tim. 2:24).4

Oxford University Press, 1965), 31; more recently, Michael A. K. Halliday and Ruqaiya Hasan, Language, Context, and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-Semiotic Perspective (Language Education Series; New York: Oxford University Press, 1989). 3

And we quickly add here that this can make for some hermeneutical complexity and debate. A major case in point for the historic Christian church concerns 1 Tim 2:11–15 and the question (among other issues) of whether Paul’s prohibition regarding women leadership in the local church is merely a narrative command for the first-century church of Ephesus or an ongoing ethical command for all churches of all times. 4

In Kenneth L. McKay, A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek: An Aspectual Approach (Studies in Biblical Greek 5; New York: Lang, 1994), Chapter 9 addresses “Commands and Exhortations” and Chapter 14 addresses “Indirect Commands and Wishes.” A century earlier Robert West Taylor spoke of “direct” and “oblique” prohibitions in, A Short Greek Syntax: Extracted from ‘Xenophon’s Anabasis, with Notes’ (London: Rivingtons, [1878]), 14 (§62).

INTRODUCTION TO PART 1

5

So in this volume we are asking not “What is prohibited?”, but “How are prohibitions expressed?” Asking this latter question produces about fifteen different categories—although admittedly there is some category overlap, with a single complex prohibition falling into more than one category.5 Part 2 of this volume attempts an exhaustive survey of the NT prohibitions in their various grammatical-syntactical, lexical, and pragmatic constructions. Of the various ways a NT author could construct a prohibition, two of the most used grammatical categories—those in the negated present tense (imperative mood) and those in the negated aorist tense (subjunctive mood)—have traditionally been defined and interpreted in counterdistinction to one another. As has been observed, “Since imperatives in general refer to the future, it is clear that the mere sequence of time—past, present, and future—cannot account for the Greek use of two tenses.”6 So, then, what is the difference? The primary purpose of Part 1 of this volume is to examine the traditional distinction between these two constructions in the light of verbal aspect theory. The main thesis is that a verbal aspect understanding of these NT prohibition constructions can, in fact, refine and replace the traditional understanding. This, then, is “the Great Prohibition Debate.” Put more plainly, the two primary grammatical constructions of prohibitions in the Greek New Testament have often been thought to correspond exactly with two modern English grammaticalizations of prohibitions. On the one hand, the negated aorist subjunctive construction is equated with the broad command not to do something and/or, more specifically, not to start something (e.g., “Don’t [begin to] steal”). On the other hand, the negated present imperative construction is equated with the command to cease from doing something that is already underway (e.g., “Stop stealing”). The native English speaker hears immediately the difference between “Don’t [begin to] steal,” and “Stop stealing,” and it has been presumed that the first-century reader of the Greek New Testament would hear immediately the same difference between µὴ κλέψῃς (aor. subj.) and µὴ κλεπτέτω (pres. impv.).7 ——— 5

And, of course, most of the categories have identifiable subcategories, and some of the portions of the taxonomy may well be considered arguable. 6

Levi Arnold Post, “Dramatic Uses of the Greek Imperative,” American Journal of Philology 59.1 (1938): 31. Note: µὴ κλέψῃς (aor. subj.) is found in Mark 10:19 and Luke 18:20, but µὴ κλεπτέτω (pres. impv.) is not exhibited in the Greek NT. Nevertheless, Eph 4:28 has µηκέτι κλεπτέτω, where the occurrence of µηκέτι (“no longer”) rather than simply µή (“not”) helps render the command with the sense of ceasing something that has already begun. But µηκέτι is not the usual negative used with prohibitions constructed with the present impv. 7

6


Our question here is whether this traditional Aktionsart (“kind of action”) understanding best accounts for the distinction between these two prohibition constructions, and if this distinction was at work for first-century readers. Part 1 seeks to address these matters. Chapters 1 and 2 will (respectively) address the definition and history of the traditional Aktionsart view of Greek prohibitions and then offer a survey of the essential failings of that view. Chapters 3 and 4 will (respectively) address the definition and history of verbal aspect theory and then offer an argument for the essential success of a verbal aspect model in accounting for the Greek New Testament use of these two constructions for prohibitions.

—CHAPTER 1— The Aktionsart View of Greek Prohibitions: “Stop doing that.” vs. “Do not start that.” With regard to prohibitions, a survey of available Greek grammar textbooks demonstrates a continued dependence upon (and/or presumption of) a particular view of the meanings of the verbal tense-forms (i.e., the patterns of spelling used for different tenses of the verbs). The negated present imperative is understood as a command to “stop an action already in progress,” and the negated aorist subjunctive is understood as a command “not to begin an action.” This traditional distinction between the two most commonly discussed Greek prohibition constructions is associated with an Aktionsart (“kind of action”) view of the meanings of the verb tense-forms in Greek. An explanation of general Aktionsart verbal theory will be helpful to our assessment of how this traditional theory understands NT Greek prohibitions. 1.1 A Brief History of General Aktionsart Verbal Theory The dominant view of NT Greek grammar in the nineteenth century is that the verbal tense-forms were connected to time.1 On the face of it, this view of the verb makes sense. John Donaldson explains, “As every verb has reference to action, and all action must take place in time, whatever is predicated by a verb is a predication of tense.” He continues, “A predication of tense has reference either to the time of speaking, or to some other point of time which must be defined. In the former case the tense is called definite or determinate; in the latter, indefinite or indeterminate.” Donaldson then 2 outlines the six Greek tenses as shown in Table 1.1. ——— 1 D. A. Carson, “An Introduction to the Porter/Fanning Debate,” in Biblical Greek Language and Linguistics: Open Questions in Current Research (ed. Stanley E. Porter and D. A. Carson; JSNTSup 80, SNTG 1; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), 18. 2 John William Donaldson, A Complete Greek Grammar for the Use of Learners (London: John W. Parker, 1848), 177–78 (§§429–32); cf. p. 404 (§422) in the 3rd ed. (Cambridge, [Eng.]: Deighton & Bell, 1862).

8

PROHIBITIONS IN THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT A TIME-BASED OUTLINE OF THE GREEK TENSE-FORMS, 1848 (à la John Donaldson) Definite tenses relate to the time of speaking: The present expresses simultaneity. The future expresses posteriority. The perfect expresses anteriority. Indefinite tenses relate to some time specially defined: The imperfect expresses simultaneity. The aorist expresses posteriority. The pluperfect expresses anteriority.

Table 1.1 The use of the English term “tense” as a label for the verb form spelling patterns implies that the time of the action is indeed connected to the spelling used for it. But so many exceptions to this assumption were demonstrable in the text of the Greek New Testament and extra-biblical Greek texts that some other rationale for the use of one tense-form over another was sought. This led to the development of a model that found more action than time in the tense-forms. Eventually this action factor became known as Aktionsart. The use of the German term Aktionsart for the action-oriented way to understand Greek verbs is said to have been introduced specifically to NT Greek studies in 1906 by James Hope Moulton in the first edition of the first volume of his multi-volume reference grammar.3 As Kenneth L. McKay describes it (in 1972), “When J. H. Moulton first wrote the Prolegomena to his Grammar of the New Testament Greek nearly seventy years ago he introduced as something new, which had not yet found its way into the grammars, the concept called by German philologists Aktionsart.”4 It appears that the preeminent German philologist Karl Brugmann, should be credited with formulating the term Aktionsart in his 1885 classic Greek grammar some twenty years before.5 But the earlier Georg Curtius is often recognized ——— 3

MHT 1:108–119 (page numbers are for the 1908 3rd ed.).

4

Kenneth L. McKay, “Syntax in Exegesis,” TynBul 23 (1972): 44.

5

Karl Brugmann, Griechische Grammatik: Lautlehre, Stammbildungs- und Flexionslehre, Syntax (Munich: C. H. Beck, 1885), which, according to Porter, influenced Moulton’s approach in his Prolegomena volume; Stanley E. Porter, “Greek Grammar and Syntax,” in The Face of New Testament Studies: A Survey of Recent Research (ed. Scot McKnight and Grant R. Osborne; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004), 81. See the discussion in Brugmann’s much expanded 4th ed. (ed. Albert Thumb; Munich: C. H. Beck, 1913), 538–70 (§§537–59).

CHAPTER 1—THE AKTIONSART VIEW OF GREEK PROHIBITIONS

9

as the real instigator of using an action-oriented paradigm for understanding the Greek verbal system. In 1852 Curtius began distinguishing between the Zeitstufe (the temporal component) and the Zeitart (lit. “kind of time” ≈ kind of action in time) for the various verb tense-forms.6 Curtius’ awkward Zeitart term never caught on and was soon replaced by Brugmann’s Aktionsart term. Nevertheless, the Aktionsart view of the Greek tenses is evidenced more than 100 years prior to Curtius in the early-eighteenth-century Greek grammar textbook by British scholar John Milner. In the first edition of the book (1734), Milner seems more devoted to the old time-based view of the tenses. He comments specifically on the standard three divisions of time—past, present, and future—and suggests simply that the variety of Greek verb forms outnumber these “three primary distinctions of time, to give itself a more pleasing variety, beauty and strength in expressing its thoughts.”7 But very quickly, in the second edition of his text (1740), apparently discontent with a simple time-based model, Milner connects “kind of action” as well as “kind of time” with particular verb tense-forms and offers a new and more robust explanation of the Greek verbal system.8 His new model identifies and THE GREEK TENSE-FORMS BY KIND OF ACTION & TIME, 1740 (à la John Milner) Kinds of Time–Action: Explanation Present–Imperfect: Past (Preter)–Imperfect: Future–Imperfect: Present–Perfect: Past (Preter)–Perfect: Future–Perfect:

What I am doing now but not finished. What I was doing then and was not finished. What I will be doing but not be finished. What I have been doing and am now finished. What I was doing and had finished. What I will have been doing and will have finished.

Table 1.2 ——— 6 Georg Curtius, The Student’s Greek Grammar: A Grammar of the Greek Language (2nd ed.; trans. William Smith; London: John Murray, 1867 [German original, 1852]), 273–83 (§§484–506); cf. idem, Elucidations of the Student’s Greek Grammar (2nd ed.; trans. E. Abbott; London: John Murray, 1875 [1st ed., 1870; German original, 1863]), 203–12. See the beginnings of his thinking in idem, Die Bildung der Tempora und Modi im Griechischen und Lateinischen sprachvergleichend dargestellt (Berlin: Wilhelm Besser, 1846), 148–52; and later in idem, The Greek Verb: Its Structure and Development (trans. Augustus S. Wilkins and Edwin B. England; London: John Murray, 1880 [German original, 1873–76]). 7 8

John Milner, A Practical Grammar of the Greek Tongue (London: John Gray, 1734), 48.

John Milner, A Practical Grammar of the Greek Tongue (2nd ed.; London: John Noon, 1740), 52–53.

10


labels two kinds of action as being connected with the tense-forms: “perfect” actions are finished, and “imperfect” actions are unfinished. These two kinds of action Milner relates to the standard three kinds of time in a listing of six Greek verb tense-forms as shown in Table 1.2. The beginnings of Aktionsart thinking seen in the writing of Milner are evidenced by other scholars like August Heinrich Matthiæ (1807),9 Philipp Karl Buttmann (1810),10 and Thomas Foster Barham (1829).11 But such early efforts as these are eclipsed in the last half of the nineteenth century with many clearer explanations of the Greek verb system in terms of kind of action. As mentioned above, in the 1850’s Curtius identifies the interaction of three “orders of time” (Zeitstufe) with three “kinds of [action in] time” (Zeitart) and assigns specific tense-forms to the kinds of action: An action going on is indicated by the forms of the Present-Stem. A momentary action is indicated by the forms of the Aorist-Stems. A completed action is indicated by the forms of the Perfect-Stem.

Curtius suggests diagrams (but gives only verbal descriptions and not actual drawings) for the kinds of action: a line for the ongoing action of the present stem forms, a point for the momentary action of the aorist stem forms, and a plane for the completed action of the perfect stem form. Furthermore, Curtius draws up a chart to represent this interplay of time and action in the ——— 9 August Heinrich Matthiæ, Ausführliche Griechische Grammatik (Leipzig: Crusius, 1835), 698 (§501), where without using the term Aktionsart he gives something of what would become the typical “continuous or often repeated” vs. “transient or completeness” distinction between the present and aorist tenses. 10

Philipp Karl Buttmann, Greek Grammar: For the Use of High Schools and Universities [a.k.a. Intermediate or Larger Greek Grammar] (2nd ed.; trans. Edward Robinson; New York: Gould, Newman & Sazton, 1839 [1st ed., 1833, trans. of the 6th German ed., 1811; original, 1792]), 380: “… the Greek language avails itself in such a manner, that it employs the Moods of the Present to mark a continued action, and the Moods of the Aorist to mark a momentary one.” This statement appears in the 5th ed. (1810): “… die griechlische Sprache dahin benuzt, das sie sich der Modi des Präsens hauptsächlich bedient, um eine dauernde, der Modi des Aorists, um eine momentane Handlung zu bezeichnen” (p. 489 [§124]). 11 Thomas Foster Barham, An Introduction to Greek Grammar on a New Plan: For the Use of Schools and Private Students (London: Arthur Taylor, 1829), 122–23: “In general, to assist in distinguishing between the aorist and present, it may be observed that the former will be required whenever the scope of the discourse embraces the accomplishment of the action, or whenever the action is contemplated as past or accomplished in relation to that with which the context most nearly connects it; while the present, on the contrary, always represents the action as still continuing or imperfect.”


11

Greek tenses, specifying the indicative mood particularly for the present tense-form; see Table 1.3.12 THE GREEK TENSE-FORMS BY KIND OF ACTION & TIME, 1852 (à la Georg Curtius) ZEITART: \ ZEITSTUFE: Ongoing Action Momentary Action Completed Action

PAST Imperfect Aorist Pluperfect

PRESENT Present

FUTURE Future

Perfect

Table 1.3 Another nineteenth-century example of an action orientation to the Greek tense-forms found prior to Brugmann’s 1885 introduction of the Aktionsart label is in the work of Robert West Taylor. In his 1878 textbook Taylor plainly identifies particular kinds of action with particular Greek tense-forms. The Present Tense-Stem denotes continuous or repeated action. Hence the Present and Imperfect tenses of the Indicative are used when an action is or was going on, or incomplete, or habitual…. The Aorist-Stem denotes the simple action of the verb. In the Indicative mood it is only used of definite actions in past time…. The Perfect-stem denotes the completed action, or, more strictly, the state resulting from the completed action…. 13 The Future implies not only future time, but also purpose and intention.

——— 12

Curtius, The Student’s Greek Grammar, 274; we have somewhat simplified Curtius’ more complex chart. Maurice Hime takes an Aktionsart approach that suspiciously uses much the same language as the 1867 English translation of Curtius, including “order of time” vs. “kind of time” and the descriptions of the three kinds of time: “An action going on is indicated by the forms of the Present Stem, a momentary action by the forms of the Aorist Stems (ἀόριστος, unlimited), and a completed action by the forms of the Perfect Stem”; Maurice Charles Hime, An Introduction to the Greek Language: Comprising Accidence and Syntax; Exercises and Vocabularies (London: Simpkin, Marshall, Hamilton & Kent, 1891), 229–30. See a similar early charting of the tense-forms (without the label “kinds of action”) in Edward Dillon Mansfield, A Primer of Greek Grammar: Syntax (London: Rivingtons, 1880), 18 (§67); cf. the discussion on pp. 18–21 (§§66–75). See also the Zeitart–Zeitstufe chart of Johann Matthias Stahl in his Kritisch-historische Syntax des Griechischen Verbums der Kalssischen Zeit (Indogermanische Bibliothek, Erste Abteilung: Sammlung Indogermanischer Lehr-und Handbücher, I. Reihe: Grammatiken, 4; Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1907), 86–87; cf. Stahl’s explicit preference for the term Zeitart over against Aktionsart (pp. 74–79). 13

Taylor, A Short Greek Syntax, 7 (§§32, 33, 34, 35).

12


In 1883, just two years before Brugmann’s use of the label Aktionsart for the significance of the Greek tense-forms, Francis Edward Thompson asserts that both time and kind of action are likewise bound up in the verb tenseforms. On the one hand, he identifies particular tense-forms for each of three particular “order of time” roles in the indicative mood: past (imperfect, aorist, pluperfect), present (present, perfect), and future (future, future perfect). On the other hand, he identifies particular tense-forms for each of three “kinds of act” as well: continued (present, imperfect), finished (perfect, pluperfect), and indefinite or single (aorist strong and weak). Nevertheless, he specifies kind of action as the more important category. “The distinction between the Kinds of Act is observed throughout all the Moods, and is therefore a more universal and abiding distinction than that of Time.”14 Such caveats about time represented only in the indicative mood become common place in Aktionsart views and it remains a matter of discussion and debate. At the turn of the nineteenth into the twentieth century, the Aktionsart understanding of the general Greek verbal system was solidified—even before Moulton’s 1906 reference grammar introduced the German label for it specifically to those interested particularly in NT Greek. So John Thompson remarks, “The Tenses originally showed only the Kind of Action, and this remains in all the Moods; the use of the Tenses to show the Time or Order of Action was a later development, and applies only to the Indicative Mood. The Tenses of the Imperative, Subjunctive and Optative therefore distinguish only the Kind and not the Time of Action.”15 Thompson clearly assigns kind of action to the Greek verb tense stems and gives greater nuance than many of his predecessors to the action-oriented descriptions of the various tenseforms. He references three different kinds of action as shown in Table 1.4.16 ——— 14

Francis Edward Thompson, A Syntax of Attic Greek, rev. ed. (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1907 [1st ed., 1883]), 138–41, the quote is from p. 141 in the 1883 edition. See also Francis Edward Thompson, An Elementary Greek Syntax (3rd ed.; London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1892 [1st ed., 1885]), 24–33 (§§83–103); here he similarly specifies that “the State or Duration of the Action is denoted by the Tenses in all the Moods, because this distinction is indicated by the Tense-stem” (p. 25 [§85]). 15

John Thompson, A Greek Grammar: Accidence and Syntax for Schools and Colleges (London: John Murray, 1902), 312 (§227). 16

Ibid, 314 (§229). The words incorporated into this chart are Thompson’s own; some scholars also include the words “punctiliar,” “momentary,” and/or “transient” as descriptive of the aorist tense stem. Interestingly, Thompson feels the need to immediately qualify this understanding by noting that there are “rare” exceptions when the present indicative is used to express perfective action and when the aorist indicative is “occasionally equivalent to a present”; p. 314 (§229).


13

THE GREEK TENSE-FORMS BY KIND OF ACTION & TIME, 1902 (à la John Thompson) The three great tense stems express three different kinds of action. a. The Present Tense Stem: expresses continuous (or durative) or repeated (or iterative) action. b. The Aorist Tense Stem: expresses the whole act (perfective action). c. The Perfect Tense Stem: expresses a completed action or a state or condition resulting from a completed action.

Table 1.4 As the years move on, there are other action-oriented approaches. For example, Gustave Simonson also settles on a three-fold Aktionsart explanation of the Greek tense-forms. Simonson, however, nuances his model by lumping the aorist and future tenses together as portraying the same kind of action. “The aorist and future express the action of the verb as simply taking place or performed; the present and imperfect as going on; the perfect, pluperfect, and future-perfect as completed.”17 And so, thinking about verb tense-forms in terms of the kinds of action they portray came to dominate approaches to Greek grammar in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Various kinds of action have been suggested, with the three-fold understanding being the most common (with some scholars mentioning a possible fourth category of undefined or indefinite action). But the main point of Aktionsart verbal theory is that the kind of action under consideration is portrayed by the verb tense-form. We summarize in Table 1.5 one of the more typical Aktionsart conceptions of the system of NT Greek verb tense-forms by A. T. Robertson (for which he offers actual diagrams, somewhat like those only verbally suggested by Curtius).18 This typical Aktionsart understanding of the Greek verb tenseforms has informed a kind-of-action understanding of the NT prohibitions that came to dominate the twentieth century. But this traditional Aktionsart theory—both in general and as applied to prohibitions—is under great debate today. ——— 17

Gustave Simonson, A Greek Grammar: Syntax (London: Swan Sonnenschein, 1911), 184 (§1892). He says later, “The aorist here simply denotes that the action takes place, without any reference to time; …. The present here expresses the action as going on or continued or attempted; …. The perfect (which is not often found in these moods, except in the indirect discourse) expresses the action as already completed; …”; p. 196 (§1938). 18

ATR 823–24; cf. pp. 828–29; passim.

14


THE TYPICAL A KTIONSART OUTLINE OF THE GREEK TENSE-FORMS (à la A. T. Robertson, 1914) Three essential kinds of action are expressed timelessly by the verb tense-forms. a. Aorist Tense Stem: momentary or punctiliar action () b. Present Tense Stem: durative or linear action (

or

)

c. Perfect Tense Stem: completed state or continued result (

)

Table 1.5

1.2 Various Aktionsart Understandings of Greek Prohibitions As already mentioned, the two most commonly discussed NT Greek constructions for prohibitions are the negated present imperative and the negated aorist subjunctive. Many grammar textbooks specifically differentiate between the two constructions by using the typical Aktionsart understanding of verb tense-forms. In general, the present tense is said to speak about durative or on-going (a.k.a. linear) actions, and in contrast, the aorist tense is said to speak about momentary or punctiliar actions. So, A. T. Robertson states the traditional Aktionsart understanding of prohibitions succinctly: “as a rule, it is the ingressive aorist subj. used in prohibitions to forbid a thing not yet done or the durative present imper. to forbid the continuance of an act.”19 Thus, the rule indicates that the historical kind of action itself deter——— 19 ATR 852 (1914). A page earlier he remarks more briefly about the prohibition rule, presuming Aktionsart theory: “The aorist subj. is of course punctiliar, and the present imper. linear” (p. 851). Regarding Aktionsart in general, Robertson seemed a little more nuanced in his earlier text, A Short Grammar of the Greek New Testament: For Students Familiar with the Elements of Greek (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1908) where he seems to assign Aktionsart, at least in substantial part, to the lexical value of the word and not to the processes of tense, mood, voice, and person spellings: “There is one other matter of importance to note also. It is the meaning of the word itself, the root, apart from any or all of the processes just named. The same tense of ‘blink the eye’ and ‘live a life’ do not convey exactly the same idea. The difference is due to the thing which is mentioned in each instance, the nature of the case. The Germans call this ‘Aktionsart,’ kind of action. It plays an important part, especially in the study of the tenses. The late recognition of this common sense matter is not a great compliment to grammarians” (p. 126). We might modify the indictment of his last line to say that the immediate misunderstanding of this common sense matter is not a great compliment to grammarians, because it is clear just ten pages later that Robertson himself has assigned kind of action to tense spellings rather than to the lexemes: “The state of the action is the main idea of tense, and not merely an additional idea as Hadley and Allen have it. This is the original


15

mines the tense-form that an author must choose in order to write accurately about that prohibited action. Just when did this Aktionsart distinction become specifically applied to prohibitions? Robertson (1914) refers to James H. Moulton (1906) who recounts Walter Headlam (1903-05) rediscovering from Henry Jackson what Jackson had supposedly heard from Richard Shilleto who was passing on the view of Gottfried Hermann (1805). This is a history worth retracing.20 1.2.1 Its Tumultuous “Rediscovery” and Application to NT Greek Studies In his famed reference grammar for NT Greek, James Hope Moulton credits the German born classics scholar Johann Gottfried Jakob Hermann (b. 1772; d. 1848) with the genesis of the “doctrine” of the distinction in meaning between the present imperative and aorist subjunctive in prohibitions. Moulton credits the rediscovery of the rule to a public scholarly exchange that took place between Walter G. Headlam and Henry Jackson (with contributions from a few others) in the years 1903–1906.21 Writing in The Classical Review about the proper punctuation of a passage in Sophocles’ Ajax (§384), Headlam briefly refers to three different Greek prohibition constructions—negations of the infinitive, of the present imperative, and of the aorist subjunctive—and makes the following comments.

and only general idea of tense” (p. 136). We can note that the changes to these statements in the 9th ed. of the Short Grammar do not show any substantial change in Robertson’s general Aktionsart approach; cf. A. T. Robertson and W. Hersey Davis, A New Short Grammar of the Greek New Testament: For Students Familiar with the Elements of Greek (9th ed.; London: SPCK, 1931), 288 (§394) and 293 (§399). In fact, the Aktionsart position might be said to be even more pronounced in this 9th ed.: “Like voice, tense deals with the action of the verb, not with the affirmation (mode). But while voice relates the action in various ways to the subject, tense presents the state of the action (the kind of action) without regard to time at all. This fundamental idea of the kind of action involved belongs to all the modes and no other idea does. This is the only general idea in tense”; p. 293 (§399). He continues with a section entitled “The Three Kinds of Action Presented by Tense” wherein he describes and labels them with primary tense assignments as aorist tense for punctiliar action, present tense for linear or durative action, and perfect tense for state of completion (pp. 293–95 [§400]). 20

Shorter reviews of this history are offered in several sources including, Daniel B. Wallace, Granville Sharp’s Canon and Its Kin: Semantics and Significance (Studies in Biblical Greek 14; New York: Lang, 2009), 11–12; VAG 344–46; GGBB 714–17; Joseph D. Fantin, The Greek Imperative Mood in the New Testament: A Cognitive and Communicative Approach (Studies in Biblical Greek 12; New York: Lang, 2010), 91–94. Cf. James L. Boyer, “A Classification of Imperatives: A Statistical Study,” GTJ 8.1 (1987): 35–54 (esp. p. 42). 21

MHT 1:122.

16

PROHIBITIONS IN THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT In general instructions or commandments, as ‘thou shalt not steal’, you could say either µὴ κλέπτειν or µὴ κλέπτε or µὴ κλέψῃς,—except that µὴ κλέπτειν was Ionic; the infinitive (as nicht rauchen, faire bouillir) was retained as traditionary in the writings of Ionic character as the medical works of Hippocrates and the Cynegetica of Xenophon. But in particular injunctions, when there is any reference to time, neither ‘frequency’ nor ‘vividness’ has anything whatever to do with the distinction. The aorist subjunctive (which is close to the future in form, and in Homer and the general mass of Greek which comes to the surface later was used like the future indicative) is in effect a future perfect; and always refers, more or less, to future time: just as ὅταν τοῦτο ποιήσῃς is hoc cum feceris, so µὴ τοῦτο ποιήσῃς is hoc ne feceris (like ὅπως µὴ ποιήσεις) ‘see that you do not do this’ at whatever future time, next moment or a hundred years hence. Whereas µὴ τοῦτο ποίει is ‘do not do as you 22 are doing’, ‘do not continue doing so’, ‘cease to do so’.

After acknowledging in a footnote that he learned this distinction from Henry Jackson and tracing it back to Gottfried Hermann, Headlam offers several examples in classical Greek that seem to follow the Aktionsart approach to prohibition constructions. In particular, he cites examples where the present imperative command (presumed to mean “stop doing this”) elicits an objection (“but I am not doing that”), which an aorist subjunctive construction supposedly would not. For example, “Thus µὴ σπεῦδε in Theocr. v. 31 elicits the rejoinder ἀλλ᾽ οὔτι σπεύδω, and µή µ᾽ ἐκδίδασκε in Soph. El. 395 elicits the retort ἀλλ᾽ οὐ διδάσκω, because it implies οὕτως ὥσπερ διδάσκεις, but this would not have been implied by µή µ᾽ ἐκδιδάξῃς ….”23 Apparently appreciative of Headlam’s acknowledgment, Henry Jackson contributes to the discussion in the next volume of The Classical Review. Jackson corrects Headlam, who had supposed that Jackson learned the prohibition distinction from noted Cambridge classics tutor Richard Shilleto. Jackson says it was not Shilleto, but the classics scholar Thomas Davidson who had explained this distinction by relating a (now famous) story. Davidson told me that, when he was learning modern Greek, he had been puzzled about the distinction, until he heard a Greek friend use the present imperative to a dog which was barking. This gave him the clue. He turned to Plato’s apology [sic], and immediately stumbled upon the excellent instances 20 E µὴ θορυβήσητε, before clamor begins, and 21 A µὴ θορυβεῖτε, when it has begun. Ever since Davidson explained the distinction to me, I have kept a watch upon instances of particular prohibitions, and I am convinced that the rule holds. I did not know of Hermann’s

——— 22 Walter G. Headlam, “Some Passages of Aeschylus and Others,” The Classical Review 17.6 (1903): 294–95. It is at this point that Headlam includes a footnote that says, in part, “This I had from Dr. Henry Jackson years ago, who had it as he told me from Shilleto, who derived it probably from Hermann; see the quotation from him in Greg. Cor. p. 864.” 23

Ibid., 295.


17

admirable statement until Mr. Headlam called attention to it in the Classical Re24 view.

In the next issue of The Classical Review, H. Darnley Naylor weighs in on the discussion with some concerns about the suggested distinction between Greek prohibition constructions. I chanced recently, for other purposes, to run through the Greek Tragedians, and I kept my eyes open for cases which might prove the truth or falsity of this distinction between µὴ ποίει and µὴ ποιήσῃς. It was an interesting investigation: very often I was convinced that the distinction was just; often again I was equally convinced that the verdict must be ‘non liquet’. I have ended by feeling that, while the 25 alleged distinction exists, it is only one of many others possible.

After suggesting a conative use of the negated present imperative as another possible function (e.g., “be in favor of not doing”), Naylor points out some other difficulties with the suggested distinction between the two main constructions of prohibitions and offers some examples from classical Greek that “seem to defy solution.”26 He closes the article with some caution. To sum up then: the distinction drawn by Hermann undoubtedly occurs, but it is not the only distinction. The present tense may, of course, imply an action still continued, e.g. ποιεῖ may equal ‘he goes on doing it.’ Therefore, µὴ ποίει may, on occasion, signify, ‘do not go on doing it,’ i.e. ‘cease doing it.’ But we must not bind ourselves to one meaning of the present stem. I have shown that µὴ ποίει can also mean ‘don’t be for doing it’ and that, in this sense, it need not refer to an act already begun. Conversely there seem to be undoubted instances where µὴ ποιήσῃς does imply ‘cease doing.’ Lastly the conative meaning explains equally well (sometime better) passages 27 which are regarded by Mr. Headlam as conclusively in his favour.

In this way, Naylor acknowledges the appropriateness of using the present imperative and the aorist subjunctive constructions to carry the nuances of ——— 24 Henry Jackson, “Prohibitions in Greek,” The Classical Review 18.4 (1904): 263. Thomas Davidson (b. 1840; d. 1900) was a Scottish educator in classics who taught in the United Kingdom, Canada, and the United States. W. H. G. Armytage claimed that Davidson was “one of the twelve most learned men of his time”; in “Thomas Davidson, AngloAmerican Educator,” History of Education Journal 2.3 (1951): 79. Given that Hermann first suggested the distinction in 1805, the barking dog story may be more famous than warranted. 25

H. Darnley Naylor, “Prohibitions in Greek,” The Classical Review 19.1 (1905): 26.

26

Ibid., 27–30.

27

Ibid., 30.

18


the suggested distinction, but he says (in essence) the distinction is merely a sufficient rationale for authors and not a necessary rule of Greek usage. In the same issue of The Classical Review, Headlam responds to Naylor and suggests that the exceptions to the distinction that Naylor finds are not without counter objections to Naylor’s interpretation. Furthermore, in examining all of the prohibitions in the Tragedy writers (some 480 prohibitions)—indeed, Headlam claims to have read “almost the whole of Greek literature”—he suggests that the exceptions are outweighed by conformities to the suggested distinction. “Among so many it is not surprising that there should be some real or seeming abnormalities; but if among so many the refractory cases discoverable are so few, might they not almost be looked upon as those exceptions which, according to the proverb, prove a rule?” Thus, with a rudimentary numeric argument, Headlam argues in favor of recognizing the distinction in Greek usage. “Where it holds in usage, whatever the origin might be; because for understanding the effect of literature it is the usage, not its origin, that matters. Mr. Naylor may be quite right in claiming a ‘conative’ sense for the present imperative, negative as well as positive, but for my purposes it appears to me to matter very little.” 28 Nevertheless, despite his favor for the suggested distinction between prohibition constructions, Headlam nuances the distinction a bit and admits that Naylor might have a point. “Of course his theory might account for cases where µή with the present does not refer to what is being done already.” Then he continues in an attempt to clarify his earlier expression of the rule. It is no doubt true, and must be remembered, that often it matters very little whether you say µὴ ποιήσῃς ‘take care you don’t do so’ or µὴ ποίει: but the appropriate distinction is observed, ὡς ἔπος εἰπεὶν, always, I believe, when it is necessary to the meaning. My statement of it was made for the sake of dealing with two passages, in a paper where I had many other things to say and no room to mention even the qualifications that were in my mind; and there are still cases which I am not prepared at present to account for by more than tentative explanations. And the rule itself was somewhat clumsily expressed. It will be more safely stated thus: When the meaning is Do not as you are doing, Do not continue doing so, and this meaning is to be conveyed by the verb alone and unassisted, then µή must be followed by the present imperative. When the meaning is Beware of doing this in future time, and this meaning is to be conveyed by the verb alone, then µή must be followed by the aorist subjunctive. I do not say the µὴ ποίει or µὴ λέγε always mean Do not thus any longer; but that to express that meaning by the verb alone you must use µὴ ποίει or µὴ λέγε: 29 though the same meaning may be conveyed by µὴ δράσῃς ἔτι or µὴ εἴπῃς πέρα.

——— 28

Walter G. Headlam, “Greek Prohibitions,” The Classical Review 19.1 (1905): 31.

29

Ibid.


19

After this careful restating of the rule, Headlam offers several illustrations from classical Greek literature where a present imperative prohibition elicits the retort, “I am not doing so” and notes that he is unaware of any place where an aorist subjunctive prohibition elicits a like retort. Then he offers several illustrations from classical Greek literature where an aorist subjunctive prohibition is used when the speaker interrupts another. Finally, he offers examples of both constructions in the works of Lucian, Plato, Herodas, and others.30 Headlam closes this installment in the conversation implying that he and Naylor are perhaps closer in agreement than might first be thought. “I hope the examples I have quoted are enough to show that there was ground for asserting this distinction; indeed Mr. Naylor himself, with reservations, is convinced of it. If he or others will bring forward more deviations from the general rule, we shall be able to pronounce more certainly upon the influences, often delicate and subtle that account for them.”31 Naylor politely responds in the next volume of The Classical Review, clarifying his position on the matter and attempting to enlarge his collection of counter-examples. I am still only half-convinced: that is, I feel that Dr. Headlam has a strong case only so far as the aorist, e.g. µὴ ποιήσῃς, is concerned. I am told that my instances must be regarded, at most, as exceptions to the rule. But these exceptions mount to considerable proportions when we neglect the vast majority of cases where it is impossible to decide whether, e.g. µὴ ποίει must of necessity mean ‘cease doing.’ One may fairly ask why, if the distinction was so universally observed, Greek found it necessary at all to say παῦσαι λέγουσα (Eur. Hipp. 706) and the like.

He continues with citing eight more examples of present imperative prohibition constructions that “certainly do not mean ‘cease what you are doing.’”32 Just a couple issues later, Robert C. Seaton enters the debate to support Naylor. “In this discussion it seems to have been fairly shown that µή with aor. subj. forbids some act in the future, but in face of the numerous and striking examples produced by Mr. Naylor it is difficult to maintain that µή with the pres. imperat. necessarily involves a reference to the past as well as to the future.” He suggests that, in contexts seeming to support the distinction, the authorial selection of some of the present imperatives may be due to ——— 30

Ibid., 31–36.

31

Ibid., 36. In this same issue, see an apparently successful application of the distinction in H. J. Roby, “The Imperative in St. John 20:17,” The Classical Review 19.4 (1905): 229. 32

348.

H. Darnley Naylor, “More Prohibitions in Greek,” The Classical Review 20.7 (1906):

20


the lexical value of the word and not the supposed prohibition rule. Similarly, he suggests that some contexts that seem to support the rule do so only when the rule is presumed prior to the reading; other inferential understandings may make just as much sense of the passages.33 This brings us to 1906, when, at the time of introducing the term Aktionsart to NT Greek studies, Moulton offers his analysis and advocates for the Aktionsart distinction between the prohibition constructions.34 He reasons that Gottfried Hermann expounded the prohibition rule for classical Greek and Thomas Davidson for modern Greek, “proving incidentally that the alleged distinction must hold for the NT language, which lies midway.” With both classical and modern Greek supporting this Aktionsart approach to understanding prohibitions, Moulton concludes that there is no need to defend its application to the NT period: the rule “could hardly be invalid for a period lying between periods in which it is known to have been in force.”35 Moulton is aware of difficulties in applying the rule and offers a discussion of them, but he advocates for the rule nonetheless.36 In fact, in the third edition of his grammar, Moulton includes a note about some personal correspondence with Naylor regarding objections to the distinction. There Moulton suggests that Naylor was not against the rule per se but was simply offering examples of Greek texts that did not follow the rule and required a more nuanced expression of it: “Mr. Naylor remarks, ‘I venture to hold the view that the distinction is a growth. It was beginning in classical times; it was nearly crystallised [sic] in NT Greek; and it is completely so in the modern language.’”37 ——— 33

Robert Cooper Seaton, “Prohibition in Greek,” The Classical Review 20.9 (1906): 438.

34

Moulton introduces the label Aktionsart to NT Greek studies in MHT 1:108–19 and quickly discusses its application to prohibitions in MHT 1:122–26. It is worth noting that in 1895 Moulton had already expressed an action-oriented general view of the Greek verb (“continuous, momentary, and completed”) and a softer action-oriented view of the prohibitions (i.e., “continuous or repeated action” vs. “single action”); see James Hope Moulton, An Introduction to the Study of New Testament Greek (London: Epworth, 1895), 187–92 (§§236– 42) and 193 (§244). 35

MHT 1:122–23; cf. ATR 851: “It is maintained in ancient Greek and in modern Greek, and Moulton shows how the papyri abundantly illustrate it.” Fantin, however, points out that this supposed rule of usage is not mentioned in modern Greek grammars; Fantin, The Greek Imperative Mood, 92, n. 78. 36 MHT 1:124–26; cf. ATR 852: “The distinction is not admitted by all modern scholars. But the difficulty lies mainly in the use of the present imperative, not in the aorist subj.” Robertson notes R. C. Seaton’s 1906 Classical Review article as an example of a scholar with some reluctance about the rule. 37

MHT 1:247.


21

THE TRADITIONAL A KTIONSART PROHIBITION DISTINCTION (à la James H. Moulton, 1906) The tense-stem shows kind of action such that a prohibition constructed in the PRESENT IMPERATIVE is addressed to one who is already doing the action— “STOP DOING THAT”—and would call for the retort, “But I’m not doing that.” AORIST SUBJUNCTIVE is addressed to one who has not yet begun the action— “DON’T BEGIN THAT”—and calls for the response, “No, I won’t do that.”

Table 1.6 Curiously then, despite all the nuancing from both the nay-sayers (i.e., Naylor and Seaton) and the proponents themselves (i.e., Headlam and Jackson), after this post-turn-of-the-century discussion in The Classical Review—and undoubtedly aided by Moulton’s influential Greek reference grammar—the Aktionsart understanding of the distinction between the two main Greek prohibition constructions quickly becomes the accepted rule in NT Greek studies (see Table 1.6). By the end of the twentieth century, scholars like Timothy Schehr boldly declare the distinction as a universal rule for Greek, “The semantic differences between the present and aorist stems are retained in the imperative mood throughout all periods of the language. The present imperative signifies action that is going on or is repeated; the aorist imperative on the other hand signifies action that is welldefined. … The present subjunctive expresses the action as going on; the aorist subjunctive expresses the action as punctiliar.”38 Thus, NT Greek grammars used in teaching elementary Greek courses commonly make assertions in line with this thinking. For example, “The present imperative with µή generally implies the termination of an action. The prohibition with the aorist subjunctive, however, implies that an action is not even to begin.”39 For much of the past century, this has been the traditional understanding.

——— 38 Timothy Parkinson Schehr, “Syntax of the Moods and Tenses of the Greek Verb in Septuagint Genesis 1–15,” Ph.D. diss. (Cincinnati, Ohio: Hebrew Union College—Jewish Institute of Religion, 1990), 110 and 113. 39

Peter Frick, A Handbook of New Testament Greek Grammar (Montreal: Laodamia, 2007), 174.

22


1.2.2 Expressions of the Aktionsart Distinction between Prohibitions The somewhat tumultuous 1906 introduction of the Aktionsart view of NT Greek’s two most commonly discussed prohibition constructions points one century earlier to the classics scholar Johann Gottfried Jakob Hermann as the source of the distinction.40 In one of The Classical Review articles mentioned above, Headlam quotes a large section of Hermann’s 1810 Latin publication that describes what has become the traditional prohibition distinction. Available in several obscure sources, we reproduce and translate here the conclusion of Hermann’s argument. Iam igitur sic erit de omni ista vetandi ratione statuendum: µή cum imperativo praesentis proprie de omittendo eo, quod quis iam faciat, intelligi, sed saepius tamen etiam ad ea trahi, quae quis nondum facere aggressus sit; aoristi autem imperativum tantummodo de non incipiendo usurpari, in quo quidem genere coniunctivum aoristi Graecos praetulisse; idque Atticis maxime, ut dubitantius loqui amantibus, ita 41 placuisse, ut apud hos rarissime imperativus aoristi inveniatur. Now, therefore, out of all this the prohibition rationale can be set out: µή with the present imperative properly forbids the thing that one is already doing—it being understood, however, that often it is those things one is also drawn to and has attempted to do but has not yet accomplished. But the aorist imperative is not to be used when concerned only with the beginning [of an act], for which kind of act the Greeks utilize the aorist subjunctive; and this in Attic Greek especially, as they are those who love to speak in difficulties, so it was agreed, as in them very rarely the aorist imperative may be found.

At the beginning of this article, Hermann mentions Philipp Buttmann’s recognition of the distinction between the present and aorist prohibitions in “the 4th or 5th edition” of his grammar (i.e., the 1808 or 1810 editions), but cites his own 1806 publication as the place where he himself first suggested ——— 40

Moulton actually refers to “the dicta of Hermann from which the doctrine started”; MHT 1:122. 41

Gottfried Hermann, Opuscula 1 (Leipzig: Fleischer, 1827), 275. The argument runs on pp. 270–75; we have quoted here only the conclusion. At the end of this article, he comments that the citation is available as a note to an item on p. 15 in Gisbert Koen, Gottfried Heinrich Schaefer, et al., eds., Gregorius Corinthius (Leipzig: Weigel, 1811). There the note itself is by editor Schaefer, who quotes Hermann at length on pp. 864–69 and credits as his source Hermann’s De Praeceptis Quibusdam Atticistarum (Leipzig: Klavbarthia, 1810). We quote here from Hermann’s more readily available Opuscula text and provide our own wooden English rendering. Headlam selectively provides a longer citation of this article—apparently from the Gregorius Corinthius version—with only a few incidental differences from the text and an inaccurate page reference to the Opuscula version; Headlam, “Greek Prohibitions,” 30.


23

the distinction. The cryptic reference here to his earlier work—“Diar. litt. Lips. 1806. m. Mart. n. 39 p. 617”—is complicated further by noting a different year in Hermann’s own reference to it in an editorial note in Viger’s Greek Idioms: “diar. litter. Lips. a. 1805. m. Mart. n. 39 p. 617.” Indeed, comparing the annotations in the first two editions of Viger’s Greek Idioms edited by Hermann evidences the timing of his development of the prohibition distinction. In the 1813 second edition, Hermann inserts a note that is missing from the 1802 first edition—a note suggesting both that the distinction is rather obvious and that he observed it before Buttmann. Praesens enim et aoristus in caeteris praeter indicativum modis eo maxime differunt, quod praesens rem diutius durantem vel saepius repetitam, aoristus rem breui absolutam aut semel factam indicat. Inepte dicas, γράψον βίβλον, quia hoc longi temporis opus est: recte vero, δὸς τὴν χεῖρα, quia hoc breui temporis momento fit. Exemplis nihil opus, quum ubique obuia sint. Explicatius disserui de hac re in censura tertiae editionis grammaticae Buttmanianae in diar. litter. Lips. a. 1805. m. Mart. n. 39. col. 617. s. adsciuitque postea hanc rationem Buttmannus, et exposuit in 42 Gramm. Gr. §. 124. For the present and the aorist differ in the other moods besides the indicative especially because the present is for an often repeated or long-time enduring thing and the aorist indicates an absolutely short time or once performed thing. Improperly you say, γράψον βίβλον, because this is the work of a long time: rightly, however, δὸς τὴν χεῖρα, because this is done in a short time at that very instant. No need for examples when they are met everywhere. The explanation of this matter I discussed in a critique of the third edition of Buttmann’s grammar in diar. litter. Lips. a. 1805. m. Mart. n. 39. col. 617. s. after which Buttmann learned this argument and set it forth in §124 of Griechische Grammatik.

We see here that Hermann’s 1805 article includes a review of the 1805 third edition of Buttmann’s Greek grammar. Unable to locate Hermann’s original, and since the year remains noted as “1805” in the 3rd and 4th editions of Viger’s Greek Idioms (1822 and 1834, respectively), we will take his word for it and credit Hermann with originating the prohibition distinction in 1805. Hermann includes a second new note on this matter in the 1813 edition of Viger’s Greek Idioms. Here, with reference to the argument of his own 1810 publication, he summarizes the distinction between Greek prohibitions. ——— 42

Hermann’s note in François Viger, De Praecipuis Graecae Dictionis Idiotismis (ed. Hendrik Hoogeveen, Johann Carl Zeune, and Gottfried Hermann; 2nd ed.; Leipzig: Hahn, 1813), 748 (§165 [¶215]); we provide the English translation; cf. idem, De Praecipuis Graecae Dictionis Idiotismis (ed. Hendrik Hoogeveen, Johann Carl Zeune, and Gottfried Hermann; Leipzig: Fritschi, 1802), 735 (§165 [¶215]).

24

PROHIBITIONS IN THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT …µή cum imperativo praesentis proprie de omittendo eo, quod quis jam facit, intelligitur.…Sed saepe tamen etiam de non incipiendo imperativus praesentis usurpatur, cui rei proprius est aoristi imperativus, quem tamen Graeci raro, Attici vix umquam usurpant, sed pro eo utuntur conjunctivo aoristi, qui semper significat, non esse aliquid incipiendum.…Praeterea praesens de re continuata usurpatur, ut µὴ βάλλετε, ne telum conjicite; aoristus de re cito praetereunte, ut µὴ βάλῃς, ne telum conjice, 43 quum sermo est de una teli emissione. …µή with the present imperative is understood to prohibit what someone is now doing.…But very often, however, even the present imperative is used of not beginning, something that is characteristic of the aorist imperative which the Greeks, however, rarely make use of, scarcely ever in Attic, but instead of this use the aorist subjunctive, which always signifies that it is not something to begin.…Furthermore, the present is used of a continuous thing, as µὴ βάλλετε, do not be casting a weapon; the aorist of a quickly passing thing, as µὴ βάλῃς, do not cast a weapon, when speaking about one weapon’s mission.

Interestingly, Hermann shows some flexibility on the use of his own rule and seems to caution against overstating the case for this prohibition distinction.44 So then, beginning with Hermann in 1805, the grammatical treatises of Greek in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries begin to adopt an Aktionsart distinction between prohibition constructions. A survey of these treatises— leading up to and going beyond Moulton’s 1906 introduction of the Aktionsart distinction to NT Greek studies—leads us to make three observations regarding their handling of Greek prohibitions.45 First, we can observe that this distinction between prohibition constructions comes in generally three slightly different forms, always insisting that the kind of historic action in view determines the selection of verb tenseform used to describe it. These might be plotted on a continuum from the harshest to the softest with a moderate or generic view in the middle (see Table 1.7). On one end of the continuum we can place statements making the standard (and harshest) Aktionsart distinction already introduced: the present imperative is employed to command that an already ongoing action cease (“Stop doing that”) and the aorist subjunctive is employed to prohibit the ——— 43 Hermann’s note in Viger, De Praecipuis Graecae Dictionis Idiotismis (2nd ed.; 1813), 809 (§268 [¶458]); we provide the English translation. Again, this note is not included in Hermann’s comments in the 1802 edition; cf. p. 776 (§268 [¶458]). 44

See also Hermann, Opuscula 1, 270.

45 The survey of citations from over 90 grammar texts and articles produced in the last two centuries is in Appendix A at the end of this volume. We offer here some concluding observations from that survey of scholarly expressions.


25

ingress of an action not yet begun (“Don’t start that”). We call this the Cessative—Ingressive position and abbreviate it CI.46 In the middle of the continuum are statements offering only the generic Aktionsart distinction: the present imperative prohibits a durative or linear kind of action (“Don’t do that progressive act”) and the aorist subjunctive prohibits a momentary or punctiliar kind of action (“Don’t do that single act”). We call this the Durative—Punctiliar position and abbreviate it DP. On the other end of the continuum, still understanding the present tense to grammaticalize durative or linear kind of action and the aorist to grammaticalize a momentary or punctiliar kind of action, are those suggesting what might be a softer distinction: the present imperative indicates a general prohibition (“Don’t ever do that”) and the aorist subjunctive indicates a specific prohibition (“Don’t do that this time”). This we label the General— Specific position and abbreviate it GS. THE VARIETY OF A KTIONSART PROHIBITION DISTINCTIONS (seen in the grammars of the 19th and 20th centuries)

-- -- -- -- -- Harsher -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Generic -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Softer -- -- -- -- -Pres. Impv.: CESSATIVE Pres. Impv.: DURATIVE Pres. Impv.: GENERAL “Stop doing that.” “Don’t do that progressive act.” “Don’t ever do that.” Aor. Subj.: INGRESSIVE “Don’t begin that.”

Aor. Subj.: PUNCTILIAR “Don’t do that single act.”

Aor. Subj.: SPECIFIC “Don’t do that this time.”

Table 1.7 Technically, of course, the generic durative–punctiliar contrast functions all across the Aktionsart continuum with the various schools of thought simply tweaking the sense in which the terms are applied. For the present tense-forms, the action is seen as durative on the CI end because it is already happening and is commanded to stop, and on the GS end because it is a general precept that is to continue for all people at all times. Likewise for the aorist tense-forms, the action is seen as punctiliar on the CI end because it is ——— 46

Using the descriptors “already” (pres. impv.) and “not yet” (aor. subj.) for how to interpret these constructions has led some to label the traditional Aktionsart view of prohibitions as the “already/not-yet” view (e.g., GGBB 715). It should be noted, however, that use of the “already/not-yet” label in reference to prohibition constructions must not be confused with its more common utilization in discussions of eschatology.

26


not to begin at any point in the future, and on the GS end because it is a specific act that is to not happen at the stated point in time. Nevertheless, we recognize that some scholars hold to a generic middle view. Similarly, the three camps are not air-tight and some scholars’ statements are more harsh (or more soft) than others. This is the advantage of plotting positions on a continuum. On the other hand, some scholars make statements that combine positions by adopting, for example, one leg from each of two other views, or by grouping together several (or all!) elements from each of the views.47 These mixed positions are naturally more difficult to plot on the continuum. Moving through history in the two-century survey of Greek grammar statement—more readily noticeable once the scholarly statements are plotted and clustered on our continuum (see Table 1.8)—a second observation comes to light. The trend since Hermann’s declaration of the typical Aktionsart prohibition distinction has been an increasingly more common adoption of the harsher Cessative—Ingressive position. While the generic Durative— Punctiliar position was (perhaps not surprisingly) more prevalent early on (e.g. with the works of Buttmann—1810, Winer—1822, Matthiæ—1835, and and Kühner—1835), and the softer General—Specific position enjoyed a once-per-decade surge in the latter half of the nineteenth century (i.e., with Donaldson—1848, Geddes—1855, Webster—1864, Stewart—1873, Mansfield—1880, and Hime—1891), we can note that almost every decade since Hermann has seen at least one new grammar supporting the harsher Cessative—Ingressive position, and more than one per decade as time moved on. Furthermore, after the relatively early adoption of a generic Durative— Punctiliar position by Buttmann (apparently influenced, as we have seen, by Hermann), other grammarians producing larger reference works exhibit something of a migration toward the harsher side of the continuum with their later publications. So, for example, Winer moves from DP in 1822 to CI in ——— 47

For example, the opening paragraph of Robert G. Hoerber, “Implications of the Imperative in the Sermon on the Mount,” Concordia Journal 7.3 (1981): 100–103, shows a wholehearted commitment to a manifold Aktionsart approach: Some students of Greek regard the literature from the blind bard of Smyrna through Plato and Paul to contemporary Athens as basically one language. Be that as it may, one element of syntax is consistent throughout Greek epic, lyric, and dramatic poetry as well as historical, philosophical, and oratorical prose—in classical, koine, and modern Greek authors—namely, the distinction between the present and aorist tenses of the imperative mood. The aorist imperative implies punctiliar (“snap-shot”) or ingressive (“beginning”) or categorical (“once for all”) action, while the present imperative denotes durative (“continuous”) or iterative (“repeating”) action.

CHAPTER 1—THE AKTIONSART VIEW OF GREEK PROHIBITIONS A SURVEY OF GREEK GRAMMAR STATEMENTS SINCE 1805

Showing the Variety of Aktionsart Approaches to Greek Prohibitions -- -- -- -- -- Harsher -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Generic -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Softer -- -- -- -- -CESSATIVE vs. INGRESSIVE DURATIVE vs. PUNCTILIAR GENERAL vs. SPECIFIC J. G. J. Hermann (1805) G. B. Winer (1836) T. K. Arnold (1841) A. Crosby (1844) W. W. Goodwin (1870) J. Hadley (1884) W. W. Goodwin (1889) E. d. W. Burton (1893) W. G. Headlam (1903) H. Jackson (1904) J. H. Moulton (1906) A. T. Robertson (1914) H. W. Smyth (1920) W. H. Davis (1923) G. Cuendet (1924) E. Mayser (1926) W. E. Vine (1930) H. P. V. Nunn (1938) W. Chamberlain (1941) W. Heidt (1951) H. G. Meecham (1955) Dana & Mantey (1955) D. F. Hudson (1960) A. Marshall (1962) N. Turner (1963): A. W. Argyle (1965) E. V. N. Goetchius (1965) J. W. Wenham (1965) R. W. Funk (1977) Brooks & Winbery (1979) Vaughan & Gideon (1979) H. L. Drumwright (1980) M. Whittaker (1980) W. G. MacDonald (1986) J. M. Efrid (1990) K. H. Easley (1994) B. W. Powers (1995) D. A. Black (1994/2000) N. Clayton Croy (1999) Robichaux & Good (2000) J. H. Dobson (2005) P. Frick (2007) J. W. Voelz (2007)

P. K. Buttmann (1810) G. B. Winer (1822) A. H. Matthiæ (1835) R. Kühner (1835 and 1842) J. N. Madvig (1847) G. Curtius (1852) J. G. Greenwood (1857) W. W. Goodwin (1860) J. Hadley (1860) J. H. Smith (1878) F. E. Thompson (1883) J. W. White (1892) J. H. Moulton (1895) A. Thumb (1895) I. F. Frisbee (1898) F. C. Babbitt (1902) J. Thompson (1902) Crosby & Schaeffer (1928) E. G. Jay (1958) Chase & Phillips (1961) S. W. Paine (1961) T. P. Schehr (1990) G. L. Stevens (2004)

J. Donaldson (1848) W. D. Geddes (1855) W. Webster (1864) T. A. Stewart (1873) E. Mansfield (1880) M. C. Hime (1891) Beetham (1992 and 2007) S. M. Baugh (1995)

U NDIFFERENTIATING P. Bullions (1843) E. A. Sophocles (1847) J. G. Machen (1923)

MIXED A KTIONSART POSITIONS V. C. F. Rost (1821)—CI+DP M. Stuart (1834)—CI+DP+GS S. G. Green (1876)—DP+GS E. A. Sonnenschein (1894)—DP+GS F. W. Blass (1896)—CI+DP+GS Gildersleeve & Miller (1900)—CI+GS H. D. Naylor (1905)—CI+DP R. C. Seaton (1906)—CI+DP C. F. D. Moule (1953)—DP+GS S. A. Cartledge (1959)—CI+DP M. Zerwick (1960)—CI+DP+GS D. A. Black (1998)—CI+DP R. Schoch (2000)—CI+DP+GS J. A. Hewett (2009)—CI+GS W. D. Mounce (2009)—DP+GS

Table 1.8

27

28


1836; Goodwin moves from DP in 1860 to CI in 1870 and to a clearer CI position in 1889; Hadley moves from DP in 1860 to CI in 1884; and Moulton moves from DP in 1895 to his noted CI position in 1906.48 Similarly, the collection of mixed positions seems to indicate an increasing inclusion of the CI perspective on how to handle Greek prohibitions. This increase of the Cessative—Ingressive version of the Aktionsart position through grammar history is particularly noticeable in the face of verbal aspect theory, which challenges the Aktionsart view of the verb altogether (on this, see Chapters 3 and 4 below). Despite the blossoming of verbal aspect theory in the garden of NT Greek grammar studies in late 1980’s and early 1990’s, new Greek grammar texts have continued sprouting Aktionsart views of the prohibitions. Even among the newer grammars that favorably discuss verbal aspect theory, some merely default to Aktionsart recommendations for distinguishing between the prohibitions constructions (e.g., Robichaux & Good—2000, Black—2009, and Mounce—2009; cf. Crosby— 1844). The Aktionsart view of prohibitions (in its various forms) remains rather persistent. In tracing how grammarians treat the prohibition constructions, a third, almost contrarian observation proves enlightening: that is, even among those who adopt most passionately their Aktionsart approach to the Greek prohibitions—on either side of the continuum—almost no one does so without offering some caveat or without acknowledging some exceptions. As was noted above with reference to Gottfried Hermann himself as the instigator of this distinction, this is true from the beginning of the rule. As might be expected, the larger reference grammars are more careful to make the caveats and/or exceptions known; it is the popular elementary Greek textbooks that are more prone to offer the harsher expression of the distinction with little qualification. We add here that those in the grouping of mixed Aktionsart positions may well be there precisely because they nuance their views by simply adding another way to distinguish between the constructions (e.g., esp. Stuart—1834, Sonnenschein—1894, Blass—1896, and Schoch—2000). Conversely, perhaps this variety of nuancing has led others to leave the constructions undistinguished in meaning (e.g., Bullions—1843, Sophocles—1847, Machen—1923). All this to say that, even amongst its various supporters, the Aktionsart approach to Greek prohibitions is regularly seen as incomplete and in need of some modification. ——— 48 Even though Kühner does not switch camps per se, he shows progression in that his 1842 expression of the DP position seems clearer than his prior 1835 expression of it.


29

1.3 Initial Conclusions about Aktionsart on Prohibitions The Aktionsart view of the verbal system in general—with its insistence that the kind of historic action in view determines the selection of verb tenseform used to describe it—gets applied in three slightly different ways in order to distinguish between the two most commonly discussed grammatical constructions of prohibitions in the Greek New Testament. The trend in grammatical history has been toward the harshest of these views, the Cessative—Ingressive position, which suggests that present imperative prohibitions are used to command ongoing actions to cease and aorist subjunctive prohibitions are used to command that actions not begin in the future. Nevertheless, despite this apparent entrenchment of the Aktionsart approach to Greek prohibitions, a closer and more comprehensive look at the writings of Greek grammarians reveals regular caveats and exceptions to the rule, even by some of its stongest proponents. Thus, our study of this grammatical history leads us to conclusions that are somewhat counter to Moulton’s 1906 introduction of this prohibition distinction to NT Greek studies. Moulton describes the matter thus, “There is a familiar rule that µή is used with present imperative or aorist subjunctive; but the distinction between these, expounded by Gottfried Hermann long ago, seems to have been mostly unnoticed till it was rediscovered by Dr Walter Headlam in CR 17. 295, who credits Dr Henry Jackson with supplying the hint.”49 On the contrary, what has been thought to be the traditional but long-forgotten proper distinction between present imperative and aorist subjunctive prohibitions turns out to be wrong on three counts. First, because it came into existence in only 1805, the traditional distinction is not actually from “long ago.” Second, because the distinction has been regularly utilized ever since its relatively recent genesis, it has not gone “mostly unnoticed” (note esp. the pre-Moulton CI positions of NT Greek grammarians Winer— 1836, Goodwin—1870, 1889, and Burton—1893). Third, because exceptions have been regularly recognized and struggled with throughout its short history—before Moulton, by Moulton, and after Moulton—the distinction is not actually proper and can hardly be said to have been “rediscovered.” The fact of the variety of views—all having various exceptions—is a testimony to the inadequacy of the Aktionsart theory regarding prohibitions. And turning to the text of the New Testament shows that all three Aktionsart ways of differentiation ultimately fail to provide a satisfactory understanding of the grammar of prohibitions. Too many counter examples occur for an Aktionsart differentiation to be accepted as the final explanation for why a ——— 49

MHT 1:122.

30


Greek author would choose one prohibition construction over the other. In fact, we are arguing here that there are so many exceptions to the rule that the relatively young rule itself is to be completely replaced. Demonstrating these failures is the task of Chapter 2.

—CHAPTER 2— The Failures of the Aktionsart View: Verb Tense-Forms ≠ Kind of Action The Aktionsart view of prohibitions in the Greek New Testament suggests that the historical kind of action represented by the verb determines which tense-form an author uses to describe it. This argument focuses on two of Greek’s most commonly used prohibition constructions: the negated present imperative is used to command that an ongoing action cease and the negated aorist subjunctive is used to command that an action not begin. Many NT passages can be appealed to as supportive of this Aktionsart approach to interpreting prohibitions. Regarding negated present imperatives, the following are some of the better NT examples, each passage clearly indicating the action as happening before the command is given to cease it. Matt 14:27—Jesus tells the disciples to “fear not” after the context informs us that they were afraid when they saw Jesus walking on the water (v. 26). Such commands against fear that has clearly already started are common in the NT (cf. Matt 17:7; 28:5, 10; Mark 5:36; 6:50; Luke 1:13, 30; 2:10; 5:10; 8:50: 12:7, 32; John 6:20; 12:15; Acts 18:9; 27:24; Rev 1:17). Luke 8:52—The people were weeping over the death of Jairus’ daughter when Jesus came and told them, “Don’t weep.” John 6:43—The Jews murmured (v. 41) over Jesus’ claim to be from heaven and Jesus told them, “Don’t murmur among yourselves.” 1 Cor 15:33–34—In his classic apologetic about the resurrection, Paul expresses his disappointment that some of the Corinthians were saying there is no resurrection (v. 12), and he commands the Corinthian church, “Don’t be deceived” and “Come to your senses and don’t sin” in this way any more.

Chapter 5 below outlines a total of 48 NT passages supportive of this Aktionsart distinction for the present imperative prohibitions. Regarding prohibitions constructed with the negated aorist subjunctive, the following are some of the better NT examples supportive of an Aktionsart approach, for the context of each passage indicates that the focus is on prohibiting the beginning of some action in the future.

32

PROHIBITIONS IN THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT Matt 17:9—Coming down from the mount of transfiguration, Jesus instructs those who were with him, “Do not [begin to] tell anyone about the vision.” Mark 8:26—After healing a blind man outside of the village of Bethsaida (v. 23), Jesus instructs him, “Do not [begin to] enter into the village.” Acts 23:21—When forewarning the commander that a conspiracy to murder Paul had been planned, the boy says, “Do not [begin to] be persuaded by them.” Rev 10:4—John was “about to write” what the seven thunders had sounded when he was instructed, “Do not [begin to] write it down.”

Chapter 6 below outlines a total of 41 NT passages supportive of this Aktionsart distinction for the aorist subjunctive prohibitions. Despite these kinds of suitable examples, however, the difficulty for Aktionsart theory is that there are many prohibitions in the New Testament that do not abide by the theory’s guidelines. The 89 prohibitions that clearly fit the theory represent only a third (34%) of the 264 NT prohibitions constructed in either the present imperative or aorist subjunctive. This leaves many NT prohibitions in either ambiguous settings (143 or 54%) or in contexts that are clearly contrary to the Aktionsart rule (32 or 12%).1 We have already indicated that, throughout the (relatively short) history of the Aktionsart view of the Greek verb, numerous scholars of grammar have noted specific exceptions to the Aktionsart guidelines for distinguishing different intentions for the NT prohibitions. In fact, enough exceptions have been identified that two additional versions of Aktionsart have developed in attempts to shore-up the failings of the traditional Aktionsart approach. Over against the harsher traditional view—which we have identified as the Cessative–Ingressive version—some have suggested a softer General– Specific version and others have offered a generic Durative–Punctiliar version of Aktionsart. These different schools of thought were all described and differentiated in Chapter 1 above. While the modified Aktionsart approaches work better than the Cessative–Ingressive version, the problem nevertheless remains as none of them is able to describe correctly the material of the New Testament completely. This is because, despite their claims for principled exceptions, each Aktionsart theory is dependent upon the presupposition that the historic action itself determines which tense an author must choose to describe that action. In this chapter we aim to systematically present the problem passages of the New Testament that prove the Aktionsart theory, in any of its version, is altogether wrong-headed in its approach to prohibitions. ——— 1

If we include the eight NT occurrences of aor. impv. prohibitions, these percentages change only slightly; see Table 2.6 on p. 42 below.

CHAPTER 2—THE FAILURES OF THE AKTIONSART VIEW

33

Of course, others have concluded that the exceptions prove the falsity of the Aktionsart theory. For example, in the mid-1960’s Willem Bakker was contrasting an Aktionsart understanding of Greek prohibitions with a verbal aspect approach and, giving credit to J. Donovan’s late-nineteenth century work, calls the Aktionsart theory “absolutely incorrect.” After a superficial examination of the difference between present and aorist imperatives, it might be said that the speaker who, when giving a command, uses the present stem has in mind a durative action, i.e. an action that has to go on, or has to be repeated continually, or may contain a general rule of life; and that the aorist stem expresses a single process that has to be performed in a special situation. That this view is very superficial and even absolutely incorrect was proved long ago by Donovan in an article on the Greek imperative.2

The apparent correctness of Aktionsart theory is only “superficial” and the nature of the historical action under consideration is to be explained not by the tense-form spellings but by contextual and lexical factors. Bakker ellaborates, “In some cases one might get the impression that the present imperative denotes a repetition of processes. This, however, is not an intrinsic characteristic of the present stem, but has its origin in the nature of the verb used and in the context.”3 More recently, Daniel Wallace offers a four-part critique of the Aktionsart approach to Greek prohibitions.4 1) The traditional Aktionsart view was developed from an observation of modern Greek and read backwards onto ancient and Hellenistic Greek. This is a weak and somewhat anachronistic diachronic argument. 2) The traditional Aktionsart view tends to isolate imperatives from the rest of the Greek and treat them as exceptional by nature. A view that understands imperatives in relation to the rest of the language would seem to be a stronger view. 3) The fundamental error of the traditional Aktionsart view is its assumption that legitimate phenomological uses of the tenses (affected by their individual contexts, lexemic values, and other grammatical features) form the basic (unaffected) ideals of the tenses. Examples to the contrary are simply ignored, forced to fit the presumed rule, or conveniently rendered as mere “exceptions.” 4) All too often the tradition——— 2

Willem Frederik Bakker, The Greek Imperative: An Investigation into the Aspectual Differences between the Present and Aorist Imperatives in Greek Prayer from Homer up to the Present Day (Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1966), 31–32. For more on both Bakker and Donovan, see in Chapter 3 below. 3

Bakker, The Greek Imperative, 34.

4

We summarize here from GGBB 716–17.

34


al Aktionsart view produces less-than-credible explanations of the text (e.g., the present tense-forms in Eph 5:18 are rendered, “Stop being drunk [µὴ µεθύσκεσθε] with wine, but continue to be filled [πληροῦσθε] with the Spirit” as if the Ephesians were simultaneously Spirit-filled drunkards). It is these last two arguments upon which we want to capitalize in this chapter by offering a full examination of the NT prohibitions constructed with the present imperative and the aorist subjunctive. In doing so, we will notice that the traditional Aktionsart guidelines are not the rules that the NT authors seemed to be following. There are too many examples that don’t follow the rule. These failures of the rule to apply to NT passages are seen primarily in three ways. First, the rule fails to explain passages where the context contains deictic indicators that blatantly contradict the traditional Aktionsart understanding. For example, the traditional Aktionsart rule fails when the context reports that Joseph was planning to divorce Mary (Matt 1:18–19), yet the angel (with incorrect grammar!?) uses the aorist subjunctive command, “Don’t [begin to] fear to take Mary as your wife” instead of the present imperative command, “Stop being afraid …” (Matt 1:20). Second, in Synoptic comparisons where two writers reporting the same historic event but each chooses a different grammatical construction, the tense-form choice cannot be tied to the historic action itself (unless the reader is willing to say that one of the Gospel writers is fundamentally in error in his report).5 Third, the Aktionsart rule fails to explain passages where in a single context the author freely moves back and forth between the aorist subjunctive and the present imperative formats to discuss the same prohibition, perhaps even with the same lexemes. In the following pages, we use this outline to discuss the NT passages that pose a problem for Aktionsart. Because the first category represents a comprehensive analysis of all of the negated present and aorist tense-form prohibitions, we will largely be reporting here the statistical results and refer the reader to the specific data in Chapters 5 and 6. For the second and third categories, we discuss the problem passages in more detail. The data on NT prohibitions in these three categories serves as proof that the traditional Aktionsart understanding of an author’s tense-form selection for prohibitions needs to be replaced. ——— 5 McKay comments, “A comparison of two similar discourses which have some significant differences can be useful”; Kenneth L. McKay, “Aspect in Imperatival Constructions in New Testament Greek,” NovT 27.3 (1985): 218. He goes on to compare Matt 10:26–31 and Luke 12:2–7, 32.


35

2.1 Contextual Incongruence In a number of NT prohibition passages, contextual indicators explicitly show that the author is using the grammatical construction of the prohibition counter to the Aktionsart understanding. In Chapters 5 and 6 below, we evaluate the context of each NT prohibition—present imperatives in Chapter 5 and aorist subjunctives in Chapter 6—for its contextual congruence with each of the three versions of Aktionsart identified in Chapter 1. We provide here the compilation of those evaluations. 2.1.1 Contextual Congruence for Aktionsart on Present Imperatives To date, perhaps the most thorough statistical study of prohibitions in the New Testament has been made by James L. Boyer.6 His evaluation of negated present imperative constructions focuses primarily on the Cessative– Ingressive version of Aktionsart theory—often thought of as the (only) traditional Aktionsart theory. The results of Boyer’s assessment of these NT prohibitions in relation to their contexts can be laid out in an easily accessible chart format (see Table 2.1 below).7 In Boyer’s view, 100 of the 174 present imperative prohibitions are in contexts with no indication as to whether or not the prohibited action was already occurring. Furthermore, only 38 of the constructions have probable or explicit indication of the action already happening. He sees four occurences as in contexts indicating that the previous action had already stopped, and thus noncompliant with the CI Aktionsart rule. The remaining 32 uses of this construction are in contexts where previous action is denied one way or another and counter to the CI Aktionsart rule. Boyer calls his statistical tally the “final demonstration of the fallacy of this [Aktionsart] explanation of the distinction” between present imperative and aorist subjunctive constructions.8 ——— 6

James L. Boyer, “A Classification of Imperatives: A Statistical Study,” GTJ 8.1 (1987): 35–54. In addition to this somewhat ground-breaking article, some of Boyer’s other statistical studies impact our work as well: idem, “The Classification of Participles: A Statistical Study,” GTJ 5.1 (1984): 163–79; idem, “The Classification of Infinitives: A Statistical Study,” GTJ 6.1 (1985): 3–27; idem, “The Classification of Subjunctives: A Statistical Study,” GTJ 7.1 (1986): 3–19; and idem, “The Classification of Optatives: A Statistical Study.” GTJ 9.1 (1988): 129–40. Furthermore, each of these studies has a separate self-published “Supplemental Manual of Information” (Winona Lake, Ind.: Grace Theological Seminary, n.d.) with the details of data and listings of NT passages; these are available from the library at Grace Theological Seminary (see the bibliography). 7

Table 2.1 is adapted from Boyer, “Classification of Imperatives,” 43; see also idem, “Supplemental Manual of Information: Imperative Verbs,” 60. 8

Boyer, “Classification of Imperatives,” 43.

36


Our tally of negated present imperative prohibitions in the New Testament differs slightly from Boyer’s: over against his 174, we count 175 such prohibitions.9 Perhaps a bit more substantially, we also differ from Boyer in our assessment of the NT contexts of these constructions regarding the degree to which they fit with Aktionsart theory (see Table 2.2 below).10 Nevertheless, even with such differences, our conclusions remain the same: the Aktionsart rule for distinguishing between present imperative and aorist subjunctive prohibitions does not fit the evidence of how these constructions are used in the New Testament. ASSESSING THE CONTEXTS OF NT Μή + PRESENT IMPERATIVE (à la James L. Boyer—1987) General exhortations (no indication of present action): Previous action explicit in context: Previous action probable from context: Previous action explicit, but already stopped: Previous action denied in context: —Exhortations for a future time: —Nature of action such that it can be done only once (rendering “stop” meaningless): —Context explicitly says it is not already being done: —Context implies it is not already being done: TOTAL:

100 26 12 4 32 14 4 8 6 174

Table 2.1

——— 9

Briefly explained, we include four passages Boyer misses (Luke 3:13; John 5:45; 6:27; and Rom 13:8), we recategorize two passages Boyer includes in this group (Matt 24:6 and Matt 9:30), and we exclude one passage that Boyer includes (John 8:11). See footnote 3 on p. 133 in Chapter 5 below for a more thorough explanation of these differences in our counts. 10 We introduce our labels into Table 2.2 (i.e., “indeterminate in the context,” “fits the context,” and “contrary to the context”), but the categories are the same as Boyer’s and comparisons to his counts in Table 2.1 are easy. Heeding the warning of McKay against an “over-reliance on card-index (or computer list) excerpts” (McKay, New Syntax, 36 [§3.6.3]), perhaps due to a wider reading of contexts, we were able to avoid using the “probable” and “implies” categories, and our assessment of “previous action explicit in context” increased substantially over Boyer’s count. Accordingly, our count of “previous action denied in context” is lower and our count of “indeterminate/general exhortations” is slightly higher.


37

More specifically, by our count here, only 48 (27%) of the 175 negated present imperative constructions in the New Testament clearly fit the CI version of Aktionsart theory (up from Boyer’s assessment of only 15%, but hardly enough to prove the applicability of the CI Aktionsart rule). There are 24 (14%) occurrences that are clearly contrary to CI (down from Boyer’s 21%, but still enough to question the CI Aktionsart rule). This leaves 103 (59%) indeterminate in their contexts for the CI theory (only slightly up from Boyer’s 58%). Thus, for rendering present imperative prohibitions in keeping with their contexts, the Cessative–Ingressive version of Aktionsart theory is clearly wrong 14% of the time and clearly correct only 27% of the time; this is enough to say the CI Aktionsart rule is wrongheaded. REASSESSING THE CONTEXTS OF NT Μή + PRESENT IMPERATIVE (à la Douglas S. Huffman—2013) Indeterminate in the context (no indication of present action): Fits the context—Previous action explicit in context: Previous action probable from context: Contrary to the context—Previous action already stopped: Contrary to the context—Previous action denied in context: —Exhortations for a future time: 15 —Nature of action such that it can be done only once (rendering “stop” meaningless): 4 —Context explicitly says it is not already being done: 3 —Context implies it is not already being done: —

103 48 — 2 22

TOTAL:

175

Table 2.2 Even the 103 present tense prohibitions judged as having indeterminate contexts regarding prior activity betray the faulty nature of the CI Aktionsart rule. Do all husbands harbor bitterness toward their wives so that Paul’s command in Col 3:19 is to be rendered, “Husbands, love your wives and stop harboring bitterness toward them”? Likewise, are all fathers so cruel that the command of Col 3:21 is to be rendered, “Fathers, stop making your children resentful”? Were all the Ephesians Spirit-filled drunkards so that the command of Eph 5:18 is to be rendered, “And stop being drunk with wine, wherein is debauchery, but continue being filled by the Spirit”? Were all the slaves of believing masters in Ephesus despising them and in need of correction (1 Tim 6:2)? Was Timothy in the habit of hastily accepting

38


accusations against elders (1 Tim 5:19). And were all the Thessalonians restraining the Spirit (1 Thess 5:19) and despising prophecy (1 Thess 5:20)? Were the Hebrew believers all thinking lightly of the Lord’s discipline (Heb 12:5a) and growing weary of the Lord’s reproof (Heb 12:5b)? Were they all neglecting hospitality (Heb 13:2) and being led away by strange teaching (Heb 13:9a)? Were they all neglecting doing good and sharing (Heb 13:16). The Aktionsart rule seems to require that we assume all readers of 1 John are loving the world (1 John 2:15a), marveling that the world hates them (1 John 3:13), and believing every spirit (1 John 4:1). To suggest so blindly that every occurrence of a prohibition in the present tense implies the cessation of an already ongoing activity is surely overly presumptuous. Even on the evidence of these indeterminate passages, the CI Aktionsart rule is suspect. Our assessment seems more favorable to the DP version of Aktionsart theory. With this theory in view, most of the 175 negated present imperative constructions—170 (97%)—seem to fit their contexts with the remaining five (3%) appearing to conflict with the kind of action represented in their contexts.11 But this largely positive result for the Durative–Punctiliar version of Aktionsart theory is only half the story—the D half. We will see below that the P half of the theory does not apply well to the NT prohibitions constructed with negated aorist subjunctives. Things are a bit worse for the GS version of Aktionsart theory regarding the present imperative constructions. Even though 132 (75%) of the 175 negated present imperative prohibitions read fittingly in their contexts by the GS guideline, the remaining 43 (25%) are contrary to the GS rule. Misjudging nearly a fourth of the NT occurrences, the General–Specific version of Aktionsart theory is deficient as a guideline for reading the negated present imperative prohibitions of the New Testament. A KTIONSART CONTEXTUAL CONGRUENCE FOR NT PRESENT IMPERATIVE PROHIBITIONS Version of Aktionsart:

CI

Indeterminate in the context: 103 (59%) Fits the context: 48 (27%) Contrary to the context: 24 (14%)

TOTALS:

DP 0 (0%) 170 (97%) 5 (3%)

GS 0 (0%) 131 (75%) 44 (25%)

0 26 1

175 (100%) 175 (100%) 175 (100%) 27 (15%)

Table 2.3 ——— 11

All

These five are found in John 19:21; 1 Cor 7:12–13; 7:18 [bis].


39

These statistical assessments on the contextual congruence of NT present imperative prohibitions are summarized in Table 2.3. We can also note that these evaluations of the three versions of Aktionsart are in agreement only 27 times (15%) of the 175, with all but one of the 27 judged as fitting their contexts (i.e., John 19:21 reads contrary to all three Aktionsart theories). This low percentage of agreement indicates a persistent internal inconsistency with Aktionsart regarding its ability to assess the relationship between the grammar of prohibitions and their historical situations. Some might even suggest that this lack of consistency between Aktionsart versions provides an all-too-convenient flexibility for Aktionsart: if one version of the theory doesn’t fit, another version can be invoked. Of course, most scholars taking an Aktionsart approach to prohibitions tend not to be so blatantly flexible and simply allow for some exceptions to the supposed rule.12 2.1.2 Contextual Congruence for Aktionsart on Aorist Constructions Boyer’s examination of the NT aorist subjunctive prohibitions does not offer the same level of statistical analysis on the CI Aktionsart theory as he does for the NT present imperative prohibitions. Boyer merely marks 12 of the prohibitions as occurring in contexts where the action was already happening and 16 more where this was likely the situation (and thus 28 occurrences that are contrary to CI Aktionsart theory).13 By our estimation, however, only eight (9%) of the 89 negated aorist subjunctive constructions are clearly contrary to the CI version of Aktionsart theory with 41 (46%) that fit with CI, leaving 40 (45%) indeterminate in their contexts for the CI theory. Thus, for the aorist subjunctive prohibitions in the New Testament, the Cessative–Ingressive version of Aktionsart theory is correct (as judged by the context) less than half the time and is clearly wrong 9% of the time. Boyer’s analysis of prohibitions in this construction is more thorough with regard to the GS Aktionsart theory, which suggests that prohibitions constructed with the negated aorist subjunctive address specific situations ——— 12 See, however, Hoerber, “Implications of the Imperative in the Sermon on the Mount,” 100, quoted in Chapter 1 above, p. 26, n. 47; see also ATR 854. It is interesting to note that of the 48 times that the CI version fits the context of the NT prohibitions constructed with the negated present impv., 22 (46%) of those times the GS version is contrary to the context. Conversely, of the 24 times that the CI version is contrary to the context, 13 (54%) of those times the GS version fits the context. And, of the 44 times that the GS version is contrary to the context, 22 (50%) of those times the CI version fits the context. So, while at times there seems to be something of a negative correlation between these two versions of Aktionsart theory in the present impv. constructions, such a correlation is in no way complete. 13

Boyer, “Supplemental Manual of Information: Imperative Verbs,” 62–64.

40


and not general precepts. “Rather, 65% were specific, related to a particular occasion, and 35% were general or universal.”14 Our assessment here is not as generous as Boyer’s, as we find the contexts confirming only 44 (49%) of the 89 occurrences as conforming to the GS theory and revealing 42 (47%) of the occurrences as contrary to the GS rule; the remaining three prohibitions (4%) are in an indeterminate context (all three in Col 2:21).15 Thus, the General–Specific version of Aktionsart theory seems demonstrably false as a guideline for reading the NT negated aorist subjunctive prohibitions. Assessing the aorist subjunctive prohibitions in their NT contexts by the DP version of Aktionsart theory yields similar results. By our count, only 13 (15%) of the 89 prohibitions have indeterminate contexts for the DP theory and only 27 (30%) of the 89 fit the DP theory. This leaves 49 (55%) that are contrary to it. Thus, for reading the NT aorist subjunctive prohibitions, the Durative–Punctiliar version of Aktionsart theory is also demonstrably false by this accounting of their contextual settings. All of these statistical assessments on the contextual settings of NT aorist subjunctive prohibitions are summarized in Table 2.4. Notice also that the three versions of Aktionsart are in agreement only 10 times (11%) of the 89, and only 7 of these are when they are fitting to the context. This indicates a persistent internal inconsistency with Aktionsart. A KTIONSART CONTEXTUAL CONGRUENCE FOR NT AORIST SUBJUNCTIVE PROHIBITIONS Version of Aktionsart:

CI

DP

GS

All

Indeterminate in the context: Fits the context: Contrary to the context:

40 (45%) 41 (46%) 8 (9%)

13 (15%) 27 (30%) 49 (55%)

3 (4%) 44 (49%) 42 (47%)

TOTALS:

89 (100%) 89 (100%) 89 (100%) 10 (11%)

1 7 2

Table 2.4 ——— 14

Boyer, “Classification of Imperatives,” 46. In addition, with 40 of the NT’s aor. subj. prohibitions “qualified by explanations, reasons, and exceptions,” Boyer suggests that the labels “categorical” and “unequivocal” are inappropriate. He likewise judges “urgent” as applicable only in some settings and not others. 15 Boyer labels 57 (65%) of the negated aor. subj. prohibitions as “specific” and 31 (35%) (including the three in Col 2:21) as “general”; Boyer, “Supplemental Manual of Information: Imperative Verbs,” 62–64. But even by Boyer’s more generous reckoning, the GS theory does not fair well.

41


If, for the sake of completeness, we add the evaluations of the eight NT prohibitions that are constructed with negated aorist imperatives (see Table 6.3 in Chapter 6), the satistical results for each of the versions of Aktionsart theory are changed only minutely. These are laid out in Table 2.5. A KTIONSART CONTEXTUAL CONGRUENCE FOR NT AORIST PROHIBITIONS (SUBJUNCTIVE + IMPERATIVE) Version of Aktionsart:

CI

DP

GS

All


40 (41%) 49 (51%) 8 (8%)

13 (13%) 34 (35%) 50 (52%)

3 (3%) 52 (54%) 42 (43%)

TOTALS:

97 (100%) 97 (100%) 97 (100%) 17 (18%)

1 14 2

Table 2.5

2.1.3 Combined Analysis of Contextual Congruence for Aktionsart In collating this data, several observations can be made. For example, the 8 times (8% of the 97) that negated aorists are used to command that a current action cease can be compared to the 48 times (27% of the 175) that the present imperatives are used in such a setting. This means that Bakker’s remark is a bit of an overstatement, “In order to stop someone performing an action the negative aorist stem is not used any less frequently than the negative present stem.”16 Nevertheless, the point of Bakker’s hyperbole remains: both present tense-form and aorist tense-form constructions can be used by an author to command that a currently happening action cease. Indeed, combining our observations regarding the contextual congruence of Aktionsart theory for both negated present tense-form and negated aorist tense-form prohibitory constructions, we see that the CI rule clearly applies in only 36% of the situations and is clearly wrong in 12% of them.17 The Cessative–Ingressive version of Aktionsart theory does not work. ——— 16

Bakker, The Greek Imperative, 37–38.

17 If we count only the 175 pres. impv. and 89 aor. subj. and exclude the 8 negated aor. impv., the percentage figures of the 264 prohibitions for the CI version of Aktionsart are only slightly affected as follows—indeterminate in context: 143 (54%); fit the context: 89 (34%); contrary to the context: 32 (12%).

42


Such comparisons also disparage the other two versions of Aktionsart. For the Durative–Punctiliar version, the rate of 170 (97% of the 175) fitting applications of the rule to present imperative prohibitions is depreciated by the 50 times (52% of the 97) the rule goes counter to the contexts of aorist prohibitions. The DP rule ends up being clearly wrong 20% of the time.18 For the General–Specific version, the rate of 131 (75% of the 175) fitting applications of the rule to present imperative prohibitions is tainted by the 42 times (43% of the 97) the rule goes counter to the contexts of aorist subjunctive prohibitions. The GS rule is wrong almost 32% of the time.19 Table 2.6 compresses the data on these prohibition constructions—all 272 of them (175 pres. impv. + 89 aor. subj. + 8 aor. impv.)—to show the disarray that all versions of Aktionsart theory have for assessing the NT prohibitions in their contexts. And we can note here that the three versions of Aktionsart are in agreement a total of only 44 times (16% of the 272), indicating a persistent internal inconsistency for Aktionsart. A KTIONSART CONTEXTUAL CONGRUENCE FOR NT PRESENT & AORIST PROHIBITIONS Version of Aktionsart:

CI


TOTALS:

DP 13 (5%) 204 (75%) 55 (20%)

GS 3 (1%) 183 (67%) 86 (32%)

All 1 40 3

272 (100%) 272 (100%) 272 (100%) 44 (16%)

Table 2.6 As noted already, those who hold to an Aktionsart view of prohibitions in the New Testament tend to excuse the non-compliant passages as allowable exceptions or potentially explainable anomalies. But we suggest here that the exceptions are too numerous to allow the rule—in any of its versions—to ——— 18

Excluding the 8 negated aor. impv. and counting only the 175 pres. impv. and 89 aor. subj., the percentage figures of the 264 prohibitions for the DP version of Aktionsart remain largely unaffected as follows—indeterminate in context: 13 (5%); fit the context: 197 (75%); contrary to the context: 54 (20%). 19 Again, excluding the 8 negated aor. impv. constructions, the percentage figures of the remaining 264 prohibitions for the GS version of Aktionsart are only slightly affected as follows—indeterminate in context: 3 (1%); fit the context: 175 (66%); contrary to the context: 86 (33%).


43

stand. The historical situation does not directly determine the tense-form that an author must use to represent a prohibition. Not surprisingly, the historical situation may well influence the author’s view of an action, but it is the author’s view of the action—and not the action itself—that determines his choice of tense-form to represent the action. Examining the NT prohibitions in their contexts has made this clear enough. But there are additional arguments against the Aktionsart view of the NT prohibitions. 2.2 Unparallel Synoptic Parallels Comparing accounts of the same episodes in the Synoptic Gospels reveals places of inconsistency for Aktionsart understandings of the grammar of prohibitions in the Greek New Testament. If the NT authors were required by the historical action itself to represent that kind of action by its corresponding tense-form grammaticalization, we would expect the Synoptic authors to use the same tense-forms when reporting the same prohibitions— especially if there is a literary interdependence between the Synoptics. But this is not always the case. Below, with CI Aktionsart renderings, are the unparallel parallels among the prohibitions in the Synoptic Gospels. 2.2.1 On Anxiety (§67) and Anxieties about Earthly Things (§201)20 Matt 6:31

µὴ οὖν µεριµνήσητε λέγοντες· τί φάγωµεν; ἤ· τί πίωµεν; ἤ· τί περιβαλώµεθα; So, don’t begin to worry saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’

Matt 6:34

µὴ οὖν µεριµνήσητε εἰς τὴν αὔριον, Therefore, don’t begin to worry about tomorrow.

Luke 12:29

καὶ ὑµεῖς µὴ ζητεῖτε τί φάγητε καὶ τί πίητε καὶ µὴ µετεωρίζεσθε· Stop striving for what you should eat and what you should drink, and stop worrying.

Luke 12:32

Μὴ φοβοῦ, τὸ µικρὸν ποίµνιον, ὅτι εὐδόκησεν ὁ πατὴρ ὑµῶν δοῦναι ὑµῖν τὴν βασιλείαν. Stop fearing, little flock, because your Father delights to give you the kingdom.

——— 20 For convenience, we provide the pericope titles and numbers (§) as enumerated in Kurt Aland, ed., Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum: Locis Parallelis Evangeliorum Apocryphorum et Patrum Adhibitis (13th ed.; Stuttgart: German Bible Society, 1985).

44


It is evident from Luke 12:26 and 28 that Jesus’ disciples were already concerned about their day-to-day needs, so a CI Aktionsart approach to the present imperative prohibitions of Luke 12:29 and 32 would seem fitting, “Stop seeking…stop worrying…stop fearing.” But the parallel passage in Matthew 6 constructs these prohibitions against worry with two aorist subjunctive verb forms (Matt 6:31 and 34). On this same CI Aktionsart theory, the Matthean parallels must be understood as being incorrectly structured and saying, “Don’t begin to worry,” even though the context of Matt 6:28 also indicates that such worrying had already begun. Likewise, Matthew’s aorist tense-form selection does not seem suitable in this general and durative setting by the GS or DP Aktionsart theories either, as these would read his construction of the prohibitions as specific (“Don’t worry at this time”) and/or punctiliar (“Don’t do this single act of worry”). Therefore, in the historical situation portrayed by both the Matthean and Lukan contexts of this pericope, all three versions of Aktionsart theory must judge Matthew’s aorist tense-form selection for these prohibitions as incorrect. To our mind, this questioning of Matthew’s writing calls Aktionsart into question. 2.2.2 Commissioning the Twelve (§§49, 99, and 142) Matt 10:9

Μὴ κτήσησθε χρυσὸν µηδὲ ἄργυρον µηδὲ …. Don’t begin to acquire gold, nor silver, nor ….

Luke 9:3

µηδὲν αἴρετε εἰς τὴν ὁδόν, µήτε ῥάβδον µήτε πήραν …. Stop taking anything for the journey, no staff, ….

Jesus’ instructions for the Twelve as they go on their short-term mission include some prohibitions about what to bring with them. Reading the aorist subjunctive prohibition in Matt 10:9 with a CI version of Aktionsart theory makes sense: the disciples are instructed “don’t begin to acquire” things for the upcoming journey. But, on this same CI Aktionsart theory, how could the disciples “stop taking” things for a journey they were not on yet, as the present imperative prohibition in Luke 9:3 indicates? If the grammatical construction used by the writer were determined absolutely by the historical action, Luke would be required to use the aorist subjunctive as Matthew does (or some construction other than his pres. impv.).21 On the GS version of ——— 21

Cf. the Synoptic parallel in Mark 6:8a, which has an indirect prohibition constructed with ἵνα µηδὲν αἴρωσιν (“he charged them that they not take”); see in section 8.2.1 of Chapter 8. See also the uniquely Lukan pericope about the commissioning of the seventy (§177) where Luke 10:4 has the pres. impv. instruction µὴ βαστάζετε (“do not [begin to] carry”), which when rendered according to CI Akstionsart, suffers the same critique as the use of the pres. impv. does here.


45

Aktionsart, it is merely special pleading to say these parallel instructions for traveling light are both specifically for the Twelve on this particular journey (via the aor. subj. in Matt 10:9), but also a general precept for any believer and all short-term mission trips (via the pres. impv. in Luke 9:3). Perhaps DP theory works with the tense-form change between Matthew and Luke here because “acquire” (Matt 10:9) is a punctiliar lexeme and fitting for the aorist tense-form of Matthew, while “taking [as on a journey]” (Luke 9:3) can have durative connotations, which would fit Luke’s selection. But notice that all this information comes from the context and vocabulary; it need not be claimed for the tense-form spellings. 2.2.3 The Fate of the Disciples (§100) and Persecutions Foretold (§289) Matt 10:19

ὅταν δὲ παραδῶσιν ὑµᾶς, µὴ µεριµνήσητε πῶς ἢ τί λαλήσητε· But when they deliver you up, do not begin to worry about how or what you should speak.

Mark 13:11

καὶ ὅταν ἄγωσιν ὑµᾶς παραδιδόντες, µὴ προµεριµνᾶτε τί λαλήσητε, And when they lead you away delivering you up, stop worrying beforehand what you might say.

Luke 12:11

Ὅταν δὲ εἰσφέρωσιν ὑµᾶς ἐπὶ τὰς συναγωγὰς καὶ τὰς ἀρχὰς καὶ τὰς ἐξουσίας, µὴ µεριµνήσητε πῶς ἢ τί ἀπολογήσησθε ἢ τί εἴπητε· When they bring you before the synagogues and the rulers and the authorities, do not begin to worry about how or what you should speak in defense, or what you should say.

Clearly speaking about the future, Jesus instructs his followers to not worry about what they would say when interrogated. Matthew and Luke’s tense-form selections seem to fit the CI Aktionsart rule that assigns the negated aorist subjunctive to prohibitions of future not-yet-begun actions. Similarly, they fit the GS Aktionsart rule that says this is about a specific circumstance. The Synoptic parallel in Mark, however, betrays the error of the Aktionsart rule in both CI and GS forms, for Mark’s present imperative construction would be understood as a command to stop a worrying that had already begun and/or a general (not a specific) prohibition.22 If the Aktionsart ——— 22

Some might appeal to the lexical value of the word in Mark as precluding the application of the traditional Aktionsart rule, but this is unfounded since “worrying in advance” can be prohibited both before such worrying starts and after such worrying starts. Thus, the slight

46


theory were correct—even in the generic DP version—the historical action itself would dictate the tense-form selection and these Synoptic accounts would need to be more parallel. 2.2.4 Exhortation to Fearless Confession (§§101 and 196) Matt 10:28

καὶ µὴ φοβεῖσθε ἀπὸ τῶν ἀποκτεννόντων τὸ σῶµα And stop fearing those who kill the body.

Luke 12:4

µὴ φοβηθῆτε ἀπὸ τῶν ἀποκτεινόντων τὸ σῶµα Don’t begin to fear those who kill the body.

In this pericope on fearless confession of faith, Matt 10:28 constructs the prohibition against fear with the present imperative while Luke 12:4 has it constructed with the aorist subjunctive. By the CI Aktionsart rule, Matthew records Jesus saying, “Stop fearing” while Luke records, “Don’t begin to fear,” but it can hardly be both.23 By the GS Aktionsart rule, Matthew records, “Don’t ever be afraid” and Luke writes, “Don’t be afraid this time,” but again, it can hardly be both. And the same can be said for the DP version of Aktionsart: “Don’t be continually fearful” and “Don’t have this momentary fear” are hardly parallel. Aktionsart theory does not offer a workable explanation of this unparallel Synoptic parallel. 2.2.5 Signs before the End (§288) Matt 24:6

µελλήσετε δὲ ἀκούειν πολέµους καὶ ἀκοὰς πολέµων· ὁρᾶτε µὴ θροεῖσθε· And you will hear about wars and rumors of wars; see that you stop being alarmed.

Mark 13:7

ὅταν δὲ ἀκούσητε πολέµους καὶ ἀκοὰς πολέµων, µὴ θροεῖσθε· And when you hear of wars and rumors of wars, stop being alarmed.

vocabulary difference in these Synoptic parallels would not disrupt the CI Aktionsart rule if the rule were valid. 23

It would be special pleading to suggest that Matthew was writing for those in the crowd who were already afraid and Luke was writing for those in the crowd who were not yet afraid! And, of course, such a suggestion would fail nonetheless, because on the basis of Aktionsart theory that insists the tense-form is determined by the historical action, the two different tense-forms are making opposing claims about who Jesus was historically addressing.

CHAPTER 2—THE FAILURES OF THE AKTIONSART VIEW Luke 21:9

47

ὅταν δὲ ἀκούσητε πολέµους καὶ ἀκαταστασίας, µὴ πτοηθῆτε· And when you hear of wars and tumults, don’t begin to be terrified.

In the Synoptic eschatological discourse (Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21), Jesus lists wars as one of the signs to happen before the end comes, and he instructs that his followers should not be alarmed about these matters. Luke constructs this prohibition with the aorist subjunctive πτοηθῆτε (aor. pass. subj. 2nd pl. of πτοέω, “I startle, terrify”), which would seem to be more fitting with the traditional CI Aktionsart rule: “Don’t begin to be terrified” in the future when you hear about war. The Synoptic parallels in Matthew 24:6 and Mark 13:7, however, are constructed with the present imperative θροεῖσθε (pres. pass. impv. 2nd pl. of θροέω, “I alarm, startle”), which by the CI Aktionsart rule would command the believers to stop being alarmed.24 This puts Matthew and Mark at odds with Luke. Similarly, Luke’s aorist tense-form selection fits the GS Aktionsart guideline, as this prohibition is specifically aimed at eschatological events, but this means that Matthew and Mark’s tense-form selections are incorrect for the action presented in the context here. Here again, the implicit critique that Aktionsart has for the Synoptic writers reverses back as a critique of the Aktionsart guidelines. 2.2.6 False Christs and False Prophets (§291) Matt 24:23

Τότε ἐάν τις ὑµῖν εἴπῃ· ἰδοὺ ὧδε ὁ χριστός, ἤ· ὧδε, µὴ πιστεύσητε· Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘There he is!’ do not begin to believe it.

Mark 13:21

Καὶ τότε ἐάν τις ὑµῖν εἴπῃ· ἴδε ὧδε ὁ χριστός, ἴδε ἐκεῖ, µὴ πιστεύετε· And then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘Look, there!’ stop believing it.

The Synoptic authors all report that Jesus gave warnings regarding false reports about his return. While Luke’s account focuses more specifically on the return of the Son of Man, the specific wording that concerns us here is recorded only by Matthew and Mark as a prohibition against believing the ——— 24 While we include the prohibition in Matt 24:6 only in a collection of vision verbs with prohibitory object clauses (see Chapter 7 below) and not with the simple negated pres. impv. constructions, its use of the pres. impv. and not the aor. subj. is still significant for this critique of Aktionsart.

48


messianic claims of imposters.25 Matthew uses the aorist subjunctive construction, which fits by either the CI or the GS Aktionsart guidelines: “don’t begin to believe” in this particular circumstance. Mark, however, uses a present imperative construction suggesting the awkward rendering of this prohibition (by the CI or GS guidelines) as a more general “stop believing” command. Conversely, the DP guideline would seem to favor Mark’s present tense-form choice to represent an on-going disbelief of false Christs, while Matthew’s aorist tense-form choice by the DP guideline is inappropriately suggestive of a singular disbelief. If Aktionsart theory has a correct grasp on how the NT authors functioned, both Matthew and Mark would need to use the same tense-mood construction to fit the historical action of the verb. The fact that they do not do so here is evidence against the claim that Aktionsart theory reflects the actual use of the Greek language of the New Testament. 2.2.7 On Oaths (§57) Matt 5:34–37 ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑµῖν µὴ ὀµόσαι ὅλως· µήτε ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὅτι θρόνος ἐστὶν τοῦ θεοῦ, µήτε ἐν τῇ γῇ, ὅτι ὑποπόδιόν ἐστιν τῶν ποδῶν αὐτοῦ, µήτε εἰς Ἱεροσόλυµα, ὅτι πόλις ἐστὶν τοῦ µεγάλου βασιλέως, µήτε ἐν τῇ κεφαλῇ σου ὀµόσῃς, ὅτι οὐ δύνασαι µίαν τρίχα λευκὴν ποιῆσαι ἢ µέλαιναν. ἔστω δὲ ὁ λόγος ὑµῶν ναὶ ναί, οὒ οὔ· τὸ δὲ περισσὸν τούτων ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ ἐστιν. But I tell you not to make oaths at all, either by heaven for it is the throne of God, or by the earth for it is the footstool for his feet, or by Jerusalem for it is the city of the great King. And do not begin to make oaths by your head, for you are not able to make one hair white or black. But let your word be, ‘Yes, yes’ or ‘No, no’; and anything more than these is from the evil one. Jas 5:12

Πρὸ πάντων δέ, ἀδελφοί µου, µὴ ὀµνύετε µήτε τὸν οὐρανὸν µήτε τὴν γῆν µήτε ἄλλον τινὰ ὅρκον· ἤτω δὲ ὑµῶν τὸ ναὶ ναὶ καὶ τὸ οὒ οὔ, ἵνα µὴ ὑπὸ κρίσιν πέσητε. But above all, my brothers, stop making oaths, either by heaven or by earth or by any other oath, but let your ‘yes’ be yes and your ‘no’ be no, so that you may not fall under condemnation.

——— 25 Cf. the two aor. subj. in Matt 24:26, µὴ ἐξέλθητε and µὴ πιστεύσητε (“do not go out” and “do not believe”) parallel to the two aor. subj. in Luke 17:23, µὴ ἀπέλθητε µηδὲ διώξητε (“do not go and do not follow”) in this same pericope; cf. §235—The Day of the Son of Man.


49

This uniquely Matthean pericope finds a parallel prohibition not in one of the other Synoptics but in James.26 Source criticism concerning their similar wording for this command against taking oaths need not concern us here. Rather, we note that the similarities are enough to suggest they are speaking about the same subject matter, even citing Jesus (and/or reflecting on Lev 19:12). To suggest by way of CI Aktionsart that in Matthew’s account Jesus wants his apostles to “not to begin making oaths” (with the aor. subj. in Matt 5:36) and in James’ account the elder wants his readers to “stop making oaths” (with the pres. impv. in Jas 5:12) appears to be a bit of over exegesis. Turner asks about this tense-form change between James and Matthew, but despite his commitment to an Aktionsart approach to prohibitions, he does not propose an answer.27 The various theories of Aktionsart have not been able to provide a satisfying solution. 2.2.8 Summary on Unparallel Synoptic Parallels for Aktionsart Seeing that these parallel NT passages do not consistently record their prohibitions in conformity to traditional Aktionsart guidelines may well be enough to call those traditional guidelines into question. A grammar rule that requires us to think of the NT authors as pitted against each other is rightly suspect. The evidence of these kinds of unparallel tense-form selections in parallel passages could be multiplied if we included positive commands in the Synoptics and if we compared parallel passages in other NT authors. But that would go beyond our task here.28 However well-intentioned scholars of Greek grammar may be in their support of the Aktionsart theory—in any of its versions—it clearly does not fit well with the evidence of the prohibitions in the New Testament. ——— 26

The opening prohibition against oath taking in Matt 5:34a, constructed with a negated infinitive, is included in Chapter 7 below with other prohibitions so constructed. 27 28

Turner, in MHT 3:75.

See David L. Mathewson, “Verbal Aspect in Imperatival Constructions in Pauline Ethical Injunctions,” Filología Neotestamentaria 9 (1996): 21–35. In commenting on Paul’s use of the present tense-form construction in Rom 6:11 (λογίζεσθε ... νεκροὺς, consider as dead) over against the aorist tense-form construction in Col 3:5 (νεκρώσατε, put to death), Mathewson argues against the confusing comparisons offered by commentaries that suggest Romans focuses on “a settled attitude” to stop something and Colossians focuses on “initial action or the actual moment of decision.” Rather, Mathewson argues, with verbal aspect theory such strained notions of distinction are unnecessary, and exegesis can be relieved of trying to force Aktionsart rules upon the text. Mathewson’s conclusion regarding the application of verbal aspect theory to this Pauline parallel is our conclusion for all of the NT prohibitions.

50


2.3 Contextual Grammatical Interchanges The failure of Aktionsart’s kind-of-action counter distinction between the two most commonly discussed prohibition constructions in NT Greek shows up in yet a third way. In some NT passages the author moves from one grammatical construction of a prohibition to the other grammaticalization within the same context and without otherwise signaling any change in the kinds of action being prohibited. Again with CI Aktionsart renderings, we list and discuss here the prime NT examples of these grammatical interchanges within single contexts, which show an inadequacy in the Aktionsart understanding of the grammar of NT Greek prohibitions.29 2.3.1 On Anxiety in Matthew (§67) Matt 6:25

Διὰ τοῦτο λέγω ὑµῖν· µὴ µεριµνᾶτε τῇ ψυχῇ ὑµῶν τί φάγητε [ἢ τί πίητε], µηδὲ τῷ σώµατι ὑµῶν τί ἐνδύσησθε. οὐχὶ ἡ ψυχὴ πλεῖόν ἐστιν τῆς τροφῆς καὶ τὸ σῶµα τοῦ ἐνδύµατος; Therefore I tell you, stop worrying about your life, what you might eat or what you might drink, nor about your body, what you might wear. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing?

Matt 6:31

µὴ οὖν µεριµνήσητε λέγοντες· τί φάγωµεν; ἤ· τί πίωµεν; ἤ· τί περιβαλώµεθα; Therefore, don’t begin to worry saying, ‘What might we eat?’ or ‘What might we drink?’ or ‘What might we wear?’

Matt 6:34

µὴ οὖν µεριµνήσητε εἰς τὴν αὔριον, Therefore, don’t begin to worry about tomorrow,30

The three prohibitions in the pericope on anxiety in Matthew 6:25–34 all use the same verb—µεριµνάω (“I worry, am anxious”)—in active, second person, plural spellings negated by µή. But there is a significant change in tense-form between them. The opening prohibition is constructed in the present imperative and, by CI Aktionsart theory, would be understood as a command addressed to people already worrying to the effect that they should cease such worry. Then, summarizing the argument of Matthew 6:25-30, ——— 29 For examples of such grammatical interchanges in Herodotus, Homer, Plutarch, and Euripedes, see C. M. J. Sicking, “The Distribution of Aorist and Present Stem Forms in Greek, Especially in the Imperative,” Glotta 69 (1991): 27–28. 30

The prohibitions in Matt 6:31 and 34 are contrasted with those in Luke 12:29 and 32 on pp. 43–44 above under the problem of “Unparallel Synoptic Parallels.”


51

verse 31 refers back to the same activities as verse 25 (eating, drinking,31 clothing), but this time using the aorist subjunctive form, which would be understood by CI Aktionsart theory as a command not to begin this kind of worrying. If verse 25 instructs worriers to cease their worrying, why would verse 31 conclude this very argument on ceasing worry by saying, “Don’t begin to worry”? Moreover, verse 34 summarizes further, again using the negated aorist subjunctive, “Therefore, don’t begin to worry about tomorrow.” By CI Aktionsart theory, this does not make sense. Along these very lines and in keeping with his explicitly Aktionsart view of prohibitions, Hoerber offers a somewhat strained explanation of the interchange of these tense-forms.32 The use of the present imperative in Matt 6:25 indicates that the disciples were currently experiencing anxiety about physical needs. But the switch to the aorist subjunctives in Matt 6:31 and 34 is explained by claiming that Jesus’ words in verse 25 were immediately effective. “The aorist (subjunctive of prohibition for imperative) may indicate that the Master’s discourse on worry, with its several illuminating illustrations, probably did calm their needless concerns, and that He is cautioning them against beginning anew such foolish anxiety: ‘Do not, therefore, begin to be anxious again’ (6:31); and ‘Do not, therefore, begin to worry again about tomorrow’ (6:34).” This is just too much exegetical maneuvering. Perhaps the strain of this suggestion was apparent to Hoerber himself, as he immediately offers another explanation: “Or the aorist tense in these two verses may connote merely encouragement for future behavior.”33 The other versions of Aktionsart don’t fair much better here. Under GS theory, verse 25 would be understood as giving a general prohibition against worrying about daily activities and verse 31 as prohibiting the same worries on this (and only this?) specific occasion. Under DP theory, verse 25 would be understood as giving a prohibition against the ongoing worries of life and verse 31 as prohibiting the same (but separate?) worries as singular activities. ——— 31 The textual critical issue regarding the inclusion of ἢ τί πίητε in v. 25 to correspond with ἤ· τί πίωµεν in v. 31 does not effect the argument here. 32 The quotations of Hoerber in this paragraph are from Hoerber, “Implications of the Imperative in the Sermon on the Mount,” 102. For Hoerber’s explicit endorsement of a mixed view of Aktionsart theory on prohibitions, see our quotation of the opening paragraph of his article in Chapter 1 above, p. 26, n. 47.

Interestingly, Hoerber notes the importance of οὐν in these verses by adding, “In either interpretation the conjunction oun is pertinent.” But he does not note that the connection made by οὐν in verse 34 may count against his Aktionsart reading instead of for it. That is, how does the final command not to begin worrying adequately summarize (“therefore”) the prior command to stop worrying? 33

52


The confusing exegetical gymnastics required to make consistent sense of the Aktionsart guidelines in this particular pericope are a clear argument against the legitimacy of Aktionsart theory altogether. 2.3.2 Exhortation to Fearless Confession in Matthew (§101) Matt 10:26

Μὴ οὖν φοβηθῆτε αὐτούς· Therefore, don’t begin to fear them.

Matt 10:28

µὴ φοβεῖσθε ἀπὸ τῶν ἀποκτεννόντων τὸ σῶµα And stop fearing those who kill the body.34

Matt 10:31

µὴ οὖν φοβεῖσθε· πολλῶν στρουθίων διαφέρετε ὑµεῖς. Therefore stop fearing; you are worth more than many sparrows.

This pericope is found in a larger context of Jesus’ instructions about facing opposition (Matt 10:17–42). Matthew’s summary of this part of the message includes three prohibitions against fearing the opponents, and all use the same verb form (φοβέοµαι, “I fear, am afraid”). In this forwardlooking context, the first prohibition appears to fit with CI Aktionsart theory: the negated aorist subjunctive is used to instruct the listeners not to begin to fear the opponents they will face in the future. But the second and third prohibitions bring a troublesome grammatical interchange. These are present imperative constructions and would be rendered under CI Aktionsart as commands to stop a fearing that had already begun. Insisting upon the CI Aktionsart rule, one would have to argue that after verse 26 (“don’t begin to fear”) the apostles had become anxious enough to make verses 28 and 31 (“stop fearing”) appropriate. But this is a bit strained, especially when we notice in the broader context Jesus’ warnings about strong opposition (e.g., “wolves,” v. 16), impending flogging (v. 17) and arrest (v. 18), potential anxiety about testimony (vv. 19–20),35 family conflicts (v. 21), being hated (v. 22), and being persecuted for following Jesus (vv. 23–25). This list of cautions provides plenty of information for fear to have begun long before verse 26 and thus for an expectation that all three of these cease commands (vv. 26, 28, and 31) be constructed in the negated present imperative. ——— 34 The prohibition in Matt 10:28 is contrasted with the one in Luke 12:4 on p. 46 above under the problem of “Unparallel Synoptic Parallels.” 35 Matt 10:19 has its own negated aor. subj. prohibition: ὅταν δὲ παραδῶσιν ὑµᾶς, µὴ µεριµνήσητε πῶς ἢ τί λαλήσητε· (And when they deliver you up, do not worry about how or what you might say); cf. pp. 45–46 above under our discussion of “Unparallel Synoptic Parallels.”


53

The DP and GS Aktionsart theories, likewise, are weak in addressing the grammatical interchange in this pericope. For DP Aktionsart, the aorist tenseform prohibition, “Don’t have a single fear of them” (v. 26) becomes the present tense-form prohibition, “Don’t have a continual fear of them” (v. 28; cf. v. 31). For GS Aktionsart, “Don’t fear them this time” (v. 26) becomes “Don’t fear them ever” (v. 28; cf. v. 31). But in reading the whole pericope, this is not how the instructions in this passage develop. Therefore, the Aktionsart rule, in all of its forms, fails to make sense in this single context. 2.3.3 Exhortation to Fearless Confession in Luke (§196) Luke 12:4

µὴ φοβηθῆτε ἀπὸ τῶν ἀποκτεινόντων τὸ σῶµα Don’t begin to fear those who kill the body.

Luke 12:7

µὴ φοβεῖσθε· πολλῶν στρουθίων διαφέρετε. Stop fearing; you are worth more than many sparrows.

Using the same verb (φοβέοµαι, “I fear, am afraid”) but only twice, Luke covers this pericope a little differently than Matthew. Luke leaves out the first of Matthew’s three prohibitions, and he makes a change in tense-form in Luke 12:4 (cf. Matt 10:28).36 But Luke maintains the same tense-form in the last prohibition here (Luke 12:7; cf. Matt 10:31), and as we saw above in Matthew, this makes for a grammatical interchange that is difficult for Aktionsart theory. The immediate context of these prohibitions is instruction about future opposition and persecution (Luke 12:1-12). As in Matthew, the first instruction in verse 4 appears to fit with the CI Aktionsart guideline: the negated aorist subjunctive is used to instruct the listeners not to begin to fear their future opponents. But this prohibition is followed just three verses later by the prohibition in verse 7 constructed with the present imperative. We conclude here as we did above for Matthew’s account of this same teaching. The exegete following CI Aktionsart needs to suggest that the negated aorist subjunctive is proper in verse 4 (“Don’t begin fearing”) because it took the apostles three more verses for their fear to develop at which time the negated present imperative of verse 7 would be applicable (“Stop fearing”). Similar maneuvers would need to be made in order to apply here the DP and GS versions of Aktionsart as well, and such machinations as these indicate that the Aktionsart rule fails to make the best sense of the prohibitions in this context. ——— 36

This matter is discussed when the prohibition in Luke 12:4 is contrasted with the one in Matt 10:28 on p. 46 above under the problem of “Unparallel Synoptic Parallels.”

54


2.3.4 John Replies to Questioners in Luke (§15) Luke 3:13

ὁ δὲ εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς· µηδὲν πλέον παρὰ τὸ διατεταγµένον ὑµῖν πράσσετε. And he said to them, ‘Stop collecting more than you are assigned.’

Luke 3:14

καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς· µηδένα διασείσητε µηδὲ συκοφαντήσητε καὶ ἀρκεῖσθε τοῖς ὀψωνίοις ὑµῶν. And he said to them, ‘Don’t begin to extort and don’t begin to falsely accuse and continue being content with your wages.’

In the rendering of this passage by CI Aktionsart guidelines, John the Baptist instructs the repentant tax collectors, “Stop collecting more than you are assigned” (v. 13 with a negated pres. impv.), but he tells the repentant soldiers, “Don’t begin to extort and don’t begin to falsely accuse and continue being content with your wages” (v. 14 with two negated aor. subj. and a pres. impv). But it seems to be a case of special pleading to insist like this that all the tax collectors present that day were known to have been overcollecting and that none of the (repentant!) soldiers present that day had ever extorted or made false accusation or had ever expressed discontent with their pay. The guidelines of GS Aktionsart make matters worse: it is always wrong to collect more taxes than assigned, but only on this particular occasion should soldiers not extort or make false accusations. And as for the DP version of Aktionsart, it seems that the historic acts of collecting taxes are no more durative or punctiliar than acts of extortion and lying. No matter which version is followed, it is a strain to read Luke’s report of the Baptist’s instructions with Aktionsart theory. 2.3.5 Commissioning the Seventy in Luke (§177) Luke 10:4

µὴ βαστάζετε βαλλάντιον, µὴ πήραν, µὴ ὑποδήµατα, καὶ µηδένα κατὰ τὴν ὁδὸν ἀσπάσησθε. Stop carrying a moneybag, nor knapsack, nor sandals, and do not begin to greet anyone on the road.

Luke 10:7

ἐν αὐτῇ δὲ τῇ οἰκίᾳ µένετε ἐσθίοντες καὶ πίνοντες τὰ παρ᾿ αὐτῶν· ἄξιος γὰρ ὁ ἐργάτης τοῦ µισθοῦ αὐτοῦ. µὴ µεταβαίνετε ἐξ οἰκίας εἰς οἰκίαν. And remain in the same house, eating and drinking what they provide, for the laborer is worthy of his wages. Stop moving from house to house.


55

In the uniquely Lukan account of the sending out of the seventy (-two) disciples (Luke 10:1–12), Jesus’ instructions are reminiscent of those he gave at the sending out of the Twelve (cf. Matt 10:1–16; Mark 6:6–13; Luke 9:1–6 in §§99 and 142).37 These instructions include three prohibitions: one that facilitates traveling light (Luke 10:4a), one about the distraction of greetings en route (Luke 10:4b), and one about lodging (Luke 10:7). Constructed with the present imperative of βαστάζω (“I carry; I bear, tolerate”), Luke’s choice for the prohibition on things to bring seems to contradict the CI Aktionsart rule. If the grammatical construction used by the writer were dependent upon the historical action, it seems that Luke would be required to use the aorist subjunctive for instructions about a journey that has not yet taken place (i.e., Don’t begin to carry…). On the other hand, the second prohibition seems to fit the CI Aktionsart view since Luke’s use of the aorist subjunctive of ἀσπάζοµαι (“I greet”) refers to behaviors that had not yet begun and should not start. But then in the prohibition regarding lodging, Luke goes back to a present imperative construction with µεταβαίνω (“I move, go, leave”), which again contradicts the CI Aktionsart guideline: the disciples cannot “stop doing” an activity on a journey they have not even started. The GS version of Aktionsart reads with similar results: the first and third prohibitions seem specific to this short-term mission trip and seem to use properly (by GS theory) the aorist subjunctive. But the second prohibition is hardly a universal ethical command against greetings, so why does Luke record it in the present imperative? If the CI or GS Aktionsart guidelines were correct, why would Luke be inconsistent in following the rules of Greek grammar? It seems that only the DP version of Aktionsart—viewing the present tense-forms for “carrying” and “moving” as durative and the aorist tenseform for “greet” as punctiliar—might happen to fit this context.38 But this particular happenstance is hardly proof positive that this kind of Aktionsart view of prohibitions is everywhere correct. 2.3.6 Summary on Contextual Grammatical Interchanges for Aktionsart While there may well be an example or two of NT passages where a grammatical interchange between tense-forms poses no threat to the integrity ——— 37

See pp. 44–45 above.

38 Although we could argue that there is an obvious iterative connotation to the command to “greet no one on the road,” and under the Aktionsart guidelines such an iterative idea would be better suited to the present tense-form instead of Luke’s aorist here.

56


of an Aktionsart approach to prohibitions,39 there are several passages where such changes in tense-form call Aktionsart into question. As we will show in the chapters that follow, there is no need to force the guidelines of Aktionsart on such passages—either to call them examples of poor writing on the part of the NT authors or to call them anomalies or exceptions. It would be better to add these problematic passages to the case against Aktionsart theory. 2.4 Conclusion on the Failures of the Aktionsart View In the conclusion of his essay on aspect choice in classical Greek, C. M. J. Sicking remarks that “in many instances one may well substitute PS [present stem] for AS [aorist stem] (or vice versa) without having to alter the truth-conditions of what is communicated.”40 As we have seen in this chapter, this is the kind of thing that happens between NT authors writing on the same events and in several prohibitory passages where one author himself moves between the negated present imperative and the negated aorist subjunctive. If, as Aktionsart theory supposes, these different constructions are determined by the—and thus portray different kinds of—historic action, then authors choosing differently from each other for the same actions and one author moving back-and-forth between the two constructions while describing the same set of actions would be improper uses of the language. As Sicking notes elsewhere, “The distinctions between durative and punctual (or between action in progress and action ‘pure et simple’), and between completed and not completed, could never have gained and kept their currency if the Greek language did not offer numerous instances in which they may well appear to be applicable. The motive to reopen the investigation is in the observation that there are other instances, likewise numerous, which these distinctions do not help us to account for.”41 While some grammarians might want to excuse these numerous examples as exceptions to some version of the Aktionsart rule, is seems better to recognize these exceptions as proof that the Aktionsart rule is itself false. ——— 39

E.g., although the context of Acts 18 does not confirm that Paul was already fearing, a

CI Aktionsart rendering otherwise makes sense of the Lord’s string of commands (pres. impv.

prohibition + pres. impv. command + aor. subj. prohibition) in Acts 18:9a–b, µὴ φοβοῦ, ἀλλὰ λάλει καὶ µὴ σιωπήσῃς—“Stop fearing, but continue speaking, and don’t begin to be silent.” 40

C. M. J. Sicking, “Aspect Choice: Time Reference of Discourse Function?” pages 1– 118 in Two Studies in the Semantics of the Verb in Classical Greek (by C. M. J. Sicking and P. Stork; Leiden: Brill, 1996), 103. 41

Sicking, “The Distribution of Aorist and Present Stem Forms in Greek,” 169.


57

The numerous qualifications of the Aktionsart rule made in the grammars over the last two hundred years actually simply confirm the unfit nature of the Aktionsart approach. For example, after expressing the traditional Aktionsart distinction between the present and aorist tense-forms, someone of no less stature in the world of Greek grammar studies than C. F. D. Moule expresses his doubts about the system. “Now, good illustrations can indeed be adduced for Aorists and Presents fitting perfectly into these respective categories; but it is far more difficult to demonstrate that this is not due to some chance, and there are exceptions which make one wonder whether the underlying rationale has yet been discovered.”42 Later, when specifically addressing prohibitions, Moule still endorses Aktionsart, but only with an explicit and extreem qualification of it: “In general the Present Imperative commands (or, with µή, prohibits) continued or habitual action, the Aorist a specific action…. But this is an extremely fluid rule, and often the tense appears to be determined more by the meaning of the verb or by some obscure habit than by the ‘rules’ of Aktionsart.”43 In fact, Moule’s cautions regarding the traditional Aktionsart rule are such that he offers some rules of his own for its utilization. I suggest, as working rules, the following: i. Where there could be any ambiguity, writers tended (more or less, according to their degree of accuracy and feeling for style) to distinguish between the Present and Aorist Aktionsart. ii. Where there could be no ambiguity, the tense was determined by sheer chance, or euphony, or tradition, or availability of words. iii. The student will be well advised to observe the Aktionsart rules as precisely as possible when he is translating English into Greek, and to take special care, 44 when translating Greek into English, to see what the writers themselves do.

But this reworking of the traditional Aktionsart rule does little more than prove the rule’s wrongheadedness. Indeed, even if Aktionsart were to somehow be proven as the most correct rule for writing biblical Greek, the fact that the NT authors don’t follow those rules means that exegetes should not use those rules for reading the New Testament. To state the obvious: grammar “rules” that the authors don’t follow in their writing and that, ——— 42 Charles Francis Digby Moule, An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953), 20. 43

Ibid, 135.

44

Ibid, 136.

58


therefore, the readers can’t reliably utilize to understand those writings, are really not proper grammar “rules” for the language at all. The traditional Aktionsart view of prohibitions, in all of its various versions, fails to properly describe all of the NT prohibitions. As we have noted, many grammarians have noticed the inconsistency of the New Testament in aligning with the alleged rule; and as we have pointed out here, the inconsistencies are widespread and deeply serious. This stems from the Aktionsart presupposition that the Greek verb tense-form is determined by the historic kind of action that it represents. But this is demonstrably simply not the case. So, just over two hundred years after its first formulation in 1805, and just over one hundred years after its introduction into NT Greek studies in 1906, we suggest (along with others soon to be identified) that the Aktionsart approach to interpreting NT prohibitions—and all of Aktionsart theory in general—be completely set aside. Is there a better theory for understanding an author’s selection between the present imperative or the aorist subjunctive to express a prohibition in NT Greek? Yes, there is, and to that theory we now turn.

—CHAPTER 3— Verbal Aspect Theory & Greek Prohibitions: “Do not be doing that.” vs. “Do not do that.” Even before cataloging the failures of an Aktionsart approach to the prohibitions of the Greek New Testament, we noted that, throughout the relatively short history of Aktionsart theory, many scholars saw the need to offer exceptions and caveats about the prohibition rule. Moulton’s own caveat about the Aktionsart approach he introduced to NT Greek studies— e.g., his admission “that rather strong external pressure is needed to force the rule upon Paul”—inadvertently hints that a better approach to understanding Greek prohibitions might be one that considers the author and not the kind of action.1 Similarly, in comparing the aorist imperative and present imperative as used in the New Testament, Dana and Mantey offer this insightful caveat (even as they note the caveat of Winer before them): The distinction between the present and aorist imperative sometimes seems to be ignored. But we are safest when we assume that the author had a reason in his mind for using one rather than the other. Indeed, Winer says that ‘in many cases it depends on the writer whether or not he will represent the action as occurring, in a point of time and momentary, or as only commencing, or likewise continuing’ (W. 314). Why does it not in every case depend upon the writer? As a matter of fact, it 2 does.

We can wish that grammarians would consistently—more consistently than Dana and Mantey themselves—recognize that the choice of tense-form does depend upon the writer and not upon the historical action. This is the increasing consensus on the distinction between verbal aspect theory (tenseforms reflect the writer’s subjective view) and Aktionsart theory (tense-forms reflect the kind of action in history). ——— 1

MHT 1:125.

2

DM 300 (§288).

60


So far our argument has been that there are enough exceptions to call the whole Aktionsart approach itself into question. Now, clearly our proposal here will be that verbal aspect theory provides a better approach to the Greek verb in general and to the prohibitions in specific. Verbal aspect theory has to do with the author’s perspective and not with the kind of action in history per se. The author decides what tense-form to use; the kind of action does not. The book in your hands is not the first to address specifically the issue of prohibitions in the Greek New Testament from the perspective of verbal aspect theory. In 1966 Willem F. Bakker treated this subject in his Utrecht doctoral thesis published as a thin volume lengthily entitled, The Greek Imperative: An Investigation into the Aspectual Differences between the Present and Aorist Imperatives in Greek Prayer from Homer up to the Present Day. He opens his first chapter—“The Aspectual Difference between the Present and Aorist Stems”—with the following general comment about aspect theory as applied to the Greek verbal system: “The difference between the present and aorist stems has been explained by many scholars in very different ways. There is general agreement now, one might say, on what aspect actually is: aspect denotes the speaker’s point of view of the action. But no agreement has been reached yet as to the structure of the aspect system of the Greek verb.”3 Bakker’s half-century-old statement is still broadly true today; there have been great advances in applying aspect theory to understanding the Greek language (particularly in the last twenty-five years), but there is still much disagreement on some of the finer points of aspect theory and its application to the Greek verbal system. There are two comments worth making here about Bakker’s statement. First, we might wish it were as true as Bakker makes it sound when he says there is general agreement on what aspect actually is. Rather, despite the decades of discussion since Bakker made his remark, several NT Greek grammars published in the last few years portray a sloppy understanding of—and not a clarity of agreement on—what aspect really is. Secondly, the disagreement regarding the structure of the aspect system in Greek is quickly accessed by examining what is commonly called the “Porter/Fanning debate.” In this chapter, we advance our discussion of NT prohibitions by first addressing these two items in a brief history of verbal aspect theory. Then we examine diachronically several significant verbal aspect approaches to NT prohibitions. Finally, we make some prelimary conclusions about the prospects of verbal aspect for interpeting NT Greek prohibitions. ——— 3


CHAPTER 3—VERBAL ASPECT THEORY & GREEK PROHIBITIONS

61

3.1 A Brief History of General Verbal Aspect Theory4 Obviously this work is concerned with verbal aspect theory as applied to the Greek language of the New Testament. It is worth noting, however, that verbal aspect is not limited in application to the Greek New Testament; and furthermore, it was not even developed as a biblical Greek enterprise. It seems that the first occurrence of the term aspect as a linguistic label was in an early seventeenth-century work by Melety Smotritsky (1619), but it was the nineteenth-century work of Franz Miklosisch (1868-74) in Slavic languages that brought this idea to the modern consciousness, and the 1932 work of Roman Jakobson that firmly established it in linguistic studies.5 This “discovery” of the importance of verbal aspect in Slavic languages led to explorations regarding verbal aspect in other languages.6 Some of the bestknown full-length general treatments of verbal aspect as a semantic category of language are those by Bernard Comrie, Östen Dahl, Carl Bache, and Carlota R. Smith.7 ——— 4 We are somewhat dependent here upon such works as D. A. Carson, “An Introduction to the Porter/Fanning Debate,” 18–25; Rodney J. Decker, Temporal Deixis of the Greek Verb in the Gospel of Mark (Studies in Biblical Greek 10; New York: Lang, 2001), 5–28; and Constantine R. Campbell, Basics of Verbal Aspect in Biblical Greek (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008), 26–33. See also Andrew David Naselli, “A Brief Introduction to Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek,” Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 12 (2007): 17–28, and of course, the more detailed treatments found in VAG 17–65 and VANT 8–50. 5

Robert I. Binnick, Time and the Verb: A Guide to Tense and Aspect (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991), 139–40. The works referred to are those of Melety Smotritsky, Grammatika Slovenska (Evyu: n.p., 1619; reprint, Moscow: ZMS, 1648); Franz Miklosisch, Vergleichende Grammatik der slavischen Sprachen (4 vols.; Wien: Braumüller, 1868–74) ; and Roman Jakobson, “Zur Struktur des russischen Verbums,” in Charisteria Guilelmo Mathesia (Prague: Cercle Linguistique de Prague, 1932), 74–83; reprinted in Roman Jakobson, Selected Writings II: Word and Language (The Hague: Mouton, 1971), 3–15. 6

Maria Napoli, Aspect and Actionality in Homeric Greek: A Contrastive Analysis (Materiali Linguistici 54; Milan: FrancoAngeli, 2006), 15. 7

Bernard Comrie, Aspect: An Introduction to the Study of Verbal Aspect and Related Problems (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976); cf. idem, Tense (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985). Östen Dahl, Tense and Aspect Systems (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1985); and see now idem, ed., Tense and Aspect in the Languages of Europe (New York: de Gruyter, 2000). Carl Bache, Verbal Aspect: A General Theory and Its Application to PresentDay English (Odense: Odense University Press, 1985); cf. idem, “Aspect and Aktionsart: Toward a Semantic Distinction,” Journal of Linguistics 18 (1982): 57–72; and see now idem, The Study of Aspect, Tense, and Action: Towards a Theory of the Semantics of Grammatical Categories (2nd ed.; New York: Lang, 1997). Carlota R. Smith, The Parameter of Aspect (2nd ed.; Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy 43; Boston: Kluwer, 1997 [1st ed., 1991]). The

62


The nineteenth-century scholar Georg Curtius, who we have mentioned as influential in bringing Aktionsart (or Zeitart, as he called it) thinking to the fore, is also often credited with being the catalyst for moving the study of the Greek verb away from simple Aktionsart toward verbal aspect theory.8 With the advances in aspect studies in the Slavonic languages, the terms Zeitart, Aktionsart, and aspect began being used (all too interchangeably) in discussions of the Greek verbal system. Eventually Curtius’ Zeitart label was simply replaced by the Aktionsart label, and the struggle to distinguish between Akstionsart and aspect has continued.9 The first book-length applications of verbal aspect to Greek came with the works of Jens Holt to the Greek language more generally (1943);10 of Basil G. Mandilaras in his study of the Hellenistic papyri (1973);11 of Paul Friedrich in his study of Homeric aspect (1974);12 and of Juan Mateos with his focus of aspectual studies on the Greek of the New Testament (1977).13 3.1.1 Defining Verbal Aspect Theory Some of the greatest advances in the application of verbal aspect theory to the Greek language have come from (and at the encouragement of) the classical Greek scholar Kenneth L. McKay, whose work on verbal aspect began in 1965.14 In his study of Greek texts from Homer to the literary papyri reader may also appreciate some of the essays in Paul J. Hooper, ed., Tense–Aspect: Between Semantics and Pragmatics (Typological Studies in Language 1; Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1982); those in Rolf Thieroff and Joachim Ballweg, eds., Tense Systems in European Languages (2 vols.; Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1994–95); and those in Nomi Erteschik-Shir and Tova R. Rapoport, eds., The Syntax of Aspect: Deriving Thematic and Aspectual Interpretation (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005). 8 See Chapter 1 above regarding his role in the history Greek verb studies. See Porter’s high estimation of Curtius’ influence, VAG 26–29. 9

Campbell, Basics of Verbal Aspect, 27–28.

10 Jens Holt, Études d’aspect (Acts Jutlandica Aarskrift for Aarhus Universitet 15.2; Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1943). 11 Basil G. Mandilaras, The Verb in the Greek Non-Literary Papyri (Athens: Hellenic Ministry of Culture & Sciences, 1973). 12 Paul Friedrich, On Aspect Theory and Homeric Aspect (International Journal of American Linguistics, Memoir 28; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974). 13 Juan Mateos, El aspect verbal en el nuevo testmento (Estudios de nuevo testament 1; Madrid: Ediciones Cristiandad, 1977). 14 See the bibliography for McKay’s many published contributions to the discussion of verbal aspect. Stanley Porter praises McKay’s influence on verbal aspect studies, describing


63

(ca. from 8th century B.C. to the 5th century A.D.), McKay evolved “a more radically aspectual scheme” and became convinced that “there was no significant change in the aspectual framework of the Greek verb” from ancient times to the New Testament period.15 As he has come to define it, McKay stresses the prominence of aspect. One of the most important categories of the ancient Greek verb is that of aspect, by which the author (or speaker) shows how he views each event or activity he mentions in relation to its context. Three aspects are usually recognized and are clearly distinguishable: the imperfective, which expresses an activity as in process (in progress); the aorist, which expresses it as whole action or simple event; and the perfect, which expresses the state consequent upon an action. The future, which is usually regarded simply as a tense, lacks some of the moods which the other aspects have, and its infinitive and optative are very restricted in use, but in spite of these 16 limitations it is probably best regarded as a fourth aspect, expressing intention….

Thus, the tense-form spellings are not meant to be indications of the time of action (the traditional understanding of tense) nor of the kind of action (Aktionsart). With regard to time, McKay observes, “It is commonly assumed that each tense has, or should have a time reference proper to it. Although this is true of some languages, the tenses of ancient Greek do not signal time except by implication from their relationship to their contexts. Most of the tenses could be used with present, past or even future reference, depending on the time indicated mainly by other factors in the context.”17 him as the scholar who “has done the most significant work over the longest period of time on Greek, especially of the New Testament”; Stanley E. Porter, “In Defence of Verbal Aspect,” in Biblical Greek Language and Linguistics: Open Questions in Current Research (ed. Stanley E. Porter and D. A. Carson; JSNTSup 80, SNTG 1; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), 30. Porter’s article is reprinted as Chapter 2 in Stanley E. Porter, Studies in the Greek New Testament: Theory and Practice (Studies in Biblical Greek 6; New York: Lang, 1996) where this praise for McKay is on p. 25. 15

Kenneth L. McKay, “On the Perfect and Other Aspects in New Testament Greek,” NovT 23.4 (1981): 289. 16

Kenneth L. McKay, Greek Grammar for Students: A Concise Grammar of Classical Attic with Special Reference to Aspect in the Verb (2nd ed.; Canberra: Australian National University, 1994), 141 (§23.1); cf. McKay, “On the Perfect and Other Aspects in New Testament Greek,” 290. As indicated by McKay’s caution here regarding the future tenseform, many verbal aspect theorists disqualify it from portraying an aspectual feature. See more on this below. 17

McKay, Greek Grammar for Students, 146 (§24.1.3); cf. McKay, New Syntax, 39–40 (§4.1.2). Elsewhere he advises, “Above all it is necessary to resist the bondage of the timebased grammar of Latin and modern European languages, and recognize that...the normal morphology of the Greek verb gave little indication in itself of the time relationships

64


With regard to tense-forms representing Aktionsart, McKay offers the correction that “what is referred to is not the kind of action, but the way in which the writer or speaker regards the action in its context—as a whole act, as a process, or as a state.”18 He cautions that the kind of action is more aligned with the lexical value of a word and clarified by the context; kind of action is independent of the aspect portrayed in the tense-form spelling. “Most verbs can be recognized as having lexically either a stative quality or an action quality, which has some similarity to the perfect or aorist aspect respectively, but is independent of aspect.”19 We have already noted a tendency toward sloppiness on the part of many NT grammars regarding the definition of aspect. Two additional comments regarding this sloppiness should be made here. First, the older grammarians did not always make a careful distinction between aspect and Aktionsart: many spoke of these as if they were two different labels for the same thing.20 involved.” He notes that ancient Greek had the means “(mainly through adverbial expressions) to differentiate time levels when they were regarded as significant.” Then he adds, “These matters may still be important for the purpose of producing an English (or other) translation, but they were probably of rather less concern to ancient writers and readers than they are to us, and it is ultimately less inaccurate to recognize where the Greek is in fact ambiguous on such details than to impose on its interpretation rules that are foreign to it”; McKay, “On the Perfect and Other Aspects in New Testament Greek,” 295. 18

McKay, “Syntax in Exegesis,” 44.

19

Kenneth L. McKay, “Time and Aspect in New Testament Greek,” NovT 34.3 (1992):

226. 20 Even the major reference grammars (e.g., ATR, BDF, and MHT), whose arguments favor the Aktionsart model, are sometimes sprinkled with aspectual comments. D. A. Carson, in “An Introduction to the Porter/Fanning Debate,” 18–19, observes,

One of the most remarkable features of these grammars, however, is how the authors oscillate between an implicit definition of Aktionsart that grounds tenseform differences in the kinds of action to which reference is made, and an implicit definition that grounds tense-form differences in the decision of the author to describe or think of an action in a certain way. One model tries to tie tense-forms to what actually takes place; the other ties tense-forms to the author’s depiction of what takes place. The two are constantly confused. Even where there is formal recognition that the two models are different (thus BDF §318 labels Aktionsarten as ‘kinds of action’ and aspects as ‘points of view’), these grammars feel no embarrassment in assigning a tense-form to one or the other depending entirely on the apparent exigencies of the context. Cf. Trevor V. Evans, “Future Directions for Aspect Studies in Ancient Greek” in Biblical Greek Language and Lexicography: Essays in Honor of Frederick W. Danker (pp. 199–206; ed. Bernard A. Taylor et al.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 201. Another significant


65

Some recent grammarians carry on this same neglectful pressumption. Secondly, like Bakker himself, some recent grammarians begin with a fine definition of aspect but show themselves unable to fight the temptation to describe aspect in Aktionsart terms, tying the verbal aspect to the historical action rather than to the author’s perspective. So there is an ongoing need to utilize greater care in the use of grammatical terminology and to draw a firmer distinction between aspect and Aktionsart.21 In the words of Stanley Porter—one of its foremost advocates today— verbal aspect theory “states that verbal tense-forms are selected by language users not on the basis of the action in itself but on the basis of how they wish to conceive of and conceptualize an action.” 22 So, while the Aktionsart of a verbal idea is its “kind of action” in the way it actually occurs, the aspect of a verbal idea is the “author’s choice of view” on that action. Buist Fanning— another prominent defender of verbal aspect—draws out the distinction. At a basic level the distinction involves defining aspect as the way in which a speaker views or portrays a situation, and defining Aktionsart as the procedural character or nature of the occurrence itself. It is often said at this level that aspect is

example of the confusion is witnessed in a section entitled “Aspekt und Tempus” in the large reference grammar of Eduard Schwyzer, Griechische Grammatik: Auf der Grundlage von Karl Brugmanns Griechischer Grammatik, vol. 2: Syntax und Syntaktische Stilistik (2nd ed.; ed. Albert Debrunner; Munich: C. H. Beck, 1959), 246–301; cf. pp. 339–40 on commands and prohibitions. On this problem in general linguistic studies, see esp. Comrie, Aspect, 11–12. 21

Campbell bemoans this current situation: “Unfortunately, to complicate matters further, some recent literature demonstrates an unhelpful tendency to adopt the more fashionable term ‘aspect’ rather than the dated ‘Aktionsart’, but in so doing simply exchange one term for the other, without appreciating the differences between them. In other words, the term ‘aspect’ may be used, but the category that is subsequently discussed is of the realm of Aktionsart, not aspect”; Constantine R. Campbell, Verbal Aspect and Non-Indicative Verbs: Further Soundings in the Greek of the New Testament (Studies in Biblical Greek 15; New York: Lang, 2008), 80. Blatant examples of this confusion of labels in the past fifty years are found in Eugene Van Ness Goetchius, The Language of the New Testament (New York: Scribners, 1965), 69; William G. Morrice, “Translating the Greek Imperative,” The Bible Translator 24.1 (1973):129; Robert Walter Funk, A Beginning–Intermediate Grammar of Hellenistic Greek (3 vols.; 2nd ed.; SBL Sources for Biblical Study 2; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1977), 217–18 (§§309–312); Theodore H. Müeller, New Testament Greek: A Case Grammar Approach (Fort Wayne, IN: Concordia Theological Seminary, 1978), 49; Donald J. Mastronarde, Introduction to Attic Greek (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993), 145–48; Beaumont Ward Powers, Learn to Read the Greek New Testament: An Approach to New Testament Greek Based Upon Linguistic Principles (Adelaide, Australia: SPCK Australia, 1995), 51 (§4.31) and 312, n. 21; and Frick, A Handbook of New Testament Greek Grammar, 24. 22

Porter, “Greek Grammar and Syntax,” 89.

66

PROHIBITIONS IN THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT more subjective, involving a free choice by the speaker to view the occurrence however he or she chooses, while Aktionsart is more objective, since it is dictated by the actual character of the action or state described.… Aspect…is said to be concerned not with the actual occurrence but with how the speaker chooses to view the occur23 rence and is not dictated by the characteristics of the action itself.

Thus, just because an action was historically punctiliar in its Aktionsart does not mean that an author cannot choose an aspect so as to view accurately how that punctiliar action progressively unfolded. Conversely, an author can choose an aspect to summarize accurately and curtly an action that was historically progressive and durative in its Aktionsart. In keeping with McKay’s judgment on the usual number of recognized aspects, Daniel Wallace (similar to Porter) outlines a three-fold taxonomy of aspects for NT Greek: the external (or summary; Porter: perfective) aspect represented by the aorist and future tense-forms, the internal (or progressive; Porter: imperfective) aspect represented by the present and imperfect tenseforms, and the perfective-stative (a.k.a. stative, resultative, completed; Porter: stative) aspect represented by the perfect and pluperfect.24 An author has a ——— 23

Buist M. Fanning, “Approaches to Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek: Issues in Definition and Method,” in Biblical Greek Language and Linguistics: Open Questions in Current Research (ed. Stanley E. Porter and D. A. Carson; JSNTSup 80, SNTG 1; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), 48; cf. VANT 31. Porter offers further clarity, “Not only is verbal aspect not simply Aktionsart in new clothing, or not simply another way of formulating the same temporal perspective on verbs, verbal aspect as a category of modern linguistics provides a new orientation to viewing the language itself”; Porter, “In Defence of Verbal Aspect,” 43 (= Porter, Studies in the Greek New Testament, 37); cf. VAG 91. On the firmness of the distinction in general language study, see Bache, “Aspect and Aktionsart,” 57–72. 24 GGBB 500–501; cf. n. 16 where Wallace makes this additional comment about his categorizing the future and aorist tense-forms in the same aspect (against aspect advocates like McKay, Porter, and Fanning who see the future tense-form as a kind of anomily):

The future is often listed by grammarians as having an internal portrayal at times. Thus its aspect is listed as occasionally internal, occasionally external. This tense is still something of an enigma. It is the only tense that is always related to time, regardless of mood. And although its forms were no doubt derived from the aorist (note, for example, the sixth principal part), there are occasions in which an internal idea seems to take place (thus it appears to share some similarities with the present). However, it is probably best to see the future as the temporal counterpart to the aorist: Both are summary tenses that can be used to describe an iterative or progressive action, but only in collocation with other linguistic features. The future tense’s unaffected meaning does not appear to include an internal portrayal. For our argument in favor of the position Wallace takes here on the future tense-form, see Appendix B: Comparing Verbal Aspect Models.


67

choice of how he wants to look at an action. Verbal aspect is thus, as Fanning puts it, “a rather subjective category, since a speaker may choose to portray certain occurrences by one aspect or another without regard to the nature of the occurrence itself.”25 Similarly, Wallace explains, “There is a genuine difference between portrayal of action and the real progress of the action. An author may portray the action as summary, or he may portray the action as progressive, stative, etc. … an author often has a choice in the tense he uses and portrayal is not the same as reality.”26 With such claims as this, verbal aspect theory is not suggesting that authors intentionally misrepresent historical actions. Rather, the question is how an author wishes to speak about an event. The same author/speaker can speak about one event with several different aspects, depending upon the intention for his communication. For example, a witness to a car accident may well telephone authorities and (externally or in summary) report, “I just saw an accident, so please send an ambulance.” Later the same witness may (internally or progressively) report to the police about the same accident, “I was seeing the cars collide right in front of me.” Then the same witness may (statively) report about the same accident, “I have seen an accident today, and I am emotionally shaken by it.” The author/speaker gets to choose the aspect he uses to portray the action, but aspect (unlike Aktionsart) is not a matter of honestly or dishonestly reporting the historical action. Aspect is about the author/speaker’s chosen perspective on the action. On this Wallace remarks, “A basic issue in the tense used is how much a speaker wants to say about the progress or results of an action, or what he wants to emphasize. ——— 25 VANT 85. McKay describes this subjectivity with a bit more nuance (McKay, Greek Grammar for Students, 142 [§23.1.4]):

It is important to note that aspectual distinctions are not always objectively determined, but depend very largely on the subjective attitude of the speaker or writer: the same activity may be viewed by different observers or in different contexts as process, whole action, or state. In ancient Greek each speaker or writer had to express his aspectual view of each activity he referred to, whether he made its time relationships clear or not. This does not imply that all aspectual determinations are of equal significance. Sometimes the distinction between, say, process and whole action, was of little concern to the writer or speaker in the context before him, and so the choice he made there would be based on a purely personal (even capricious) appreciation of its fitness; but often the choice of aspects was entirely significant, showing how he wanted the activity to appear to his hearers or readers. Whether significant of not, the choice would always necessarily be one the writer or speaker saw as appropriate to its context. 26

GGBB 502.

68


This is not a question of accurate description vs. inaccurate description, but of fuller description vs. simple statement of action, or of one emphasis vs. another of the same action.”27 So we can contrast Aktionsart with aspect as follows: Aktionsart is about the action being reported; aspect is about the report of the action. Aktionsart is about the action in view by the author; aspect is about the author’s view of the action. Table 3.1 attempts to diagram this difference in English using the hypothetical example of one person choosing different tense-forms to give six reports of one single event (the car accidence referenced in the example above). For a few verbal aspect scholars, the general theory presented in this table will say too much, as it differs in some details from their particular view of verbal aspect. Conversely, for most verbal aspect scholars, this table will say too little, as it does not give a detailed explanation for each of the features. Its modest intention, however, is to offer a simple and largely agreed upon model of verbal aspect theory, even if it is too simple and disputable in some of its details.28 ——— 27

GGBB 503. Of course, such choices by authors are not always conscious selections. Porter remarks, “This language is not meant to imply that the choice by a language user was always (or ever!) conscious, but that the ‘choice’ was presented or required by the structure of the verbal system of the language”; Porter, “In Defence of Verbal Aspect,” 32 (= Porter, Studies in the Greek New Testament, 27); cf. VAG 88, where Porter indicates authorial choice is not wholly arbitrary. Going further than Porter, Fanning suggests that the nature of the actual event in history may well limit the author’s view of it: “However, fully subjective choices between aspects are not common, since the nature of the action or the procedural character of the verb or verb-phrase can restrict the way an action is viewed by a speaker” (VANT 85). Similarly, Carson remarks about “the kinds of factors (lexical, temporal, social and others) that might prompt the speaker to opt for one particular form …” that “… the speaker’s or writer’s choice of tense-forms (grammaticalizing aspects), theoretically as openended as the forms available, may be sharply constrained, or at least reduced within definable probabilities, by the pragmatics”; Carson, “An Introduction to the Porter/Fanning Debate,” 25. Cf., McKay, Greek Grammar for Students, 142 (§23.1.4), quoted in n. 25 above; and more broadly, Bache, “Aspect and Aktionsart,” 65–67. Nevertheless, we can see that, within their verbal system, the authors of the Greek NT exercised choice in their selection of verb tense-forms. Verbal aspect theory wishes to describe what the authors mean by such choices. For, as Steven Runge notes, “Choice implies meaning”; Steven E. Runge Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament: A Practical Introduction for Teaching and Exegesis (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2010), 5. For a statistical analysis supportive of the claim that aspect is a largely independent feature of the Greek verbal system see Stanley E. Porter and Matthew Brook O’Donnell, “The Greek Verbal Network Viewed from a Probabilistic Standpoint: An Exercise in Hallidayan Linguistics,” Filología Neotestamentaria 14 (2001): 3–41. 28

For a brief defense of the version of aspect theory represent in Table 3.1, see below, Appendix B: Comparing Verbal Aspect Models.


69

THE GREEK TENSE-FORMS IN GENERAL VERBAL ASPECT THEORY (accounting for some label differences between scholars) PERFECTIVE ASPECT

IMPERFECTIVE ASPECT

STATIVE ASPECT

(a.k.a. External, Complete, Whole, Summary)

(a.k.a. Internal, Process, Progressive)

(a.k.a. Resultative, Completed, Perfective-Stative)

Proximity Remoteness

Spa tia l Qua lity*

Core Report the mere Report the action Report the action Aspect fact of the whole in its progression in its resulting Meaning action. as a process. state. Future:#

Present:

Perfect:

“I will see a car accident.”

“I am seeing a car accident.”

“I have seen a car accident.”

Aorist:

Imperfect:

Pluperfect:

“I saw a car accident.”

“I was seeing a car accident.”

“I had seen a car accident.”

# Some verbal aspect theorists see the future tense-form as non-aspectual.

* Verbal aspect theorists differ on the distinctions between the paired tenseforms within the aspects. We use the label “spatial quality,” which can have physical, temporal (as here in English), or other metaphorical applications.

Table 3.1

3.1.2 Debating Verbal Aspect Theory Advocates of Greek verbal aspect theory are generally agreed that a) “the perspectival view of tense-form usage is at the heart of how verbs were used by ancient Greeks,” and that b) “context is important for understanding what the semantic contribution of the use of a given verb form is.”29 Despite these agreements, verbal aspect theory is not a monolithic and uniform approach. In the last three decades of applying verbal aspect to NT Greek, battle lines have been drawn regarding two particular issues: a) whether and how much ——— 29

Porter, “Greek Grammar and Syntax,” 90; cf. Campbell, Basics of Verbal Aspect, 32.

70


the feature of time is grammaticalized by verb tense-forms (particularly in the indicative mood), and b) the precise meanings of the various aspects (particularly whether or not there is a stative aspect grammaticalized by the perfect and pluperfect tense-forms and where the future tense-form fits in the verbal taxonomy). The discussion is often referred to as the “Porter/Fanning debate,” using the names of the foremost contenders in the argument.30 In the years since the debate first opened, other scholars have entered into the discussion so as to offer somewhat nuanced and/or mediating positions in light of Porter and Fanning; nevertheless, the tendency among the additional voices in the discussion is to identify themselves in terms of how much they side with one over against the other.31 With regard to the first area of disagreement, Daniel Wallace outlines four arguments in favor of Porter’s view that Greek tense-forms do not grammaticalize time—not even in the indicative.32 1) Phenomenologically, we can observe that the indicative of some tense-forms is sometimes used for timeless statements (e.g., the “gnomic use”) and for unexpected time (e.g., the “historical present,” the “futuristic present,” and the “proleptic aorist”). 2) Diachronically, we can observe examples in ancient Greek where tenseforms are used with unexpected time reference (e.g., aorists used without past time reference and nonaugmented indicatives used for past time). 3) Linguistically, we observe that the imperfect tense-form is used for foreground action in narrative literature while the aorist tense-form is used for background action, indicating a literary function and not a time function for the tense-forms. 4) Morphologically, we observe that the pluperfect began to drop its augment, so the augment should not be considered an indicator of past time in tense-forms. Nevertheless, Wallace goes on to counter each of these arguments in turn and so ends up siding with Fanning’s position ——— 30 A series of essays covering the debate—with an introduction by D. A. Carson, presentations by Porter and Fanning, and responses by Daryl D. Schmidt and Moises Silva—is available in Stanley E. Porter and D. A. Carson, eds., Biblical Greek Language and Linguistics: Open Questions in Current Research (JSNTSup 80, SNTG 1; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), 18–82. 31

As Carson suggests, “From now on, treatments of the verbal system of New Testament Greek that do not probingly interact with Porter and Fanning will rule themselves outmoded”; Carson, “An Introduction to the Porter/Fanning Debate,” 25. For a graphical display of nuanced views, as well as a brief explanation for the position held here, see Appendix B: Comparing Verbal Aspect Models. 32

In this paragraph and the next footnote we are summarizing from Wallace, “Appendix: An Assessment of Time In Verb Tenses,” in GGBB, 504–512.


71

claiming that the Greek verb tense-forms do grammaticalize time in the indicative mood.33 On the other hand, Rodney Decker has thoroughly tested Porter’s view of aspect by applying it to the Gospel of Mark and is more satisfied with the validity of a timeless verbal aspect theory than a time-bound one. The time indicators (“temporal deixis”) come from the context and not the verb tenseforms.34 And interestingly, Mari Broman Olsen offers a mediating view that ——— 33 Wallace’s counter arguments against a timeless verbal aspect system can be briefly summarized here: 1) Phenomenologically, perhaps NT Greek (like other languages) allows for exceptions to its normal use of time-bound tense-forms. 2) Diachronic arguments about ancient Greek poetry are less preferable than synchronic arguments about the prose of the Greek NT. 3) Linguistically, if not for some time reference, there seems to be little reason for more than one tense-form in any of the aspect categories. 4) Morphologically, the dropping of the augment from the pluperfect would not threaten its recognizable distinctive secondary endings. Additionally, Wallace notes that several ancient Greek writers describe Greek tenseforms in terms of time and suggests that the timeless view presents too many anomalies and the traditional time-in-the-indicative view accounts more simply for the data; counter examples are accounted for as explainable exceptions. In Wallace’s words, “the unaffected meaning of the tenses in the indicative involves both aspect and time. However, either one of these can be suppressed by lexemic, contextual, or grammatical intrusions” (GGBB 511, emphasis his). While Wallace distances himself from the timeless view of the tense-forms, our reading of Porter and McKay is that their stress of lexemic, contextual, and grammatical features makes their view and Wallace’s position somewhat similar: Porter and McKay see these other factors as potentially adding time to the otherwise timeless tense-forms and Wallace sees these other factors as potentially suppressing time in the otherwise time-laden indicative tense-form. See also Trevor V. Evans, Verbal Syntax in the Greek Pentateuch: Natural Greek Usage and Hebrew Interference (Oxford : Oxford University Press, 2001), 40– 51 (§§2.7–2.8) for another argument against (esp. Porter’s) timeless view of the tense-forms. Chrys Caragounis offers a passionate and substantive critique of Porter’s timeless verbal aspect theory; Caragounis, The Development of Greek and the New Testament, 316–36. In a few places it appears that Caragounis’ critique of Porter is more passionate than substantive. After examining the evidence for Porter’s position and finding it unconvincing, Caragounis remarks that Porter “arrives at the untenable conclusion that the Greek verb expresses no time—a conclusion that flies in the face of seventeen million Greeks, who daily use the verb to express time!” (p. 333). In defense of the timeless aspectual view, it should be noted that Porter (and those with him) does not suggest that Greek speakers could not use Greek verbs to talk about time; rather, the claim is that time is demonstrably not tied to the spelling of particular tense-forms. “There has been an unmistakable failure on the part of many working in verbal aspect to delineate what they mean by morphological meaning and contextual meaning, which has resulted in … inaccurate criticisms … which only tend to complicate the debate rather than move is [sic: it] ahead”; Jeffrey T. Reed and Ruth A. Reese, “Verbal Aspect, Discourse Prominence, and the Letter of Jude,” Filología Neotestamentaria 9 (1996): 183, n. 9. 34

Decker, Temporal Deixis of the Greek Verb in the Gospel of Mark, esp. 149–55.

72


suggests for NT Greek that time is grammaticalized by aspect in the indicative mood in some tense-forms but not in others.35 Apart from disagreement over the how time factors into the meaning of the indicative mood, the second area of the debate in Greek verbal aspect discussions is the precise meaning of the various aspects, particularly whether the perfect tense-form grammaticalizes a third aspect (Porter) or not (Fanning) and how to account for the future tense-form. The definition of aspect offered above follows Porter’s three-aspect system (specifically with reference to Wallace’s summary of aspect). Those following Fanning’s twoaspect system see the perfect (and pluperfect) tense-forms as a merging of the perfective/summary aspect with the imperfective/progressive aspect36 or as something of an extension of the imperfective/progressive aspect.37 Some aspectual grammarians will count as many as four aspects in the Greek verbal system by including the future tense-form as grammaticalizing a separate, admittedly time-oriented fourth aspect; this is McKay’s position.38 ——— 35 Mari Broman Olsen, A Semantic and Pragmatic Model of Lexical and Grammatical Aspect (Outstanding Dissertations in Linguistics; New York: Garland, 1997), 202. Olsen agrees with both Porter and Fanning in seeing the future tense-form as non-aspectual; she agrees with Fanning (against Porter) in seeing the perfect and pluperfect tense-forms as perfective (summary) in aspect along with the aorist tense-form; but she agrees with Porter (against Fanning) in seeing the present and aorist tense-forms as unmarked for time. Cf. Thomas R. Hatina, “The Perfect Tense-form in Recent Debate: Galatians as a Case Study,” Filología Neotestamentaria 8 (1995): 3–22, who argues against Fanning’s dual-time reference view and in favor of Porter’s timeless view of the perfect as grammaticalizing a stative aspect. 36 E.g., Randall Buth, “Verbs Perception and Aspect, Greek Lexicography and Grammar: Helping Students to Thinks in Greek,” in Biblical Greek Language and Lexicography: Essays in Honor of Frederick W. Danker (ed. Bernard A. Taylor et al.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 191–92; Buth’s attempt at finding a mediating view between Porter and Fanning is clear enough when he claims “two and one-half” aspects in NT Greek. Wallace offers a tempered version of this combination while still talking about a third aspect; see GGBB 501– 502. Likewise, Comrie is content to count the perfect/stative as a third aspect as long as one remembers its uniqueness: “However, given the traditional terminology in which the perfect is listed as an aspect, it seems most convenient to deal with the perfect in a book on aspect, while bearing in mind continually that it is an aspect in a rather different sense from the other aspects treated thus far”; Comrie, Aspect, 52. 37

E.g., Campbell, Basics of Verbal Aspect, esp. 31–32.

38 McKay, Greek Grammar for Students, 141 (§23.1); cf. McKay, “Time and Aspect in New Testament Greek,” 225; and McKay’s critiques of both Porter and Fanning in McKay, New Syntax, 35–38 (§3.6). See also Swetnam, An Introduction to the Study of New Testament Greek, 1:457, where he comments about his approach, “The future stem is usually regarded as not expressing an aspect at all, but simply as indicating a time value involving the future in some way. Certainly the future stem is more obviously temporal than the other stems. But it is


73

The features of the Porter/Fanning debate are not univocally bound together. For example, in defining aspect above, we referred to the summary descriptions of Wallace, who outlines three different aspects (à la Porter), and yet as just noted, Wallace favors a time-related view of the indicative (à la Fanning). Conversely, Constantine Campbell favors a timelessness of all moods including the indicative (à la Porter), but clearly prefers a two-aspect system (à la Fanning).39 Nevertheless, for the most part, the Porter/Fanning debate is secondary to our concerns here. Where the Porter/Fanning debate is caught up with time considerations regarding verbs in the indicative mood, the great prohibition debate under discussion here is concerned with verbs in the imperative and subjunctive moods.40 Where the Porter/Fanning debate is caught up with defining the aspectual nature of the perfect and pluperfect tense-forms, the great prohibition debate is concerned with verbs in the present and aorist tense-forms—the primary tense-forms of the two largely agreed upon aspects. It is, in fact, where Porter and Fanning (and other verbal aspect scholars) agree that we find a more satisfying understanding of NT Greek prohibitions.41 But we must hasten to say that the Porter/Fanning debate does reach the discussion of prohibitions at a more detailed level, as Porter and Fanning each applies aspectual thinking to commands and prohibitions in slightly different ways. These various explanations will be touched upon in due doubtful if the New Testament authors made a distinction between aspect in the true sense (present, aorist, perfect) and non-aspect (future), given that distinct stems were used to express each of the four with no further elaboration. Hence, in this grammar, the future aspect will be regarded as being on a par with the other three aspects.” 39

Campbell remarks specifically about the debate on the number of aspects, “Generally speaking, among those who teach and learn ancient Greek, most seem to accept the existence of three aspects. But the major contributors to the modern debate clearly prefer the two-aspect position, rejecting stative aspect. Indeed, within the wider linguistic world, two aspects are standard across languages. To regard stativity as an aspect is quite odd”; Campbell, Basics of Verbal Aspect, 32. 40

Without time reference, some say the non-indicative moods occur in “purely aspectual contexts”; so Buth, “Verbs Perception and Aspect, Greek Lexicography and Grammar,” 186. 41

As worded by Robert Picirilli, “[T]he differences in detail should not obscure the fact that verbal aspect theory represents a view of the Greek tenses that is more or less the same among its major proponents. According to this theory, the Greek tenses signify verbal aspect, defined as the user’s choice to view the activity or state expressed by the verbal form either as in progress, as a whole, or as a state of being”; Robert E. Picirilli, “The Meaning of the Tenses in New Testament Greek: Where are We?” JETS 48 (2005): 541.

74


course. Thus, the assessment of Bakker, in defending his writing of a whole book on the Greek imperative, is fitting here: “Another reason for spending so much time on this subject is that in all research done on the aspects of the Greek verb the imperative appears to have caused the greatest trouble.”42 3.2 Various Aspectual Understandings of Greek Prohibitions We have already seen that nuanced approaches to understanding Greek prohibitions resulted from dissatisfaction with the traditional Aktionsart theory (Chapter 1 above). In the realm of theorizing, when dissatisfaction is extreme, an old theory might be completely replaced rather than merely renovated. Such replacement is what verbal aspect theory does with the traditional Aktionsart approach to the Greek verb. Our concern here is to explore the application of verbal aspect theory particularly to the verbal constructions of prohibitions in the Greek New Testament. BASIC PROHIBITIONS IN GENERAL VERBAL ASPECT THEORY PERFECTIVE ASPECT

IMPERFECTIVE ASPECT

STATIVE ASPECT

Proximity Remoteness

Spa tia l Qua lity

Core Report the mere Report the action Report the action Aspect fact of the whole in its progression in its resulting Meaning action. as a process. state. Future:

Present:

Perfect:

“You shall not do that.”

“Do not be doing that.”

“Do not be [in a state of] doing that.”

Aorist:

Imperfect:

Pluperfect:

“Do not do that.”

Table 3.2

——— 42



75

Thus, generally speaking, rather than an Aktionsart understanding of a negated present imperative as a command to “stop doing that,” verbal aspect theory is more prone to see the author as viewing the command as a process: “do not be doing that.” And rather than an Aktionsart understanding of a negated aorist subjunctive as a command to “don’t start that,” verbal aspect theory is more prone to see the author as viewing the command in summary fashion: “do not do that.” Table 3.2 places these on the verbal aspect chart.43 Nevertheless, given the above summary of the current debates regarding verbal aspect theory, it will be of little surprise to discover some variety in aspectual understandings of Greek prohibitions. We will briefly outline some of the main contributors to the conversation and then cautiously offer some thoughts on what we consider the best way forward at this juncture. 3.2.1 Early Verbal Aspect Understandings of Prohibitions The survey of verbal aspect history above briefly addresses its history in general. Here we want to discuss more specifically the history of verbal aspect approaches to understanding prohibitions in Greek. The following scholars are the brightest lights on the pathway of this more specific history. George Andrew Jacob (1845) While some may trace the beginnings of Greek verbal aspect theory to the Aktionsart-related work of the late nineteenth century scholar Georg Curtius (see above), the second edition of George Andrew Jacob’s grammar text, The Bromsgrove Greek Grammar of 1845 displays an aspectual understanding of Greek that predates Curtius’ work of 1852.44 Similar to many modern grammars, Jacob sees a time reference with the tense-forms in the indicative mood and also notes the tenses to be descriptive of the “state” of the action, which sounds at first to be in concert with Aktionsart theory. ——— 43

And we can note here that some prohibitions in the NT are constructed with the future ind. tense-form, where the author views the action in summary form (perfective aspect): “you shall not do that”; see Chapter 7 and Appendix B below for more on this use of the future tense-form. The use of the perfect tense-form for prohibitions is rare in biblical Greek: the NT has no negated occurrences and the LXX has five occurrences; see Appendix D on this. 44

George Andrew Jacob, The Bromsgrove Greek Grammar (rev. ed.; London: Simpkin, Marshall & Co., 1845 [1st ed., 1838]). We cannot be sure if Jacob exhibited the same aspectual approach to the Greek verb in the 1838 first edition as it is unavailable to us. The University of Oxford library catalog lists the first edition as being 202 pages in length, whereas the 1845 second edition is 295 pages (46% longer), so what we describe here may be new to the second edition.

76


But Jacob is careful to say that the tense-forms “describe” the act in suchand-such a state, not that the tense-forms claim the historical action is/was itself of a particular kind. With reference to the state of an action the Tenses may be divided into three classes, Imperfects, Perfects, Indefinites. 1. The Imperfects are the Present-imperfect and Past-imperfect, commonly called the Present and Imperfect; they describe an act as going on; …. 2. The Perfects are the Present-perfect, Past-perfect, and (in the passive) Future-perfect, commonly called the Perfect, Pluperfect, and Future-perfect or Paulo-post-futurum; they describe an act as completed …. 3. The Indefinites are the Past-indefinite and Future-indefinite, commonly called the Aorist and Future; they describe an act simply as an act, without noticing whether it is going on or completed …. In all Moods except the Indicative the Tenses do not describe the time, but only the state of an action, either as continuing, completed, simply acted, or intended …. 1. The Present describes an act as continuing or repeated …. 2. The Perfect describes an act as completed or finished …. 3. The Aorist describes an act simply as an act, without noticing its continuance or completion …. 45 4. The Future describes an act as intended or expected ….

It is the qualifier regarding the aorist that is most instructive. An author uses the aorist to describe an act simply—even though that act has an actual continuance or completion, the author is not required to reflect an action’s actual state by his selection of the tense-form used to describe the action. So with regard to prohibitions, rather than an Aktionsart approach, Jacob’s The Bromsgrove Greek Grammar offers English translations of the Greek that reflect a verbal aspect approach: the present tense-form viewing the action as a process and the aorist tense-form viewing the action in summary fashion. It states simply: With negatives the Present commonly takes the Imperative, but the Aorist the Subjunctive; as, µὴ τύπτε, µὴ τύψῃς, 46 do not be striking. do not strike.

——— 45 Jacob, The Bromsgrove Greek Grammar, 227–29 (§§136–137). Cf. Jacob’s shorter but similar treatment in idem, Greek Grammar, for the Use of the Lower Grammar School in Christ’s Hospital (Simpkin, Marshall & Co., 1854), 26 (§37.5) and the same shorter description in idem, Elementary Greek Grammar (2nd ed.; London: Simpkin, Marshall & Co., 1860), 30 (§37.5). 46

Jacob, The Bromsgrove Greek Grammar, 211 (§133.2).


77

Thus, unlike the traditional Aktionsart approach, Jacob offers aspectual translations of the example prohibitions and allows for either of the tenseform constructions to be used in prohibitions of future acts not yet begun as well as commands to cease acts already underway. While not a full-fledged verbal aspect theory (and without using the term “aspect”), Jacob’s proposal has clear aspectual leanings and renders prohibitions in an aspectual manner. J. Donovan (1895) Another early breakthrough in aspectual thinking about prohibitions came in a series of articles on Greek jussives by classicist J. Donovan. In a review of Edward A. Sonnenschein’s Greek grammar (1892–94), and reflecting upon the still Aktionsart laden work of Curtius, Donovan remarks, “Prof. Sonnenschein has retained Curtius’ well-known distinction between present and aorist jussives. Commands and prohibitions applicable to a single occasion are said to affect the aorist, and such as are applicable to general rules of life, the present.” After this remark, Donovan continues with the fundamental observation that drives our study here: “It is somewhat strange that it is not even hinted that the instances where this law is unobserved by Greek writers are so numerous, that the rule itself must be abandoned or in some way patched up so as to meet the countless exceptions which may be arrayed against it.”47 Unsatisfied with merely complaining about the matter, in a footnote to his review of Sonnenschein, Donovan expresses the desire to address commands and prohibitions in a future issue of The Classical Review,48 and in four subsequent articles that year he engages the discussion.49 In doing so, Donovan offers a critique of two different forms of the Aktionsart approach to Greek prohibitions, and then aligns himself with a third theory that has clear verbal aspect leanings.50 ——— 47

J. Donovan, “[Review:] Sonnenschein’s Greek Grammar,” The Classical Review 9.1 (1895): 61. 48

Ibid., 61, n. 1. He asks for “the Editor’s kind permission,” which was clearly granted.

49

J. Donovan, “Greek Jussives,” The Classical Review 9.3 (1895): 145–49; idem, “German Opinion on Greek Jussives,” The Classical Review 9.6 (1895): 289–93; idem, “German Opinion on Greek Jussives (Continued),” The Classical Review 9.7 (1895): 342–46; idem, “German Opinion on Greek Jussives (Conclusion).” The Classical Review 9.9 (1895): 444–47. 50 Donovan levels no complaint about the use of the term Aktionsart itself; he is satisfied to call all three approaches to commands and prohibitions Aktionsart views; see Donovan, “German Opinion on Greek Jussives,” 289–90. His severely modified version of Aktionsart we have now come to call a verbal aspect approach.

78


With reference to various scholars, Donovan notes several different ways to express the overall Aktionsart distinction between the present tense-form (“extended,” “continued,” “recurring,” “general” action) and the aorist tenseform (“single,” “momentary,” “transient,” “simple” action).51 But this language is ultimately unhelpful, Dononvan says. What is the measured difference between momentary and continuous? “We cannot, for instance, assign the decimal of a second or minute through which an action must have extended to be called continuous rather than momentary.… [I]f any one chooses, he may persist in regarding all the actions we have been discussing as momentary relatively to some infinitesimal fraction of a second.”52 To support his complaint, Donovan outlines two kinds of argument against the typical Aktionsart approaches. First, that of paralleled passages: “Perhaps the best way to enable the reader to judge for himself in this matter will be to put forward parallel passages containing commands and prohibitions expressed respectively by aorist and present.” This he does by offering a sampling of classical Greek passages that use the differing tense-forms for the same commands.53 He concludes that the evidence—which could be multiplied—“proves beyond a doubt the distinction of general versus particular, habitual versus occasional action, as applied to present and aorist, to be utterly nugatory.”54 He also collects together several classical examples for his second argument against typical Aktionsart approaches, that of contextual variations. “The present and aorist often occur side by side in the same sentence, referring to the same particular occasion and sometimes even to the same action.”55 Greek authors can only do this if they are not following the putative typical Aktionsart rule. Donovan describes three different progressively appearing approaches to understanding Greek commands and prohibitions, each differing in the kinds of action they assign to the three primary tense stems (present, aorist, and perfect).56 The first is the standard expression (represented by Hermann, Kühner, and Buttmann), which makes these assignments: present tense-form ——— 51

Donovan, “Greek Jussives,” 145.

52

Ibid., 146.

53

Ibid., 146–48.

54

Ibid., 148. In Chapter 2 above we applied this test to Synoptic parallels in the NT.

55

Ibid., 148–49. In Chapter 2 above we applied this test to the Greek NT as well.

56

This paragraph is descriptive of Donovan, “German Opinion on Greek Jussives,” 290– 93 and idem, “German Opinion on Greek Jussives (Continued),” 342.


79

expresses durative action, aorist tense-form expresses momentary action, and perfect tense-form expresses completed action. The second version (found in the works of such scholars as Brugmann, Krüger, and Kaegi) alters only the description of the aorist kind of action and makes these assignments: present tense-form expresses durative action, aorist tense-form expresses ingressive action, and perfect tense-form expresses completed action. In the third version (represented especially by Ernst Koch and preferred by Donovan) the kinds of actions are adjusted more thoroughly: present tense-form expresses not-concluded action, aorist tense-form expresses concluded action, and perfect tense-form expresses the state resulting from a concluded action. Donovan’s analysis is appreciable for its historical tracing of traditional Aktionsart theory (again back to Hermann), for its exposure of the failings of traditional Aktionsart theory, for its critique of some of the labels used in Aktionsart circles, and for its promotion of labels that have become more useful in verbal aspect thinking. For example, Donovan describes the present tense in terms that accord with verbal aspect theory: “The present stem marks the evolution of the action; it represents it as evolving itself, as in process of development, as something going on or in progress, without reference to its conclusion.” He also notes the subjective nature of the progress grammaticalized by the present tense-form over against the actual historical duration of an action: “The development or evolution of an action may extend over years, days, seconds or only the fraction of a second. Actual duration may be of imperceptible extension or considerably protracted. In either case the present stem is applicable because it marks not precisely duration but action evolving itself.”57 Furthermore, contrasting his view (using ‘evolving itself’ and ‘concluded’ terms) over against a more traditional Aktionsart theory (using ‘continuous’ and ‘momentary’ terms), Donovan observes, It must certainly be admitted that the same action—especially in commands and prohibitions where execution follows—may be considered equally well as ‘evolving itself’ or as ‘concluded.’ It would thus seem to be left to the whim of the speaker which form he shall select. Quite so and of necessity: but then the theory in its present shape supplies the speaker with an objective criterion, whereas besides leaving choice of form to his discretion, the ‘momentary’ theory supplied him with a purely subjective criterion—by which to make his selection. Action evolving itself as opposed to concluded action offers a distinction based on objective reality; not so ‘continuous and momentary’ which shift their meaning according to the actions compared, as indeed they must do, being relative terms based on external not 58 internal quality of action.

——— 57

Donovan, “German Opinion on Greek Jussives (Continued),” 343.

58

Ibid., 344.

80


So, finding some of the terms to be unhelpfully flexible and the systems to be too attached to time in the non-indicative moods, Donovan disapproves of the first two Aktionsart approaches. And his expression of the third and severely adjusted Aktionsart approach clearly has leanings toward what we today call verbal aspect theory. In fact, Donovan even uses the term “aspect” to describe these three features and does so as if a single act has all three aspects. “In other words, ‘not concluded,’ ‘concluded,’ ‘concluded the effects remaining’ (i.e. state resulting from concluded action)—are the three aspects of an action expressed severally by present, aorist and perfect stems.”59 If an action has all three aspects, the choice of tense-form seems to belong completely to the perspective of the writer and not merely to the historic action. This is the proposal of verbal aspect theory. In this manner— by his analysis and critique of Aktionsart approaches to commands and prohibitions and by his contribution to the vocabulary of the discussion— Donovan arrives at what has become a verbal aspect theory.60 ——— 59

Ibid., 342.

60 Curiously, Donovan makes the following comment that appears to be an explicit rejection of aspectual thinking as being too subjective (Donovan, “German Opinion on Greek Jussives,” 291):

Such explanations serve merely to divert the attention from objective facts, and leave everything to the idiosyncrasy of the individual. In other words, if I choose to regard an action as momentary, I use the aorist: if I prefer to look on the same act as continuous, I use the present. This line of reasoning leads, in my opinion, to hopeless subjectivity, and would, if put in practice, prove of dubious service both to critic and tiro alike. With criteria of this sort quot capita tot sententiae and, what is more, every one would be right. Schoolmasters must henceforth refrain from altering a present to an aorist or vice versa, if they will not incur the risk of being told by a pupil that he regards as continuous what his master looks upon as momentary. In the employment of purely relative terms it is no exaggeration to say that there must be difference of opinion. As already shown, however, Donovan clearly understands that one way to solve the problems of the Aktionsart theory is to tie the tense-forms not to the historical action but to the writer’s view of the action. Why then does he seem to despise such an authorial connection with this statement? We would propose that this apparent rejection of aspectual thinking is actually a rejection of the idea that a writer can change the historic event by changing the tense-form used to describe it. Donovan makes the above comment given the assumption of the typical Aktionsart theory in which the verb tense-form is presumed to be tied to the historical action. When making this comment in the second article, certainly Donovan had not forgotten his own previous article where he cites examples of authors using both present and aorist tense-forms to describe the same act. If the tense-form is necessarily tied to the historical action (as traditional Aktionsart theory claims) and the writer is allowed to


81

Levi Arnold Post (1938) Like many before him, Levi Arnold Post notes that “whenever a serious attempt has been made to formulate the distinction of tenses in the imperative, there has always remained an important residue of instances where the Greek author did apparently just the wrong thing.”61 And like many before him (and after him, as will be observed below), Post seeks to address the matter with a mix of Aktionsart and aspect approaches to the verb. It is evident in his 1938 article that Post accepts the basics of Aktionsart as properly descriptive of the way Greek writers selected verb tenses, but he notes immediately that aspect theory picks up most of the slack where Aktionsart theory falls short. “It has long been generally agreed that the kind of action (Aktionsart) described is in Greek an important factor, often the sole factor, in determining the choice of tense. Where objective temporal sequence is not decisive, the speaker’s view of the act becomes important. Hence the formulation of the current aspect theory....”62 Thus, he supports a modification of the traditional Aktionsart approach with aspectual ideas— and even uses the label “aspect theory” for this combined Aktionsart–aspect approach.63 As good as it is, however, Post nevertheless sees “the current aspect theory” as being deficient for analyzing Greek commands and prohibitions; it is “a theory that comes near to giving a complete account of the use of tenses in all Greek moods except the imperative.”64 To address this inadequacy in thinking about Greek commands—by which he clearly means to “include with the imperative both imperatival infinitives and the prohibitive subjunctive”65—Post proposes to add somesubjectively change the tense-form (as can be observed in the ancient Greek literature), then Donovan is correct and chaos would ensue in human communication. Instead of the rather subjective criteria of how a writer might assess the historic action (“Is it a ‘momentary’ action requiring the aorist tense or a ‘continuous’ action requiring the present tense?”), Donovan wants to tie a verb’s tense-form to the objective criteria of how the writer wants to view the action (“I am choosing to look at the historic action as a process and so I must use the present tense.”). This is verbal aspect theory. 61

L. A. Post, “Dramatic Uses of the Greek Imperative,” The American Journal of Philology 59.1 (1938): 32. 62

Ibid., 31.

63

Cf. ibid., 33, where Post notes, “The aspect theory assumes that language is determined by the way things look to an observer.” 64

Ibid., 31. He continues, “I shall surprise some by my statement that the aspect theory does not adequately explain the use of tenses in the imperative; but so it is.” 65

Ibid., 35.

82


thing more to the verbal theory. What he adds is a recognition of drama suggesting that this will fill out why a Greek writer would choose one tense over another. “Just as the aspect feature of tense distinctions does not interfere with the use of tenses to indicate distinctions of past and present, so my scheme of dramatic uses of the imperative will be found to supplement rather that to supersede or contradict the aspect theory.”66 In brief, Post suggests that the present imperative is used either when there is an appeal to the facts as they are or when the speaker is assumed to be in (more dramatic emotional) control and that the aorist imperative is used when the speaker chooses a tone of more intimacy and familiarity and/or wants to soften the dramatic emotional elements.67 But Post’s complaint about the inadequacies of an aspectual approach to Greek commands is not actually about aspect theory; rather, his notices of inadequacies are more about the elements of Aktionsart theory he has retained. So we would suggest that, rather than add more to his combined Aktionsart–aspect approach, Post should subtract from it. As is clear by now, we think Aktionsart theory should not be merely tweaked by aspect theory, but should be completely replaced by aspect theory. Post’s mere aspectual modification of the Aktionsart approach fails to recognize the fundamental difference between Aktionsart (tense is determined by the historical action itself) and aspect theory (tense is determined by the author’s view of the action and not the action itself). Nevertheless, while Post’s aspectual approach is still tied to Aktionsart theory, he clearly is on the right track in suggesting that a proper theory of Greek imperatives and prohibitions needs to recognize the author’s choice. Tying this back to the broader view of the Greek verb, Post notes that “there are other constructions in Greek besides the imperative that are determined by the attitude of the speaker rather than by anything more objective.”68 So, despite his confusion of labels, Post is moving from traditional Aktionsart theory toward a truer aspect theory. He seems to be on the correct aspectual track when he concludes his article by noting the writer’s/speaker’s intended view of the action (not merely the historic action itself) affects the tense selection: “At any rate it seems certain that to some extent at least the tone and purpose of the speaker are an important factor in determining the tense of the imperative.”69 ——— 66

Ibid., 32.

67

See ibid., 37–39 for the summary and pp. 39–59 for his examples.

68

Ibid., 34.

69

Ibid., 59.


83

Johannes P. Louw (1959) After writing a thesis on prohibitions in the Greek New Testament, Johannes P. Louw presents some of his conclusions in an article published in 1959.70 He observes that, in their treatments of prohibitions, NT Greek grammar books generally follow the Aktionsart theory credited to Gottfried Hermann. But finding such an approach (and the several variations of it) inadequate, Louw proposes a new understanding of Greek prohibitions derived by extrapolation from how the second-century Greek grammarian Apollonius Dyscolus treats positive commands. Some consider Apollonius the greatest of the ancient Greek grammarians, and the ancient Alexandrine philologist makes a distinction between the present and aorist tense-forms in positive commands in his work Περὶ συντάξεως (“Concerning Syntax”). Louw proposes that Apollonius’ “notion of the meaning of present and aorist applies (logically) to both positive and negative commands.”71 Louw focuses upon two key passages of Apollonius. We provide the Greek texts along with Louw’s translations and his parenthetical comments. εἰς τὸ γίνεσθαι οὖν ἢ γενέσθαι ἡ πρόσταξις γίνεται, [ἀποφασκοµένη ἀπὸ τῆς τοῦ µέλλοντος ἐννοίας,] εἰς µὲν παράτασιν σκαπτέτω [τάς ἀµπέλους], εἰς δὲ συντελείωσιν, σκαψάτω [τὰς ἀµπέλους].

Therefore the order (command) concerns either the γίνεσθαι (duration) or the γενέσθαι (single event), [capable of refusal with the future] that is to say: if the command refers to the παράτασις (duration) of an action, we use σκαπτέτω [τάς ἀµπέλους Get busy hoeing around the grape-vines] and, on the other hand, if the command refers to the συντελείωσις (the terminating point) of the action, we use σκαψάτω 72 [τάς ἀµπέλους Hoe the vines].

——— 70

Johannes P. Louw, “On Greek Prohibitions,” Acta Classica 2 (1959): 43–57. The thesis is “Prohibitions in the Greek New Testament: A study of MH with the Present Imperative and the Aorist Subjective” (D.Litt. thesis, University of Pretoria, 1958). 71

Louw, “On Greek Prohibitions,” 44.

Louw, “On Greek Prohibitions,” 46; Louw quotes from Apollonius’s Περὶ συντάξεως in August Immanuel Bekker, Anecdota Graeca (Berlin: Reimer, 1817), 70 (line 24)–71 (line 1). The full Greek text is available at http://schmidhauser.us/apollonius/works in several formats; for this citation, see the text edited by Gustav Uhlig at 2.2.97 (115). For some reason, and without ellipses, Louw’s quotation leaves out the lines enclosed in brackets above ([]), lines present in Bekker’s 1817 text and in the text edited by Uhlig (with µετὰ instead of ἀπὸ.). The italicized translations in the brackets above are those of Fred W. Householder, The Syntax of Apollonius Dyscolus (Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science, Series 3: Studies in the History of Linguistics 23; Amsterdam: Benjamins, 1981), 66. 72

84


Thus, the tense-form selected for commands depends upon the perspective of the speaker/author. Louw summarizes, “If the speaker has παράτασις, duration, continuation in mind, the present is used; if the συντελείωσις, the terminating point is in mind, the aorist is used.”73 The second passage in Apollonius’ Syntax is more extensive. ἀλλὰ καὶ εἴποµεν ὡς ἃ µὲν προστάσσεται αὐτῶν εἰς παράτασιν. ὁ γὰρ ἀποφαινόµενος οὕτω· γράφε, σάρου, σκάπτε, ἐν παρατάσει τῆς διαθέσεως τὴν πρόσταξιν ποιεῖται, ὡς ἔχει καὶ τὸ βάλλ᾽ οὕτως, αἴ κέν τι φόως Δαναοῖσι γένηαι φησὶ γὰρ ἐν τῷ πολέµῳ καταγίνου εἰς τὸ βάλλειν. ὅ γε µὴν λέγων κατὰ τὴν τοῦ παρῳχηµένου προφορὰν γράψον, σκάψον, οὐ µόνον τὸ µὴ γινόµενον προστάσσει, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ γινόµενον ἐν παρατάσει ἀπαγορεύει, εἴ γε καὶ τοῖς γράφουσιν ἐν πλείονι χρόνῳ προσφωνοῦµεν τὸ γράψον, τοιοῦτόν τι φάσκοντες, µὴ ἐµµένειν τῇ παρατάσει ἀνύσαι δὲ τὸ γράφειν.

But we have shown how some of them are enjoined to indicate the παράτασις (the duration). For he who declares thus: γράφε, σάρου, σκάπτε, gives the command with reference to the παράτασις (duration) of the διάθεσις (verbal form??), e.g. βάλλ᾽ οὕτως, αἴ κέν τι φόως Δαναοῖσι γένηαι (Strike thus, if any good (lit. light) is to come to the Danaeans). He uses βάλλε for he wishes to say: Busy yourself with striking (βάλλειν) in the battle. He who according to the argument we have just discussed (lit. the utterance of the foregoing) says: γράψον, σκάψον, not only commands what (at the time of speaking) is not (yet) taking place, but also prohibits the παράτασις (duration) of what is occurring (already commenced), e.g. if we say to persons writing slowly: γράψον, we say something of the following nature, viz.: Do not remain in παράτασις (in the duration of the occurrence), but complete your writing 74 (make an end of your writing).

Louw summarizes and rephrases this as follows. In other words: The present γράφε means Write! (i.e. durative, it views the writing as a process: Busy yourself with writing); the aorist γράψον means Write! (said to a person who has not yet begun—ingressive) OR Write! (said to a person who is

——— 73


74 Louw, “On Greek Prohibitions,” 45–46; cf. Apollonius’s Περὶ συντάξεως in Bekker, Anecdota Graeca, 253 (lines 5–19) and the text edited by Uhlig at 2.2.358 (102) available electronically at http://schmidhauser.us/apollonius/works. For an English translation, see Householder, The Syntax of Apollonius Dyscolus, 192.


85

writing, but in the speaker’s opinion he is writing too slowly. There must be no παράτασις. The aorist here conveys: Get done with it. The terminating point, the 75 completion of the action must come into sight—effective).

Applying this same distinction between the present and aorist tenses in various examples of negative commands in Greek literature, Louw argues that this understanding of the constructions holds true for both Classical and Hellenistic Greek. With its summary viewpoint, the aorist tense is a fine choice for expressing the prohibition of a not-yet begun action, but it is also a fine choice to prohibit in summary fashion an action that has already commenced.76 With its durative connotation, the present tense prohibition is a fine choice in contexts where the writer is calling for an ongoing activity to cease, but it is also a fine choice where the author wants to forbid the future durative process of a not-yet begun action.77 So, no matter what the context of Greek prohibitions—a) any currently occurring actions that must cease, b) possible future actions to avoid, or c) actions forbidden in any time or circumstance—a writer or speaker could use either the present or aorist tense-form constructions. “If the present is used in any of these situations, the exegete can—on the strength of the present only—simply say that the speaker or writer sees the action in παράτασις, in its occurrence, duration. And if an aorist is used in any of these situations, we know that there is no idea of παράτασις, but that the action (on the strength of the aorist only) is simply stated.”78 Interestingly, Louw still uses the term Aktionsart to reference the tenseforms of prohibitions. “The difference between present and aorist (per se) is seen to be one of Aktionsart. The one gives the duration of the action, the other states the action without any notion of durative occurrence. The aorist is silent on the nature of the occurrence.”79 But with his modifications to how these Aktionsart categories are used, Louw moves decidedly away from anchoring the tense-form selection to the historical action and connects it instead to the view that the author takes on the action. The character of the historical action in view is to be gleaned from the context and not the tenseform spelling. This manifests a clear movement toward verbal aspect theory. ——— 75


76

Ibid., 51–53.

77

Ibid., 54.

78

Ibid., 57; the three contextual groupings of prohibitions are Louw’s categories.

79

Ibid., 50; cf. 52, 55, 56. Louw occasionally uses the word aspect (e.g., pp. 49, 50, 53), but only in a generic sense of “feature” and not in the technical sense of verbal aspect theory.

86


Willem Bakker (1966) At the outset of this chapter we noted that Willem Bakker provides one of the earliest lengthy aspectual treatments of the imperative mood in the Greek verbal system. Bakker expresses a mature understanding of verbal aspect early in his book, and his brief summary of aspect is simple and to the point: “aspect denotes the speaker’s point of view of the action.”80 A little farther on he remarks, “The space of time in objective reality that is taken up by an action does not have anything to do with aspect, because aspect denotes the subjective view of the speaker on a process that is taking place in objective reality.” He continues, “Punctuality …, and also its opposite, duration, are notions which have nothing to do with aspect as such.”81 With regard to commands and prohibitions, Bakker’s understanding of verbal aspect theory suggests that the aorist stem is used when the author simply wants to report an action and the present stem is used when the author wants to report an action in relation to another action. “It will appear, then, that the imperative derived from the aorist stem expresses an absolute fact, a mere process, but that the present imperative refers to an action seen in its perspective, while in addition this action has to coincide with another notion.”82 Thus, he summarizes about prohibitions, “The verbal aspect denotes the view of the speaker. The speaker, when using the present stem, sees a connection between the existing situation (an action in progress) and the prohibition. When he uses the aorist stem, he does not see this connection, or does not want to see it.”83 Despite his clarity on verbal aspect, Bakker’s method of applying verbal aspect theory nevertheless defers to Aktionsart theory. His analysis is often of dialogue portions of text, in which he seems to tie the tense-form not to the historical action itself but to the historical perspectives of the speakers in the text’s dialogue. Thus, the author is limited to the historical account and cannot choose tense-forms according to his own perspective; rather, the author must defer to the actual perspectives of the characters in the story. Bakker’s focus on the historical situation rather than the author’s perspective ——— 80


81

Ibid., 27.

82

Ibid., 31.

83 Ibid., 39–40. See his fuller explanation on pp. 65–66, where he comments, “The chief contrast consists in the presence or absence of the element of connection.… The only constant consists in the fact that the present stem expresses a connection and that the aorist stem does not”; cf. also his remarks on pp. 73–74.


87

becomes increasingly clear as he makes claims to fill out his theory with detailed comments tied to the historical perspectives of the characters in the accounts and not to the perspectives of the authors of the accounts.84 Furthermore, Bakker’s analysis of the diachronic development of the Greek language actually has a particular affinity for Aktionsart theory. [W]ith regard to the use and the function of the imperative there is a great difference between Ancient and Modern Greek. In Ancient Greek the speaker could use a present imperative when in his eyes the situation, as it actually was or as he saw it, required the commencement of an action. In order to express a command or a prohibition in Modern Greek, however, the present imperative is used only when the situation, as it actually is, requires action. In Ancient Greek the aorist stem expressed an absolute fact, having no connection with the existing situation, which 85 has remained unchanged ever since.

On Bakker’s view, koine Greek, falling between Ancient and Modern Greek, displays several notable changes in the development of the language, particularly with the present imperatives. First, koine has fewer present imperatives than Ancient Greek, but its present imperatives are not yet as restrictive in their kinds of situations as they are in Modern Greek.86 Second, while Ancient Greek uses present imperatives in various emotional settings, Bakker claims koine uses present imperatives only in situations requiring strong language. Third, the koine use of the present imperative is less subjective than in Ancient Greek and is used only when both speaker and hearer are fully informed about the situation that gives rise to the command. In essence Bakker’s claim is that Greek has moved from functioning in ancient times by verbal aspectual theory (the author’s choice of tense-form is dependent upon the author’s way of viewing the action) to functioning in modern times by an Aktionsart theory (the author’s choice of tense-form is ——— 84

See, for example, Bakker’s explanations on pp. 49–50, 54, 59, 60, and 63 of The Greek Imperative. 85

Bakker, The Greek Imperative, 78. He continues, “The only difference is that the aorist stem occurs much more frequently now than it used to. This is not caused by an extension of function, however, but rather by a narrowing of the limits within which the present stem may be used. In the historical development of the Greek language especially the use of the present stem, therefore, seems to have undergone changes.” 86

Ibid., 81; for example, unlike Modern Greek, koine has “a considerable number of present imperatives derived from transformative verbs which are not used in a general sense, nor can be regarded as ‘prepared’, many of them expressing motion.” He comments further, “One even gets the impression that the Koine favours the use of the present imperative to express an order involving motion” (p. 82); cf. Campbell’s explanation of the present impv. for verbs of propulsion; Campbell, Verbal Aspect and Non-Indicative Verbs, 91–95.

88


forced upon him dependent upon the historical action itself); and as a transitional period, koine usage shows some similarities to both practices. While focused on the speaker’s perspective, Bakker’s aspectual theory is here clearly tied to the historical situation and thus, in the end, Aktionsartlike in orientation. He admits as much for his view of Modern Greek: “It is obvious, then, that for the choice between the present and aorist imperative it is not the subjective view of the speaker that is the decisive factor, but the situation as it actually presents itself in objective reality. The choice, therefore, between the present and the aorist imperative is not a subjective one, as in Ancient Greek, but an objective one.”87 Unfortunately, it seems that Bakker’s verbal aspect view for NT Greek becomes much more like some of the nuanced Aktionsart views we saw in Chapter 1 above. Classicist Kenneth L. McKay suggests that Bakker fails to understand that the New Testament actual remains faithfully consistent with ancient Greek verbal aspect and that, by reading modern Greek backward onto the NT Greek, Bakker “is forced to support his theory by distorting the contextual settings of a large proportion of the examples he quote, both classical and koine.”88 Kenneth L. McKay (1985) We have already noted that McKay has led the way in taking momentous steps forward in applying verbal aspect theory to the Greek language. And with regard to approaching prohibitions in Greek, McKay proves to be more consistent and insightful than his forebears. Somewhat optimistic about the acceptance of general verbal aspect theory in NT studies, he begins his 1985 landmark article on imperative constructions with a statement of concern about applying aspect to the grammar of commands: “Although there is nowadays general recognition of some of the effects of aspectual usage in New Testament (and indeed in all ancient) Greek, there appears still to be a great deal of confusion about the value of aspectual distinctions in the ——— 87 Bakker, The Greek Imperative, 76. He notes further, “In Ancient Greek the choice between present and aorist imperative was altogether subjective. The speaker could use a present imperative not only when from an objective point of view the situation called for a certain action, but also when only in the speaker’s opinion the situation necessitated an action” (p. 77). This is the substantial difference, according to Bakker, between the Ancient and Modern Greek uses of the impv.; otherwise, “the characteristics of the imperative are in substance the same in Ancient and in Modern Greek” (p. 77). 88

McKay, “Aspect in Imperatival Constructions in New Testament Greek,” NovT 27.3 (1985): 201–202, n. 2.


89

imperative.”89 Unlike many other scholars, McKay insists that “in NT Greek aspectual usage in the imperative and its equivalents is essentially the same as that in all areas of verbal syntax from Homer to many centuries after the NT documents were written.”90 From his extensive studies, McKay offers an aspectual explanation for the difference between NT Greek commands (both positive and negative) in the aorist tense-form (“aorist aspect”) and in the present tense-form (“imperfective aspect”): “The difference between the aorist and imperfective aspects is that the former represents an activity as a total action, in its entirety without dwelling on its internal details; while the latter represents an activity as a process going on, with the focus on its progress or development.”91 It is not the actual historical activity that determines the author’s choice of verb tense-form; rather, it is the perspective the author wants to have upon the action. Thus, “a long drawn out activity or a series of repeated activities may be represented as a totality in relation to the context and so be expressed by the aorist. Conversely too a momentary act may in relation to a context be represented as a process, and so expressed by the imperfective. It is the relationship of the activity to the relevant context which determines the aspect, not any innate characteristic of the activity.”92 In agreement with Louw and against Bakker, McKay says, “Negative commands, or prohibitions, in the New Testament follow the same pattern as in classical Greek, and the aspectual usage in them remains essentially unchanged.”93 McKay’s aspectual explanation of prohibitions is straightforward: “The effect of the aorist is to prohibit or advise against an activity as a totality, whether that activity is shown by the context to be a single action, momentary or extended, or a series of actions, and whether it has already begun or not. The imperfective prohibits or advises against an activity as a process, and according to context can imply do not begin/try to…, do not continue to…, do not habitually….”94 The context (not the tense-form spelling) will guide the interpreter as to nature of the historical ——— 89

Ibid., 201. See also idem, “Aspects of the Imperative in Ancient Greek,” Antichthon 20 (1986): 41–58. 90

McKay, “Aspect in Imperatival Constructions in New Testament Greek,” 201; and he adds in a footnote, “But not necessarily in modern Greek” (n. 2). 91

Ibid., 203–204.

92

Ibid., 204.

93

Ibid., 216.

94

Ibid.

90


activity; the tense-form the author chooses guides the interpreter regarding how closely the author is analyzing the action (if as a whole, then aorist tense-form; if as a process, then present tense-form).95 McKay concludes his milestone article on aspect in Greek imperatival constructions with this humble claim: The ancient Greek aspectual system has for long been at least partly misunderstood, and we need to set aside traditional misconceptions and re-examine the texts written by people who knew the language better than we do. At least the logic of the message contained in our texts has not been totally obscured by such misconceptions, and the effect of our re-examination will be more the removal of imagined problems and a fuller appreciation of the emphases intended by the writers 96 than a complete revision of our understanding of the message.

We might suggest that McKay has underestimated the extent and impact of some abusive misconceptions (perhaps most notably in well-intended but errant sermons driving home points with Aktionsart-based arguments). On the other hand, however, it is worth noting that English Bible translators have largely been reluctant to adopt the traditional Aktionsart approaches to translating NT prohibitions (more on this in Chapter 4 below). In this sense, then, McKay’s more modest claim about verbal aspect aiding our understanding of the NT message is fitting. So, an even ninety years after Hermann’s 1805 creation of the traditional Aktionsart rule for understanding Greek prohibitions, Donovan issues his 1895 clarion call for the dismissal or severe revision of the doctrine along aspectual lines. Then, after some important input from other scholars in the intervening years, another ninety years later in 1985 McKay brings a more thoroughgoing and comprehensive application of verbal aspect theory to the matter. What we finally find in McKay is a clear and definitive statement of a proper verbal aspect understanding of NT Greek prohibitions.97 ——— 95

McKay stresses the confluence of many language features in context to be decisive for understanding the time of the action as well as the kind of action portrayed; see esp. McKay, “Time and Aspect in New Testament Greek,” 209–28. 96 97

McKay, “Aspect in Imperatival Constructions in New Testament Greek,” 226.

McKay’s seminal work on commands and prohibitions is widely recognized and held in high esteem. McKay’s 1985 article in NovT (cited in n. 88 on p. 88 above) is dubbed by Porter as “the most thorough treatment of commands in the Greek of the NT”; VAG 351. In the words of Wallace, McKay’s “more basic understanding of the imperative paved the way for others” (GGBB, 716). See also Carson, “An Introduction to the Porter/Fanning Debate,” 20–21 and Fantin, The Greek Imperative Mood, 95–96.


91

3.2.2 Current Verbal Aspect Understandings of Prohibitions Building on the work of those before them—especially that of McKay— scholars in the last three decades have attempted some clarifications and further nuancing of a truly aspectual understanding of prohibitions. There are five contributors to the discussion worthy of mentioning here. Stanley E. Porter (1989) Without a doubt, Stanley Porter is one of the most influential scholars in the discussion of verbal aspect theory as it applies to the Greek of the New Testament. The publication of Porter’s doctoral dissertation in 1989 was one of the catalysts to popularizing an interest in verbal aspect theory among NT scholars.98 His approach to verbal aspect has been influenced by his formal training in both linguistics and NT studies, and he readily acknowledges an indebtedness to work of McKay before him. After extended interaction with the analyses and proposals of others in prior literature, Porter concludes that the verbal aspect approach argued in his dissertation “holds for a troublesome area of Greek verbal usage, commands and prohibitions.”99 The traditional Aktionsart approach fails to adequately explain what is actually found in the impertival grammar of the Greek New Testament. Porter remarks in his second-year Greek syntax text, It has been well established that the traditional definitions of the present and aorist imperatives in relation to verbal action do not work. The traditional definition is that the aorist has something to do with performing an action instantaneously, once for all, especially an action which is not currently being done, while the present has something to do with continual, habitual, repeated or ongoing action.… Examples 100 which dispute the traditional analysis are not difficult to find.

In terms of both time and kind of action, there is a complete separation of the historical action from the author’s choice of a tense-form to describe that action. “Thus verbal aspectual choice of the command or prohibition involves the author’s subjective choice to grammaticalize a process as ——— 98 Stanley E. Porter, Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, with Reference to Tense and Mood (Studies in Biblical Greek 1; New York: Lang, 1989; 2nd ed., 1993) = VAG. See the bibliography for Porter’s many published contributions to the discussion of aspect. 99

VAG 346; see his full discussion on commands and prohibitions in pp. 335–61.

100 Stanley E. Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament (2nd ed.; Biblical Languages: Greek 2; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 53–54. See his chapter on commands and prohibitions on pp. 220–29.

92


perfective or imperfective, and these categories may apply to action however it is objectively conceived and however it is depicted in relation to the time of commanding.”101 And so the authorial focus of verbal aspect theory holds for commands and prohibitions. The Aorist is the less heavily marked form and normally used when a command is made, treating it as a complete process, with the negated Aorist Subjunctive used for prohibitions when the process is treated as a whole; and the Present is the more heavily marked Imperative and used when the speaker wishes to in some way specify this command, treating it as in progress, or to deny this process as being in 102 progress.

Most recently explaining verbal aspect in a first-year Greek grammar text, Porter (with Jeffrey Reed and Matthew O’Donnell) makes clear the error of applying Aktionsart categories to NT Greek imperatives and offers his verbal aspect corrective in simple language. Even though an action commanded by use of the imperative may well take place in the future (with respect to the time of uttering the command), time is not the distinguishing feature of the meaning of the imperative. The major distinction is one of verbal aspect. The aorist tense-form is used to issue commands that view an action as complete and undifferentiated (i.e., perfective aspect), while the present tenseform, often used for more important or emphatic commands, is used to issue commands that see an action as in progress, more specific, or in its particular details (imperfective aspect). Thus an aorist imperative might be translated “go!” or “stay!” while a present imperative might be translated “be underway!” or “remain here now!” The use of the aorist or present imperative says nothing about whether an action is ongoing at the time or whether the imperative is a command to begin some103 thing not being done at the time.

With Porter, then, we have a robust and purist argument for verbal aspect theory on thoroughgoing linguistic grounds, and a consistent and readable application of verbal aspect to understanding NT Greek prohibitions. ——— 101

VAG 347.

102 VAG 351. Concerning Porter’s use of the phrase “complete process” here, we should note that verbal aspect theorists describe the aorist tense-form as viewing an action as a “complete” whole, NOT as a “completed” whole. That is, verbal aspect theory does not claim the aorist tense-form represents an action as finished (i.e., “completed”), but as a totality (i.e., “the whole thing”). 103 Stanley E. Porter, Jeffrey T. Reed, and Matthew Brook O’Donnell, Fundamentals of New Testament Greek (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 300. This text contains a discussion of verbal aspect accessible to first-year Greek students; see esp. pp. 33, 39–40, and separately defines each of the three aspects: perfective (p. 33), imperfective (p. 54), and stative (p. 315).


93

Buist Fanning (1990) We have already mentioned the role of Buist Fanning in the development (and debating) of verbal aspect theory with regard to NT Greek.104 In addition to the distinguishing features of his aspectual view in relation to the Porter/Fanning debate (i.e., that the tense-forms have time in the indicative mood and that there is no stative aspect), Fanning’s attempt to coordinate aspect with kind-of-action categories is perhaps his distinctive contribution to aspect studies.105 That is, not content with analyzing Greek tense-form usage by mere aspect (i.e., aorist tense-forms refer to the whole of an action and present tense-forms refer to an action as a process), Fanning seeks to find guidelines for recognizing how other factors (i.e., lexical and contextual) affect the usage of, and also the meaning of, the tense-forms. In his seminal volume, Fanning uses a whole chapter to discuss commands and prohibitions from the vantage point of his particular verbal aspect approach.106 In keeping with his approach, Fanning suggests, “Just as it does in the indicative, this basic aspectual distinction combines with other linguistic features to produce secondary functions of the aspects in commands and prohibitions as well.” He remarks that several secondary (Aktionsart-related) distinctions can be found between the use of the present and aorist tenseforms in commands and prohibitions. “However, one secondary distinction appears to have assumed a greater frequency of usage than in the indicative forms—the difference between general and specific occurrence.”107 While acknowledging NT exceptions to this distinction, he suggests that it is “a genuinely helpful guide to NT usage.”108 As he says it elsewhere, “The ——— 104 Reflecting on the agreement between the simultaneous but independent work of Porter and Fanning on verbal aspect theory, Carson remarks, “To traditionalist grammarians, this level of agreement, in work undertaken quite independently but building on a heritage of research that has been overlooked far too long, is nothing short of stunning”; Carson, “An Introduction to the Porter/Fanning Debate,” 22. 105 Such is Carson’s assessment of Fanning’s work attempting to coordinate verbal aspect theory with the verb taxonomies of Vendler and Kenny; Carson, “An Introduction to the Porter/Fanning Debate,” 23. See esp. VANT 42–46 and 126–96. Cp. Zeno Vendler, “Verbs and Times,” Philosophical Review 66 (1957): 143–60; reprinted in idem, Linguistics in Philosophy (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1967), 97–121; and Anthony John Patrick Kenny, Action, Emotion and Will (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1963), 151–86. 106 Buist M. Fanning, Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek (Oxford Theological Monographs. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990) = VANT; see esp. pp. 325–88. 107

VANT 326.

108

VANT 327.

94


traditional distinction of general precept versus specific command goes a long way towards explaining aspectual usage in New Testament commands and prohibitions.”109 For Fanning this traditional but “secondary” guideline seems to make sense in light of verbal aspect theory. The general validity of this secondary distinction appears to be due to the natural and plausible connection between the aspectual values of present and aorist and the normal difference which a speaker would envisage between a general precept and a specific command. A specific command normally calls for action viewed as a single whole, for action to be done in its entirety on that occasion, and the aorist is natural for this. A general precept, on the other hand, has multiple applications and pictures the action in its multiplicity rather than totality, and so the ‘internal’ focus of the present comes into play. In bare summary, this guideline focuses the distinction of aspects on to that of ‘single vs. multiple’: the aorist is used of action to be done once and the present is used of action to be done more than 110 once or which is to be characteristic of the hearer.

And Fanning argues that this common sense expectation works for negative commands as well as positive commands. A significant difficulty for Fanning’s analysis—and unsurprising to us given the analysis in Chapter 2 above111—is that his adoption of the General– Specific Aktionsart rule for distinguishing commands and prohibitions produces several groups of problematic exceptions. After thirteen pages of arguing for the validity of this distinction and offering NT examples, Fanning uses forty pages to work through passages that do not follow the “guideline.”112 He categorizes the exceptions into three primary groups: individual verbs that are idiomatically used counter to the suggested GS distinction, places where the more basic aspectual distinction takes precedence over the suggested GS distinction, and whole NT books that simply do not follow the suggested GS distinction. Interestingly, many times to explain the NT exceptions to the secondary distinction guideline, Fanning must simply resort to the primary verbal aspect distinction between the present and aorist tense-forms: the author uses ——— 109

Fanning, “Approaches to Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek: Issues in Definition and Method,” 55. Fanning notes BDF §335 as an example of the traditional distinction. 110

VANT 327.

111

Recall that the General rule fits the context of NT prohibitions about 75% of the time for present imperatives and the Specific rule fits about 54% of the time for prohibitions in aorist constructions. Together this amounts to about a 67% success rate; see pp. 38–42 above. 112

The pages in VANT are respectively 327–40 and 340–79.


95

the present because he is viewing the action as a process, or the author uses the aorist because he is viewing the action as a whole. In fact, it seems unnecessarily prejudicial to say an author is “idiomatic” in his use of particular verbs when in fact he is following the primary aspectual distinction in the use of the tense-forms. In essence, Fanning seems to try too hard to make the “secondary” rule fit, so that the most difficult exceptions to his guideline become explained by resorting to the real distinction between the tenseforms. It would seem once again that the exceptions outweigh the usefulness of the admittedly secondary guideline. In the end then, Fanning’s General– Specific “guideline” (to his credit, his usual term for this distinction, but sometimes “normal pattern” and even “rule”) is just that and only that: a guideline. Where it works, it is supported by the primary aspectual distinction; where it does not work, it is because of the primary aspectual distinction.113 All of the exceptions to his guideline go away if we get rid of the guideline and depend upon the primary verbal aspect distinction. The tremendous value in Fanning’s work is that we can see several factors functioning together in the use of verbs in the Greek New Testament. Matters of lexical (as in the Vendler–Kenny classification of verbs) and contextual (as in Aktionsart classifications) importance play into decisions about verb tense-form selection—and perhaps more should be done to explore how these might be coordinated—but none of these factors seems to overrule the pure aspectual distinction between tense-forms. And for our concerns here, we see that this applies to commands and prohibitions. In fact, with perhaps some irony, Fanning’s failed attempt to coordinate completely Aktionsart categories as a secondary distinctive with a correct verbal aspect approach only stresses what we have already seen: an Aktionsart approach to the NT Greek prohibitions is ultimately wrong-headed. James William Voelz (1993) Fanning is not the only scholar attempting some via media between a pure verbal aspect approach to prohibitions and one of the more traditional Aktionsart approaches. Prior to the thoroughgoing verbal aspect approach brought on by the work of McKay, Porter, and Fanning, James W. Voelz investigated the tenses of imperatives and prohibitions in his doctoral research at Cambridge.114 Then in 1993, fully aware of the separate works by ——— 113

Note such comments as this: “Thus, on occasion the general specific guideline is upset when the more basic aspectual distinction asserts itself”; VANT 354. 114

James William Voelz, “The Use of the Present and Aorist Imperatives and Prohibitions in the New Testament,” Ph.D. diss., University of Cambridge, 1977.

96


Porter and Fanning regarding verbal aspect, he presents his refined view of the Greek tenses more concisely in Neotestamentica.115 Clearly agreeing that aspect needs to be recognized as something different than Aktionsart, Voelz proposes a new aspectual nuance for distinguishing between the present and aorist tense-forms. Rather than following Porter’s purist aspect approach or Fanning’s coordination of aspect with lexical and Aktionsart categories, Voelz suggests that aspect is about “focus.” In his taxonomy, the present tense-form allows the author “to focus upon the connection between an activity and an actor” and the aorist tense-form allows the author “to focus upon an activity itself.”116 More specifically, over against Porter, Voelz favors Fanning’s view that indicative forms grammaticalize time as well as aspect, and he prefers Fanning’s more flexible understanding of the present tense-form, which he wants to develop further. Voelz suggests that an author uses the present tense, not merely when he thinks about the action as a process (so Porter) or when he views it from a perspective that allows him to see it as a process (so Fanning), but when he desires to focus upon the connection between the action and its doer. In his own words, I would propose that ‘aspect’ of the Greek verbal stems relates neither to the actual nature of the activity outside the world of the speaker (traditional Aktionsart analysis), nor to the subjective conception of the activity depicted (Porter), nor to the perspective from which an activity is viewed (Fanning). Rather, aspect relates to the focus the speaker has when considering an activity, namely whether his focus is upon the act itself (= aorist) or upon a perceived relationship between the activity and the doer of the activity, particularly a close relationship or connection (= 117 present).

To test his theory, he discusses a variety of NT examples, including imperatives. “Especially significant are imperatives such as αἶρε and σταύρου in Lk 23:18, 21—probably an extension of the signal for connection to take place—which are used in highly emotional contexts to demand immediate connection (= ‘Do the killing/crucifying’ [i.e., make the connection]).” He cites Post’s observation that present imperatives are common in ——— 115 James William Voelz, “Present and Aorist Verbal Aspect: A New Proposal,” Neotestamentica 27 (1993): 153–64. Cf. more briefly a decade earlier his appendix in, idem, “The Language of the New Testament,” ANRW (vol. II.25.2; ed. Wolfgang Haase; New York: De Gruyter, 1984), 966–70. 116 117

Voelz, “Present and Aorist Verbal Aspect: A New Proposal,” 153.

Ibid., 159; cf. Chapter 9 in James William Voelz, Fundamental Greek Grammar (3rd ed.; St. Louis: Concordia, 2007).


97

classical Greek “whenever a spirit of conflict is present,” which includes the emotive situations of “repartee, reproach, resentment, threats, defiance, taunts, and vituperation.”118 We can note here that Voelz is in agreement with both Porter and Fanning in that he, too, suggests that an author selects a tense-form to describe an action, and that it is not the action in history that demands a particular tense-form (so Aktionsart). But clearly Voelz wants to refine this primary and basic understanding of aspect. In so doing, he readies our awareness for how the present tense-form might be chosen to describe actions that happen to fall into the old Aktionsart categories (e.g., durative, repetitive, habitual, ingressive, and conative). The tense-forms do not mean these kinds of actions; but they can certainly be used to write about actions that have those characteristics. Having so argued, however, Voelz’s reading of NT Greek prohibitions ends up looking much like the harshest version of the Aktionsart approach: (1) µή, plus the focus upon connection / “present” imperative is used to prohibit an action already engaged in. (2) µή, plus the focus on the action / “aorist” subjunctive is used to prohibit the 119 commencing of an action ….

Unfortunately, that these are the circumstances in which the tense-forms are commonly (but not always) found and not the meanings of the tenseforms is a distinction that seems to get lost in Voelz’s descriptions. In the end then, Voelz’s expression of this usage seems readily understood as the typical Aktionsart rule. Those like Voelz attempting to take the work of Fanning a bit further—i.e., attempting to develop a theory of authorial aspect selection that somehow coordinates with the historic Aktionsart of the action being portrayed—must be wary of the temptation to slip into a theory that is not much more than a recycled traditional Aktionsart rule that has already been shown to be thoroughly inadequate. ——— 118 Voelz, “Present and Aorist Verbal Aspect: A New Proposal,” 162. See the remark of Post, “Dramatic Uses of the Greek Imperative,” 50; cf. Bakker, The Greek Imperative, 54–59; Voelz, “The Use of the Present and Aorist Imperatives and Prohibitions in the New Testament,” 30–36. 119

James Voelz, Fundamental Greek Grammar (3rd ed.; St. Louis: Concordia, 2007), 201–202 (= pp. 219–20 of the 1993 2nd ed.; cf. p. 216 of the 1986 1st ed.). One might try to excuse this grammar text as elementary and lacking in nuance and/or as overly dependent in this particular section upon its pre-aspect first edition. Fortunately, several more recent firstyear Greek grammar texts have been able to successfully express the distinction between the tense-forms for commands and prohibitions more correctly in purely aspectual terms.

98


Jo Willmott (2007) The recent work of Jo Willmott on mood in Homeric Greek has brought to our attention that aspect theory alone does not answer all the questions regarding prohibitions. She summarizes the grammars, commenting on the pairing of present imperatives and aorist subjunctives, and notes, “In most previous explanations, scholars have claimed that the difference between the aorist subjunctive and present imperative in this construction is one of aspect alone, and the difference in mood has been deemed insignificant.”120 But she sees this as deficient. “The central question is this: if the difference between the imperative and subjunctive in this construction is purely aspectual, why could the aorist imperative not have been used instead? It is not enough to claim, as Moore did (1934: §158), that it is due to ‘idiomatic convention’ alone.”121 Rather than be satisfied with such an explanation, Willmott offers a new theory for the switch in prohibition moods. She first notes that Homeric Greek has a preference for present tenseform (imperfective) prohibition constructions rather than the aorist tenseform (perfective) constructions. This is true of the New Testament as well by a ratio of almost two to one (175 negated pres. impv.; 89 negated aor. subj.). But this is very much the same as the Slavic languages, “the branch of IndoEuropean apart from Greek where aspect is most entrenched” and where “it is perfective negative directives which are rare.”122 Observing this cross-language similarity and after reviewing other explanations of the aorist vs. present tense-form prohibition constructions, Willmott concludes, “The claim that the difference between the aorist subjunctive and present imperative is purely aspectual is therefore made without satisfactory explanation of why the aorist imperative is not used instead. This automatically increases the plausibility of the alternative explanation: that there is a bigger difference between the two moods than previously thought.”123 ——— 120 Jo Willmott, The Moods of Homeric Greek (Cambridge Classical Studies; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 90. Cf. McKay, “Aspects of the Imperative in Ancient Greek,” 44. 121 Willmott, The Moods of Homeric Greek, 91. Cf. Ralph Westwood Moore, Comparative Greek and Latin Syntax (London: G. Bell & Sons, 1934). See also Chapter 6 below (esp. pp. 173–74). 122

Willmott, The Moods of Homeric Greek, 91–92. She continues, “If there ever was a preference for perfective negative directives in Greek, it has apparently been completely reversed by the time of Homer.” 123

Ibid., 93.


99

In her explanation, Willmott offers new definitions and labels for the debated constructions distinguishing between “preventive” sentences and “prohibitive” sentences. “According to the basic definition, ‘preventive’ sentences order a ‘non-performance of uncontrollable actions’ while ‘prohibitive’ sentences order a ‘non-performance of controllable actions’.”124 Thus, prohibitives are commands to obey in the area of controllable activities (grammaticalized with negated pres. impv. constructions and meaning, “Don’t do that”) and preventives are warnings to watch out for things that are somewhat less controllable for the listener (grammaticalized with negated aor. subj. constructions and meaning, “Be careful not to do that”). But (of course), the world of language use is more complicated, and Willmott notices that preventive constructions are sometimes used with concern over controllable actions and prohibitive constructions are sometimes used with concern over uncontrollable actions. “Just as preventive markers are found with controllable verbs, prohibitive markers are found with verbs that are strictly uncontrollable. This use perhaps arises from a desire to present certain actions as controllable, which would have the effect of forbidding it with more strength.”125 So she summarizes as follows: The different uses of preventive and prohibitive markers may be summed up as follows. While the basic use of the preventive is with uncontrollable actions, it is also used to advise caution about actions that may be controllable, and also to make more emphatic prohibitions. The prohibitive is usually used to forbid controllable actions, but is also used when wishing to improve the listener’s currently adverse emotional state, and in strong prescriptions to keep the situation under control, even when the action may be strictly uncontrollable.126

Recognizing these complexities, Willmott offers an example of negative directives to “not wake the baby”—a controllable action—in order to illustrate the distinction between preventives (negated aor. subj. constructions) and prohibitives (negated pres. impv. constructions). “Such a meaning may also be found with verbs that are strictly controllable: thus if the sentence ‘don’t wake the baby’ were marked with a preventive marker it would really mean ‘don’t speak loudly, or else you’ll wake the baby’. This would be distinguished from the straightforward prohibition which could follow, say, an offer to wake the baby (‘no, don’t’).”127 ——— 124

Ibid., 96.

125

Ibid., 98.

126

Ibid., 98.

127

Ibid., 97.

100


Willmott’s proposal regarding the grammatical constructions of Greek prohibitions is a development of verbal aspect theory as it relates to moods. While appearing at first to be built upon an Aktionsart distinction between different kinds of commanded actions (i.e., preventives vs. prohibitives), her explanation also centers on the author’s view of things. She writes, “Since actions are generally either controllable or uncontrollable, this basic definition suggests that the choice between a prohibitive rather than a preventive marker will depend solely on the semantics of the verb in question. But in fact it has been shown that the difference lies rather in the way that the speaker wants to present the event.”128 So, what matters most in the choice of mood is the author’s perspective on the action more than the activity itself. Willmott can be congratulated on her proposal to incorporate verbal aspect theory with the pragmatics of authorial intentions in commands. In so doing, she offers a suggestion as to why the aorist subjunctive seems to have all but replaced the aorist imperative by the time of the NT authors. Of course, her suggested distinction between the moods of prohibitions would be more convincing if the aorist subjunctive had not replaced the aorist imperative in the biblical literature. That is, if negated aorist imperatives (as perfective prohibitives) really have a different function than negated aorist subjunctives (as perfective preventives), why does the New Testament have so few such preventives—only eight and all in the third person? Perhaps Willmott’s suggestion will find a place in analyzing the historic development of the Greek language, but it has little strength as a living distinction in the biblical literature. But like Fanning’s faltering efforts to move the discussion beyond mere aspect, Willmott’s work with the pragmatics of language use is instructive nonetheless. Constantine R. Campbell (2008) Constantine Campbell has also sought to work with pragmatics as well as with verbal aspect. We noted above that Campbell favors Porter’s timeless version of aspect theory (contra Fanning), but that he favors Fanning’s twoaspect system (contra Porter). When it comes to analyzing the commands and prohibitions of NT Greek, Campbell again offers a via media between Porter and Fanning, “who appear to be diametrically opposed on the issue.”129 ——— 128

Ibid., 96.

129 We depend here largely upon Campbell, Verbal Aspect and Non-Indicative Verbs (2008), esp. pp. 79–100 (the quote is from p. 81); but see also idem, Verbal Aspect, Indicative Mood, and Narrative: Soundings in the Greek of the New Testament (Studies in Biblical Greek 13; New York: Lang, 2007); and idem, Basics of Verbal Aspect (2008).


101

Much like Fanning, Campbell argues that the present tense-form is used most often for general commands and that the aorist tense-form is used most often for specific commands. But he clearly specifies that these are “the basic pragmatic implicature[s]”—and not the basic semantic meanings—of the tense-forms. With reference to Porter, Campbell readily admits to exceptions to the General–Specific guideline in the New Testament. “Undoubtedly, therefore, we are not able to describe the basic semantic value of the imperative through the distinction between general and specific instruction. Porter’s critique must be heard ….” But then he clarifies, “The failure of this distinction to account for the semantic nature of the imperative does not negate its usefulness as a pragmatic category.”130 Siding with Porter on the timelessness of aspect in all moods, Campbell draws an analogy between the General–Specific pragmatic implicatures of the tense-forms in commands and the temporal pragmatic implicatures of the tense-forms in the indicative mood. Thus, for example, speaking of the present tense-form he explains, “The core semantic values of the present indicative are capable of issuing a range of pragmatic implicatures, of which present temporal reference is one; but the failure of this one pragmatic implicature to explain the full use of the present indicative does not undermine its usefulness in describing a significant number of instances.” But he is quick to qualify (contra Fanning and others), “We ought not claim too much for the category, which is the error of some earlier analyses that try to account for the entire usage of the present indicative through present temporal reference, resulting in unsatisfactory conclusions.”131 Ultimately what Campbell contributes to the discussion is a defense in linguistic terms of Fanning’s General–Specific proposal as an interpretive starting point for understanding commands and prohibitions, along with clear warnings not to let this “secondary function” (Fanning’s term) be mistaken as the primary meaning of the tense-forms themselves. In Campbell’s words, It might be argued that the failure of some analyses of imperatival function results from a lack of the distinction between semantics and pragmatics. While some scholars recognize a frequent pattern in the use of present imperatives to express general instruction and aorist imperatives to express specific instruction, their

——— 130 Campbell, Verbal Aspect and Non-Indicative Verbs, 81–82. He says again, “… Porter correctly recognizes that the distinction between general and specific instruction is not robust enough to account for the full use of the imperative. And yet we need not on that basis deny the possibility that the distinction provides a genuinely useful description of a significant portion of imperatival function” (p. 83). 131

Ibid., 82.

102

PROHIBITIONS IN THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT explanations only ever penetrate the pragmatic level. By asserting that this pragmatic usage is the ‘meaning’ of the respective forms, the analyses ultimately fail for not being robust enough. With the advance of semantics and pragmatics, however, we are able to develop our understanding of core values, which may implicate a variety of outcomes when in combination with various lexical and contextual factors. As Fanning and Porter both assert, these core values are aspectual. From this semantic core, it is possible to identify a range of pragmatic functions for 132 imperatival forms.

Thus, without saying that all aorist command constructions are specific (and even noting contrary examples), Campbell can summarize that “the perfective aspect of aorist imperatives make them ideal for the conveyance of specific instruction. Viewing actions externally, perfective aspect facilitates the portrayal of the action as a whole, such that is desirable for the communication of specificity.”133 Conversely, with its view of an action as a whole, the perfective aspect of the aorist tense-form has a pragmatic implicature for summary, and so it (and not merely the present tense-form) can be fittingly found in expressions of general commands.134 Likewise, without saying that all present imperatives are general (and even noting contrary examples), Campbell can summarize, “The present imperative conveys general instruction for the simple reason that its imperfective aspect views an action internally, and thus in an open-ended fashion. The open-ended nature of imperfective aspect is well suited to generality since its viewpoint does not take into account the beginning or end of an action, but rather views it as unfolding. An action that is portrayed as unfolding is naturally congruous with a generic-type command.”135 Conversely, he notes that the imperfective aspect of the present tense-form is utilized for highlighting specific commands with particular lexemes: verbs of propulsion and verbs that introduce discourse.136 So, while clearly distinguishing between Aktionsart and verbal aspect, Campbell improves Fanning’s proposal to coordinate these two concepts in an analysis of the Greek verbal system. He does this by offering a more ——— 132

Ibid., 83.

133

Ibid., 86.

134

Ibid., 87.

135

Ibid., 93.

136 Ibid., 94–95. Campbell observes that these lexemes—verbs of propulsion and introducers of discourse—are the same ones found as “historical presents”; cf. Campbell, Verbal Aspect, Indicative Mood, and Narrative, 46–48 and 57–76; idem, Basics of Verbal Aspect, 66– 68.


103

careful explanation in terms of semantics and pragmatics and grounding his approach in Porter’s timelessness aspect view.137 This kind of careful coordination seems to be the way aspect studies will be moving ahead in the future, undoubtedly with scholars continuing to use Porter and Fanning as bench marks for positioning their own views.138 3.3 Initial Conclusions about Verbal Aspect on Prohibitions In keeping with the advice of McKay (given on another but still related matter)—“the most scientific approach would be to adopt the single explanation which covers all the examples rather than assume a different explanation for a minority”139—it seems to us that verbal aspect theory is the best way to understand the Greek verbal system. More particularly, the mature understanding of verbal aspect reached by McKay and drawn out by Porter is the best way to approach the grammar of NT prohibitions. As Daniel Wallace describes it, “In sum, the basic force of the aorist in commands/prohibitions is that it views the action as a whole, while the basic force of the present in ——— 137

This is not to suggest that Campbell and Porter agree in all areas (see Appendix B below). Most notably Campbell has criticized Porter’s stative aspect as a conception that “frankly seems untenable in some cases, and at the very least is a vague notion that necessitates ambiguity in application”; Campbell, Verbal Aspect, Indicative Mood, and Narrative, 174. For his part, Porter has harshly criticized several features of Campbell’s approach to the Greek verb, suggesting that it does not even warrant the label “system”; Stanley E. Porter, “Greek Linguistics and Lexicography,” in Understanding the Times: New Testament Studies in the 21st Century: Essays in Honor of D. A. Carson on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday (ed. Andreas J. Köstenberger and Robert W. Yarbrough; Wheaton: Crossway, 2011), 46–54. 138

The most recent comprehensive treatment of the Greek impv. mood is Fantin, The Greek Imperative Mood in the New Testament (2010). Using neuro-cognitive stratificational linguistics and relevance theory, Fantin defines the impv. mood as bearing a volitionaldirective sematic meaning and suggests that each occurrence be classified according to force, benefit, and event sequence. While not an overt treatment of prohibitions, Fantin naturally touches on the topic and follows Campbell’s development of Fanning’s approach (see esp. his section entitled, “The Tenses Used with the Imperative,” pp. 88–98). Fantin is careful to note, “It is one thing to observe a pattern of usage but it is quite another to demand that it be applied in a prescriptive manner. The distinction between the aorist and present tense in the imperative mood (as with the subjunctive and optative) is one of aspect, not time” (p. 97). See more discussion of Fantin’s work below in Chapter 14—Conclusion: Summary & Prospects. 139

McKay, “On the Perfect and Other Aspects in New Testament Greek,” 314. He remarks earlier in the article that “the onus of proof that the small proportion of mere possibilities warrants the setting up of a special, and discordant, category lies with those who assert the need for the anomaly” (p. 310); cf. K. L. McKay, “On the Perfect and Other Aspects in the Greek Non-Literary Papyri,” Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 27 (1980): 33.

104


commands/prohibitions is that it views the action as ongoing process.”140 While reckoning with lexical and contextual features of the Greek language in trying to understand the historic kinds of action described, the approach of Fanning is improved by the kind of semantic/pragmatic separation offered by Campbell, for it keeps grammatical aspect and historic Aktionsart distinct. One of the best expressions of verbal aspect theory in a Greek grammar textbook is that by Richard Young. Referencing the works of McKay, Porter, and Fanning, he writes, “Aspect can be defined as the subjective conception of an action by the speaker or writer, not the objective nature of the event itself. … It is not the same as Aktionsart, a term discussed in many grammars. Both pertain to the kind of action, but aspect refers to one’s perception of the action, whereas Aktionsart refers to the actual, objective nature of that action.” In keeping with Porter, Young remarks, “The verb system can be divided into three aspects: (1) perfective (aorist), (2) imperfective (present/ imperfect), and (3) stative (perfect/pluperfect).”141 Thus, Young distinguishes between the two main Greek constructions of prohibitions aspectually. The difference between prohibitions using aorist subjunctives and those using present imperatives lies in the difference in aspect. With the aorist the speaker prohibits an activity in its totality (Don’t do it). It is possible, depending on the context and verbal idea, that the aorist used in prohibitions can assume other nuances of the aorist, such as the ingressive idea (Don’t begin to do it). With the present the speaker views the prohibition as a process or something that pertains to habitual 142 activities (Don’t be in the habit of doing it).

This is the correct approach to take on Greek prohibitions. Our analysis of all the NT Greek prohibitions demonstrates that the verbal aspect theory holds most consistently. Chapter 4 will make that more clear.

——— 140

GGBB 717. He continues immediately to note, “This basic meaning may, of course, be shaped in a given context to fit, say, an ingressive idea for the aorist. Thus if the conditions are right, the aorist prohibition may well have the force of ‘Do not start.’ This is an affected meaning or specific usage. But to call this the essential idea is not correct.” 141 Richard A. Young, Intermediate New Testament Greek: A Linguistic and Exegetical Approach (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1994), 106. Young later mentions the debates about the future tense and seems to side with Porters’s view, saying, “If time is a function of context and the aspect of the future is vague, then it might be best to view it as grammaticalizing the speaker’s expectation of a possible event” (p. 117). 142

Ibid., 140.

—CHAPTER 4— The Successes of a Verbal Aspect View: Verb Tense-Forms ≈ Author’s Perspective Our goal here is to show that a verbal aspect approach to understanding the prohibitions of the Greek New Testament avoids the difficulties of an Aktionsart approach. To do this, we follow here the basic framework of Chapter 2 above, where the failures of the Aktionsart view are outlined. The distinction between present imperative and aorist subjunctive prohibition constructions is not to be understood in Aktionsart terms of Cessative– Ingressive, Durative–Punctiliar, or General–Specific; rather, the authorial choice between these two primary prohibition constructions is a verbal aspect contrast of Process–Summary. According to verbal aspect theory, the historic kind of action is not represented by the author’s tense-form choice; rather, the primary distinction is the author’s perspective on the action—his thinking about it as a process (pres. impv.) or in simple summary (aor. subj.). 4.1 Contextual Congruence All of the New Testament’s present imperative prohibitions are listed in Chapter 5 below, and Chapter 6 below lists all of the prohibitions constructed with the aorist subjunctive (and also the few prohibitions constructed with the aorist imperative). In both of those chapters, each prohibition is provided with an aspectual translation that we think demonstrates the aptness of verbal aspect theory for properly understanding prohibitions in their contexts. That is, in Chapter 5 each present imperative prohibition is rendered with a view of the action as a process, and in Chapter 6 each aorist subjunctive prohibition is rendered with a summary view of the action. Each of the prohibitions listed in those chapters can be consulted in its context for a fuller demonstration of the contextual fit of a verbal aspect rendering. Space prohibits a thorough-going discussion of each item here in this chapter. But for our purposes, we will simply sample some of the prohibition passages from each of the two constructions in order to contrast the questionable Aktionsart renderings with verbal aspect renderings of them.

106


4.1.1 Contextual Congruence for Verbal Aspect on Present Imperatives The contextual congruence of a verbal aspect approach to present tenseform prohibitions is seen in numerous passages problematic for Aktionsart readings. For example, the use of the present imperative does not indicate that Paul presumes that all Colossian husbands harbor bitterness toward their wives, but that he is talking about the process of marital interaction when he instructs, “Husbands, love your wives and do not be harboring bitterness toward them” (Col 3:19). Likewise, Paul does not assume cruelty on the part of all the Colossian fathers, but addresses the process of parenting when he instructs, “Fathers, do not be making your children resentful” (pres. impv. in Col 3:21). We must not assume that all the Ephesian believers were Spiritfilled drunkards; rather, they were not to be in the process of getting drunk but were to be in the process of being Spirit-filled, so that the command of Eph 5:18 is to be rendered something like, “And do not be getting drunk with wine, wherein is debauchery, but be getting filled with the Spirit.” Slaves of believing masters in Ephesus were not to be in the process of despising them (1 Tim 6:2), Timothy was not to be in the process of neglecting his gift (1 Tim 4:14) or hastily accepting accusations against elders (1 Tim 5:19), and the Thessalonians were not to be in the process of restraining the Spirit (1 Thess 5:19) and despising prophecy (1 Thess 5:20). The readers of the letter to the Hebrews were not to be in the process of thinking lightly of the Lord’s discipline (Heb 12:5a) or growing weary of the Lord’s reproof (Heb 12:5b), nor were they to be in the process of neglecting hospitality (Heb 13:2) or of being led away by strange teaching (Heb 13:9a) or neglecting doing good and sharing (Heb 13:16). The readers of 1 John were not to be in the process of loving the world (1 John 2:15a), marveling that the world hates them (1 John 3:13), or believing every spirit (1 John 4:1). In a narative passage, John portrays the chief priests as opposing the whole process of Pilate’s writing a royal title for Jesus and directing him to change the result of that writing exercise (John 19:21). 4.1.2 Contextual Congruence for Verbal Aspect on Aorist Subjunctives Similarly, a verbal aspect approach to prohibitions constructed with the aorist tense-form reads with consist contextual congruence in several passages that are problematic for an Aktionsart understanding. For example, John 3:7 portrays Jesus dealing with Nicodemus’ surprise as a whole with the prohibition, “Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again’.” Contrary to CI Aktionsart, Nicodemus’ surprise had already begun (John 3:4), and the aorist tense-form simply shows a summary view of the action. Likewise the aorist subjunctive prohibitions against worry in the

CHAPTER 4—THE SUCCESSES OF A VERBAL ASPECT VIEW

107

Sermon on the Mount (Matt 6:31, 34) cannot be about the beginning of it (so CI Aktionsart) or as if it were punctiliar (so DP Aktionsart), for such worry was already evident (Matt 6:28). Rather, Matthew’s record simply takes a summary view of the prohibition. Matthew also records in the aorist subjunctive the angel’s command for Joseph to “not fear” taking Mary as wife (Matt 1:20), even though the context makes clear that Joseph had already begun contemplating breaking off the marriage (Matt 1:18–19). Matthew uses the aorist tense-form to view the action as a whole, not to prohibit the beginning of fear (so CI Aktionsart) or as if it were a punctiliar moment of fright (so DP Aktionsart). Likewise, verbal aspect understands the Synoptic authors to be viewing as a whole the plea of the demons for Jesus not to harm them, as it is constructed with the aorist subjunctive (Mark 5:7; Luke 8:28), even though the harm had already begun (see Mark 5:8; Luke 8:29).1 4.1.3 Combined Analysis of Contextual Congruence for Verbal Aspect This brief sampling should be enough to demonstrate the superior ability of verbal aspect theory to render Greek prohibitions in a manner more fitting to the context than Aktionsart theory. The complex congruence problems for Aktionsart theory outlined in Chapter 2 are averted by a verbal aspect approach to Greek prohibitions. 4.2 Unparallel Synoptic Parallels Chapter 2 above compared accounts of the same episodes in the Synoptic Gospels and revealed places of inconsistency for Aktionsart understandings of prohibitions. If the NT authors were required by the historical action itself to represent that kind of action by its corresponding tense-form, we would expect the Synoptic authors to use the same tense-forms when reporting the same prohibitions, but this is demonstrably not always the case. Here we cite the same Synoptic parallels discussed in Chapter 2, but the contrasting prohibition constructions are rendered via verbal aspect and the tension produced with Aktionsart renderings is completely removed. 4.2.1 On Anxiety (§67) and Anxieties about Earthly Things (§201) Matt 6:31

µὴ οὖν µεριµνήσητε λέγοντες· τί φάγωµεν; ἤ· τί πίωµεν; ἤ· τί περιβαλώµεθα;

——— 1

The request of the demons is paraphrased differently in the much abbreviated parallel account of Matthew; see Matt 8:29.

108

PROHIBITIONS IN THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT So, do not worry saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’

Matt 6:34

µὴ οὖν µεριµνήσητε εἰς τὴν αὔριον, Therefore, do not worry about tomorrow.

Luke 12:29

καὶ ὑµεῖς µὴ ζητεῖτε τί φάγητε καὶ τί πίητε καὶ µὴ µετεωρίζεσθε· Don’t be striving for what you should eat and what you should drink, do not be worrying.

Luke 12:32

Μὴ φοβοῦ, τὸ µικρὸν ποίµνιον, ὅτι εὐδόκησεν ὁ πατὴρ ὑµῶν δοῦναι ὑµῖν τὴν βασιλείαν. Do not be fearing, little flock, because your Father delights to give you the kingdom.

Matthew’s report of Jesus’ instructions uses the aorist subjunctive to show a summary perspective against worry over day-to-day needs. Luke, on the other hand, takes a process perspective on worrying and uses the present imperative to rehearse Jesus’ prohibitory instructions. Whether or not the listener/reader has already been worrying is not of concern in either passage: worry over day-to-day needs is prohibited. Matthew and Luke do not differ on the nature of the historical action prohibited; they merely differ in their choice of perspective on that action. 4.2.2 Commissioning the Twelve (§§49, 99, and 142) Matt 10:9

Μὴ κτήσησθε χρυσὸν µηδὲ ἄργυρον µηδὲ…. Do not acquire gold, nor silver, nor ….

Luke 9:3

µηδὲν αἴρετε εἰς τὴν ὁδόν, µήτε ῥάβδον µήτε πήραν…. Do not be taking anything for the journey, no staff, ….

Jesus’ prohibitory instructions for the Twelve as they go on their shortterm mission recorded in Matthew and Luke are not in conflict due to their differing tense-forms utilized.2 Verbal aspect theory understands the aorist subjunctive prohibition in Matt 10:9 as a summary of Jesus’ command that the disciples not acquire things for the upcoming journey. On the other hand, the same command in Luke 9:3 is constructed with the present imperative ——— 2 On the question of whether or not the instructions are in conflict due to the content—in particular, the question of whether or not a staff and sandals can be taken on the journey, comparing Matt 10:10; Luke 9:3; and Mark 6:8—see William Arndt, Does the Bible Contradict Itself? A Discussion of Alleged Contradictions in the Bible (5th ed.; St. Louis: Concordia, 1955), 63–64, and the standard commentaries on the passages involved.


109

simply because Luke is viewing the process of the prohibition. No one can claim a contradiction between the two accounts based upon the Evangelists’ differing choices in tense-form spellings. 4.2.3 The Fate of the Disciples (§100) and Persecutions Foretold (§289) Matt 10:19

ὅταν δὲ παραδῶσιν ὑµᾶς, µὴ µεριµνήσητε πῶς ἢ τί λαλήσητε· But when they deliver you up, do not worry about how or what you should speak (NKJV; cf. NASB, NRSV, HCSB, NIV, NLT).

Mark 13:11

καὶ ὅταν ἄγωσιν ὑµᾶς παραδιδόντες, µὴ προµεριµνᾶτε τί λαλήσητε, And when they lead you away delivering you up, do not be worrying beforehand what you might say.

Luke 12:11

Ὅταν δὲ εἰσφέρωσιν ὑµᾶς ἐπὶ τὰς συναγωγὰς καὶ τὰς ἀρχὰς καὶ τὰς ἐξουσίας, µὴ µεριµνήσητε πῶς ἢ τί ἀπολογήσησθε ἢ τί εἴπητε· When they bring you before the synagogues and the rulers and the authorities, do not worry about how or what you are to speak in your defense, or what you are to say (NASB).

Jesus’ instructions that his followers not worry about what they would say when interrogated are recorded in all three Synoptics. According to verbal aspect theory, Matthew and Luke’s tense-form selection of the aorist subjunctive takes a summary view of the prohibition and Mark’s use of the present imperative views the process of the action. Nevertheless, both constructions apply equally to persons whether or not they had already begun worrying about the future circumstances. Thus, no contradiction between the Gospels is embodied in the differences of tense-form selection. 4.2.4 Exhortation to Fearless Confession (§§101 and 196) Matt 10:28

µὴ φοβεῖσθε ἀπὸ τῶν ἀποκτεννόντων τὸ σῶµα And do not be fearing those who kill the body.

Luke 12:4

µὴ φοβηθῆτε ἀπὸ τῶν ἀποκτεινόντων τὸ σῶµα do not be afraid of those who kill the body.

According to verbal aspect theory, the present imperative prohibition in Matt 10:28 is not in conflict with the aorist subjunctive in the Luke 12:4 parallel. Both Gospels record Jesus instructing his followers not to fear those

110


who kill the body. Matthew’s record views the action as a process—which it can be—and Luke simply summarizes the action—which is likewise a legitimate option for accurate reporting. The Evangelists’ tense-form choices are not in conflict. 4.2.5 Signs before the End (§288) Matt 24:6

µελλήσετε δὲ ἀκούειν πολέµους καὶ ἀκοὰς πολέµων· ὁρᾶτε µὴ θροεῖσθε· And you will hear about wars and rumors of wars; see that you are not alarmed.

Mark 13:7

ὅταν δὲ ἀκούσητε πολέµους καὶ ἀκοὰς πολέµων, µὴ θροεῖσθε· And when you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be getting alarmed.

Luke 21:9

ὅταν δὲ ἀκούσητε πολέµους καὶ ἀκαταστασίας, µὴ πτοηθῆτε· And when you hear of wars and tumults, do not be terrified.

With Matthew and Mark using the present tense-form and Luke using the aorist tense-form, the reports of Jesus’ instructions in the eschatological discourse against being alarmed at news of wars and tumults seem to be inconsistent according to Aktionsart theory. But verbal aspect theory makes sense of the differing tense-form choices. According to verbal aspect theory, Luke reports Jesus’ instructions with a summary perspective using the aorist subjunctive πτοηθῆτε (aor. pass. subj. 2nd pl. of πτοέω, “I startle, terrify”), while the Synoptic parallels in Matthew and Mark report the prohibition from a process perspective using the present imperative θροεῖσθε (pres. pass. impv. 2nd pl. of θροέω, “I alarm, startle”). The Evangelists are not at odds with one another; they merely offer paraphrasing reports of Jesus’ prohibition with legitimately differing—but not conflicting—perspectives. 4.2.6 False Christs and False Prophets (§291) Matt 24:23

Τότε ἐάν τις ὑµῖν εἴπῃ· ἰδοὺ ὧδε ὁ χριστός, ἤ· ὧδε, µὴ πιστεύσητε· Then if anyone says to you, Look, here is the Christ! or There he is! do not believe it (ESV).

Mark 13:21

Καὶ τότε ἐάν τις ὑµῖν εἴπῃ· ἴδε ὧδε ὁ χριστός, ἴδε ἐκεῖ, µὴ πιστεύετε·


111

And then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘Look, there!’ do not be believing it. Rather than the Aktionsart suggestion that Matthew portrays a “don’t start believing” command and Mark a “stop believing” command, verbal aspect suggests that the nature of the historic action is not under debate between the grammatical constructions. Rather, Mark uses the present imperative thinking about the process of believing false claims about the arrival of the Messiah and portraying Jesus’ concern that his followers avoid such processes. Matthew, on the other hand, uses the aorist subjunctive in the parallel account simply to summarize Jesus’ command that his followers not believe such false claims. 4.2.7 On Oaths (§57) Matt 5:34–37 ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑµῖν µὴ ὀµόσαι ὅλως· µήτε ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὅτι θρόνος ἐστὶν τοῦ θεοῦ, µήτε ἐν τῇ γῇ, ὅτι ὑποπόδιόν ἐστιν τῶν ποδῶν αὐτοῦ, µήτε εἰς Ἱεροσόλυµα, ὅτι πόλις ἐστὶν τοῦ µεγάλου βασιλέως, µήτε ἐν τῇ κεφαλῇ σου ὀµόσῃς, ὅτι οὐ δύνασαι µίαν τρίχα λευκὴν ποιῆσαι ἢ µέλαιναν. ἔστω δὲ ὁ λόγος ὑµῶν ναὶ ναί, οὒ οὔ· τὸ δὲ περισσὸν τούτων ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ ἐστιν. But I tell you not to make oaths at all, either by heaven for it is the throne of God, or by the earth for it is the footstool for his feet, or by Jerusalem for it is the city of the great King. And do not make an oath by your head, for you are not able to make one hair white or black. But let your word be, ‘Yes, yes’ or ‘No, no’; and anything more than these is from the evil one. Jas 5:12

Πρὸ πάντων δέ, ἀδελφοί µου, µὴ ὀµνύετε µήτε τὸν οὐρανὸν µήτε τὴν γῆν µήτε ἄλλον τινὰ ὅρκον· ἤτω δὲ ὑµῶν τὸ ναὶ ναὶ καὶ τὸ οὒ οὔ, ἵνα µὴ ὑπὸ κρίσιν πέσητε. But above all, my brothers, do not make an oath, either by heaven or by earth or by any other oath, but let your “yes” be yes and your “no” be no, so that you may not fall under condemnation.

Finally, Matthew (5:36) and James (5:12) do not differ in what they are prohibiting regarding the taking of oaths; rather, they merely view the prohibition from different perspectives. On the one hand, using the aorist tense-form, Matthew negates the whole idea of oath taking. On the other

112


hand, using the present tense-form, James appears to be thinking of the process of oath taking as he issues his command against it. 4.2.8 Summary on Unparallel Synoptic Parallels for Verbal Aspect These parallel NT passages that betray a lack of conformity to traditional Aktionsart guidelines are not so problematic when read in light of verbal aspect theory. Unlike Aktionsart, verbal aspect theory allows these parallel accounts with differing tense-form selections to be understood as dissimilar without being considered in contradiction with each other in any way. The ability of verbal aspect to address the unparallel tense-form selections in parallel passages such as these is evidence in favor of the theory’s validiy. 4.3 Contextual Grammatical Interchanges Chapter 2 above noted that the Aktionsart understanding of prohibitions is inadequate for handling passages where NT authors move from one grammatical construction of a prohibition to the other grammaticalization within the same context and without otherwise signaling any change in the kinds of action being prohibited. Verbal aspect theory, however, presents no such problems in addressing grammatical interchanges in single contexts. 4.3.1 On Anxiety in Matthew (§67) Matt 6:25

Διὰ τοῦτο λέγω ὑµῖν· µὴ µεριµνᾶτε τῇ ψυχῇ ὑµῶν τί φάγητε [ἢ τί πίητε], µηδὲ τῷ σώµατι ὑµῶν τί ἐνδύσησθε. οὐχὶ ἡ ψυχὴ πλεῖόν ἐστιν τῆς τροφῆς καὶ τὸ σῶµα τοῦ ἐνδύµατος; Therefore I tell you, do not be worrying about your life, what you might eat or what you might drink, nor about your body, what you might wear. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing?

Matt 6:31

µὴ οὖν µεριµνήσητε λέγοντες· τί φάγωµεν; ἤ· τί πίωµεν; ἤ· τί περιβαλώµεθα; Therefore, do not worry saying, ‘What might we eat?’ or ‘What might we drink?’ or ‘What might we wear?’

Matt 6:34

µὴ οὖν µεριµνήσητε εἰς τὴν αὔριον, Therefore, do not worry about tomorrow,

The three µεριµνάω prohibitions in the pericope on anxiety in Matthew 6:25–34 move from the present imperative tense-form (v. 25) to the aorist subjunctive tense-form (vv. 31 and 34), even though the prohibitions all refer


113

to the same activities (i.e., eating, drinking,3 and clothing). The consistency problem this grammatical interchange presents for Aktionsart theory is avoided by verbal aspect theory. Rather than suggesting that the tense-forms depict very different historical actions, verbal aspect claims that the present imperative in verse 25 focuses on the action as a process and the aorist subjunctives in verses 31 and 34 simply summarize the preceding argument. Thus, verbal aspect theory requires no confusing exegetical gymnastics to make sense of the change of tense-forms in this passage. 4.3.2 Exhortation to Fearless Confession in Matthew (§101) Matt 10:26

Μὴ οὖν φοβηθῆτε αὐτούς· Therefore, do not fear them.

Matt 10:28

µὴ φοβεῖσθε ἀπὸ τῶν ἀποκτεννόντων τὸ σῶµα And do not be fearing those who kill the body.

Matt 10:31

µὴ οὖν φοβεῖσθε· πολλῶν στρουθίων διαφέρετε ὑµεῖς. Therefore do not be fearing; you are worth more than many sparrows.

Conversely from the commands in the Matthew 6 passage above, the three φοβέοµαι prohibitions in the pericope on facing opposition in Matthew 10:17–42 move from the aorist subjunctive tense-form (v. 26) to the present imperative tense-form (vv. 28 and 31), even though the prohibitions all refer to the same fearing activity. Rather than the conflict presented by Aktionsart theory, verbal aspect understands the first prohibition here as Matthew’s summary perspective and the next two prohibitions as viewing the same action as a process. Thus, the grammatical interchange here presents no trouble for a verbal aspect understanding of Greek prohibition constructions. 4.3.3 Exhortation to Fearless Confession in Luke (§196) Luke 12:4

µὴ φοβηθῆτε ἀπὸ τῶν ἀποκτεινόντων τὸ σῶµα do not be afraid of those who kill the body.

Luke 12:7

µὴ φοβεῖσθε· πολλῶν στρουθίων διαφέρετε. Do not be fearing; you are worth more than many sparrows.

Luke reports the same prohibition of fear as Matthew (above) using a similar grammatical interchange of the verb φοβέοµαι (“I fear, am afraid”). ——— As mentioned in Chapter 2, the textual critical issue regarding the inclusion of ἢ τί πίητε in v. 25 to correspond with ἤ· τί πίωµεν in v. 31 does not effect the argument here. 3

114


Like Matthew, Luke moves from the aorist tense-form to the present tenseform.4 We conclude here as we did above for Matthew’s account of this same teaching. There is no need for the exegetical machinations required by Aktionsart readings. Rather, verbal aspect understands the first prohibition here as Luke’s summary perspective and the next prohibition as viewing the same action as a process. Once again, the grammatical interchange presents no trouble for a verbal aspect understanding of Greek prohibitions. 4.3.4 John Replies to Questioners in Luke (§15) Luke 3:13

ὁ δὲ εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς· µηδὲν πλέον παρὰ τὸ διατεταγµένον ὑµῖν πράσσετε. And he said to them, ‘Collect no more than you are assigned.’

Luke 3:14

καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς· µηδένα διασείσητε µηδὲ συκοφαντήσητε καὶ ἀρκεῖσθε τοῖς ὀψωνίοις ὑµῶν. And he said to them, ‘Do not extort and do not falsely accuse and be content with your wages.’

In Luke 3 John the Baptist’s instructions against abusive behaviors by repentant persons are constructed with two different tense-forms: a negated present imperative for tax colletors (v. 13) and two negated aorist subunctives for soldiers (v. 14). Suggesting that the historical situations determine the grammar choices, Aktionsart theory interpretations can devolve into special pleading (e.g., all the tax collectors were known to have been overcollecting and none of the repentant soldiers had been involved in extortion or payroll discontent). But verbal aspect theory avoids such exegetical maneuvers by suggesting that Luke simply reports the taxation prohibitions viewing them as processes and the soldiering prohibitions viewing them in summary. Luke’s grammatical interchange in reporting these prohibitions does not imply differences in the historical situations of the listeners. Thus, a verbal aspect understanding of Greek prohibitions avoids the problems encountered with an Aktionsart view. ——— 4 Both Matthew and Luke begin their records of the “Exhortation to Fearless Confession” with prohibitions constructed with the aorist tense-form. But because Luke omits the first of Matthew’s tripled prohibition report, Luke uses the aorist tense-form where Matthew has the present tense-form (cf. Luke 12:4 with Matt 10:28). This matter is discussed on p. 46 under the problem of “Unparallel Synoptic Parallels.” Compare also Matt 6:31, 34 and Luke 12:29, 32 where Matthew uses two prohibitions parallel to three in Luke; see pp. 43–44 under the problem of “Unparallel Synoptic Parallels.”


115

4.3.5 Commissioning the Seventy in Luke (§177) Luke 10:4

µὴ βαστάζετε βαλλάντιον, µὴ πήραν, µὴ ὑποδήµατα, καὶ µηδένα κατὰ τὴν ὁδὸν ἀσπάσησθε. Do not be carrying a moneybag, nor knapsack, nor sandals, and greet no one on the road.

Luke 10:7

ἐν αὐτῇ δὲ τῇ οἰκίᾳ µένετε ἐσθίοντες καὶ πίνοντες τὰ παρ᾿ αὐτῶν· ἄξιος γὰρ ὁ ἐργάτης τοῦ µισθοῦ αὐτοῦ. µὴ µεταβαίνετε ἐξ οἰκίας εἰς οἰκίαν. And remain in the same house, eating and drinking what they provide, for the laborer is worthy of his wages. Do not be moving from house to house.

While problematic for Aktionsart theory, the movement between tenseforms in the three prohibitions of the uniquely Lukan account of the sending out of the seventy (-two) disciples (Luke 10:1–12) is not difficult for verbal aspect theory. Constructed with the present imperative of βαστάζω (“I carry; I bear, tolerate”; Luke 10:4a), the first prohibition here focuses on the process of traveling light. With the aorist subjunctive of ἀσπάζοµαι (“I greet”; Luke 10:4b), the second prohibition takes a summarizing view of the instructions against exchanging greetings en route. Then with the present imperative of µεταβαίνω (“I move, go, leave”; Luke 10:7), the third prohibition returns to a process oriented focus, this time about moving between lodging locations. Once again, Luke’s grammatical interchange in reporting the prohibitions should not be understood to represent differences in the historical situations of the commands (á la Aktionsart). Rather, verbal aspect’s understanding that the tense-forms of these Greek prohibitions represent only the author’s choice of viewpoint avoids the interpretive problems encountered with an Aktionsart understanding. 4.3.6 Summary on Contextual Grammatical Interchanges for Verbal Aspect There is no difficulty for verbal aspect theory in NT passages where grammatical interchanges between tense-forms threaten the integrity of an Aktionsart approach to prohibitions. There is no need to force awkwardly the guidelines of Aktionsart on such passages with attempts to distinguish slight differences in the historic actions represented by differing tense-forms. Rather, according to verbal aspect, an author can record a string of similar prohibitions using differing tense-forms because the tense-forms portray his view of the actions—either in summary fashion or in process fashion—and not the historic actions themselves. Once again, verbal aspect demonstrates a superior approach to understanding Greek prohibitions.

116


4.4 Conclusion on the Success of the Verbal Aspect View Verbal aspect theory recognizes that authors are free to choose their viewpoints for the actions they record. Thus, an author can choose to write with a summary view (aorist tense-form) or a process view (present tenseform) or a stative view (perfect tense-form) for any single action, and this selection of tense-form is not necessarily restricted by the historical kind of action being portrayed. Our discussion here of prohibitions in NT passages that are problematic for the Aktionsart view of Greek prohibitions has demonstrated the consistency of the verbal aspect view. To be clear here, the matter of Aktionsart being addressed in a particular passage of Scripture—i.e., the historic kind of action—may well be of some significance for properly understanding the authorial intent of the passage. What we have been arguing here, however, is that Aktionsart is not found in the verb tense-form spellings; it is communicated in the lexical, grammatical, and contextual features of the text. 4.4.1 Continued Aspect and Aktionsart Distinction Difficulties Distinguishing between “unaffected vs. affected meaning,” Daniel B. Wallace offers distinct but interactive definitions of aspect and Aktionsart. “It is important to distinguish aspect from Aktionsart. In general we can say that aspect is the unaffected meaning while Aktionsart is aspect in combination with lexical, grammatical, or contextual features.”5 On the one hand, aspect is the kind of action that a particular tense-form always represents, unaffected by contextual and lexical considerations. On the other hand, Aktionsart is the kind of action that a particular tense-form can be used to portray as affected by context and lexical values, (i.e. in certain contexts and/or for words with particular meanings).6 Thus on the one hand, with regard to aspect, the present tense-form is always progressive, the aorist tense-form is always summary, and the perfect tense-form is always stative—the meanings of the tense-forms in this sense are unaffected by the contexts and/or the lexemic values of the words. On the other hand, in differing contexts, the present tense-form can be used to represent historic action, current action, future action, iterative action, customary action, or ——— 5 GGBB 499, emphasis original. Informed readers will note the preference that Wallace displays here for nuances of Fanning’s approach to describing verbal aspect over against Porter’s approach. 6

GGBB 2; cf. xiv, n. 12. And so Wallace seems influenced here by Fanning; cf. esp. VANT Chapter 3.


117

gnomic truths—the meanings of the tense-form in these different contexts is thus affected by the term’s context and/or the lexemic value of the particular word being used in that tense. “The basic definition of a given tense deals with aspect, while the various categories of usage deal with Aktionsart.”7 Wallace is correct to note that a single Aktionsart can be represented by differing aspects. But he may be saying too much when he claims that the Aktionsart affects the actual meaning of the aspect being used. As noted in Chapter 3 above, various scholars have made attempts to coordinate aspect and Aktionsart, but this usually produces confusion of categories rather than clear and helpful distinctions. Several decades before most of today’s NT Greek verbal aspect theorists, Maximilian Zerwick briefly laid out a three-fold verbal aspect view in his short volume Biblical Greek: Illustrated by Examples. Zerwick defines aspect as “the manner in which the action is regarded.” He outlines the three familiar tense-form categories that merely resemble Aktionsart thinking (i.e., aorist for simple realization, present and imperfect for progress or habit or directed process, and perfect and pluperfect for states of affairs), but then he clearly distinguishes this categorization as separate from kind of action: The aspects, as was said above, present the action as a simple fact, etc.; the use of the “tenses” is determined not so much by the objective reality (which commonly admits all three aspects according to what the speaker wishes to express) as by the speaker’s needs: he will use the aorist for an action which objectively lasted a long time or was repeated, if what he wishes to express is simply the fact that the action took place; or the present for an action which is of its nature momentary, if what he wishes to express is the nature or kind of action as distinct from its concrete realization. It is obvious that the distinction of aspect is of no little importance for the accurate interpretation of the text; ….8

——— 7 GGBB 499. Wallace warns against understanding a particular category of usage (an Aktionsart category) as the basic, unaffected meaning of the tense-form. “This is the error of saying too much. Statements such as ‘the aorist means once-for-all action” are of this sort” (GGBB 500). Frank Stagg’s article, “The Abused Aorist,” JBL 91 (1972): 222–31 is famed for pointing out this kind of error; see also Charles R. Smith, “Errant Aorist Interpreters,” GTJ 2 (1981): 205–226. But Wallace also warns against another error: “to assume that nothing more than the unaffected meaning can ever be seen in a given tense usage. This is the error of saying too little. To argue, for example, that the aorist is always the ‘unmarked’ tense, or ‘default’ tense, fits this” (GGBB 500; cf. n. 11 where Wallace suggests that Stagg is sometimes guilty of this). 8 Maximilian Zerwick, Biblical Greek: Illustrated by Examples (trans. Joseph Smith; Rome: Scripta Pontificii Insituti Biblici, 1963 [from Italian 4th ed., 1960; Latin 1st ed., 1944]), 77–78 (§§240–41).

118


Unfortunately, Zerwick’s urgency in the matter of aspect was not so much ignored as simply confused with mere Aktionsart theory. Again, as noted in Chapter 3 above, this confusion has plagued NT Greek studies and continues still today. Some of the recent NT Greek grammars that are unrefined in their distinctions between Aktionsart and aspect or are so overly nuanced as to maintain the confusion of the two categories include the beginning grammars by Powers (1995), Croy (1999), Robichaux & Good (2000), Black (2000), Dobson (2005), Voelz (2007), Frick (2007), Hewett (2009), and Mounce (2009). This problem of confusing Aktionsart with aspect has too long a history. Clearer distinctions between these concepts should be made at the earliest levels in Greek grammar studies. Fortunately, there are a few grammar texts available with stronger treatments of apect: the beginning grammars by Hansen & Quinn (1992), Swetnam (1998), Duff (2005), Long (2006), and Porter–Reed–O’Donnell (2010), and the intermediate grammars by Young (1994), Porter (1994), and even Wallace (1996).9 While admittedly not a monolithic approach in some of the more detailed features (as seen in Chapter 3), the verbal aspect model has the advantages of a) making clear and consistent distinctions between Greek verb tense-forms and b) postulating reasonable guidelines for the author’s choosing of one form over another.10 With regard to prohibitions, most simply put, verbal aspect suggests that the aorist subjunctive shows the author summarizing the command and present imperative shows the author looking at the command as a process. Certainly in addressing an action that is in process (and therefore to command that it cease), it might be natural to address it “from the inside”—that is, from the internal perspective and as a process—and, thus, to use the present imperative construction. Nevertheless, it is not required to view an already-in-process action from an internal perspective (i.e., using the present imperative) and there are plenty of NT examples of viewing such actions from an external perspective (i.e., using the aorist subjunctive). Thus, verbal aspect distinctions hold where Aktionsart distinctions fail. Despite widespread attempts to defend some version of the traditional Aktionsart view of prohibitions in the major twentieth-century grammars of NT Greek, it is noteworthy that these grammars express an equally wide——— 9 For the full bibliographic information on each these Greek grammar texts, consult the bibliography at the end of this volume. See our quotation of Young’s definition of aspect and his treatment of prohibitions on p. 104 above. 10 Not only is this true of aspectual theory for prohibitions but for other problematic verbal constructions and considerations as well. Those considerations, of course, are subjects for other projects to explore.


119

spread agreement that there are many exceptions to such a rule. What we have been proposing here is that the aspectual theory of the NT Greek verb provides a more consistent alternative to traditional Aktionsart systems of rules and exceptions. Indeed, we have suggested that there are so many exceptions to the rule that the rule itself must be questioned.11 4.4.2 Translators Representing Grammar Better than Grammarians Evident in Chapters 5 and 6 below, our examination of the two most commonly discussed NT Greek prohibition constructions has included a comparison of seven popular English translations in a search for renderings that reflect a verbal aspect theory of the Greek verb (NASB, ESV, NKJV, NRSV, HCSB, NIV, NTL). Interestingly, English translators have tended not to follow the traditional Aktionsart rule in rendering the NT prohibitions. In fact, translators largely avoid “stop doing” depictions of present imperative constructions even in places where the context clearly supports following the Aktionsart guideline.12 Reflecting upon the promotion of the traditional Aktsionsart rule in NT Greek textbooks (see Chapter 1) and the favor due to verbal aspect theory (Chapters 2–4), perhaps we could say that English translators of the Greek New Testament have generally done better at rendering prohibitions than the grammarians have done in understanding the NT Greek syntax of prohibitions. Nevertheless, such a statement must be qualified. For contrary to verbal aspect theory, seldom do any of the consulted English translations bear a process orientation in their depiction of the present imperative prohibitions. These are more often translated with the same summary view as the aorst subjunctive prohibitions. This likely results from a preference for smooth English. While the English periphrasis employed in this chapter (and Chapter 5 below)—i.e., “do not be doing”—might be a better rendering of the present imperative in verbal aspect theory, it smacks of an unrefined English quality that is avoided by most English translations. Furthermore, for some lexemes, English periphrasis can be easily confused with copulative sentences. For example, the present tense-form prohibition with imperfective aspect, “Do ——— 11

Similarly, in introducing verbal aspect theory, D. A. Carson observes, “Students of elementary Greek tend to learn a large number of rules to which subsequent courses add the exceptions. The more reflective students ultimately ask themselves if the sheer number and variety of exceptions in some instances call in question the validity of the rule first articulated”; Carson, “An Introduction to the Porter/Fanning Debate,” 18. 12

The few times the Aktionsart rule seems to be followed in translation—and primarily in NASB—have been noted in Chapter 5 below.

120


not be judging” (Matt 7:1a; Luke 6:37a) might be (mis)understood statively, “Do not be judgmental,” rather than as a process, “Do not be passing judgment.” This is not the place for arguing over the practicalities of such subtleties; we merely note here the difficulties of English fully representing the nuances of Greek.13 In the end, English translations seem to prefer the simpler summary translation, “do not do,” for both present and aorist prohibition constructions. Therefore, we must heed the warning of David Mathewson against overdependence upon English translations to carry—or even to define the semantics of—verbal aspect in Greek.14 With appropriate attention to the aorist tense-form as the more usual or “default” aspect and the present tenseform as linguistically the more emphasized (“more marked”) authorial choice, Mathewson nicely summarizes the tense-form distinction for prohibitions according to verbal aspectual theory. “In prohibitions the aorist (aorist subjunctive with µὴ) forbids an action as a whole whether the action has already begun or not. By contrast, the present imperative is the more heavily marked construction and is used to treat the action as a process, with regard to its internal makeup, and to draw attention to the command. In prohibitions the present imperative forbids an ongoing process regardless of whether the action is already occurring or not.”15 The approach of verbal aspect theory to prohibitions avoids the grammatical (and potentially theological) difficulties brought on by Aktionsart approaches.16 For understanding the tense-form selections for prohibitions in the Greek New Testament, Aktionsart theory must be set aside and verbal aspect theory must be embraced.

——— 13

Some middle/passive verb forms and some particular lexical values (esp. emotive verbs of fearing, marveling, etc.) seem to allow for English renderings that more closely approximate the process orientation of imperfective aspect. Thus, “do not be afraid” might be considered somewhat process-oriented and parallel to “do not be fearing,” and likewise “do not be alarmed” might be deemed just as process oriented as “do not be getting alarmed.” Yet in our estimation, the first of these pairs suggests more a stative than progressive aspect. 14

See David Mathewson, “Rethinking Greek Verb Tenses in Light of Verbal Aspect: How Much Do Our Modern Labels Really Help Us?” (unpublished paper, Gordon College, 2006), 20–22. 15 16

Mathewson, “Verbal Aspect in Imperatival Constructions,” 23, cf. 28.

On p. 49 n. 28 above, see a summary of Mathewson’s appeal to verbal aspect theory to address such a difficulty comparing Paul’s use of the present tense-form construction in Rom 6:11 (λογίζεσθε ... νεκροὺς, “consider as dead”) over against the aorist tense-form construction in Col 3:5 (νεκρώσατε, “put to death”).

PART 2: ALL THE PROHIBITIONS IN THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

— INTRODUCTION TO PART 2— Lots of Ways to Say, “Don’t do that.” The great prohibition debate covered in Part 1 focuses on the two most discussed ways prohibitions are constructed in the Greek New Testament. But the New Testament has several other ways to express prohibitions. So much attention has been given in scholarship to distinguishing between the intended meanings of the negated present imperative and the negated aorist subjunctive that prohibitions in the other Greek constructions are often neglected. Complete neglect is not the problem; some of the reference grammars have sketched various possible prohibition constructions and have offered NT examples. But, as far as we know, no one has attempted to identify in one place all of the possible NT constructions of prohibitions and to assemble a comprehensive list of all the NT occurrences of each. Part 2 proposes to remedy this lacuna and list all of the prohibitions of the Greek New Testament organized by their various means of expression. Recognizing some of the different prohibition (and positive command) structures, Moulton refers to “substitutes for [the] imperative.” He lists five easily identifiable grammatical categories—the future indicative, the subjunctive, the optative, the infinitive, and the participle—and then adds a sixth category of “some elliptical imperative clauses” that he says are “made into commands, prayers, imprecations, etc., by the exclamatory form in which they are cast, or by the nature of their context.”1 F. E. Thompson also says that substitutes for the imperative “are numerous” and sites seven: the subjunctive (for which he uses the old label “conjunctive”), the future, the future indicative with ὅπως, the optative with ἄν, the infinitive, and certain formulae like questions (which he labels “impatient imperatives”) and lexical formulae using words like δεῖ (χρή, and δέοµαι σου) ταῦτα ποιεῖν (which he labels “respectful imperatives”).2 Similarly, C. F. D. Moule offers eight different constructions for commands, prohibitions, and wishes: the impera——— 1

MHT 1:176–84. See also ATR 945–46, who begins with the same five “alternatives for the imperative” and later adds some categories of “indirect commands” (pp. 1046–47). 2

F. E. Thompson, A Syntax of Attic Greek (rev. ed), 189–90.

124


tive, ἵνα or µή with the subjunctive, the first person subjunctive, the optative, the word ὄφελον, the infinitive, the participle, and the future indicative.3 More recently, Wallace focuses on the future, aorist, and present as the normal tenses for commands, but in a footnote acknowledges the imperatival ἵνα, the imperatival infinitive, the imperatival participle, the rare NT use of the perfect imperative, and “other constructions, such as complementary infinitives with verbs of desiring or exhorting (as in ‘I want you to know’), attendant circumstance participles with imperatives, optative of obtainable wish, and various indirect discourse constructions after verbs of exhorting.”4 McKay has also noted several “alternative expressions” for direct commands and prohibitions including verbs of purpose, statements of obligation, the future indicative (sometimes with οὐ µή), ἵνα with the subjunctive, the infinitive, and the participle. For indirect commands and prohibitions, McKay lists several verbs of commanding, exhorting, persuading, telling, etc. that would take either an object infinitive, an object clause with ἵνα and the subjunctive, or an object clause with ὅπως and the subjunctive.5 From these variating taxonomies of commands and prohibitions, it seems obvious that classification is difficult. Perhaps the most extensive list of command and prohibition classifications is offered by James L. Boyer, and even he admits that “it is sometimes difficult to decide among these possible classifications.”6 This is particularly the case once the realm of simple morphology (e.g., negated pres. impv., negated aor. subj., and fut. ind.) is left behind and the realms of lexical and pragmatic functions are engaged. Nevertheless, an attempt to provide an exhaustive list of all NT prohibitions, as we are proposing to do here, begs for some system of organization. Part 2 begins with two chapters containing all of the NT occurrences of the prohibitions covered in the great prohibition debate of Part 1: Chapter 5 ——— 3 Moule, An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek (2nd ed.), 135–37. See also the list of alternatives in Young, Intermediate New Testament Greek, 139 who lists a NT total of four. 4 GGBB 718, n. 16. As a reminder, we note here that an author might choose simply to report the fact of a prohibition without providing the actual prohibition itself. Thus, scholars utilize the customary discourse nomenclature: when a prohibition is clearly provided for the reader, it is labeled direct; when a prohibition is reported but not quoted, it is labeled indirect. 5

McKay, New Syntax, 80–84 (§§9.3.2–9.4.7) and 113–17 (§14); see also idem, Greek Grammar for Students, 165–66 (§28.3) where he lists seven alternative expressions including statements of intention. 6 Boyer, “A Classification of Imperatives: A Statistical Study,” GTJ 8.1 (1987): 35–54; the quotation is from p. 40. See also Boyer, “Supplemental Manual of Information: Imperative Verbs,” 57–65. Some of Boyer’s other statistical studies impact our work as well; consult the bibliography.


125

collects together all the NT negated present imperatives, and Chapter 6 collects together all the NT negated aorist subjunctives (to which we add the very few occurrences of the negated aorist imperative, since these have a similar function and aspect). The next two chapters of Part 2 contain the NT prohibitions in grammatical-syntactical constructions: Chapter 7 covers prohibitions utilizing other negated verb constructions, and Chapter 8 covers prohibitions utilizing negated dependent clause constructions. The remaining five chapters of NT prohibitions (Chapters 9–13) attempt to recognize the various ways words are used to communicate prohibitions in means other than the formal grammatical-syntactical provisions of a given language. For example, due to the lexical value of the words involved, some positive commands are the functional equivalents of prohibitions. In other cases, similar to the negated future indicative discussed in section 7.1 of Chapter 7, some constructions are not technically negative commands but are assertions with clear prohibitory intent. Thus, for all practical purposes, they are prohibitions.7 Here these lexical and pragmatic categories are covered as follows: Chapter 9 on lexical prohibitions, Chapter 10 on prohibitory emulation statements, Chapter 11 on prohibitory questions, Chapter 12 on warnings and promises, and Chapter 13 on other negative expressions. Our imperfect taxonomy allows for the possibility that one prohibition may well fit into more than one category. For example, a single statement might be identified by its grammatical-syntactical structure and be slotted in one category (e.g., in Chapter 7), but also be identified by its pragmatic function and be slotted in another category (e.g., in Chapter 10). Our desire, however, is to list each prohibition only once; so where possible we will give priority to the grammatical-syntactial classifications and save the pragmatic classifications for those prohibitions that are not as easily categorized.8 Not surprisingly, many of these prohibitory constructions involve the use of a word of negation. Greek has two such terms (and each has related cognates): οὐ and µή. Jannaris explains their differences as follows: ——— 7 On the hermeneutics of assertions with imperatival implications, see Tim Pickavance, “Commands in the Context of Scripture: A Prospectus,” in Discipling the Disciplines: Theological Hermeneutics for the Arts and Sciences (ed. Richard Langer; La Mirada, CA: Biola University, 2011), 166–83. 8

We recognize that our attempt to be as complete as possible may fail—particularly for those prohibitory constructions that are more contextually pragmatic than grammaticalsyntactical, per se. Nevertheless, we hope that others may be able to build upon this work, and we will look forward to receiving corrections regarding categories and NT passages overlooked, as well as regarding items incorrectly included in our lists here.

126

PROHIBITIONS IN THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT Considered absolutely or in association with a finite mood, the two simple negative particles οὐ or οὐκ and µή differ in this, that οὐ simply denies the existence or occurrence of something, and so is direct or objective (independent, external);— while µή prohibits the occurrence of something, and so is indirect or subjective (dependent, internal). Accordingly οὐ serves to state negatively or deny, and µή to prevent something. … The difference between οὐ and µή is also observed in their respective compounds: οὐδείς and µηδείς, οὔτε and µήτε, οὔποτε and µήποτε, οὐδαµῶς and 9 µηδαµῶς, etc.

In this passage Jannais has overstated the situation, for it is simply not the case that every NT occurrence of µή (or its compounds)—used over 1200 times in the Greek New Testament—indicates a prevention. In practice, οὐ (and its compounds) is the negative for the indicative mood (e.g., the prohibitions constructed with the future ind.) and µή (and its compounds) is the negative for all other moods, including the infinitive and the participle.10 While the mere use of a negative particle (µή, οὐ, combinations, or their compounds) does not necessitate a prohibition, conversely, prohibitions can be expressed without using any negative particles. As already mentioned, some terms can have negative or prohibitory lexical values that make negative particles unnecessary for expressing prohibitions (e.g., φυλάσσω in 1 John 5:21, “Little children, keep yourselves from idols,” which functions pragmatically as, “Little children, do not involve yourselves with idols”; see in Chapter 9). Similarly, some exclamations have pragmatic prohibitory force without using any negations (see in section 13.4 of Chapter 13). So then, given these parameters, we have organized all the prohibitions of the Greek New Testament into the fifteen categories outlined in Table 5.0 (on pp. 128–29), which also provides a tabulation of the number of NT prohibitions occurring in these categories.11 A title is provided for each category along with an illustrative English gloss on the verb “I do” (ποιέω) to model its particular construction and/or expression. Each gloss is hardly exhaustive of its category; but those provided are nonetheless properly suggestive handles for distinguishing the categories from one another. At this juncture we must offer a brief word on the protocol for our tallies of the NT prohibitions. Appendix C describes seven guidelines utilized for recognizing separate, individual prohibitions, which is particularly important ——— 9

Jannaris, An Historical Greek Grammar, 427 (§§1801–1802).

10 11

See BDF 220 (§§426–33). The NT does exhibit a few exceptions to this usual practice.

This taxonomy of prohibition categories may well be useful for sorting out positive commands too, but we suspect some noticeable differences (e.g., the lexical category).


127

when trying to distinguish between a single compound prohibition and multiple prohibitions within a compound construction. To put it in the form of a question, when an author expresses a prohibition against two things, is that one compound prohibition or two separate prohibitions? Thus, the guidelines were developed for determining whether or not any given Greek construction added to our tally of NT prohibitions. In the end, our seven guidelines can be expressed in three basic principles. A) We count one separate prohibition for each prohibitory negation—whether those negations are formulated with µή (or its derivatives), οὐ (or its derivatives), χωρίς, αprivatives, or some other negation. B) We count one separate prohibition for each negated verbal construction (even if two or more verbal constructions share a single negation), but we count together as one prohibition any jointly negated non-verbal constructions. C) We count at the discourse level the prohibitions that do not utilize explicit negations in the pragmatic categories. These basic principles and the more detailed guidelines outlined in Appendix C may well be disputed, but these have served our purposes here for counting the prohibitions in the Greek New Testament. Finally, within each section of the chapters that follow, more explanation and nuance is provided for each of the various prohibition categories. By design, as part of the investigation for Part 1 above, Chapters 5 and 6 (on the negated present prohibition constructions and the negated aorist prohibition constructions, respectively) contain noticeably greater analyses of each individual NT citation than is offered in any of the remaining chapters. In Chapters 7–13, footnotes are utilized for any needed comments on individual passages. For all the chapters, the prohibitory function of each NT Greek citation is made plain with the provision of a rough English translation in italics, and where most desireable, a more blatant equivalent prohibitory gloss is provided in quotations within parentheses: (≈ “...”). Most often the prohibitory word or phrase is set in bold typeface in both the Greek citation and the English translation. Where appropriate, fitting terms of influence (e.g., the vision verb controlling the prohibitory object clause, or the verb of speech controlling the prohibitory indirect discourse) are underlined in both the Greek citation and the English translation. On occasion there is need to cite some word or phrase from the greater context of a particular passage, and this is accomplished by using curved brackets: {...}.12

——— 12

We use curved brackets so as to prevent confusion with the square brackets ([...]) used in the Greek text to mark disputed words.

128

PROHIBITIONS IN THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT COUNTING THE PROHIBITIONS OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT Grouped in Grammatical-Syntactical, Lexical, and Pragmatic Categories  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

NEGATED PRESENT IMPERATIVE: “Do not be doing that.” .................................. 175 2nd Person (+ spurious John 8:11): ......................................................... 136 3rd Person: ......................................................................................... 39 NEGATED AORIST SUBJUNCTIVE: “Do not do that.” ............................................. 89 2nd Person: ........................................................................................ 84 3rd Person: ........................................................................................... 5 NEGATED AORIST IMPERATIVE: “He must not do that.” (only 3rd person) .............. 8 NEGATED FUTURE INDICATIVE: “You shall not do that.” ...................................... 21 2nd Person: ........................................................................................ 18 3rd Person: ........................................................................................... 3 NEGATED HORTATORY SUBJUNCTIVE :“Let us not do that.” (only 1st person) ........ 8 Present Tense: .................................................................................... 7 Aorist Tense: ...................................................................................... 1 NEGATED OPTATIVE: “May it not be!” (only 3rd person) ....................................... 17 NEGATED INFINITIVE: “I am telling you not to do that.” ......................................... 85 Negated Indirect Discourse Infinitive: ............................................. 58 Negated Subject Infinitive: ................................................................. 8 Negated Appositional Infinitive: ........................................................ 3 Negated Purposive Infinitive: ........................................................... 12 Negated Complementary Infinitive (+ Matt 6:1 in Vision Verbs): .............. 4 NEGATED PARTICIPLE: “... not doing that.” ........................................................... 39 Negated Adverbial Participle: ........................................................... 19 Negated Attributive Participle (+ Heb 12:15a; 1 Pet 5:3 in Vision Verbs): ... 18 Negated Independent Imperatival Participle (+ Rom 12:9b in Lexical): ... 2 NEGATED OBJECT CLAUSES: “… that you not do that.” .......................................... 65 Negated Object Clauses with Vision Verbs: .................................... 31 Negated Object Clauses with Speech Verbs: ................................... 22 Negated Object Clauses with Fearing Verbs: ................................... 12 NEGATED FINAL CLAUSES: “… in order that you not do that.” ............................. 101 Negated Conjunctive Purpose Clauses with ἵνα: ............................. 62 Negated Conjunctive Purpose Clauses with µήποτε: ...................... 28 Negated Conjunctive Purpose Clauses with ὅπως: ........................... 5 Negated Purpose Clauses Lacking Conjunctions: ............................. 6 LEXICAL PROHIBITIONS: “Refrain from that.” .................................................... 185 Prohibitions Using Lexically Negated Imperative Verbs: ................ 43 Lexically Negated Terms in Other Prohibitory Contexts: ............... 45 Lexical Prohibitions in Indirect Discourse: ..................................... 22 Lexical Reports of Prohibitions: ...................................................... 51 Lexically Implied Indirect Discourse Prohibitions: ......................... 24

129

INTRODUCTION TO PART 2 PROHIBITORY EMULATION STATEMENTS: “We do not do that.” ........................ 123 Negated Statements of Lawfulness or Obligation: .......................... 34 Negated Verbs of Will or Desire: ..................................................... 12 Other Prohibitory Emulation Statements: ...................................... 62 Prohibition Reports Using Negated Verbs of Permission: .............. 15 PROHIBITORY QUESTIONS: “Why are you doing that?” ....................................... 156 WARNINGS AND PROMISES AS PROHIBITIONS: “Those who do that will be punished.” ........................................................... 214 Prohibitory Woes: ............................................................................ 35 Prohibitory Warnings: .................................................................... 172 Prohibitory Promises: ......................................................................... 7 OTHER NEGATIVE EXPRESSIONS AS PROHIBITIONS: “No, don’t!” ..................... 130 Negatives Dependent upon Earlier Prohibitions: ............................ 35 Miscellaneous Negated Adverbial Phrases: ...................................... 38 Miscellaneous Negated Complements: ............................................ 21 Miscellaneous Prohibitory Exclamations: ........................................ 36 TOTAL NEW TESTAMENT PROHIBITORY STATEMENTS:

Table 5.0

1416

—CHAPTER 5— The Negated Present Tense Prohibitions The opposition of present vs. aorist prohibitions in NT Greek discussed in Part 1 above has a wider dimension in history. In his historical exploration of the Greek language, Antonius Jannaris explains that prohibitions were regularly constructed with the imperative mood in classical antiquity (500– 300 B.C.) but became more and more eclipsed by the subjunctive mood during the post-classical period (300 B.C.–A.D. 600). This replacement, he suggests, is “owing to the easier inflection of the subjunctive.” He says, the subjunctive “gradually altogether dislodged the imperative from prohibitions,” a process which was complete by the end of the post-classical period, “and the use of the subjunctive has ever since remained absolute.”1 This evolution of the language was by no means complete in the first century, and the use of the imperative mood for prohibitions was still very much in vogue in the New Testament. In fact, the negated present imperative construction is a more common way to express prohibitions in the New Testament than the negated aorist subjunctive construction. In this chapter we collect together all of the NT occurrences of negated present imperative prohibitions, both second and third persons. In the listing, we offer comments on each regarding its fit with the three different nuances of the traditional Aktionsart rule described in Chapter 1: CI for Cessative– Ingressive, DP for Durative–Punctiliar, and GS for General–Specific (with the present tense-form focused on the first member of each theory’s title: C, D, and G, respectively). Considering the lexical and contextual setting of each passage, we indicate below whether each of the three theories fits the context, is contrary to the context, or is indeterminate in the context. Finally, for each passage we offer a translation fitting with verbal aspect theory (VA). For this we have examined the following seven popular English translations looking for renderings that reflect a proper verbal aspect theory ——— 1

Jannaris, An Historical Greek Grammar, 448–49 (§1918; cf. §1919).

132


of the Greek verb: NASB, ESV, NKJV, NRSV, HCSB, NIV, NTL. If, in our estimation, none of these properly captures the process orientation that verbal aspect theory suggests of the imperfective aspect grammaticalized by the present tense-form, we offer our own progressive rendering—usually some form of the English periphrastic construction, e.g., “do not be doing.” Regarding these translations we have three comments to make. First, Chapter 2 above argues extensively against Aktionsart understandings of present imperative prohibitions, esp. the harshest Cessative–Ingressive school of thought. In that view, present imperative prohibitions are commands to cease some action that is already occurring. Instead, by siding with verbal aspect theory, we have argued that a present imperative represents the author’s subjective view of the action as a process. One of the ironies regarding the English language, however, is that the convention for prohibiting a currently happening action does, in fact, reflect upon the action as a process. In issuing the English prohibition, “Stop doing that,” the author/speaker represents the action with the progressive flavor of the imperfective aspect. The failure, however, is that this English convention only works for actions currently happening, while the Greek imperfective aspect can be used in prohibiting actions not yet occurring. English does not easily grammaticalize the progressive view of the imperfect aspect for a command against an action that is not yet occurring. But, since our primary interest here is understanding and not production of smooth translation, we have quite often provided somewhat awkward English glosses in this chapter to press the imperfective aspect represented in the Greek present tense-form. Second, it is particularly difficult to give copulative verbs like εἰµί and γίνοµαι a process-oriented translation into English. In some contexts rendering γίνοµαι as “become” can bring the imperfective aspect to light in the English translation, but not all settings are conducive to this approach (cf. Eph 5:7 with Eph 5:17). In this difficulty we often resort to English convention in translating the twelve occurrences of present imperative copulative verbs in the lists below. Third, there is also a noted difficulty with translating third person imperatives into English. Many times the idiom “let him do/not do” is used, but this can be confused with the permissive use of “let” meaning “allow him to” and can have the effect of reducing—or removing altogether—the intended imperative force. The permissive use of “let” has less adverse effects with prohibitions, as they would be rendered something like “let no one do.” While the prohibitory force is felt with this English construction, it seems subtly to shift the prohibitory focus away from the intended third person recipient and to turn the prohibition into a command for watchfulness on the

CHAPTER 5—THE NEGATED PRESENT TENSE PROHIBITIONS

133

part of the second person listener.2 Some English speakers use “should” or even the older English “shall” for third person imperatives, but these words also have other connotations in English. Arguably, the clearest English renderings of third person imperatives use “must” formulations—“he must do” and “he must not do”—but even these have their limitations. 5.1 The Negated Present Imperative: “Do not be doing that.” The Greek New Testament has 175 prohibitions constructed with the negated present imperative. Of these, 136 are in the second person and 39 are in the third person.3 Table 5.1 gives more detailed raw data. Tabulations of the evaluative information are made after the listings of all the occurrences. NT PROHIBITIONS USING THE NEGATED PRESENT IMPERATIVE

Active: Middle/Passive:

2nd Person

3rd Person

Totals

Singular | Plural 22* 52 19 43 41 95

Singular | Plural 25 1 12 1 37 2

100 75

TOTALS: * + 1 to include John 8:11

136

39

175

Table 5.1 ——— 2

In some settings this shift in prohibitory focus may be entirely fitting and even intended by the author; see, e.g., John 14:27; Rom 6:12; and Eph 4:29. 3

Boyer counts 174 total pres. impv. prohibitions (“Classification of Imperatives,” 43), and his tally differs in several respects from ours. Looking at his complete listing of these constructions in Boyer, “Supplemental Manual of Information: Imperative Verbs,” 57–59, reveals that he counts 134 in the 2nd person and 40 in the 3rd person. The differences between his tally of 134 + 40 = 174 and our tally of 136 + 39 = 175 can be quickly and easily accounted for. First, we include here four instances of 2nd pers. pres. impv. constuctions missed by Boyer (Luke 3:13; John 5:45; 6:27; and Rom 13:8). Second, Boyer includes two occurrences of the pres. impv. introduced by an impv. of ὁράω (2nd pers. in Matt 24:6 and 3rd pers. in Matt 9:30), which we count in a collection of vision verbs with prohibitory object clauses (see section 8.1.1 of Chapter 8); even though Boyer includes vision-related introductory verbs in his list of “Positive Commands Not to Do,” he does not include Matt 9:30 and 24:6 there (see Boyer, “Supplemental Manual of Information: Imperative Verbs,” 65). Third, Boyer includes the negated 2nd pers. pres. impv. in John 8:11, which we do not included in our count here due to the unlikelihood of that passage being authentically Johannine. Nevertheless, for the sake of completeness we have included this passage in the listing below, but clearly marked it with double brackets [[ ]] as is customary for important passages regarded as ancient albeit later additions to the text.

134


5.1.1 Negated Present Imperative—2nd Person Matt 6:16 CI: DP: GS: VA:

Matt 6:19 CI: DP: GS: VA:

Ὅταν δὲ νηστεύητε, µὴ γίνεσθε ὡς οἱ ὑποκριταὶ σκυθρωποί Indeterminate in the context. [NI/–]4 Fits the context. Fits the context. Whenever you fast, don’t be sad-faced like the hypocrites (HCSB; cf. NKJV). Μὴ θησαυρίζετε ὑµῖν θησαυροὺς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς Indeterminate in the context. [–/–] Fits the context. Fits the context. Do not be storing up treasures for yourselves on earth.

Matt 6:25a

Διὰ τοῦτο λέγω ὑµῖν· µὴ µεριµνᾶτε τῇ ψυχῇ ὑµῶν τί φάγητε [ἢ τί πίητε], µηδὲ τῷ σώµατι ὑµῶν τί ἐνδύσησθε.

CI: DP: GS: VA:

Fits the context (cf. Matt 6:28). [–/S] Fits the context. Fits the context. Therefore I say to you, do not be worrying about your life, what you might eat or what you might drink, nor about your body, what you might wear.

——— 4 For the sake of comparison, we include here a utilization of the code system that Boyer employed in his assessment of the contexts of present impv. constructions (see Boyer, “Supplemental Manual of Information: Imperative Verbs,” 57–60). The codes are placed here on the CI line because Boyer’s evaluation was focused on the traditional Cessative–Ingressive distinction between the present and aorist prohibitions. We give first Boyer’s assessment and then our re-assessment, separated by a slash (/). The key to Boyer’s codes is as follows: – General exhortations (no indication of present action) S Previous action explicit in context ? Previous action probable from context S+ Previous action explicit, but already stopped NF Previous action denied: Exhortations for a future time NO Previous action denied: Nature of action such that it can be done only once NX Previous action denied: Context explicitly says it is not already being done NI Previous action denied: Context implies it is not already being done See the comparative tallies of these items in Tables 2.1 and 2.2 on pp. 36–37 in Chapter 2 above.

CHAPTER 5—THE NEGATED PRESENT TENSE PROHIBITIONS Matt 7:1a CI: DP: GS: VA:


Matt 10:31

135

Μὴ κρίνετε, ἵνα µὴ κριθῆτε· Indeterminate in the context. [–/–] Fits the context. Fits the context. Do not be passing judgment, so that you may not be judged. καὶ µὴ φοβεῖσθε ἀπὸ τῶν ἀποκτεννόντων τὸ σῶµα Contrary to the context. [NF/NF] Fits the context. Contrary to the context. And do not be fearing those who kill the body.5 µὴ οὖν φοβεῖσθε· πολλῶν στρουθίων διαφέρετε ὑµεῖς.

CI: DP: GS: VA:

Contrary to the context. [NF/NF] Fits the context. Fits the context. Therefore do not be fearing; you are worth more than many sparrows.

Matt 14:27

εὐθὺς δὲ ἐλάλησεν [ὁ Ἰησοῦς] αὐτοῖς λέγων· θαρσεῖτε, ἐγώ εἰµι· µὴ φοβεῖσθε.

CI: DP: GS: VA:

Fits the context (cf. Matt 14:26). [S/S] Fits the context. Contrary to the context. But immediately Jesus spoke to them, saying, ‘Take courage, it is I; do not be fearing.’


καὶ προσῆλθεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς καὶ ἁψάµενος αὐτῶν εἶπεν· ἐγέρθητε καὶ µὴ φοβεῖσθε. Fits the context (cf. Matt 17:6). [S/S] Fits the context. Contrary to the context. But Jesus came and touched them and said, ‘Arise, and do not be fearing.’

——— 5

Cf. the Synoptic parallel to Matt 10:28 where Luke 12:4 has the aor. subj. µὴ φοβηθῆτε (“Do not fear”); see in section 6.1.1 of Chapter 6.

136






Mark 5:36 CI: DP: GS: VA:

ἄφετε τὰ παιδία καὶ µὴ κωλύετε αὐτὰ ἐλθεῖν πρός µε, Fits the context (cf. Matt 19:13). [S/S] Fits the context. Fits the context. Let the children alone, and do not be hindering them from coming to me. πάντα οὖν ὅσα ἐὰν εἴπωσιν ὑµῖν ποιήσατε καὶ τηρεῖτε, κατὰ δὲ τὰ ἔργα αὐτῶν µὴ ποιεῖτε· Indeterminate in the context. [–/–] Fits the context. Fits the context. Therefore practice and be observing everything they might tell you, but do not be practicing according to their works.6 µὴ φοβεῖσθε ὑµεῖς, Fits the context (cf. Matt 28:4). Fits the context. Contrary to the context. Do not be fearing.7

[S/S]

µὴ φοβεῖσθε· Indeterminate in the context. Fits the context. Contrary to the context. Do not be fearing.8

[?/–]

µὴ φοβοῦ, µόνον πίστευε. Indeterminate in the context. Fits the context. Contrary to the context. Do not be fearing, only be believing.9

[–/–]

——— 6

On “their works,” see Matt 23:4–7. The Synoptic parallels to Matt 23:3 in Mark 12:38 and Luke 20:46 are formed lexically with vision verbs + ἀπό; see section 9.1.1 of Chapter 9. 7

Matt 28:5 NASB has a CI Aktionsart rendering in the margin: “Stop being afraid.”

8

Matt 28:10 NASB has a CI Aktionsart rendering in the margin: “Stop being afraid.”

9

Mark 5:36 NASB follows CI Aktionsart: “Do not be afraid any longer.”

CHAPTER 5—THE NEGATED PRESENT TENSE PROHIBITIONS Mark 6:50

CI: DP: GS: VA:




———

137

πάντες γὰρ αὐτὸν εἶδον καὶ ἐταράχθησαν. ὁ δὲ εὐθὺς ἐλάλησεν µετ᾿ αὐτῶν, καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς· θαρσεῖτε, ἐγώ εἰµι· µὴ φοβεῖσθε. Fits the context (cf. Mark 6:49–50). [S/S] Fits the context. Contrary to the context. For they all saw him and were terrified. But immediately he spoke with them and said to them, ‘Take courage, it is I; do not be fearing.’ µὴ κωλύετε αὐτόν. Fits the context (cf. Mark 9:38). Fits the context. Fits the context. Do not be hindering him.

[S/S]

ἄφετε τὰ παιδία ἔρχεσθαι πρός µε, µὴ κωλύετε αὐτά, Fits the context (cf. Mark 10:13). [S/S] Fits the context. Fits the context. Permit the children to come to me; do not be hindering them. ὅταν δὲ ἀκούσητε πολέµους καὶ ἀκοὰς πολέµων, µὴ θροεῖσθε· Contrary to the context. [NF/NF] Fits the context. Fits the context. And when you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be getting alarmed.10

10 Cf. the Synoptic parallels to Mark 13:7 where Matt 24:6 has pres. impv. µὴ θροεῖσθε as the object of ὁρᾶτε (“see that you are not getting alarmed”; see in section 8.1.1 of Chapter 8) and Luke 21:9 has the aor. subj. µὴ πτοηθῆτε (“do not be terrified”; see in section 6.1.1 of Chapter 6).

138


Mark 13:11

καὶ ὅταν ἄγωσιν ὑµᾶς παραδιδόντες, µὴ προµεριµνᾶτε τί λαλήσητε,

CI: DP: GS: VA:

Contrary to the context. [NF/NF] Fits the context. Contrary to the context. And when they lead you away delivering you up, do not be worrying beforehand what you might say.11

Mark 13:21

Καὶ τότε ἐάν τις ὑµῖν εἴπῃ· ἴδε ὧδε ὁ χριστός, ἴδε ἐκεῖ, µὴ πιστεύετε·

CI: DP: GS: VA:

Contrary to the context. [NF/NF] Fits the context. Contrary to the context. And then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘Look, there!’ do not be believing it.12


Luke 1:13 CI: DP: GS: VA:

µὴ ἐκθαµβεῖσθε· Fits the context (cf. Mark 16:5). Fits the context. Contrary to the context. Do not be getting alarmed.13

[S/S]

µὴ φοβοῦ, Ζαχαρία, Fits the context (cf. Luke 1:12). Fits the context. Contrary to the context. Do not be fearing, Zechariah.

[S/S]

——— 11

Cf. the Synoptic parallels to Mark 13:11 where Matt 10:19 and Luke 12:11 both have the aor. subj. µὴ µεριµνήσητε (“do not worry”; see in section 6.1.1 of Chapter 6) and the second Lukan parallel in Luke 21:14 has the negated infin. µὴ προµελετᾶν with θέτε (“determine not to meditate beforehand”; see in section 7.4.1 of Chapter 7). 12 Cf. the Synoptic parallels to Mark 13:21 where Matt 24:23 has the aor. subj. µὴ πιστεύσητε (“do not believe”) and Luke 17:23 has the double aor. subj. µὴ ἀπέλθητε µηδὲ διώξητε (“do not go and do not follow”) parallel to the two aor. subj. in Matt 24:26, µὴ ἐξέλθητε and µὴ πιστεύσητε; (“do not go out and do not believe”); see in section 6.1.1 of Chapter 6. 13

Mark 16:6 NLT has a somewhat CI Aktionsart rendering: “Do not be so surprised.”

CHAPTER 5—THE NEGATED PRESENT TENSE PROHIBITIONS Luke 1:30 CI: DP: GS: VA:





139

µὴ φοβοῦ, Μαριάµ, Fits the context (cf. Luke 1:29). Fits the context. Contrary to the context. Do not be fearing, Mary.

[S/S]

µὴ φοβεῖσθε, Fits the context (cf. Luke 2:9). Fits the context. Contrary to the context. Do not be fearing.

[S/S]

µηδὲν πλέον παρὰ τὸ διατεταγµένον ὑµῖν πράσσετε. Indeterminate in the context. [–/–] Fits the context. Contrary to the context. Be collecting no more than what is assigned to you.14 µὴ φοβοῦ· ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν ἀνθρώπους ἔσῃ ζωγρῶν. Fits the context (cf. Luke 5:8–9). [S/S] Fits the context. Contrary to the context. Do not be fearing; from now on you will be catching men. παντὶ αἰτοῦντί σε δίδου, καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ αἴροντος τὰ σὰ µὴ ἀπαίτει. Indeterminate in the context. [–/–] Fits the context. Fits the context. Be giving to everyone asking you, and from the one taking your things do not be demanding them back.15

——— 14 In Luke 3:13, note five words separate the negative and the verb. Of all the NT prohibitions, Luke 22:42 has the most intervening words (six); see in section 5.1.2 below. 15 Cf. the Synoptic parallel to Luke 6:30 where Matt 5:42 has aor. subj. µὴ ἀποστραφῇς (“do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you”); see in section 6.1.1 of Chapter 6.

140


Luke 6:37a CI: DP: GS: VA:

Luke 6:37b CI: DP: GS: VA:

Luke 7:6

CI: DP: GS: VA:


Luke 8:49 CI: DP:

Καὶ µὴ κρίνετε, καὶ οὐ µὴ κριθῆτε· … Indeterminate in the context. [–/–] Fits the context. Fits the context. Do not be passing judgment, and you will not be judged.16 … καὶ µὴ καταδικάζετε, καὶ οὐ µὴ καταδικασθῆτε. Indeterminate in the context. [–/–] Fits the context. Fits the context. … do not be pronouncing condemnation, and you will not be condemned.17 ἤδη δὲ αὐτοῦ οὐ µακρὰν ἀπέχοντος ἀπὸ τῆς οἰκίας ἔπεµψεν φίλους ὁ ἑκατοντάρχης λέγων αὐτῷ· κύριε, µὴ σκύλλου, οὐ γὰρ ἱκανός εἰµι ἵνα ὑπὸ τὴν στέγην µου εἰσέλθῃς· Fits the context. [?/S] Fits the context. Contrary to the context. And already when he was getting not far from the house, the centurion sent friends saying to him, ‘Lord, do not be troubling yourself, for I am not worthy in order that you would enter under my roof.’ µὴ κλαῖε. Fits the context (cf. Luke 7:12). Fits the context. Contrary to the context. Do not be weeping.18

[S/S]

τέθνηκεν ἡ θυγάτηρ σου· µηκέτι σκύλλε τὸν διδάσκαλον. Fits the context. Fits the context.

[S/S]

——— 16

Luke 6:37a NLT has a CI Aktionsart rendering: “Stop judging others.”

17

Luke 6:37b NLT has a CI Aktionsart rendering: “Stop criticizing others.”

18

Luke 7:13 NASB has a CI Aktionsart rendering in the margin: “Stop weeping.”

CHAPTER 5—THE NEGATED PRESENT TENSE PROHIBITIONS GS: VA:




141

Contrary to the context. Your daughter has died; do not be troubling the Teacher any more.19 µὴ φοβοῦ, µόνον πίστευσον, καὶ σωθήσεται. Indeterminate in the context. [?/–] Fits the context. Contrary to the context. Do not be fearing; only be believing, and she will be saved.20 ἔκλαιον δὲ πάντες καὶ ἐκόπτοντο αὐτήν. ὁ δὲ εἶπεν· µὴ κλαίετε, οὐ γὰρ ἀπέθανεν ἀλλὰ καθεύδει. Fits the context. [S/S] Fits the context. Contrary to the context. And all were weeping and mourning for her. But he said, ‘Do not be weeping, for she is not dead but sleeping.’21 µηδὲν αἴρετε εἰς τὴν ὁδόν,…. Contrary to the context. [NF/NF] Fits the context. Contrary to the context. Do not be taking anything for the journey,….22

——— With µηκέτι in Luke 8:49 (albeit missing in some mss.; cf. NKJV), clear CI Aktionsart renderings are appropriate, but none of the consulted English translations resorts to “stop troubling.” NLT has an idiomatic rendering that assigns process to the present tense verb via the English participle, but it does so by changing the prohibition into a statement of fact (that may well have a pragmatic prohibitory quality): “There’s no use troubling the Teacher now.” The Synoptic parallel in Mark 5:35 has a prohibitory question; see in Chapter 11. 19

20

Luke 8:50 NASB follows CI Aktionsart: “Do not be afraid any longer.”

21

Luke 8:52 NASB, HCSB, NIV, and NLT all follow CI Aktionsart: e.g., “Stop weeping.” The Synoptic parallel in Mark 5:39 has a prohibitory question; see in Chapter 11. Cf. the Synoptic parallels to Luke 9:3a where Matt 10:9a has the aor. subj. µὴ κτήσησθε (“do not acquire”; see in section 6.1.1 of Chapter 6) and Mark 6:8a has negated object clause with a speech verb (“he charged them that they not take”; see in section 8.1.2 of Chapter 8). On the additional listings of things not to bring (i.e., Matt 10:9b–c, 10a–d; Mark 6:8b–d; Luke 9:3b–e), see in section 13.1 of Chapter 13 (but Luke 9:3f, with a negated inf., in section 7.4.3 of Chapter 7). 22

142





µὴ κωλύετε· Fits the context (cf. Luke 9:49). Fits the context. Fits the context. Do not be hindering.

[S/S]

µὴ βαστάζετε βαλλάντιον,... Contrary to the context. Fits the context. Contrary to the context. Do not be carrying a moneybag,...

[NF/NF]

µὴ µεταβαίνετε ἐξ οἰκίας εἰς οἰκίαν. Contrary to the context. [NF/NF] Fits the context. Contrary to the context. Don’t be moving from house to house (HCSB; cf. NASB).

Luke 10:20

πλὴν ἐν τούτῳ µὴ χαίρετε ὅτι τὰ πνεύµατα ὑµῖν ὑποτάσσεται,

CI: DP: GS: VA:

Fits the context (cf. Luke 10:17). [S/S] Fits the context. Fits the context. Nevertheless, do not be rejoicing in this, that the spirits are submitting to you.

Luke 11:7

CI: DP: GS: VA:

Luke 12:7 CI:

µή µοι κόπους πάρεχε· ἤδη ἡ θύρα κέκλεισται καὶ τὰ παιδία µου µετ᾿ ἐµοῦ εἰς τὴν κοίτην εἰσίν· οὐ δύναµαι ἀναστὰς δοῦναί σοι. Fits the context (cf. Luke 11:5–6). [S/S] Fits the context. Contrary to the context. Do not be causing me trouble; the door has already been shut, and my children are with me in bed. I cannot get up to give you anything. µὴ φοβεῖσθε· πολλῶν στρουθίων διαφέρετε. Contrary to the context.

[NF/NF]

CHAPTER 5—THE NEGATED PRESENT TENSE PROHIBITIONS DP: GS: VA:




143

Fits the context. Fits the context. Do not be fearing; you are worth more than many sparrows. διὰ τοῦτο λέγω ὑµῖν· µὴ µεριµνᾶτε τῇ ψυχῇ τί φάγητε,... Fits the context (cf. Luke 12:26 and 28). [–/S] Fits the context. Fits the context. Therefore I am telling you, do not be worrying about life, what you might eat,... καὶ ὑµεῖς µὴ ζητεῖτε τί φάγητε καὶ τί πίητε … Fits the context (cf. Luke 12:26 and 28). [–/S] Fits the context. Fits the context. Don’t keep striving for what you should eat and what you should drink, … (HCSB; cf. NRSV).23 … καὶ µὴ µετεωρίζεσθε· Fits the context (cf. Luke 12:26 and 28). [–/S] Fits the context. Fits the context. … and do not keep worrying (NASB, NRSV).24

Luke 12:32

Μὴ φοβοῦ, τὸ µικρὸν ποίµνιον, ὅτι εὐδόκησεν ὁ πατὴρ ὑµῶν δοῦναι ὑµῖν τὴν βασιλείαν.

CI: DP: GS: VA:

Fits the context (cf. Luke 12:26 and 28). [NF/S] Fits the context. Fits the context. Do not be fearing, little flock, because your Father delights to give you the kingdom.25

——— 23 For some, “keep doing” has the connotation of continuing an action already happening. For others, however, it merely gets at the progressive aspect, esp. in negated sentences. Cf. the Synoptic parallel to Luke 12:29a–b where, instead of the two pres. impv. prohibitions, Matt 6:31 has the aor. subj. µὴ µεριµνήσητε (“do not worry”); see in section 6.1.1 of Chapter 6. 24

On Luke 12:29b, see the previous footnote.

Cf. the Synoptic parallel to Luke 12:32 where Matt 6:34 has the aor. subj. µὴ µεριµνήσητε (“do not worry”); see in section 6.1.1 of Chapter 6. 25

144



Luke 18:16

ὅταν ποιῇς ἄριστον ἢ δεῖπνον, µὴ φώνει τοὺς φίλους σου... Contrary to the context. [NF/NF] Fits the context. Fits the context. When you give a feast or a banquet, do not be inviting your friends... ἄφετε τὰ παιδία ἔρχεσθαι πρός µε καὶ µὴ κωλύετε αὐτά,

CI: DP: GS: VA:

Fits the context (cf. Luke 18:15). [S/S] Fits the context. Fits the context. Permit the children to come to me and do not be hindering them.

Luke 23:28

θυγατέρες Ἰερουσαλήµ, µὴ κλαίετε ἐπ᾿ ἐµέ· πλὴν ἐφ᾿ ἑαυτὰς κλαίετε καὶ ἐπὶ τὰ τέκνα ὑµῶν,

CI: DP: GS: VA:

Fits the context (cf. Luke 23:27). [S/S] Fits the context. Contrary to the context. Daughters of Jerusalem, do not be weeping for me, but be weeping for yourselves and for your children.26

John 2:16 CI: DP: GS: VA:

ἄρατε ταῦτα ἐντεῦθεν, µὴ ποιεῖτε τὸν οἶκον τοῦ πατρός µου οἶκον ἐµπορίου. Fits the context (cf. John 2:14–15). [S/S] Fits the context. Fits the context. Be taking these things away; do not be making my Father’s house a house of business.27

——— 26 27

Luke 23:28 NASB has a CI Aktionsart rendering: “Stop weeping.”

John 2:16 NASB, NRSV, and HCSB all have CI Aktionsart renderings: e.g., “Stop making.” NIV (1984) is idiomatic with “How dare you turn”; but this is changed in NIV (2011) to a CI Aktionsart rendering, “Stop turning.” Cf. Matt 21:13; Mark 11:17; and Luke 19:46 in section 13.4 of Chapter 13 for the Synoptic parallels, which all contain OT citations; see esp. the footnote for Matt 21:13.

CHAPTER 5—THE NEGATED PRESENT TENSE PROHIBITIONS John 5:14a CI: DP: GS: VA:





145

ἴδε ὑγιὴς γέγονας, µηκέτι ἁµάρτανε,... Fits the context. [S+/S] Fits the context. Contrary to the context. Look, you have become well; be sinning no longer...28 µὴ θαυµάζετε τοῦτο, Indeterminate in the context. Fits the context. Fits the context. Do not be marveling at this.

[–/–]

Μὴ δοκεῖτε ὅτι ἐγὼ κατηγορήσω ὑµῶν πρὸς τὸν πατέρα· Indeterminate in the context. [ /S] Fits the context. Fits the context. Do not be thinking that I will accuse you before the Father. ἐγώ εἰµι· µὴ φοβεῖσθε. Fits the context (cf. John 6:19). Fits the context. Contrary to the context. It is I; do not be fearing.29

[S/S]

ἐργάζεσθε µὴ τὴν βρῶσιν τὴν ἀπολλυµένην ἀλλὰ τὴν βρῶσιν τὴν µένουσαν εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον Fits the context (cf. John 6:26). [ /S] Fits the context. Fits the context. Do not be working for food that perishes but for food that endures to eternal life.30

——— With µηκέτι in John 5:14a, clear CI Aktionsart renderings are appropriate; NIV and NLT have “Stop sinning.” 28

29 30

John 6:20 NASB has a CI Aktionsart rendering in the margin: “stop fearing.”

John 6:27 has the only NT prohibition portrayed in a negated verb construction where the controlling verb precedes its negation.

146



John 7:24

µὴ γογγύζετε µετ᾿ ἀλλήλων. Fits the context (cf. John 6:41–42). Fits the context. Contrary to the context. Do not be grumbling with one another.31

[S/S]

µὴ κρίνετε κατ᾿ ὄψιν, ἀλλὰ τὴν δικαίαν κρίσιν κρίνετε.

CI: DP: GS: VA:

Indeterminate in the context. [–/–] Fits the context. Fits the context. Do not be judging according to appearances, but be judging with right judgment.32

[[ John 8:11

οὐδὲ ἐγώ σε κατακρίνω· πορεύου, [καὶ] ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν µηκέτι ἁµάρτανε.]]

CI: DP: GS: VA:

Fits the context. [S+/S] Fits the context. Contrary to the context. [[Neither do I condemn you; be going, and from now on be sinning no longer.]] 33


εἰ οὐ ποιῶ τὰ ἔργα τοῦ πατρός µου, µὴ πιστεύετέ µοι· Contrary to the context. [NX/NX] Fits the context. Fits the context. If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not be believing me.

——— 31

John 6:43 HCSB and NIV have CI Aktionsart renderings: e.g., “Stop complaining.”

32

John 7:24 HCSB and NIV have CI Aktionsart renderings: “Stop judging.” NLT uses an idiomatic positive command: “Think this through and you will see that I am right.” With µηκέτι in John 8:11, a clear CI Aktionsart rendering would be appropriate, but none of the consulted English translations resorts to “stop sinning.” Nevertheless, NIV has a dynamic rendering that some may argue represents the imperfective aspect: “Go now and leave your life of sin.” Due to the well-known spurious nature of John 7:53–8:11, we have bracketed this occurrence out of our count of NT prohibitions; but we include an analysis of it here for the sake of completeness. 33


147

John 12:15

µὴ φοβοῦ, θυγάτηρ Σιών· ἰδοὺ ὁ βασιλεύς σου ἔρχεται, καθήµενος ἐπὶ πῶλον ὄνου.

CI: DP: GS: VA:

Indeterminate in the context. [–/–] Fits the context. Fits the context. Do not be fearing, daughter of Zion; behold, your king is coming, sitting on a donkey’s colt.34

John 19:21

µὴ γράφε· ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων, ἀλλ᾿ ὅτι ἐκεῖνος εἶπεν· βασιλεύς εἰµι τῶν Ἰουδαίων.

CI: DP: GS: VA:

Contrary to the context (cf. John 19:19–20).35 [NX/S+] Contrary to the context. Contrary to the context. Do not be writing, ‘The King of the Jews’ but, ‘This man said, “I am King of the Jews.”’36



µή µου ἅπτου, οὔπω γὰρ ἀναβέβηκα πρὸς τὸν πατέρα Indeterminate in the context. [?/–] Fits the context. Contrary to the context. Do not be clinging to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father.37 καὶ µὴ γίνου ἄπιστος ἀλλὰ πιστός. Fits the context (cf. John 20:25). [S/S] Fits the context. Contrary to the context. and do not be unbelieving, but believing (NASB, NKJV).38

——— 34

John 12:15 has a truncated citation of Zech 9:9 where, instead of prohibiting fear, both MT and LXX command rejoicing. John 12:15 HCSB follows CI Aktionsart: “Fear no more.” 35

Although the context reveals that there is prior action, John 19:19–20 indicate that the prior action of Pilate’s writing had already stopped; thus, it would make little sense to render John 19:21 according to the CI Aktionsart rule: “Stop writing….” 36

John 19:21 NLT has rendered this as a positive command: “Change it from ….”

37

John 20:17 NASB has a CI Aktionsart rendering: “Stop clinging to Me, ….”

38

For the copulative construction of John 20:27, NIV and NLT have somewhat dynamic,

CI Aktionsart renderings (respectively): “Stop doubting” and “Don’t be faithless any longer.”

148


Acts 10:15 CI: DP: GS: VA:


Acts 18:9a CI: DP: GS: VA:



ἃ ὁ θεὸς ἐκαθάρισεν, σὺ µὴ κοίνου. Fits the context (cf. Acts 10:14). [?/S] Fits the context. Fits the context. What God cleansed, you must not be calling common.39 ἃ ὁ θεὸς ἐκαθάρισεν, σὺ µὴ κοίνου. Fits the context (cf. Acts 11:8). [?/S] Fits the context. Fits the context. What God cleansed, you must not be calling common.40 µὴ φοβοῦ, ἀλλὰ λάλει καὶ... Indeterminate in the context. Fits the context. Contrary to the context. Do not be fearing, but be speaking and...41

[–/–]

µὴ θορυβεῖσθε, ἡ γὰρ ψυχὴ αὐτοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ ἐστιν. Indeterminate in the context. [?/–] Fits the context. Contrary to the context. Do not be troubling yourselves, for his life is in him.42 µὴ φοβοῦ, Παῦλε, Καίσαρί σε δεῖ παραστῆναι, καὶ ἰδοὺ κεχάρισταί σοι ὁ θεὸς πάντας τοὺς πλέοντας µετὰ σοῦ. Indeterminate in the context. [–/–] Fits the context. Contrary to the context. Do not be fearing, Paul; you must stand before Caesar; and behold, God has granted to you all those sailing with you.

——— 39

Acts 10:15 NASB has a CI Aktionsart rendering: “… no longer consider unholy.”

40

Acts 11:9 NASB has a CI Aktionsart rendering: “… no longer consider unholy.”

41

Acts 18:9a NASB has a CI Aktionsart rendering: “Do not be afraid any longer.”

We take θορυβεῖσθε in Acts 20:10 as a mid. voice form. If pass., it would read, “Do not be experiencing anxiety.” NASB (margin) follows CI Aktionsart: “Stop being troubled.” 42

CHAPTER 5—THE NEGATED PRESENT TENSE PROHIBITIONS Rom 6:13 CI: DP: GS: VA:

Rom 11:18 CI: DP: GS: VA:



149

µηδὲ παριστάνετε τὰ µέλη ὑµῶν ὅπλα ἀδικίας τῇ ἁµαρτίᾳ, Indeterminate in the context. [NX/–] Fits the context. Fits the context. and do not be offering your members to sin as tools of unrighteousness.43 µὴ κατακαυχῶ τῶν κλάδων· Indeterminate in the context. [?/–] Fits the context. Fits the context. Do not be boasting over the branches (cf. NASB, ESV). µὴ ὑψηλὰ φρόνει ἀλλὰ φοβοῦ· Indeterminate in the context. [?/–] Fits the context. Fits the context. Do not be thinking proud thoughts, but be fearing (cf. ESV, NRSV). καὶ µὴ συσχηµατίζεσθε τῷ αἰῶνι τούτῳ, Indeterminate in the context. [–/–] Fits the context. Fits the context. And do not be getting conformed to this age.44

Rom 12:14

εὐλογεῖτε τοὺς διώκοντας [ὑµᾶς], εὐλογεῖτε καὶ µὴ καταρᾶσθε.

CI: DP: GS: VA:

Indeterminate in the context. [–/–] Fits the context. Fits the context. Be blessing those persecuting you; be blessing and do not be cursing.

——— 43

Rom 6:13 NRSV has a CI Aktionsart rendering: “No longer present.” Showing imperfective aspect, NASB has “do not go on presenting,” which also hints at CI Aktionsart theory. 44

Rom 12:2 NIV (1984) has a CI Aktionsart rendering, “Do not conform any longer,” which was changed in NIV (2011) to the more general, “Do not conform.”

150


Rom 12:16b CI: DP: GS: VA:





µὴ γίνεσθε φρόνιµοι παρ᾿ ἑαυτοῖς. Indeterminate in the context. [–/–] Fits the context. Fits the context. Do not be wise in your own estimation (NASB, HCSB; cf. ESV, NKJV, NIV).45 µὴ νικῶ ὑπὸ τοῦ κακοῦ ἀλλὰ νίκα ἐν τῷ ἀγαθῷ τὸ κακόν. Indeterminate in the context. [–/–] Fits the context. Fits the context. Do not be getting overcome by evil, but be overcoming evil with good. Μηδενὶ µηδὲν ὀφείλετε εἰ µὴ τὸ ἀλλήλους ἀγαπᾶν· Indeterminate in the context. [ /–] Fits the context. Fits the context. Do not be owing anything to anyone, except to be loving one another. καὶ τῆς σαρκὸς πρόνοιαν µὴ ποιεῖσθε εἰς ἐπιθυµίας. Indeterminate in the context. [–/–] Fits the context. Fits the context. and do not be making provision for the flesh, for its desires. µὴ τῷ βρώµατί σου ἐκεῖνον ἀπόλλυε ὑπὲρ οὗ Χριστὸς ἀπέθανεν. Indeterminate in the context. [–/–] Fits the context. Fits the context. Through food, do not be destroying that one for whom Christ died.

——— 45

For the copulative construction in Rom 12:16b, NRSV and NLT are rather paraphrastic (respectively): “do not claim to be wiser than you are” and “don’t think you know it all!”

CHAPTER 5—THE NEGATED PRESENT TENSE PROHIBITIONS Rom 14:20a CI: DP: GS: VA:

1 Cor 4:5 CI: DP: GS: VA:

1 Cor 6:9b CI: DP: GS: VA:

1 Cor 7:5a CI: DP: GS: VA:


151

µὴ ἕνεκεν βρώµατος κατάλυε τὸ ἔργον τοῦ θεοῦ. Indeterminate in the context. [–/–] Fits the context. Fits the context. Do not be destroying the work of God for the sake of food. ὥστε µὴ πρὸ καιροῦ τι κρίνετε ἕως ἂν ἔλθῃ ὁ κύριος, Indeterminate in the context. [–/–] Fits the context. Fits the context. Therefore do not be passing judgment on something before time, until the Lord comes.46 µὴ πλανᾶσθε· Indeterminate in the context. Fits the context. Fits the context. Do not be getting deceived.

[–/–]

µὴ ἀποστερεῖτε ἀλλήλους, εἰ µήτι ἂν ἐκ συµφώνου πρὸς καιρόν Indeterminate in the context. [–/–] Fits the context. Fits the context. Do not be denying one another, except for by agreement for a time.47 τιµῆς ἠγοράσθητε· µὴ γίνεσθε δοῦλοι ἀνθρώπων. Indeterminate in the context. [–/–] Fits the context. Fits the context. You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men (NKJV, HCSB, NIV; cf. NASB, ESV, NRSV).

——— 46

1 Cor 4:5 NASB has “do not go on passing judgment,” which is imperfective, but for some users of English hints at a CI Aktionsart understanding. 47

1 Cor 7:5a NASB has a CI Aktionsart rendering: “Stop depriving one another.”

152





1 Cor 10:10a

δέδεσαι γυναικί, µὴ ζήτει λύσιν· … Indeterminate in the context. [–/–] Fits the context. Fits the context. If you have been bound to a wife, do not be seeking a divorce…. … λέλυσαι ἀπὸ γυναικός, µὴ ζήτει γυναῖκα. Indeterminate in the context. [–/–] Fits the context. Fits the context. … if you have been released from a wife, do not be seeking a wife. µηδὲ εἰδωλολάτραι γίνεσθε καθώς τινες αὐτῶν, Indeterminate in the context. [–/–] Fits the context. Fits the context. And do not become idolaters as were some of them (NKJV; cf. NRSV, HCSB). µηδὲ γογγύζετε, καθάπερ τινὲς αὐτῶν ἐγόγγυσαν καὶ ἀπώλοντο ὑπὸ τοῦ ὀλοθρευτοῦ.

CI: DP: GS: VA:

Indeterminate in the context. [–/–] Fits the context. Fits the context. And do not be grumbling, as some of them grumbled and were destroyed by the destroyer.

1 Cor 10:28

ἐὰν δέ τις ὑµῖν εἴπῃ· τοῦτο ἱερόθυτόν ἐστιν, µὴ ἐσθίετε δι᾿ ἐκεῖνον τὸν µηνύσαντα καὶ τὴν συνείδησιν·

CI: DP: GS: VA:

Indeterminate in the context. [–/–] Fits the context. Fits the context. But if someone says to you, ‘This is a sacrifice offering,’ on account of the one disclosing this and for conscience sake, do not be eating it.


153

1 Cor 14:20

Ἀδελφοί, µὴ παιδία γίνεσθε ταῖς φρεσὶν ἀλλὰ τῇ κακίᾳ νηπιάζετε, ταῖς δὲ φρεσὶν τέλειοι γίνεσθε.

CI: DP: GS: VA:

Indeterminate in the context. [–/–] Fits the context. Fits the context. Brothers, do not be children in your thinking. Be infants in evil, but in your thinking be mature (ESV; cf. NASB, NKJV, NRSV).48

1 Cor 14:39

Ὥστε, ἀδελφοί [µου], ζηλοῦτε τὸ προφητεύειν καὶ τὸ λαλεῖν µὴ κωλύετε γλώσσαις·

CI: DP: GS: VA:

Indeterminate in the context. [NX/–] Fits the context. Fits the context. So, my brothers, be having zeal for prophesy and do not be forbidding speaking in tongues.



µὴ πλανᾶσθε· φθείρουσιν ἤθη χρηστὰ ὁµιλίαι κακαί. Fits the context (cf. 1 Cor 15:12). [–/S] Fits the context. Fits the context. Do not be getting deceived. ‘Bad associates corrupt good morals.’ ἐκνήψατε δικαίως καὶ µὴ ἁµαρτάνετε, Fits the context (cf. 1 Cor 15:12). [–/S] Fits the context. Fits the context. Come rightly to your senses and do not be sinning49

——— 48 The three commands in 1 Cor 14:20 (one negative and two positive) all use lexically stative verbs, which are difficult to render into English with imperfective aspect. We have resorted here to ESV. For the prohibition, NIV has a somewhat dynamic, CI Aktionsart approach that renders the noun for thought (φρήν) as a verb: “stop thinking like children.” 49

CI Aktionsart renderings (e.g., “stop sinning” or “sin no more”) are offered by NASB, NRSV, HCSB, NIV, and NLT for 1 Cor 15:34a. The ESV rendering, “do not go on sinning,” fits this context as a cease command, but elsewhere such English constructions can also bear a do-not-start-and-continue-in flavor that is fitting to the progressive nature of the present tenseform’s imperfective aspect.

154




Μὴ γίνεσθε ἑτεροζυγοῦντες ἀπίστοις· τίς γὰρ µετοχὴ δικαιοσύνῃ καὶ ἀνοµίᾳ, ἢ τίς κοινωνία φωτὶ πρὸς σκότος; Indeterminate in the context. [–/–] Fits the context. Fits the context. Do not be mismatched with unbelievers (NRSV, HCSB; cf. NASB, ESV, NKJV, NIV).50 διὸ ἐξέλθατε ἐκ µέσου αὐτῶν καὶ ἀφορίσθητε, λέγει κύριος, καὶ ἀκαθάρτου µὴ ἅπτεσθε· Indeterminate in the context. [–/–] Fits the context. Fits the context. Therefore come out from among them and be separate, says the Lord, and do not be touching uncleanness.51 Τῇ ἐλευθερίᾳ ἡµᾶς Χριστὸς ἠλευθέρωσεν· στήκετε οὖν καὶ µὴ πάλιν ζυγῷ δουλείας ἐνέχεσθε.

Gal 5:1 CI: DP: GS: VA:

Contrary to the context.52 [S+/S+] Fits the context. Fits the context. For freedom Christ freed us; be standing firm therefore and do not be getting subjected again to a yoke of slavery. Μὴ πλανᾶσθε, θεὸς οὐ µυκτηρίζεται.


Indeterminate in the context. [–/–] Fits the context. Fits the context. Do not be getting deceived, God is not getting mocked.

——— 50

For the copulative construction of 2 Cor 6:14, NLT is somewhat paraphrastic: “Don’t be teamed up with those who are unbelievers.” 51

Although the two legs of the citation in 2 Cor 6:17 are reversed, they retain the LXX wording of Isa 52:11 except αὐτῶν καὶ is used here for αὐτῆς. The use of πάλιν (“again”) in Gal 5:1 indicates that the previous slave-like submission to sin had already ceased; thus, the CI Aktionsart rule is a poor fit. “To use ‘stop’ for ‘don’t start again’ makes the rule rather meaningless”; Boyer, “Classification of Imperatives,” 43. Boyer thinks this is also true of the prohibitions in John 5:14a; 8:11; and Eph 4:8, but these use µηκέτι rather than πάλιν and the prior actions in each case may have not yet ceased. 52

CHAPTER 5—THE NEGATED PRESENT TENSE PROHIBITIONS Eph 4:26a CI: DP: GS: VA:

Eph 4:27 CI: DP: GS: VA:



Eph 5:11a CI: DP: GS: VA:

155

ὀργίζεσθε καὶ µὴ ἁµαρτάνετε· Indeterminate in the context. Fits the context. Fits the context. Be angry and do not be sinning;53

[NI/–]

µηδὲ δίδοτε τόπον τῷ διαβόλῳ. Indeterminate in the context. Fits the context. Fits the context. and do not be giving a place to the devil.54

[–/–]

καὶ µὴ λυπεῖτε τὸ πνεῦµα τὸ ἅγιον τοῦ θεοῦ, Indeterminate in the context. [–/–] Fits the context. Fits the context. And do not be grieving the Holy Spirit of God. µὴ οὖν γίνεσθε συµµέτοχοι αὐτῶν· Indeterminate in the context. [–/–] Fits the context. Fits the context. Therefore do not become partners with them (ESV; cf. HCSB). καὶ µὴ συγκοινωνεῖτε τοῖς ἔργοις τοῖς ἀκάρποις τοῦ σκότους, Indeterminate in the context. [–/–] Fits the context. Fits the context. And do not be participating in the fruitless works of darkness,

——— 53

Eph 4:26a follows the LXX in a citation of Ps 4:4 (= Ps 4:5 LXX).

54 Eph 4:27 NLT rather loosely expresses the prohibition as an explanatory clause of the previous two prohibitions against anger (in v. 26): “…for anger gives a mighty foothold to the Devil.”

156





Phil 4:6 CI: DP: GS: VA:

διὰ τοῦτο µὴ γίνεσθε ἄφρονες, Indeterminate in the context. [–/–] Fits the context. Fits the context. Therefore do not be foolish (ESV, NIV; cf. NASB, NKJV, NRSV, HCSB).55 καὶ µὴ µεθύσκεσθε οἴνῳ, ἐν ᾧ ἐστιν ἀσωτία, ἀλλὰ πληροῦσθε ἐν πνεύµατι, Indeterminate in the context. [–/–] Fits the context. Fits the context. And do not be getting drunk with wine, wherein is debauchery, but be getting filled with the Spirit. Καὶ οἱ πατέρες, µὴ παροργίζετε τὰ τέκνα ὑµῶν ἀλλὰ ἐκτρέφετε αὐτὰ ἐν παιδείᾳ καὶ νουθεσίᾳ κυρίου. Indeterminate in the context. [–/–] Fits the context. Fits the context. And fathers, do not be provoking your children to anger but be bringing them up in the training and instruction of the Lord. µηδὲν µεριµνᾶτε Indeterminate in the context. Fits the context. Fits the context. Do not be worrying about anything.

[–/–]

µὴ ψεύδεσθε εἰς ἀλλήλους,

Col 3:9 CI: DP: GS: VA:

Indeterminate in the context. Fits the context. Fits the context. Do not be lying to one another.

[–/–]

——— 55

Unlike many other copulative contexts (e.g., Eph 5:7 above), the context of Eph 5:17 is not as conducive to rendering γίνοµαι as “become” so as to bring out the progressive aspect.

CHAPTER 5—THE NEGATED PRESENT TENSE PROHIBITIONS Col 3:19 CI: DP: GS: VA:

Col 3:21a CI: DP: GS: VA:

1 Thess 5:19 CI: DP: GS: VA:



1 Tim 4:14 CI: DP: GS: VA:

157

Οἱ ἄνδρες, ἀγαπᾶτε τὰς γυναῖκας καὶ µὴ πικραίνεσθε πρὸς αὐτάς. Indeterminate in the context. [–/–] Fits the context. Fits the context. Husbands, love your wives, and do not be harboring bitterness toward them. Οἱ πατέρες, µὴ ἐρεθίζετε τὰ τέκνα ὑµῶν,... Indeterminate in the context. Fits the context. Fits the context. Fathers, do not be provoking your children,...

[–/–]

τὸ πνεῦµα µὴ σβέννυτε, Indeterminate in the context. Fits the context. Fits the context. Do not be quenching the Spirit.

[–/–]

προφητείας µὴ ἐξουθενεῖτε Indeterminate in the context. Fits the context. Fits the context. Do not be despising prophecies.

[–/–]

καὶ µὴ ὡς ἐχθρὸν ἡγεῖσθε, Contrary to the context (cf. 2 Thess 3:14). Fits the context. Fits the context. Do not be regarding him as an enemy.

[–/NF]

µὴ ἀµέλει τοῦ ἐν σοὶ χαρίσµατος, Indeterminate in the context. Fits the context. Contrary the context. Do not be neglecting the gift that is in you.

[–/–]

158


1 Tim 5:19

κατὰ πρεσβυτέρου κατηγορίαν µὴ παραδέχου, ἐκτὸς εἰ µὴ ἐπὶ δύο ἢ τριῶν µαρτύρων.

CI: DP: GS: VA:

Indeterminate in the context. [–/–] Fits the context. Fits the context. Do not be accepting an accusation against an elder, except on the basis of two or three witnesses.

1 Tim 5:22a CI: DP: GS: VA:

1 Tim 5:22b CI: DP: GS: VA:

χεῖρας ταχέως µηδενὶ ἐπιτίθει... Indeterminate in the context. Fits the context. Fits the context. Do not be laying hands on anyone quickly,...

[–/–]

...µηδὲ κοινώνει ἁµαρτίαις ἀλλοτρίαις· σεαυτὸν ἁγνὸν τήρει. Indeterminate in the context. Fits the context. Fits the context. ...and do not be sharing in the sins of others.

[–/–]

1 Tim 5:23

Μηκέτι ὑδροπότει, ἀλλὰ οἴνῳ ὀλίγῳ χρῶ διὰ τὸν στόµαχον καὶ τὰς πυκνάς σου ἀσθενείας.

CI: DP: GS: VA:

Fits the context.56 [NI/S] Fits the context. Contrary to the context. No longer be drinking only water, but be using a little wine because of your stomach and your frequent ailments.

——— 56

While the CI Aktionsart rule generally fits the context of 1 Tim 5:23—esp. with the presence of µηκέτι (“no longer”)—it seems to say too much in this particular setting with these particular lexical values. As Boyer notes, “it hardly can mean ‘Stop drinking water;’ rather, ‘Don’t always be a water-drinker (drink something else once in a while)’”; Boyer, “Classification of Imperatives,” 43, n. 24. Thus, none of the consulted English translations resorts to “stop drinking water,” and most insert the word “only” as we have here (NASB uses “exclusively”). HCSB is somewhat progressive in aspect with, “Don’t continue drinking only water.” Given his remarks about this passage, it seems odd that Boyer assigns it the “NI” code for “previous action denied: context implicit”; Boyer, “Supplemental Manual of Information: Imperative Verbs,” 59, cf. 60.

CHAPTER 5—THE NEGATED PRESENT TENSE PROHIBITIONS Heb 12:5a CI: DP: GS: VA:

Heb 12:5b CI: DP: GS: VA:

Heb 13:2 CI: DP: GS: VA:

Heb 13:9a CI: DP: GS: VA:


159

...υἱέ µου, µὴ ὀλιγώρει παιδείας κυρίου... Indeterminate in the context. [–/–] Fits the context. Fits the context. ...My son, do not be regarding lightly the discipline of the Lord,...57 ...µηδὲ ἐκλύου ὑπ᾿ αὐτοῦ ἐλεγχόµενος· Indeterminate in the context. [–/–] Fits the context. Fits the context. ...and do not be growing weary when being reproved by him. τῆς φιλοξενίας µὴ ἐπιλανθάνεσθε, διὰ ταύτης γὰρ ἔλαθόν τινες ξενίσαντες ἀγγέλους. Indeterminate in the context. [–/–] Fits the context. Fits the context. Do not be forgetting hospitality, for through this some were unaware as they entertained angels. Διδαχαῖς ποικίλαις καὶ ξέναις µὴ παραφέρεσθε· Indeterminate in the context. [–/–] Fits the context. Fits the context. Do not be getting led away by diverse and strange teachings. τῆς δὲ εὐποιΐας καὶ κοινωνίας µὴ ἐπιλανθάνεσθε· τοιαύταις γὰρ θυσίαις εὐαρεστεῖται ὁ θεός. Indeterminate in the context. [–/–] Fits the context. Fits the context. And do not be forgetting well-doing and sharing, for God is being pleased with such sacrifices.

——— 57

Heb 12:5–6 is a citation of Prov 3:11–12 LXX with the small addition of µου in 12:5a.

160


Jas 1:16 CI: DP: GS: VA:

Μὴ πλανᾶσθε, ἀδελφοί µου ἀγαπητοί. Indeterminate in the context. [–/–] Fits the context. Fits the context. Do not be getting deceived, my beloved brothers. Ἀδελφοί µου, µὴ ἐν προσωποληµψίαις ἔχετε τὴν πίστιν τοῦ κυρίου ἡµῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τῆς δόξης.


Fits the context (cf. Jas 2:6). [–/S] Fits the context. Fits the context. My brothers, do not in favoritism be holding the faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ. Μὴ πολλοὶ διδάσκαλοι γίνεσθε, ἀδελφοί µου,


Jas 3:14a CI: DP: GS: VA:

Jas 3:14b CI: DP: GS: VA:

Indeterminate in the context. [NI/–] Fits the context. Fits the context. Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers (ESV, NRSV; cf. NASB, NKJV, HCSB, NLT). εἰ δὲ ζῆλον πικρὸν ἔχετε καὶ ἐριθείαν ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ ὑµῶν, µὴ κατακαυχᾶσθε καὶ … Indeterminate in the context. [–/–] Fits the context. Fits the context. But if you have bitter jealousy and selfish ambition in your heart, do not be boasting and … … {µὴ...} ψεύδεσθε κατὰ τῆς ἀληθείας. Indeterminate in the context. Fits the context. Fits the context. … {do not...} be lying against the truth.58

[–/–]

——— 58 Jas 3:14a–b contains the only pair of pres. impv. NT prohibitions with two different verbs negated by a single µή (cf. the paired prohibitions with repeated negatives in John 14:27; 1 Tim 5:22; Heb 12:5; and 2 John 10). See this with vision verb object clauses in Luke 21:34a–b (with µήποτε) and Heb 12:15b–c (with µή) in section 8.1.1 of Chapter 8.

CHAPTER 5—THE NEGATED PRESENT TENSE PROHIBITIONS Jas 4:11a CI: DP: GS: VA:



1 Pet 4:12 CI: DP: GS: VA:

1 John 2:15a CI: DP: GS: VA:

1 John 3:13 CI: DP: GS: VA:

161

Μὴ καταλαλεῖτε ἀλλήλων, ἀδελφοί. Indeterminate in the context. [–/–] Fits the context. Fits the context. Do not be speaking evil against one another, brothers. µὴ στενάζετε, ἀδελφοί, κατ᾿ ἀλλήλων... Indeterminate in the context. [–/–] Fits the context. Fits the context. Do not be complaining, brothers, against one another... Πρὸ πάντων δέ, ἀδελφοί µου, µὴ ὀµνύετε... Indeterminate in the context. [–/–] Fits the context. Fits the context. But above all, my brothers, do not be swearing... Ἀγαπητοί, µὴ ξενίζεσθε τῇ ἐν ὑµῖν πυρώσει πρὸς πειρασµὸν ὑµῖν γινοµένῃ ὡς ξένου ὑµῖν συµβαίνοντος, Indeterminate in the context. [–/–] Fits the context. Fits the context. Beloved, do not be getting surprised at the fiery ordeal among you, happening to you for a test, as though a strange thing is befalling you. Μὴ ἀγαπᾶτε τὸν κόσµον... Indeterminate in the context. Fits the context. Fits the context. Do not be loving the world...

[NX/–]

[Καὶ] µὴ θαυµάζετε, ἀδελφοί, εἰ µισεῖ ὑµᾶς ὁ κόσµος. Indeterminate in the context. [–/–] Fits the context. Fits the context. Do not be marveling, brothers, if the world is hating you.

162


1 John 4:1

Ἀγαπητοί, µὴ παντὶ πνεύµατι πιστεύετε ἀλλὰ δοκιµάζετε τὰ πνεύµατα εἰ ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐστιν, ὅτι πολλοὶ ψευδοπροφῆται ἐξεληλύθασιν εἰς τὸν κόσµον.

CI: DP: GS: VA:

Indeterminate in the context. [–/–] Fits the context. Fits the context. Beloved, do not be believing every spirit but be testing the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.

2 John 10a

εἴ τις ἔρχεται πρὸς ὑµᾶς καὶ ταύτην τὴν διδαχὴν οὐ φέρει, µὴ λαµβάνετε αὐτὸν εἰς οἰκίαν καὶ...

CI: DP: GS: VA:

Contrary to the context. [–/NF] Fits the context. Fits the context. If someone comes to you and is not bearing this teaching, do not be receiving him into your house and...

2 John 10b CI: DP: GS: VA:

3 John 11 CI: DP: GS: VA:

Rev 1:17 CI: DP: GS: VA:

Rev 2:10 CI:

...χαίρειν αὐτῷ µὴ λέγετε· Contrary to the context. Fits the context. Fits the context. ...do not be saying a greeting to him.

[–/NF]

Ἀγαπητέ, µὴ µιµοῦ τὸ κακὸν ἀλλὰ τὸ ἀγαθόν. Contrary to the context (cf. 3 John 2–4). Fits the context. Fits the context. Beloved, do not be imitating evil but good.

[–/NX]

µὴ φοβοῦ· Fits the context. Fits the context. Contrary to the context. Do not be fearing.

[S/S]

µηδὲν φοβοῦ ἃ µέλλεις πάσχειν. Indeterminate in the context.

[–/–]

CHAPTER 5—THE NEGATED PRESENT TENSE PROHIBITIONS DP: GS: VA:

163

Fits the context. Fits the context. Do not be fearing what you are about to suffer. µὴ κλαῖε,


Fits the context (Rev 5:4). Fits the context. Contrary to the context. Do not be weeping.59

[S/S]

5.1.2 Negated Present Imperative—3rd Person Matt 19:6 CI: DP: GS: VA:



ὃ οὖν ὁ θεὸς συνέζευξεν ἄνθρωπος µὴ χωριζέτω. Indeterminate in the context. [–/–] Fits the context. Fits the context. Therefore, what God joined together man must not be separating. ὃ οὖν ὁ θεὸς συνέζευξεν ἄνθρωπος µὴ χωριζέτω. Indeterminate in the context. [–/–] Fits the context. Fits the context. Therefore, what God joined together man must not be separating. καὶ οἱ ἐν ταῖς χώραις µὴ εἰσερχέσθωσαν εἰς αὐτήν, Contrary to the context. [NF/NF] Fits the context. Contrary to the context. and those in the country must not be entering into it.60

——— 59

Rev 5:5 NASB, ESV, HCSB, and NLT offer CI Aktionsart renderings: e.g., “Stop weeping.” 60

The lone 3rd pers. pres. impv. prohibition in Luke 21:21 seems to summarize the three 3 pers. aor. impv. verbs in the Synoptic parallel of Mark 13:15–16 (µὴ καταβάτω, µηδὲ εἰσελθάτω, and µὴ ἐπιστρεψάτω) by using the middle vocabulary term, but here in the present tense-form instead of the aorist. Curiously, Luke’s earlier apocalyptic sermon uses the first and third of Mark’s aor. impv. verbs in Luke 17:31 matching both vocabulary and tense-form, as does Matt 24:17–18; see in section 6.2 of Chapter 6. rd

164




John 14:27a CI: DP: GS: VA:

John 14:27b CI: DP: GS: VA:


πλὴν µὴ τὸ θέληµά µου ἀλλὰ τὸ σὸν γινέσθω. Contrary to the context. [NX/NX] Fits the context. Contrary to the context. But let not my will but yours be getting accomplished.61 Μὴ ταρασσέσθω ὑµῶν ἡ καρδία· Indeterminate in the context. Fits the context. Fits the context. Do not let your heart be getting troubled.

[?/–]

µὴ ταρασσέσθω ὑµῶν ἡ καρδία... Indeterminate in the context. Fits the context. Fits the context. Do not let your heart be getting troubled...

[?/–]

… µηδὲ δειλιάτω. Indeterminate in the context. Fits the context. Fits the context. … and do not let it be fearing.

[?/–]

γενηθήτω ἡ ἔπαυλις αὐτοῦ ἔρηµος καὶ µὴ ἔστω ὁ κατοικῶν ἐν αὐτῇ, Contrary to the context. [NF/NF] Fits the context. Contrary to the context. Let his homestead be deserted, and let no inhabitant be in it.62

——— What Luke 22:42 makes explicit with γινέσθω, its Synoptic parallels in Matt 26:39 and Mark 14:36 each presume; see in section 13.3 of Chapter 13. Among pres. impv. prohibitory constuctions, Luke 22:42 is the passage with the most intervening words between the negative µή and the verb (six words); cf. Luke 3:13 (five words) in section 5.1.1 above. 61

62 Acts 1:20 is a truncated citation of Ps 69:25 (= Ps 68:26 LXX) that maintains µὴ ἔστω ὁ κατοικῶν from the LXX as the prohibitory clause. For the copulative construction in Acts 1:20, NLT reflects imperfective aspect by rendering the substantival ptc. as the verb in a subordinate (not a parallel) clause: “with no one living in it.”

CHAPTER 5—THE NEGATED PRESENT TENSE PROHIBITIONS Rom 6:12 CI: DP: GS: VA:

Rom 14:3a CI: DP: GS: VA:




165

Μὴ οὖν βασιλευέτω ἡ ἁµαρτία ἐν τῷ θνητῷ ὑµῶν σώµατι εἰς τὸ ὑπακούειν ταῖς ἐπιθυµίαις αὐτοῦ, Indeterminate in the context. [NX/–] Fits the context. Fits the context. Therefore do no let sin be ruling in your mortal body for obedience to its desires. ὁ ἐσθίων τὸν µὴ ἐσθίοντα µὴ ἐξουθενείτω,... Fits the context (cf. Rom 14:13). [–/S] Fits the context. Fits the context. The one eating must not be despising the one not eating,... ...ὁ δὲ µὴ ἐσθίων τὸν ἐσθίοντα µὴ κρινέτω Fits the context (cf. Rom 14:13). [–/S] Fits the context. Fits the context. ...and the one not eating must not be passing judgment on the one eating. µὴ βλασφηµείσθω οὖν ὑµῶν τὸ ἀγαθόν. Fits the context (cf. Rom 14:13). [–/S] Fits the context. Fits the context. Therefore, do not let your good be getting blasphemed. Μηδεὶς ἑαυτὸν ἐξαπατάτω· Indeterminate in the context. Fits the context. Fits the context. Let no one be deceiving himself.63

[–/–]

——— 63

NLT renders 1 Cor 3:18a as a 2nd pers. prohibition and in line with the CI Aktionsart theory: “Stop deceiving yourselves.”

166







ὥστε µηδεὶς καυχάσθω ἐν ἀνθρώποις· Fits the context (cf. 1 Cor 1:11–12; 3:3–4, 22). [–/S] Fits the context. Fits the context. So let no one be boasting in men.64 εἴ τις ἀδελφὸς γυναῖκα ἔχει ἄπιστον καὶ αὕτη συνευδοκεῖ οἰκεῖν µετ᾿ αὐτοῦ, µὴ ἀφιέτω αὐτήν· Contrary to the context. [NO/NO] Contrary to the context. Fits the context. If any brother has an unbelieving wife and she consents to live with him, he must not be divorcing her. καὶ γυνὴ εἴ τις ἔχει ἄνδρα ἄπιστον καὶ οὗτος συνευδοκεῖ οἰκεῖν µετ᾿ αὐτῆς, µὴ ἀφιέτω τὸν ἄνδρα. Contrary to the context. [NO/NO] Contrary to the context. Fits the context. And if any woman has an unbelieving husband and he consents to live with her, she must not be divorcing the man. περιτετµηµένος τις ἐκλήθη, µὴ ἐπισπάσθω· Contrary to the context. [NO/NO] Contrary to the context. Fits the context. Someone called having already been circumcised must not be removing the marks of circumcision. ἐν ἀκροβυστίᾳ κέκληταί τις, µὴ περιτεµνέσθω. Contrary to the context. [NO/NO] Contrary to the context. Fits the context. Someone who has been called in uncircumcision must not be getting circumcised.

——— 64

NIV renders 1 Cor 3:21 in a CI Aktionsart manner: “So then, no more boasting about human leaders!”

CHAPTER 5—THE NEGATED PRESENT TENSE PROHIBITIONS 1 Cor 7:21 CI: DP: GS: VA:



Eph 4:26b CI: DP: GS: VA:


167

δοῦλος ἐκλήθης, µή σοι µελέτω· Indeterminate in the context. [–/–] Fits the context. Fits the context. If you were called as a slave, do not let it be concerning to you. µηδεὶς τὸ ἑαυτοῦ ζητείτω ἀλλὰ τὸ τοῦ ἑτέρου. Indeterminate in the context. [–/–] Fits the context. Fits the context. Let no one seek his own good, but the good of his neighbor. Τοῦ λοιποῦ κόπους µοι µηδεὶς παρεχέτω· Indeterminate in the context. [–/–] Fits the context. Fits the context. From now on let no one be causing trouble for me. ὁ ἥλιος µὴ ἐπιδυέτω ἐπὶ [τῷ] παροργισµῷ ὑµῶν, Indeterminate in the context. Contrary to the context. Fits the context. Do not let the sun be setting on your anger.

[NI/–]

ὁ κλέπτων µηκέτι κλεπτέτω, Fits the context. Fits the context. Fits the context. The thief must no longer be stealing.65

[S+/S]

——— 65 With µηκέτι in Eph 4:28, clear CI Aktionsart renderings are appropriate, but of the consulted English translations only two utilize something other than the standard “no longer” gloss: NRSV, which makes the subject plural (“Thieves must give up stealing”) and NLT, which moves to a 2nd pers. phrasing (“If you are a thief, stop stealing”).

168




Eph 5:6a CI: DP: GS: VA:



πᾶς λόγος σαπρὸς ἐκ τοῦ στόµατος ὑµῶν µὴ ἐκπορευέσθω Indeterminate in the context. [–/–] Fits the context. Fits the context. Do not let any harmful word be coming out of your mouth. Πορνεία δὲ καὶ ἀκαθαρσία πᾶσα ἢ πλεονεξία µηδὲ ὀνοµαζέσθω ἐν ὑµῖν, καθὼς πρέπει ἁγίοις, Indeterminate in the context. [NI/–] Fits the context. Fits the context. But sexual immorality and all impurity or greediness must not be getting named among you, as is fitting for saints. Μηδεὶς ὑµᾶς ἀπατάτω κενοῖς λόγοις· Indeterminate in the context. [–/–] Fits the context. Fits the context. Let no one be deceiving you with empty words. Μὴ οὖν τις ὑµᾶς κρινέτω ἐν βρώσει καὶ ἐν πόσει ἢ ἐν µέρει ἑορτῆς ἢ νεοµηνίας ἢ σαββάτων· Fits the context (cf. Col 2:20–23). [–/S] Fits the context. Fits the context. Therefore do not let someone be passing judgment on you in food and in drink or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. µηδεὶς ὑµᾶς καταβραβευέτω θέλων ἐν ταπεινοφροσύνῃ καὶ θρησκείᾳ τῶν ἀγγέλων, Fits the context (cf. Col 2:20–23). [–/S] Fits the context. Fits the context. Do not let someone be cheating you, insisting on false humility and worship of angels.

CHAPTER 5—THE NEGATED PRESENT TENSE PROHIBITIONS 2 Thess 3:10 CI: DP: GS: VA:


169

εἴ τις οὐ θέλει ἐργάζεσθαι µηδὲ ἐσθιέτω. Fits the context. [–/S] Fits the context. Fits the context. If anyone is not willing to work, let him not be eating. Μηδείς σου τῆς νεότητος καταφρονείτω, Indeterminate in the context. Fits the context. Contrary the context. Let no one be despising your youth.

[–/–]

1 Tim 5:16

εἴ τις πιστὴ ἔχει χήρας, ἐπαρκείτω αὐταῖς καὶ µὴ βαρείσθω ἡ ἐκκλησία, ἵνα ταῖς ὄντως χήραις ἐπαρκέσῃ.

CI: DP: GS: VA:

Indeterminate in the context. [–/–] Fits the context. Fits the context. If any believing woman has widows, let her be assisting them and let the church not be getting burdened, so that it may assist those who are real widows.


Titus 2:15b CI: DP: GS: VA:

οἱ δὲ πιστοὺς ἔχοντες δεσπότας µὴ καταφρονείτωσαν, ὅτι ἀδελφοί εἰσιν, Indeterminate in the context. [–/–] Fits the context. Fits the context. Those having believing masters must not be despising them because they are brothers.66 µηδείς σου περιφρονείτω. Indeterminate in the context. Fits the context. Contrary the context. Let no one be disregarding you.

[–/–]

——— 66

In 1 Tim 6:2, both NRSV and HCSB approach rendering the progressive aspect into English: “must/should not be disrespectful to them”; cf. NASB.

170

PROHIBITIONS IN THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT µὴ γὰρ οἰέσθω ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἐκεῖνος ὅτι λήµψεταί τι παρὰ τοῦ κυρίου,





2 Pet 3:8 CI: DP: GS:

Indeterminate in the context. [–/–] Fits the context. Fits the context. For that man must not be supposing that he will receive something from the Lord. Μηδεὶς πειραζόµενος λεγέτω ὅτι ἀπὸ θεοῦ πειράζοµαι· Indeterminate in the context. [–/–] Fits the context. Fits the context. Let no one be saying when he is being tempted, ‘I am being tempted by God.’ µὴ γάρ τις ὑµῶν πασχέτω ὡς φονεὺς ἢ κλέπτης ἢ κακοποιὸς ἢ ὡς ἀλλοτριεπίσκοπος· Indeterminate in the context. [–/–] Fits the context. Fits the context. For let no one of you be suffering as a murderer or thief or evil doer or as a busy-body. εἰ δὲ ὡς Χριστιανός, µὴ αἰσχυνέσθω, δοξαζέτω δὲ τὸν θεὸν ἐν τῷ ὀνόµατι τούτῳ. Indeterminate in the context. [–/–] Fits the context. Fits the context. But if [anyone suffers] as a Christian, he must not be getting ashamed, but he must be glorifying God in this name. Ἓν δὲ τοῦτο µὴ λανθανέτω ὑµᾶς, ἀγαπητοί, ὅτι µία ἡµέρα παρὰ κυρίῳ ὡς χίλια ἔτη καὶ χίλια ἔτη ὡς ἡµέρα µία. Indeterminate in the context. Fits the context. Fits the context.

[–/–]

CHAPTER 5—THE NEGATED PRESENT TENSE PROHIBITIONS VA:

1 John 3:7 CI: DP: GS: VA:

171

But do not let this one thing be getting forgotten by you, beloved, that one day for the Lord is as a thousand years and a thousand years is as one day. Τεκνία, µηδεὶς πλανάτω ὑµᾶς· Indeterminate in the context. Fits the context. Fits the context. Little children, let no one be deceiving you.

[–/–]

5.2 An Assessment of the Negated Present Constructions The NT prohibitions constructed with negated present imperatives occur in a variety of contexts that can be evaluated in a number of ways. We can note, for example, that this construction is used in various levels of intensity for negative commands and is even used three times for prohibitory prayer and requests to authorities.67 Our main concern here, however, is an evalution of the Aktionsart approach to prohibitions, which is why we have included in our list above notations related to the contextual congruence of the various Aktionsart schools of thought.68 Aktionsart theory claims that the negated present imperative—the more common of the often compared constructions for NT prohibitions—portrays already ongoing activities that must cease (the more popular and harsher Cessative–Ingressive version of Aktionsart), durative actions (the generic Durative–Punctiliar position), or general prohibitions (the softer General–Specific position). In Chapter 2 above we give a more extensive summary and analysis of the data laid out in this chapter. The statistical assessments discussed there are summarized in Table 5.2 (which is the same as Table 2.3 on p. 38 in Chapter 2). With regard to how well it assesses the historical action expressed in the NT present imperative prohibitions, this examination does not conclude well for Aktionsart theory, particularly in the CI and GS versions. The largely positive result for the DP version of Aktionsart theory is only ——— 67

The prayer is Jesus’ in Luke 22:42; the requests are to Jesus in Luke 7:6 and to Pilate in John 19:21. Boyer also counts the friend-to-friend remark in Luke 11:7 as a request; Boyer, “Supplemental Manual of Information: Imperative Verbs,” 57 and 60. 68 For completeness, we note here Boyer’s assessment of the two passages we exclude from the count: Matt 9:30[b]—NX and Matt 24:6—NF; and we recall that, even though John 8:11 is listed and analyzed above in comparison to Boyer, it is not included in our tally of prohibitions (see notes 3, 4, and 33 on pp. 133, 134, and 146 above, respectively).

172


half the story—the D half. The data in Chapter 6 below demonstrates that the P half of the theory does not apply well to the NT negated aroist subjunctive constructions. The data on contextual congruence from both this chapter and Chapter 6 is pulled together in Chapter 2 above as part of our comprehensive critique there of the Aktionsart approach to prohibitions (see esp. Table 2.6 on p. 42, which combines the data on prohibitions in both present tenseforms and aorist tense-forms). A KTIONSART CONTEXTUAL CONGRUENCE FOR NT PRESENT IMPERATIVE PROHIBITIONS Version of Aktionsart:

CI


TOTALS:

DP 0 (0%) 170 (97%) 5 (3%)

GS 0 (0%) 131 (75%) 44 (25%)

All 0 26 1

175 (100%) 175 (100%) 175 (100%) 27 (15%)

Table 5.2

—CHAPTER 6— The Negated Aorist Tense Prohibitions In what we have called “the great prohibition debate” in Chapters 1–4 above, the focus is on distinguishing between the present imperative and the aorist subjunctive as used in NT prohibitions. Chapter 5 above covers the negated present imperative constructions (both 2nd person and 3rd person), and here Chapter 6 focuses on the negated aorist subjunctive constructions (both 2nd person and 3rd person). Of course, the negated aorist subjunctive can be used to convey several other authorial intentions (e.g., expressions of fear; cautious negated assertions; with οὐ µή, emphatic negation or denial), but our focus will be on prohibitions. Why the aorist subjunctive has taken over the imperative role in NT Greek is something of a mystery. Several explanatory theories have been advanced. Samuel G. Green calls this substitution of the aorist subjunctive for the aorist imperative “the regular classical idiom.”1 Similarly, Mandilaras calls the prohibitory subjunctive construction “classical” and notes its frequent use in the papyri that sometimes runs parallel with the prohibitory imperative.2 Basil Gildersleeve notes, “The shifting from imperative to subjunctive in the prohibitive is found in other languages, and some scholars have seen a certain urbanity in the change from the second person imperative to the second person subjunctive in the pungent aorist form; but it is noteworthy that a like limitation is found in Sanskrit, in which the corresponding negative particle mā is prevalently used with a form that answers to the Greek aorist subjunctive.”3 It appears that, in the minds of some scholars, the negated aorist subjunctive is so much the norm for prohibitions—and not a ——— 1 Samuel G. Green, Handbook to the Grammar of the Greek New Testament (London: The Religious Tract Society, 1876), 340. Cf. R. W. Moore, Comparative Greek and Latin Syntax, 85 (§158), who calls it “idiomatic convention.” 2

Mandilaras, The Verb in the Greek Non-Literary Papyri, 253 (§562) and 254 (§564).

3 Basil Lanneau Gildersleeve and Charles William Emil Miller, Syntax of Classical Greek from Homer to Demosthenes (2 vols.; New York: American Book Company, 1900 and 1911), 150 (§377).

174


developmental oddity—that any occurrence of the negated aorist imperative must be accounted for as the mystery.4 As mentioned in Chapter 3 above, Willmott offers the explanation that preventives are to be distinguished from prohibitives and that this distinction is embedded in the moods.5 But her suggestion that negated aorist subjunctive constructions are preventives (don’t do something that might lead to undesired results) and negated present imperative constructions are prohibitives (don’t do the undesired thing itself) is not convincing. By itself Willmott’s theory does not explain why there are so few negated aorist imperative constructions. Whatever the reason(s), the normalcy of using the subjunctive mood in prohibitions where we might expect the imperative mood has long been recognized, and we may need to be content with the simple recognition that the replacement has occurred in the Greek language. Perhaps Jannaris’ explanation of the shift from the present imperative for commands in classical Greek to the subjunctive mood by the end of the post-classical period—“owing to the easier inflection of the subjunctive”—had begun with just such a shift in the aorist tense-form.6 The New Testament may well be at the close of such a transition period for the aorist tense-form as there are no second person aorist imperative prohibitions in the Greek New Testament and only eight are constructed in the third person. Because of this paucity, the negated aorist imperative is sometimes overlooked in analyses of NT prohibitions. But it is an aorist construction to which verbal aspect theory should apply. So we address it here in this chapter as well (section 6.2). As with Chapter 5, in this collection of all the simple aorist prohibitions in the New Testament, each is marked regarding the three different nuances of the traditional Aktionsart rule described in Chapter 1: CI for Cessative– Ingressive, DP for Durative–Punctiliar, and GS for General–Specific (with the aorist focused on the second member of each theory’s title: I, P, and S, respectively). Considering the lexical and contextual setting of each passage, we indicate below whether each of the three theories fits the context, is contrary to the context, or is indeterminate in the context. To show, rather, our preferred theory of the Greek verb, we offer a translation from a modern ——— 4 Robertson explains the aor. impv. as a later development than aor. subj.; ATR 851. Stephens proposes that the negated aor. impv. forms originated with command future tenseforms that were later reanalyzed to be aorist; “The Origins of a Homeric Peculiarity: µή Plus the Aorist Imperative,” 69–78 (see esp. pp. 76–78). 5 6

See pp. 98–100 above and the discussion of Willmott’s The Moods of Homeric Greek.

See Jannaris’ explanation about the shift in the grammar of commands at the beginning of Chapter 5 above on p. 131.

175

CHAPTER 6—THE NEGATED AORIST TENSE PROHIBITIONS

English version that seems most fitting with verbal aspect theory (VA), which sees the aorist as grammaticalizing the author’s summary view of the action. The difficulty with translating third person imperatives noted in Chapter 5 applies here as well. The English idiom, “let him do,” has the potential to be misunderstood as offering mere permission instead of issuing a command. Again, while the prohibitory force of “let him not do” may be grasped more consistently, it seems to subtly shift the prohibitory focus from the intended third person to a command for watchfulness on the part of the second person listener.7 As already noted, most of these English translation problems can be avoided by utilizing “he must not” renderings where smooth parlance allows. NT PROHIBITIONS USING THE NEGATED AORIST TENSE

Active: Middle: Passive:

TOTALS:

Subjunctive 2nd Person

Subjunctive 3rd Person

Imperative 3rd Person

Singular | Plural 33 31 2 4 5 9 40 44

Singular | Plural 4 — 1 — — — 5 —

Singular | Plural 8 — — — — — 8 —

76 7 14

8

97

84

5

Totals

Table 6.1

6.1 The Negated Aorist Subjunctive: “Do not do that.” The Greek New Testament has 89 simple negated aorist subjunctive constructions that function in prohibitory roles. By “simple” we mean that these particular constructions do not occur in subordinate clauses nor are they introduced by other imperative verb forms (e.g., Matt 8:4, ὅρα µηδενὶ εἴπῃς, “See that you tell no one”); these more complex constructions are addressed in Chapter 7. Of the simple aorist subjunctive prohibitions, 84 are in the second person and five are in the third person. Table 6.1 gives some more detailed data. Furthermore, we should note our decision to include in these 89 prohibitions six instances where the double negative οὐ µὴ negates the aorist subjunctive (Matt 13:14 [bis]; John 13:8; and Acts 28:26 [bis] in the 2nd per. aor. subj.; and Luke 1:15 in the 3rd per. aor. subj.). Our arguments for ——— 7

In some settings this shift in prohibitory focus may be entirely fitting and even intended by the author; see, e.g., Matt 6:3 and 2 Thess 2:3.

176


these debated classifications are spelled out in the footnotes for each item as they occur in the listing below.8 6.1.1 Negated Aorist Subjunctive—2nd Person Matt 1:20 CI: DP: GS: VA:


Ἰωσὴφ υἱὸς Δαυίδ, µὴ φοβηθῇς παραλαβεῖν Μαρίαν τὴν γυναῖκά σου· Contrary to the context (cf. Matt 1:18–19). [ /Y]9 Contrary to the context. Fits the context. [S/S] Joseph son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife (ESV). καὶ µὴ δόξητε λέγειν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς· πατέρα ἔχοµεν τὸν Ἀβραάµ. Indeterminate in the context (cf. Luke 3:8; John 8:39). [Y/–] Contrary to the context. Fits the context. [S/S] and do not presume to say to yourselves, “We have Abraham as father” (ESV; cf. NRSV, HCSB, NKJV).

——— 8 Boyer counts 88 total prohibitory subjunctives (“Classification of Subjunctives,” 6, n. 10; and “Classification of Imperatives,” 47). His complete listing of these constructions in Boyer, “Supplemental Manual of Information: Subjunctive Verbs,” 51–52, and/or idem, “Supplemental Manual of Information: Imperative Verbs,” 62–63, reveals that he counts 82 in the 2nd per. and six in the 3rd per. The differences between his tally of 88 and our tally of 89 can accounted for. First, we include here the six instances of οὐ µὴ with the aor. subj. mentioned above, which Boyer does not include. Second, Boyer includes here four uses of the aor. subj. that are introduced by an impv. of ὁράω (Matt 8:4; 18:10; Mark 1:44; and 1 Thess 5:15—the only 3rd per. form of the four), which we count in a collection of other vision verbs with prohibitory object clauses (see in section 8.1.1 of Chapter 8); Boyer also includes these four passages, along with others that have introductory verbs, in his list of “Positive Commands Not to Do” (Boyer, “Supplemental Manual of Information: Imperative Verbs,” 65). Third, while Boyer counts the negated aor. subj. in Mark 11:23 as a prohibition, we judge it to be conditional rather than prohibitory. 9 In his study of aor. subj. prohibitions, Boyer assesses whether or not each occurrence is a “general” prohibition (a.k.a. “universal”) or a “specific” prohibition (i.e., “related to a particular occasion”), and he also marks those passages where the action is already happening; Boyer, “Classification of Imperatives,” 46 and “Supplemental Manual of Information: Imperative Verbs,” 62–64. Using codes, we include first Boyer’s assessments and then our reassessments of previous action on the CI line (Y = yes; ? = implied; N = no; – = indeterminate), and of general or specific action on the GS line (G = general; S = specific).

CHAPTER 6—THE NEGATED AORIST TENSE PROHIBITIONS Matt 5:17 CI: DP: GS: VA:





177

Μὴ νοµίσητε ὅτι ἦλθον καταλῦσαι τὸν νόµον ἢ τοὺς προφήτας· Indeterminate in the context. [ /–] Contrary to the context. Contrary to the context. [S/G] Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets (NASB; cf. ESV, NKJV, NRSV, NIV). µήτε ἐν τῇ κεφαλῇ σου ὀµόσῃς, Indeterminate in the context. [ /–] Fits the context. Contrary to the context. [G/G] And do not swear by your head (NIV, NRSV). καὶ τὸν θέλοντα ἀπὸ σοῦ δανίσασθαι µὴ ἀποστραφῇς. Indeterminate in the context. [?/–] Fits the context. Contrary to the context. [G/G] and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you (NIV; cf. NASB, NKJV, HCSB, NLT).10 Ὅταν οὖν ποιῇς ἐλεηµοσύνην, µὴ σαλπίσῃς ἔµπροσθέν σου, Indeterminate in the context. [?/–] Indeterminate in the context. Contrary to the context. [S/G] So whenever you give alms, do not sound a trumpet before you (NRSV; cf. NASB, ESV, NKJV, HCSB). Προσευχόµενοι δὲ µὴ βατταλογήσητε ὥσπερ οἱ ἐθνικοί, δοκοῦσιν γὰρ ὅτι ἐν τῇ πολυλογίᾳ αὐτῶν εἰσακουσθήσονται. Indeterminate in the context. [?/–] Contrary to the context (see esp. NIV, NLT). Contrary to the context. [G/G] When you pray, don’t babble like the idolaters, since they imagine they’ll be heard for their many words (HCSB).

——— The Synoptic parallel to Matt 5:42 in Luke 6:30 has the pres. impv. µὴ ἀπαίτει (“from the one taking your things do not be demanding them back”); see in section 5.1.1 of Chapter 5. 10

178






Matt 7:6a CI: DP: GS:

µὴ οὖν ὁµοιωθῆτε αὐτοῖς· Indeterminate in the context. [ /–] Contrary to the context. Contrary to the context. [G/G] Therefore do not be like them (NKJV; cf. NASB, ESV, NRSV, HCSB, NIV, NLT). καὶ µὴ εἰσενέγκῃς ἡµᾶς εἰς πειρασµόν, Fits the context. [ /N] Indeterminate in the context. Contrary to the context. [S/G] And do not lead us into temptation (NASB, NKJV; cf. ESV, NRSV, HCSB, NIV). µὴ οὖν µεριµνήσητε λέγοντες· τί φάγωµεν; ἤ· … Contrary to the context (cf. Matt 6:28). [Y/Y] Contrary to the context. Contrary to the context. [G/G] So, do not worry saying, “What shall we eat?” or … (NIV; cf. NASB, NKJV, NRSV, HCSB, NLT).11 µὴ οὖν µεριµνήσητε εἰς τὴν αὔριον, Contrary to the context (cf. Matt 6:28). [Y/Y] Contrary to the context. Contrary to the context. [G/G] Therefore, do not worry about tomorrow (NIV, NKJV; cf. HCSB, NASB, NRSV, NLT). Μὴ δῶτε τὸ ἅγιον τοῖς κυσὶν... Indeterminate in the context. Fits the context. Contrary to the context.

[ /–] [G/G]

——— 11

The Synoptic parallel to Matt 6:31 in Luke 12:29 has two pres. impv.: µὴ ζητεῖτε…καὶ µὴ µετεωρίζεσθε (“do not be seeking…and do not be worrying”); see in section 5.1.1 of Chapter 5. 12

The Synoptic parallel to Matt 6:34 in Luke 12:32 has the pres. impv. µὴ φοβοῦ (“do not be fearing”); see in section 5.1.1 of Chapter 5.

CHAPTER 6—THE NEGATED AORIST TENSE PROHIBITIONS VA:

Matt 7:6b CI: DP: GS: VA:

Matt 10:5a CI: DP: GS: VA:

Matt 10:5b CI: DP: GS: VA:


179

Do not give what is holy to the dogs... (NKJV; cf. NASB, ESV, NRSV, HCSB, NIV, NLT). ...µηδὲ βάλητε τοὺς µαργαρίτας ὑµῶν ἔµπροσθεν τῶν χοίρων Indeterminate in the context. [ /–] Fits the context. Contrary to the context. [G/G] ...and do not throw your pearls before swine (NASB, NRSV; cf. ESV, NIV) εἰς ὁδὸν ἐθνῶν µὴ ἀπέλθητε... Fits the context. [ /N] Contrary to the context. Fits the context. [S/S] Do not go in the way of the Gentiles (NASB; cf. NKJV, NIV, NLT). ...καὶ εἰς πόλιν Σαµαριτῶν µὴ εἰσέλθητε· Fits the context. [ /N] Fits the context. Fits the context. [S/S] ...and do not enter a city of the Samaritans (NKJV; cf. NASB, HCSB). Μὴ κτήσησθε χρυσὸν µηδὲ… Fits the context. [ /N] Fits the context. Fits the context. [S/S] Do not acquire gold, nor… (NASB; cf. ESV).13

——— Cf. the Synoptic parallels to Matt 10:9a where Luke 9:3a has the pres. impv. µηδὲν αἴρετε (“do not be taking anything”; see in section 5.1.1 of Chapter 5) and Mark 6:8a has an indirect prohibition constructed with ἵνα µηδὲν αἴρωσιν as the object of a verb of speech (“he charged them that they not take”; see in section 8.1.2 of Chapter 8). On the additional listings of things not to bring (i.e., Matt 10:9b–c, 10a–d; Mark 6:8b–d; Luke 9:3b–e), see in section 13.1 of Chapter 13 (but Luke 9:3f, with a negated inf., in section 7.4.3 of Chapter 7). 13

180


Matt 10:19

ὅταν δὲ παραδῶσιν ὑµᾶς, µὴ µεριµνήσητε πῶς ἢ τί λαλήσητε·

CI: DP: GS: VA:

Fits the context. [ /N] Contrary to the context. Fits the context. [S/S] But when they deliver you up, do not worry about how or what you should speak (NKJV; cf. NASB, NRSV, HCSB, NIV, NLT).14




Μὴ οὖν φοβηθῆτε αὐτούς· Fits the context. Contrary to the context. Fits the context. Therefore, do not fear them (NASB, NKJV).

[ /N] [S/S]

Μὴ νοµίσητε ὅτι ἦλθον βαλεῖν εἰρήνην ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν· Indeterminate in the context. [ /–] Contrary to the context. Contrary to the context. [S/G] Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth (NASB; cf. ESV, NKJV, NRSV). καὶ ἀναπληροῦται αὐτοῖς ἡ προφητεία Ἠσαΐου ἡ λέγουσα· ἀκοῇ ἀκούσετε καὶ οὐ µὴ συνῆτε,... Fits the context. [ /N] Contrary to the context (see esp. ESV, NRSV, HCSB, NIV). Fits the context. [ /S] And in them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled, which says, ‘Hearing you will hear and shall not understand,... (NKJV; cf. NASB, NLT).15

——— 14

Cf. the Synoptic parallels to Matt 10:19 where Luke 12:11 has the same aor. subj. but Mark 13:11 has the pres. impv. µὴ προµεριµνᾶτε (“do not be worrying beforehand”); see in section 5.1.1 of Chapter 5. A second Lukan parallel in Luke 21:14 has a negated infin. µὴ προµελετᾶν with θέτε (“determine not to meditate beforehand”); see in section 7.4.1 of Chapter 7. 15 Matt 13:14a–b and Acts 28:26a–b both quote Isa 6:9 LXX using οὐ µὴ with the aor. subj. twice. While οὐ µὴ with the aor. subj. is commonly understood as an emphatic negative prediction, the Hebrew MT has impv. constructions that make it prohibitory in nature: ‫וּר ֥אוּ ָר ֖אוֹ וְאַל־תֵּ ָדֽעוּ׃‬ ְ ‫שׁ ֙מוֹ ֙ ַע וְאַל־תָּ ִ֔בינוּ‬ ָ ‫שׁ ְמע֤ וּ‬ ִ ‫—ו ַ֕יּ ֹא ֶמר לֵ ֥! וְאָ ַמ ְר ָ ֖תּ ל ָ ָ֣עם ַה ֶזּ֑ה‬Isa 6:9

CHAPTER 6—THE NEGATED AORIST TENSE PROHIBITIONS Matt 13:14b CI: DP: GS: VA:


181

... καὶ βλέποντες βλέψετε καὶ οὐ µὴ ἴδητε. Fits the context. [ /N] Contrary to the context (see esp. ESV, NRSV, HCSB, NIV). Fits the context. [ /S] ... And seeing you will see and not perceive’ (NKJV cf. NASB, NLT). ἐνετείλατο αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς λέγων· µηδενὶ εἴπητε τὸ ὅραµα Fits the context. [ /N] Fits the context. Fits the context. [S/S] Jesus commanded them, saying, ‘Tell the vision to no one …’ (NASB, NKJV; cf. ESV, NRSV, HCSB, NIV, NLT).

“Keep on hearing, but do not understand; keep on seeing, but do not perceive” (ESV). Because of the MT text, Burton says that both of the double negative phrases in both NT quotations of Isa 6:9 “are probably to be understood as prohibitory”; Earnest de Witt Burton, Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in New Testament Greek, 3nd ed. (Chicago: University Press of Chicago, 1900; reprint, Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1976), 76 (§167); see also Barbara Friberg and Timothy Friberg, eds., Analytical Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981), 42. Furthermore, the double negative Greek construction is used in two other places with prohibitory force. In Luke 1:15 Zechariah is given prohibitory instructions about John the Baptist: καὶ οἶνον καὶ σίκερα οὐ µὴ πίῃ (“and he must not drink wine and strong drink”). In John 13:8 Peter’s statement clearly amounts to a prohibition: οὐ µὴ νίψῃς µου τοὺς πόδας εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα (“You will not ever wash my feet!” ≈ “Do not wash my feet!”). So, on analogy with the pragmatic uses in Luke 1:15 and John 13:8, we can suggest that the double negative Greek constructions in Matt 13:14a–b and Acts 28:26a–b be understood as also having some prohibitory force. Isaiah’s message is a predictive curse upon the people of Israel ironically structured in a command that they want to obey (as shown by their previous commitments), not as a command that God wants for them to obey (see the similar idea explained in 2 Thess 2:9–12). Thus, the quotation of Isa 6:9 in the typological applications of both Matthew 13 and Acts 28 places the emphasis on the result of the curse—those insisting upon their unbelief most certainly will not understand or recognize—without completely removing the ironically prohibitory nature of the curse. It is in this sense, then, that we count the double negative phrases in the quotation of Isa 6:9 in both Matt 13:14a–b and Acts 28:26a–b as having prohibitory force (see also the curse of the fig tree in Matt 21:19 using µή + 3rd per. aor. subj.). Note that Matthew’s prior explanation of the people’s refusal to learn as the motive for speaking in parables (Matt 13:13) is structured somewhat parallel to the way Mark 4:12 and Luke 8:10 paraphrase Isa 6:9. Both Mark and Luke, however, use negated purpose clauses with ἵνα to express both the prohibitory purpose and the damning result of the curse upon those who refuse to learn; see in section 8.2.1 of Chapter 8. See the continuation of this citation (i.e., Isa 6:10) in Matt 13:15a–e; Acts 28:27a–e; and Mark 4:12c–d using µήποτε purpose clauses; see in section 8.2.2 of Chapter 8. See also the paraphrase of Isa 6:10 using negated purpose clauses with ἵνα in John 12:40a–d; see in section 8.2.1 of Chapter 8.

182





Ὑµεῖς δὲ µὴ κληθῆτε ῥαββί· Indeterminate in the context. [ /–] Contrary to the context. Contrary to the context. [G/G] But you, do not be called ‘Rabbi’ (NKJV; cf. NASB, HCSB). καὶ πατέρα µὴ καλέσητε ὑµῶν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, Indeterminate in the context. [ /–] Contrary to the context. Contrary to the context. [G/G] Do not call anyone on the earth your father (NASB, NKJV, HCSB; cf. NIV). µηδὲ κληθῆτε καθηγηταί, Indeterminate in the context. [ /–] Contrary to the context. Contrary to the context. [G/G] And do not be called masters (HCSB; cf. NASB, NKJV)

Matt 24:23

Τότε ἐάν τις ὑµῖν εἴπῃ· ἰδοὺ ὧδε ὁ χριστός, ἤ· ὧδε, µὴ πιστεύσητε·

CI: DP: GS: VA:

Fits the context. [ /N] Contrary to the context. Fits the context. [S/S] Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘There he is!’ do not believe it (ESV; cf. NASB, NKJV, NRSV, HCSB, NIV).16


ἐὰν οὖν εἴπωσιν ὑµῖν· ἰδοὺ ἐν τῇ ἐρήµῳ ἐστίν, µὴ ἐξέλθητε· Fits the context. [ /N] Contrary to the context. Fits the context. [S/S] So, if they say to you, ‘Look, he is in the wilderness,’ do not go out (ESV; cf. NASB, NKJV, NRSV, HCSB, NIV).

——— 16 The Synoptic parallel to Matt 24:23 in Mark 13:21 has the pres. impv. µὴ πιστεύετε (“do not be believing”); see in section 5.1.1 of Chapter 5. Cf. the two aor. subj. prohibitions in Matt 24:26a–b and Luke 17:23a–b.

CHAPTER 6—THE NEGATED AORIST TENSE PROHIBITIONS Matt 24:26b CI: DP: GS: VA:




Mark 9:25b CI: DP: GS: VA:

183

ἰδοὺ ἐν τοῖς ταµείοις, µὴ πιστεύσητε· Fits the context. [ /N] Contrary to the context. Fits the context. [S/S] Look, he is in the inner rooms, do not believe it (ESV; cf. NASB, NKJV, NRSV, HCSB, NIV, NLT). ὁρκίζω σε τὸν θεόν, µή µε βασανίσῃς. Contrary to the context (cf. Mark 5:8). [ /Y] Contrary to the context. Fits the context. [S/S] I beg You before God, don’t torment me! (HCSB; cf. NASB, ESV, NKJV, NRSV, NLT).17 καὶ µὴ ἐνδύσησθε δύο χιτῶνας. Fits the context. Contrary to the context. Fits the context. Do not put on two tunics (NASB).18

[ /N] [S/S]

µηδὲ εἰς τὴν κώµην εἰσέλθῃς. Fits the context. [ /N] Contrary to the context. Fits the context. [S/S] Do not even enter the village (NASB, ESV; cf. NRSV, HCSB, NIV). ἔξελθε ἐξ αὐτοῦ καὶ µηκέτι εἰσέλθῃς εἰς αὐτόν. Contrary to the context. [Y/Y] Fits the context. Fits the context. [S/S] come out of him and enter him no more (NKJV; cf. NASB, ESV, NRSV, HCSB, NIV, NLT).

——— 17

Cf. the Synoptic parallels to Mark 5:7 where Luke 8:28 has the same aor. subj. (see below), but Matt 8:29 uses a prohibitory question (see in Chapter 11). 18

Mark 6:9 momentarily slips out of narrative reporting (cf. vv. 8, 10) into direct speech.

184


Mark 10:19a CI: DP: GS: VA:

τὰς ἐντολὰς οἶδας· µὴ φονεύσῃς, … Indeterminate in the context. [?/–] Fits the context. Contrary to the context. [G/G] You know the commandments: Do not murder, … (NASB, ESV, HCSB, NIV, NLT; cf. NKJV, NRSV).19

Mark 10:19b … µὴ µοιχεύσῃς, … CI: DP: GS: VA:

Mark 10:19c CI: DP: GS: VA:

Indeterminate in the context. [?/–] Fits the context. Contrary to the context. [G/G] … Do not commit adultery, … (NASB, ESV, HCSB, NIV, NLT; cf. NKJV, NRSV). … µὴ κλέψῃς, … Indeterminate in the context. [?/–] Fits the context. Contrary to the context. [G/G] … Do not steal, … (NASB, ESV, NKJV, HCSB, NIV, NLT; cf. NRSV).

Mark 10:19d … µὴ ψευδοµαρτυρήσῃς, … CI: DP: GS: VA:

Mark 10:19e CI: DP:

Indeterminate in the context. [?/–] Fits the context. Contrary to the context. [G/G] … Do not bear false witness, … (NASB, ESV, NKJV, HCSB; cf. NRSV, NIV, NLT). … µὴ ἀποστερήσῃς, τίµα τὸν πατέρα σου καὶ τὴν µητέρα. Indeterminate in the context. Fits the context.

[?/–]

——— 19 Cf. the Synoptic parallels to Mark 10:19a–e where Luke 18:20a–d has aor. subj. verb forms as here (see below), but Matt 19:18a–d has negated fut. tense-forms (see in section 7.1 of Chapter 7). Comparing their citations of five of the Ten Commandments with Exod 20:12– 16 and Deut 5:16–20, we note that all three Synoptics reorder the positive command (“honor your father and mother”) to the end, that Matthew alone maintains the LXX negated fut. tenseforms, and that Luke alone follows the prohibition order in one of the OT lists (i.e., Deut; so also Rom 13:9). Jas 2:11 also uses the negated aor. subj. in citing two Decalog prohibitions.

CHAPTER 6—THE NEGATED AORIST TENSE PROHIBITIONS GS: VA:

Luke 3:8

185

Contrary to the context. [G/G] … Do not defraud, Honor your father and mother (NASB, ESV, NKJV, HCSB, NIV; cf. NRSV, NLT). καὶ µὴ ἄρξησθε λέγειν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς· πατέρα ἔχοµεν τὸν Ἀβραάµ.

CI: DP: GS: VA:

Fits the context (cf. Matt 3:9; John 8:39).20 [ /N] Fits the context. Fits the context. [S/S] And do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as father’ (ESV, NKJV, NIV; cf. NASB, NRSV, HCSB).

Luke 3:14a

τί ποιήσωµεν καὶ ἡµεῖς; καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς· µηδένα διασείσητε...

CI: DP: GS: VA:

Indeterminate in the context. [Y/–] Indeterminate in the context. Contrary to the context. [S/G] ‘And we, what shall we do?’ And he said to them, ‘Do not extort money… (ESV; cf. NIV, NLT, NRSV).



… µηδὲ συκοφαντήσητε καὶ ἀρκεῖσθε τοῖς ὀψωνίοις ὑµῶν. Indeterminate in the context. [Y/–] Indeterminate in the context. Contrary to the context. [S/G] … and don’t accuse people falsely—be content with your pay’ (NIV; cf. NLT). … καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ αἴροντός σου τὸ ἱµάτιον καὶ τὸν χιτῶνα µὴ κωλύσῃς. Indeterminate in the context. [ /–] Contrary to the context. Contrary to the context. [S/G] … and from one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either (ESV; cf. NASB, NKJV, NRSV; HCSB).

——— 20 A CI Aktionsart reading of Luke 3:8 gets its support from the lexical value of the verb itself. Thus, technically, a CI rendering is redundant: “Do not begin to begin to say….” This itself calls into question the CI Aktionsart theory. The Synoptic parallel in Matt 3:9 uses a different aor. subj. verb with the infin.: µὴ δόξητε λέγειν (“do not presume to say”); see above.

186



Luke 10:4d CI: DP: GS: VA:


Luke 12:4

CI: DP: GS: VA:

τί ἐµοὶ καὶ σοί, ᾽Ιησοῦ υἱὲ τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ὑψίστου; δέοµαί σου, µή µε βασανίσῃς. Contrary to the context (cf. Luke 8:29). [ /Y] Indeterminate in the context. Fits the context. [S/S] What have you to do with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I beg you, do not torment me (ESV, NRSV; cf. NASB, NKJV, HCSB, NIV, NLT).21 …καὶ µηδένα κατὰ τὴν ὁδὸν ἀσπάσησθε. Fits the context. [ /N] Fits the context. Fits the context. [S/S] …and greet no one on the road (ESV, NRSV; cf. NASB, NKJV, HCSB, NIV). καὶ µὴ εἰσενέγκῃς ἡµᾶς εἰς πειρασµόν. Indeterminate in the context. [ /–] Indeterminate in the context. Contrary to the context. [G/G] And do not lead us into temptation (NKJV cf. NASB, ESV, NIV). Λέγω δὲ ὑµῖν τοῖς φίλοις µου, µὴ φοβηθῆτε ἀπὸ τῶν ἀποκτεινόντων τὸ σῶµα καὶ µετὰ ταῦτα µὴ ἐχόντων περισσότερόν τι ποιῆσαι. Fits the context (cf. Luke 12:11–12). [?/–] Contrary to the context. Fits the context. [G/S] And I say to you, My friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do (NKJV; cf. NASB, NIV, NLT).22

——— 21

Cf. the Synoptic parallels to Luke 8:28 where Mark 5:7 has the same aor. subj. (see above), but Matt 8:29 uses a prohibitory question (see in Chapter 11). The Synoptic parallel to Luke 12:4 in Matt 10:28 has the pres. impv. µὴ φοβεῖσθε (“do not be fearing”); see in section 5.1.1 of Chapter 5. 22


187

Luke 12:11

Ὅταν δὲ εἰσφέρωσιν ὑµᾶς ἐπὶ τὰς συναγωγὰς καὶ τὰς ἀρχὰς καὶ τὰς ἐξουσίας, µὴ µεριµνήσητε πῶς ἢ τί ἀπολογήσησθε ἢ τί εἴπητε·

CI: DP: GS: VA:

Fits the context. [ /N] Contrary to the context. Fits the context. [S/S] When they bring you before the synagogues and the rulers and the authorities, do not worry about how or what you are to speak in your defense, or what you are to say (NASB; cf. NKJV, NRSV, HCSB, NIV, NLT).23

Luke 14:8a

ὅταν κληθῇς ὑπό τινος εἰς γάµους, µὴ κατακλιθῇς εἰς τὴν πρωτοκλισίαν,

CI: DP: GS: VA:



Fits the context. [?/N] Fits the context. Contrary to the context. [G/G] When you are invited by someone to a wedding feast, do not sit down in a place of honor (ESV; cf. NKJV, NRSV, HCSB). καὶ ἐροῦσιν ὑµῖν· ἰδοὺ ἐκεῖ, [ἤ·] ἰδοὺ ὧδε· µὴ ἀπέλθητε … Fits the context. [ /N] Contrary to the context. Fits the context. [S/S] They will say to you, ‘Look, there! Look, here!’ Do not go away, … (NASB; cf. ESV, NKJV, NRSV).24 … µηδὲ διώξητε. Fits the context. [ /N] Contrary to the context. Fits the context. [S/S] … and do not run after them (NASB; cf. HCSB).

——— 23

Cf. the Synoptic parallels to Luke 12:11 where Matt 10:19 has the same aor. subj. (see above), but Mark 13:11 has the pres. impv. µὴ προµεριµνᾶτε (“do not be worrying beforehand”; see in section 5.1.1 of Chapter 5). Cf. Luke 21:14, which has a negated infin.: θέτε ... µὴ προµελετᾶν (“determine not to meditate beforehand”); see in section 7.4.1 of Chapter 7. 24 Cf. the Synoptic parallels to Luke 17:23a–b where Mark 13:21 has the pres. impv. µὴ πιστεύετε (“do not be believing”; see in section 5.1.1 of Chapter 5) while Matt 24:23, 26a, and 26b use aor. subj. forms (µὴ πιστεύσητε, µὴ ἐξέλθητε, and µὴ πιστεύσητε; see above).

188




Luke 18:20c CI: DP: GS: VA:

Luke 18:20d

τὰς ἐντολὰς οἶδας· µὴ µοιχεύσῃς, … Indeterminate in the context. [?/–] Fits the context. Contrary to the context. [G/G] You know the commandments: Do not commit adultery, … (NASB, ESV, NKJV, HCSB, NIV, NLT; cf. NRSV).25 … µὴ φονεύσῃς, … Indeterminate in the context. [?/–] Fits the context. Contrary to the context. [G/G] … Do not murder, … (NASB, ESV, NKJV, HCSB, NIV, NLT; cf. NRSV). … µὴ κλέψῃς, … Indeterminate in the context. [?/–] Fits the context. Contrary to the context. [G/G] … Do not steal, … (NASB, ESV, NKJV, HCSB, NIV, NLT; cf. NRSV). … µὴ ψευδοµαρτυρήσῃς,

CI: DP: GS: VA:

Indeterminate in the context. [?/–] Fits the context. Contrary to the context. [G/G] … Do not bear false witness, (NASB, ESV, NKJV, HCSB; cf. NRSV, NIV, NLT).

Luke 21:8b

πολλοὶ γὰρ ἐλεύσονται ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόµατί µου λέγοντες· ἐγώ εἰµι, καί· ὁ καιρὸς ἤγγικεν. µὴ πορευθῆτε ὀπίσω αὐτῶν.

CI: DP: GS: VA:

Fits the context. [ /N] Contrary to the context. Fits the context. [S/S] For many will come in my name saying, ‘I am he!” and ‘The time is at hand!’ Do not go after them (ESV, NASB; cf. NKJV, NRSV, HCSB, NIV).

——— 25

On the Synoptic parallels to Luke 18:20a–d, see the footnote for Mark 10:19a above.

CHAPTER 6—THE NEGATED AORIST TENSE PROHIBITIONS Luke 21:9 CI: DP: GS: VA:




189

ὅταν δὲ ἀκούσητε πολέµους καὶ ἀκαταστασίας, µὴ πτοηθῆτε· Fits the context. [ /N] Contrary to the context. Fits the context. [S/S] And when you hear of wars and tumults, do not be terrified (ESV; cf. NASB, NKJV, NRSV, HCSB, NIV).26 µὴ θαυµάσῃς ὅτι εἶπόν σοι· δεῖ ὑµᾶς γεννηθῆναι ἄνωθεν. Contrary to the context. [?/Y] Indeterminate in the context. Fits the context. [S/S] Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again’ (ESV, NKJV). οὐ µὴ νίψῃς µου τοὺς πόδας εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα. Fits the context. [ /N] Indeterminate in the context. Contrary to the context. [ /S] You shall never wash my feet (ESV, NKJV; cf. NASB, NIV).27 κύριε, µὴ στήσῃς αὐτοῖς ταύτην τὴν ἁµαρτίαν. Fits the context. [ /N] Contrary to the context. Fits the context. [S/S] Lord, do not hold this sin against them! (NASB, ESV, NRSV, NIV; cf. NKJV, HCSB, NLT).

——— 26

Cf. the Synoptic parallels to Luke 21:9 where Mark 13:7 has the pres. impv. µὴ θροεῖσθε (“do not be getting alarmed”; see in section 5.1.1 of Chapter 5) and Matt 24:6 has the pres. impv. µὴ θροεῖσθε as the object of ὁρᾶτε (“see that you are not getting alarmed”; see in section 8.1.1 of Chapter 8). 27 The double negative οὐ µή is usually employed with the subj. for purposes of emphatic negation in predictive statements and not for prohibitions. Nevertheless, in the context of John 13 we understand Peter to be communicating to Jesus his prohibitory desire that Jesus not wash Peter’s feet. See another such use in Luke 1:15 (in section 6.1.2 below). These kinds of prohibitory uses of οὐ µή with the aor. subj. factor into discussions of the citation of Isa 6:9 in Matt 13:14a–b (above); Acts 28:26a–b (below); cf. Mark 4:12a–b and Luke 8:10a–b in section 8.2.1 of Chapter 8 on negated purpose clauses with ἵνα.

190




Acts 18:9b CI: DP: GS: VA:

Acts 23:21a CI: DP: GS: VA:

µὴ ὀκνήσῃς διελθεῖν ἕως ἡµῶν. Fits the context. [ /N] Contrary to the context. Fits the context. [S/S] Do not delay in coming to us (NASB; cf. HCSB). µηδὲν πράξῃς σεαυτῷ κακόν, ἅπαντες γάρ ἐσµεν ἐνθάδε. Fits the context. [ /N] Fits the context. Fits the context. [S/S] Do yourself no harm, for we are all here (NASB, NKJV). …ἀλλὰ λάλει καὶ µὴ σιωπήσῃς, Fits the context. [ /N] Contrary to the context. Fits the context. [S/S] …but go on speaking and do not be silent (NASB, ESV; cf. NRSV, HCSB, NIV, NLT). σὺ οὖν µὴ πεισθῇς αὐτοῖς· Fits the context. [ /N] Contrary to the context. Fits the context. [S/S] But do not be persuaded by them (ESV, NRSV).

Acts 28:26a

πορεύθητι πρὸς τὸν λαὸν τοῦτον καὶ εἰπόν· ἀκοῇ ἀκούσετε καὶ οὐ µὴ συνῆτε…

CI: DP: GS: VA:

Fits the context. [ /N] Contrary to the context (see esp. ESV, NRSV, HCSB, NIV). Fits the context. [ /S] Go to this people and say: ‘Hearing you will hear, and shall not understand;... (NKJV; cf. NASB, NLT).28

——— 28 The question of whether or not the two occurrences of οὐ µή with the aor. subj. here in the Acts 28:26a–b citation of Isa 6:9 (and in Matt 13:14a–b) makes for some debate. The pragmatic prohibitory uses of οὐ µή with the aor. subj. in Luke 1:15 (in section 6.1.2 below) and John 13:8 (see above) demonstrate that the construction can carry prohibitory force, and Matt 21:19 shows that negative commands with µή + aor. subj. can be used in curses; see in section 6.1.2 below. See the extended footnote discussion at Matt 13:14a above; cf. the

CHAPTER 6—THE NEGATED AORIST TENSE PROHIBITIONS Acts 28:26b CI: DP: GS: VA:


Col 2:21a CI: DP: GS: VA:

Col 2:21b CI: DP: GS: VA:

191

... καὶ βλέποντες βλέψετε καὶ οὐ µὴ ἴδητε· Fits the context. [ /N] Contrary to the context (see esp. ESV, NRSV, HCSB, NIV). Fits the context. [ /S] ... And seeing you will see, and not perceive’ (NKJV; cf. NASB, NLT). µὴ εἴπῃς ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ σου· τίς ἀναβήσεται εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν; Indeterminate in the context. [ /–] Indeterminate in the context. Contrary to the context. [S/G] Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’ (NASB, ESV, NKJV, NRSV, NIV; cf. HCSB, NLT).29 µὴ ἅψῃ … Indeterminate in the context. [Y/–] Contrary to the context.30 Indeterminate in the context. [G/–] Do not handle, … (ESV, NASB, NRSV, NIV; cf. HCSB, NLT). … µηδὲ γεύσῃ … Indeterminate in the context. [Y/–] Indeterminate in the context. Indeterminate in the context. [G/–] … Do not taste … (ESV, NASB, NRSV, NIV; cf. HCSB, NLT).

paraphrase of Isa 6:9 in Mark 4:12a–b and Luke 8:10a–b in section 8.2.1 of Chapter 8 on negated purpose clauses with ἵνα. The continuation of this citation (i.e., Isa 6:10) in Acts 28:27a–e uses negated purpose clauses with µήποτε; see in section 8.2.2 of Chapter 8. 29

Rom 10:6 combines wording from Deut 9:4 LXX (for the introductory formula) and Deut 30:12 LXX (for the question). Because Col 2:21a and 2:21c use the tactile synonyms ἅπτω and θιγγάνω in the same string of prohibitions, it seems best to view them here as distinct from each other, focused on the non-overlapping portions of their semantic ranges. Thus, the first can be seen as lexically durative (“do not handle”) and the second as lexically punctiliar (“do not [even] touch”). If so, the fact that both terms are used here in the aor. subj. would be another indication that the aor. tense-form does not bear punctiliar (or durative) kind of action as part of its innate meaning. 30

192


Col 2:21c CI: DP: GS: VA:



2 Tim 1:8a CI: DP: GS: VA:


… µηδὲ θίγῃς, Indeterminate in the context. [Y/–] Fits the context.31 Indeterminate in the context. [G/–] … Do not touch (ESV, NASB, NRSV, NIV; cf. HCSB, NLT). Ὑµεῖς δέ, ἀδελφοί, µὴ ἐγκακήσητε καλοποιοῦντες. Indeterminate in the context. [ /–] Contrary to the context. Contrary to the context. [G/G] As for you, brothers, do not grow weary in doing good (ESV; cf. NASB, NKJV, HCSB). Πρεσβυτέρῳ µὴ ἐπιπλήξῃς ἀλλὰ παρακάλει ὡς πατέρα, Indeterminate in the context. [ /–] Fits the context. Contrary to the context. [G/G] Do not rebuke an older man but exhort him as a father, (HCSB; cf. ESV, NKJV). µὴ οὖν ἐπαισχυνθῇς τὸ µαρτύριον τοῦ κυρίου ἡµῶν Indeterminate in the context. [ /–] Contrary to the context. Contrary to the context. [S/G] Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony about our Lord, (ESV; cf. NASB, NKJV, NRSV, HCSB, NIV). µὴ σκληρύνητε τὰς καρδίας ὑµῶν ὡς ἐν τῷ παραπικρασµῷ κατὰ τὴν ἡµέραν τοῦ πειρασµοῦ ἐν τῇ ἐρήµῳ, Fits the context. [ /N] Contrary to the context. Contrary to the context. [S/G] do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion on the day of testing in the wilderness (ESV, HCSB; cf. NASB, NKJV, NRSV, NIV, NTL).

——— 31

On Col 2:21c, see the previous footnote.

CHAPTER 6—THE NEGATED AORIST TENSE PROHIBITIONS Heb 3:15 CI: DP: GS: VA:




Jas 2:11b CI: DP: GS: VA:

193

µὴ σκληρύνητε τὰς καρδίας ὑµῶν ὡς ἐν τῷ παραπικρασµῷ. Fits the context. [ /N] Contrary to the context. Contrary to the context. [S/G] do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion (ESV, NKJV, NRSV, HCSB; cf. NASB, NIV, NTL). µὴ σκληρύνητε τὰς καρδίας ὑµῶν. Fits the context. [ /N] Contrary to the context. Contrary to the context. [S/G] do not harden your hearts (NASB, ESV, NKJV, NRSV, HCSB, NIV; cf. NTL). Μὴ ἀποβάλητε οὖν τὴν παρρησίαν ὑµῶν, ἥτις ἔχει µεγάλην µισθαποδοσίαν. Indeterminate in the context. [ /–] Fits the context. Contrary to the context. [S/G] Therefore do not throw away your confidence, which has a great reward (NASB, ESV; cf. NKJV, HCSB, NIV, NLT). ὁ γὰρ εἰπών· µὴ µοιχεύσῃς,… Indeterminate in the context. [ /–] Fits the context. Contrary to the context. [G/G] For he who said, ‘Do not commit adultery’… (ESV, NASB, NKJV, HCSB).32 …εἶπεν καί· µὴ φονεύσῃς· Indeterminate in the context. [ /–] Fits the context. Contrary to the context. [G/G] …also said, ‘Do not murder’ (ESV, NKJV, HCSB; cf. NASB).

——— 32

On Jas 2:11a–b, see the footnote for Mark 10:19a above; note that Luke 18:20 also uses negated aor. subj. in citing the Decalog, but Matt 19:18 and Rom 13:9 use negated fut.

194


1 Pet 3:14a CI: DP: GS: VA:

1 Pet 3:14b CI: DP: GS: VA:

τὸν δὲ φόβον αὐτῶν µὴ φοβηθῆτε… Fits the context. [ /N] Contrary to the context. Fits the context. [S/S] Do not fear what they fear… (NRSV, HCSB; cf. NASB, NKJV, NIV, NLT). …µηδὲ ταραχθῆτε, Fits the context. [ /N] Contrary to the context. Fits the context. [S/S] …and do not be troubled (NASB; cf. ESV, NKJV, NRSV, HCSB, NIV, NLT). καὶ τὸ ἔλαιον καὶ τὸν οἶνον µὴ ἀδικήσῃς.


Rev 7:3a CI: DP: GS: VA:


Rev 11:2

Indeterminate in the context. [ /–] Indeterminate in the context. Fits the context. [S/S] and do not harm the oil and the wine (NASB, NKJV; cf. ESV, NRSV, HCSB, NIV). µὴ ἀδικήσητε τὴν γῆν µήτε τὴν θάλασσαν µήτε τὰ δένδρα, Indeterminate in the context. [ /–] Indeterminate in the context. Fits the context. [S/S] Do not harm the earth or the sea or the trees (NASB, ESV; cf. NKJV, NRSV, HCSB, NIV, NLT). σφράγισον ἃ ἐλάλησαν αἱ ἑπτὰ βρονταί, καὶ µὴ αὐτὰ γράψῃς. Fits the context. [ /N] Indeterminate in the context. Fits the context. [S/S] Seal up what the seven thunders said, and do not write it down (HCSB; cf. NASB, ESV, NKJV, NRSV, NIV, NLT). καὶ τὴν αὐλὴν τὴν ἔξωθεν τοῦ ναοῦ ἔκβαλε ἔξωθεν καὶ µὴ αὐτὴν µετρήσῃς,

CHAPTER 6—THE NEGATED AORIST TENSE PROHIBITIONS CI: DP: GS: VA:


195

Fits the context. [ /N] Indeterminate in the context. Fits the context. [S/S] And leave out the court which is outside the temple, and do not measure it (NASB; cf. ESV, NKJV, NRSV, HCSB, NIV, NLT). Καὶ λέγει µοι· µὴ σφραγίσῃς τοὺς λόγους τῆς προφητείας τοῦ βιβλίου τούτου, Fits the context. [ /N] Fits the context. Fits the context. [S/S] And he said to me, ‘Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, … .’ (NASB, ESV, NRSV; cf. NKJV, HCSB, NIV, NLT).

6.1.2 Negated Aorist Subjunctive—3rd Person Matt 21:19 CI: DP: GS: VA:


µηκέτι ἐκ σοῦ καρπὸς γένηται εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα. Contrary to the context. [ /Y] Contrary to the context. Fits the context. [S/S] No longer shall there ever be any fruit from you (NASB).33 καὶ οἶνον καὶ σίκερα οὐ µὴ πίῃ, Fits the context. [ /N] Contrary to the context. Fits the context. [ /S] And he must not drink wine or strong drink (ESV; cf. NRSV, NLT).34

——— 33 This inclusion of Matt 21:19 as an example of a 3rd per. prohibition understands a curse as a kind of negative command; the parallel in Mark 11:14 is constructed with the negated optative mood; see in section 7.3 of Chapter 7. This is somewhat analogous to our reading of οὐ µὴ with the aor. subj. in Matt 13:14a–b and Acts 28:26a–b; see in section 6.1.1 above. 34

Some may argue that Luke 1:15 is merely an emphatic negative prediction about John the Baptist, but emphatic predictions and prohibitions need not be non-overlapping categories; e.g., see John 13:8 in section 6.1.1 above. Such prohibitory uses of οὐ µὴ with the aor. subj. factor into discussions of the citation of Isa 6:9 in Matt 13:14a–b and Acts 28:26a–b; see in section 6.1.1 above. Cf. Mark 4:12a–b and Luke 8:10a–b in section 8.2.1 of Chapter 8.

196





µή τις οὖν αὐτὸν ἐξουθενήσῃ. Fits the context. [ /N] Contrary to the context. Fits the context. [S/S] Therefore, no one should look down on him (HCSB). Πάλιν λέγω, µή τίς µε δόξῃ ἄφρονα εἶναι· Indeterminate in the context. [?/–] Contrary to the context. Contrary to the context. [S/G] I repeat: No one should consider me a fool (HCSB).35 Μή τις ὑµᾶς ἐξαπατήσῃ κατὰ µηδένα τρόπον. Indeterminate in the context. [Y/–] Fits the context. Contrary to the context. [S/G] Let no one deceive you in any way (ESV, NRSV; cf. NASB, NKJV, HCSB, NIV).

6.2 The Negated Aorist Imperative: “He must not do that.” As mentioned above, the negated aorist imperative occurs only eight times in the New Testament, and all eight are in active, third person, single constructions. These all occur in direct speech passages of the Gospels, and Jesus is always the speaker. Fantin notes that, given Synoptic literary interdependence of some kind (as well as the common original source of Jesus himself), the count of eight might be reduced to four forms: µὴ γνώτω (Matt 6:3); µὴ καταβάτω (Mark 13:15a; Matt 24:17; Luke 17:31a); µὴ ἐπιστρεψάτω (Mark 13:16; Matt 24:18; Luke 17:31b); and µηδὲ εἰσελθάτω (Mark 13:15b). Furthermore, these four forms are found in only two literary contexts: the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 6:3) and the Synoptic apocalypse sermons (all the others).36 Could it be that, in the evolution of the Greek language, the aorist imperative was an old-fashioned formal way to speak ——— 35 In 2 Cor 11:16, Paul refers back to 11:1, Ὄφελον ἀνείχεσθέ µου µικρόν τι ἀφροσύνης· ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀνέχεσθέ µου (“I wish that you would bear with me in a little foolishness; but indeed you are bearing with me”—NASB). Thus curiously, by using a prohibition in v. 16, Paul “repeats” from v. 1 his (positive) request for the readers’ toleration of his boastful argument. 36

Fantin, The Greek Imperative Mood, 284. Some fail to notice that the Lukan parallels to Matthew 24 and Mark 13 are in two different apocalyptic sermons: Luke 17 and Luke 21.


197

such that it might be preserved a little longer in formal and respectful settings? Is not the third person construction fitting for formal, sermonic utterances? Might the remaining eight NT occurrences of the negated aorist imperative be preserved here on the lips of Jesus as a form of respect for the words of the Savior in some of his most significant sermons? Nevertheless, such suggestions fail for they do not explain the occurrence of the aorist subjunctive for other prohibitions on the lips of Jesus in these same sermons! Matt 6:3

σοῦ δὲ ποιοῦντος ἐλεηµοσύνην µὴ γνώτω ἡ ἀριστερά σου τί ποιεῖ ἡ δεξιά σου,

CI: DP: GS: VA:

Fits the context. Contrary to the context. Fits the context. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing (ESV, NIV; cf. NASB, NKJV, NRSV, HCSB, NLT).

Matt 24:17

ὁ ἐπὶ τοῦ δώµατος µὴ καταβάτω ἆραι τὰ ἐκ τῆς οἰκίας αὐτοῦ,

CI: DP: GS: VA:

Fits the context. Fits the context. Fits the context. the one on the housetop must not go down to take what is in the house (NRSV; cf. HCSB, NLT).

Matt 24:18

καὶ ὁ ἐν τῷ ἀγρῷ µὴ ἐπιστρεψάτω ὀπίσω ἆραι τὸ ἱµάτιον αὐτοῦ.

CI: DP: GS: VA:

Fits the context. Fits the context. Fits the context. the one in the field must not turn back to get a coat (NRSV; cf. HCSB, NLT).

Mark 13:15a CI: DP: GS: VA:

ὁ [δὲ] ἐπὶ τοῦ δώµατος µὴ καταβάτω... Fits the context. Fits the context. Fits the context. the one on the housetop must not go down... (NRSV; cf. HCSB, NLT).

198


Mark 13:15b ... µηδὲ εἰσελθάτω ἆραί τι ἐκ τῆς οἰκίας αὐτοῦ, CI: DP: GS: VA:

Fits the context. Fits the context. Fits the context. ... [n]or enter the house to take anything away (NRSV; cf. HCSB).37

Mark 13:16

καὶ ὁ εἰς τὸν ἀγρὸν µὴ ἐπιστρεψάτω εἰς τὰ ὀπίσω ἆραι τὸ ἱµάτιον αὐτοῦ.

CI: DP: GS: VA:

Fits the context. Fits the context. Fits the context. the one in the field must not turn back to get a coat (NRSV; cf. HCSB, NLT).



ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡµέρᾳ ὃς ἔσται ἐπὶ τοῦ δώµατος καὶ τὰ σκεύη αὐτοῦ ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ, µὴ καταβάτω ἆραι αὐτά, Fits the context. Fits the context. Fits the context. On that day, anyone on the housetop who has belongings in the house, must not come down to take them away, (NRSV; cf. HCSB, NIV, NLT). καὶ ὁ ἐν ἀγρῷ ὁµοίως µὴ ἐπιστρεψάτω εἰς τὰ ὀπίσω. Fits the context. Fits the context. Fits the context. and likewise anyone in the field must not turn back (NRSV; cf. HCSB, NIV, NLT).

——— 37 Interestingly, the three 3rd pers. aor. impv. verbs in Mark 13:15–16 have Synoptic counterparts separately represented in the two Lukan apocalyptic sermons (Luke 17 and Luke 21). The first (µὴ καταβάτω in Mark 13:15a) and third (µὴ ἐπιστρεψάτω in Mark 13:16) are matched in Matt 24:17–18 immediately above and in Luke 17:31a–b immediately below. The second Markan prohibition, however—µηδὲ εἰσελθάτω in Mark 13:15b—is not found in either Matthew 24 or Luke 17, but is paralleled by the 3rd pers. pres. impv. µὴ εἰσερχέσθωσαν in Luke 21:21; see in section 5.1.2 of Chapter 5.


199

6.3 An Assessment of the Negated Aorist Constructions As we noted of the negated present imperative constructions in Chapter 5 above, so also negated aorist subjunctive prohibitions are used in a variety of NT contextual settings. In addition to the expected negative commands, this construction is also used seven times with prayer and requests to authorities and five times in curse settings.38 But again our main concern here is an evaluation of the Aktionsart approach to prohibitions, which is why we have included in our list above notations related to the contextual congruence of the various Aktionsart schools of thought. 6.3.1 Assessing the Negated Aorist Subjunctive With regard to how they assess the historical action expressed in NT aorist subjunctive prohibitions, this examination does not conclude well for Aktionsart theory in any of its forms. In Chapter 2 above we give a more extensive summary and analysis of the data laid out in this chapter. The statistical assessments discussed there are summarized in Table 6.2 (which is the same as Table 2.4 on p. 40 in Chapter 2). While this data causes sufficient doubt of Aktionsart prohibition theory, what is not visible here is that, for each version of Aktionsart, evaluating the negated aorist subjunctive constructions is only half of the theory. The data for the other half— evaluating the negated present imperative constructions—is laid out in Chapter 5, and the data on contextual congruence from both chapters is pulled together in Chapter 2 as part of our comprehensive critique there of the Aktionsart approach to prohibitions (see esp. Table 2.6 on p. 42). A KTIONSART CONTEXTUAL CONGRUENCE FOR NT AORIST SUBJUNCTIVE PROHIBITIONS Version of Aktionsart:

CI

DP

GS

All


40 (45%) 41 (46%) 8 (9%)

13 (15%) 27 (30%) 49 (55%)

3 (4%) 44 (49%) 42 (47%)

TOTALS:

89 (100%) 89 (100%) 89 (100%) 10 (11%)

1 7 2

Table 6.2 ——— 38 The prayers are in Matt 6:13; Luke 11:4; and Acts 7:60; the requests are to Peter in Acts 9:38 and to Jesus by demons in Mark 5:7 and Luke 8:28 and by Peter in John 13:8. The five curses are in Matt 13:14a–b; Matt 21:19; and Acts 28:26a–b.

200


6.3.2 Assessing the Negated Aorist Imperative Of the eight NT negated aorist imperatives, the traditional Aktionsart approach (in all its forms) makes sense for the seven passages in the contexts of the apocalyptic messages by Jesus. The contexts confirm that “go down,” “enter in,” and “turn back” can all be viewed as punctiliar (DP) actions that are not to begin (CI) in the specific situation (GS) of the end times events. On the other hand, one could argue that “going down” from the roof top could take some duration of time and that the person with a lot of things to gather (Luke’s plural τὰ σκεύη) could be descriptive of a longer process, but we won’t press that question here. Verbal aspect theory, however, removes such questions for it suggests that these actions are expressed in the aorist tenseform because they are merely being referred to as whole actions without regard for whatever time duration or multiple facets they might have. As for the eighth passage, the context of Matt 6:3 makes sense of the CI Aktionsart reading (“your left hand must not begin to know”). Likewise, the GS Aktionsart understanding makes sense here as clearly this prohibition of knowledge is for the specific area of alms. Contrary to the DP school of thought, however, certainly giving to the poor is not meant to be a single, punctiliar act (as even the DP school on its own theory would make sense of the pres. ptc. ποιοῦντος) and so such preventions of knowledge must be durative (or at least reiterated) rather than remaining singular. A verbal aspect reading understands the aorist to simply show the writer’s view of the whole action of knowledge without regard for how many times a person needs to be secretive about giving. While this sampling of aorist imperative prohibitions is too small for any reliable statistical comparisons, we summarize the results of our analysis in Table 6.3 similar to the tables of the previously analyzed constructions. These figures are taken into account in the critique of Aktionsart in Chapter 2 above (see esp. Tables 2.5 and 2.6 on pp. 41–42). A KTIONSART CONTEXTUAL CONGRUENCE FOR NT AORIST IMPERATIVE PROHIBITIONS Version of Aktionsart:

CI

DP

GS

All


0 (0%) 8 (100%) 0 (0%)

0 (0%) 7 (88%) 1 (12%)

0 (0%) 8 (100%) 0 (0%)

TOTALS:

8 (100%)

8 (100%)

8 (100%) 7 (88%)

Table 6.3

0 7 0

—CHAPTER 7— Prohibitions Using Other Negated Verb Constructions In addition to the negated verb constructions discussed in Chapters 5 and 6, the Greek New Testament communicates prohibitions in five other recognizable negated verb constructions (and most of these have appreciable sub-groupings). Because these prohibitory constructions have not yet played a major role in the debate regarding a proper theory of the Greek verb, we are not adding comments here about the fit of each to the various versions of Aktionsart theory; we will leave that task to another. It is worth noting here NT PROHIBITIONS USING OTHER NEGATED VERB CONSTRUCTIONS Section #

7.1 Negated Future Indicative: “You shall not do that.” ............................. 21 7.1.1 Negated Future Indicative—2nd Person: .......................... 18 7.1.2 Negated Future Indicative—3rd Person: ............................. 3 7.2 Negated Hortatory Subjunctive: “Let us not do that.” (all 1st person) ........ 8 7.2.1 Present Subjunctive: .......................................................... 7 7.2.2 Aorist Subjunctive: ........................................................... 1 7.3 Negated Optative: “May it not be!” (all 3rd person) .................................. 17 7.4 Negated Infinitive: “I am telling you not to do that.” ............................. 85 7.4.1 Negated Indirect Discourse Infinitive: ........................... 58 7.4.2 Negated Subject Infinitive: ............................................... 8 7.4.3 Negated Appositional Infinitive: ...................................... 3 7.4.4 Negated Purposive Infinitive: ......................................... 12 7.4.5 Negated Complementary Infinitive: ................................. 4 7.5 Negated Participle: “...not doing that.” ................................................. 39 7.5.1 Negated Adverbial Participle: ......................................... 19 7.5.2 Negated Attributive Participle: ....................................... 18 7.5.3 Negated Independent Imperatival Participle: .................. 2 TOTAL:

170

Table 7.0

202


that the use of one of these constructions over another may often be as much a matter of authorial style as of differentiation in meaning. Rather than performing a full analyses of nuances in meaning, however, our purposes here are more modestly limited to identification and classification. So, included here in Chapter 7 are lists of all the NT prohibitions exemplified in the grammatical-syntactical classifications outlined in Table 7.0.

7.1 The Negated Future Indicative: “You shall not do that.” The use of the future indicative for Greek commands and prohibitions in the New Testament has long been explained as a kind of semiticism or Hebraism. There is, after all, a high concentration of OT citations using this construction. David S. New, however, proposes that the proper explanation involves more than simply Hebraism.1 Understanding the future indicative to have developed from the aorist subjunctive, New sees a decidedly Greek history to the imperatival use of the future tense-form. According to New, the real point of this use of the future—both in positive commands and in prohibitions—is to speak with more authority. “An examination of the use of the imperatival future, positive and prohibitive, in the New Testament reveals not a single example in which it is used unauthoritatively. Either it is used in an Old Testament quotation (in which case the real speaker is God, directly or through God’s angels or prophets) or outside of the Old Testament quotations it is used by God through an angel, or by Jesus. In three cases it is used by figures of legal authority all employing the same phrase … relinquishing their authority, saying what is equivalent to ‘it’s your problem; you solve it’.”2 A quick examination of only the prohibitory uses of the future listed here seems to confirm New’s suggestion (see Table 7.1). Of the 21 NT prohibitions constructed with the negated future indicative (18 in 2nd per. and three in 3rd per.), all but four (i.e., Matt 6:5; 15:6; 20:26; and 1 Cor 9:15) are citations of the Old Testament. Eleven of these OT citations focus on five of the Ten Commandments in brief quotations that ——— 1

David S. New, “The Injunctive Future and Existential Injunctions in the New Testament,” JSNT 44 (1991): 113–27; reprinted on pages 130–44 in New Testament Text and Language: A Sheffield Reader (ed. Stanley E. Porter and Craig A. Evans; The Biblical Seminar 44; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997). 2 New, “The Injunctive Future,” in New Testament Text and Language, 141. This simple observation could be further evidence to rule against interpreting the negated fut. ind. in Rom 6:14 as a prohibition; see the critical commentaries. Rom 6:14 is not included in our list here.

203

CHAPTER 7—PROHIBITIONS USING OTHER NEGATED VERBS

follow the LXX wording of their sources in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5.3 The other seven citations are from elsewhere in the Pentateuch—i.e., Acts 23:5 cites Exod 22:28 (with slight reordering of the LXX words); Matt 5:33 paraphrases Lev 19:12 (using the fut. οὐκ ἐπιορκήσεις in place of the fut. οὐκ ὀµεῖσθε); Matt 4:7 and Luke 4:12 cite Deut 6:16 (following the LXX exactly); and 1 Cor 9:9 and 1 Tim 5:18 cite Deut 25:4 (1 Timothy reordering the words and 1 Corinthians substituting κηµώσεις for φιµώσεις).4 NT PROHIBITIONS USING THE NEGATED FUTURE INDICATIVE “Y OU SHALL NOT DO THAT ” OT Citations: Lev 19:12 Exod 20:13/Deut 5:17 Exod 20:14/Deut 5:19 Exod 20:15/Deut 5:18 Exod 20:16/Deut 5:20 Exod 20:17/Deut 5:21 Exod 22:28 Deut 6:16 Deut 25:4 Non-OT Citations: Jesus Paul

in Matt 5:33 ......................................... in Matt 5:27; 19:18b; Rom 13:9a ....... in Matt 19:18c; Rom 13:9c ................ in Matt 5:21a; 19:18a; Rom 13:9b ...... in Matt 19:18d .................................. in Rom 7:7c; 13:9d ........................... in Acts 23:5 ...................................... in Matt 4:7 and Luke 4:12 ................. in 1 Cor 9:9 and 1 Tim 5:18 .............. in Matt 6:5a; 15:6*; 20:26* .................. in 1 Cor 9:15* ....................................

TOTAL (*three in 3rd per. + eighteen in 2nd per.):

1

3 2 3 1 2 1 2 2 3 1

21

Table 7.1 In older English style, some modern translations use “shall/shall not” for commands/prohibitions constructed with the future indicative (e.g., ESV, NASB, NKJV), while others simply translate with the plainer imperatival renderings “do/do not” (e.g., NIV, HCSB). To preserve recognition of the future indicative grammatical construction, we render the prohibitions here in the more formal “shall not” custom. The citations below put the prohibitory phrase in bold typeface both in the Greek and the English translation. ——— 3 See the footnote for Mark 10:19a in section 6.1.1 of Chapter 6 for a brief Synoptic comparison regarding Matthew’s preference of the future tense and his reordering of items in his Decalog citations; in Rom 13:9a–d, Paul follows the order of Deuteronomy 5. 4 While at first glance Matt 4:4 and Luke 4:4 may seem like prohibitory uses of the future in their citation of Deut 8:3 (οὐκ ἐπ᾿ ἄρτῳ µόνῳ ζήσεται ὁ ἄνθρωπος—“Man will not live by bread alone”), the OT setting reveals that they likely are not.

204


7.1.1 Negated Future Indicative—2nd Person Matt 4:7

οὐκ ἐκπειράσεις κύριον τὸν θεόν σου. You shall not test the Lord your God.

Matt 5:21a

οὐ φονεύσεις· You shall not murder.

Matt 5:27

οὐ µοιχεύσεις. You shall not commit adultery.

Matt 5:33

οὐκ ἐπιορκήσεις, You shall not swear falsely.

Matt 6:5a

Καὶ ὅταν προσεύχησθε, οὐκ ἔσεσθε ὡς οἱ ὑποκριταί, And when you are praying, you shall not be like the hypocrites.

Matt 19:18a

οὐ φονεύσεις, You shall not murder.

Matt 19:18b

οὐ µοιχεύσεις, You shall not commit adultery.

Matt 19:18c

οὐ κλέψεις, You shall not steal.

Matt 19:18d

οὐ ψευδοµαρτυρήσεις, You shall not bear false witness.

Luke 4:12

οὐκ ἐκπειράσεις κύριον τὸν θεόν σου. You shall not test the Lord your God.

Acts 23:5

ἄρχοντα τοῦ λαοῦ σου οὐκ ἐρεῖς κακῶς. You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people.

CHAPTER 7—PROHIBITIONS USING OTHER NEGATED VERBS Rom 7:7c

205

οὐκ ἐπιθυµήσεις. You shall not covet.

Rom 13:9a

οὐ µοιχεύσεις, You shall not commit adultery.

Rom 13:9b

οὐ φονεύσεις, You shall not murder.

Rom 13:9c

οὐ κλέψεις, You shall not steal.

Rom 13:9d

οὐκ ἐπιθυµήσεις, You shall not covet.

1 Cor 9:9

οὐ κηµώσεις βοῦν ἀλοῶντα. You shall not muzzle an ox while it is threshing.

1 Tim 5:18

βοῦν ἀλοῶντα οὐ φιµώσεις, An ox while it is threshing you shall not muzzle.

7.1.2 Negated Future Indicative—3rd Person Matt 15:6

οὐ µὴ τιµήσει τὸν πατέρα αὐτοῦ He shall not honor his father.5

——— Burton remarks, “In Matt. 15:6 the verb τιµήσει has the negative οὐ µή. Some interpreters take this as a Predictive Future, but the thought requires the Imperative sense, and in view of the frequent use of οὐ µή with the Future in an imperative sense in the Septuagint, and its occasional use in classical Greek, the possibility of it can hardly be denied”; Earnest de Witt Burton, Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in New Testament Greek, 3nd ed. (Chicago: University Press of Chicago, 1900; reprint, Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1976), 35 (§67). John A. L. Lee concludes about the use of οὐ µή with the future and with the subj. for prohibitions or strong denials “that the NT shows LXX influence in the use of this feature, and that it conveyed not only emphasis but more important a solemn, biblical tone, especially suited to prophetic utterances and the speech of Jesus”; John A. L. Lee, “Some Features of the Speech of Jesus in Mark’s Gospel,” NovT 27.1 (1985): 18–19; cf. 18–23. We should note that the prohibition in Matt 15:6 constructed with the future tense-form is on the lips of Jesus, albeit Jesus is apparently quoting a legal custom of some Pharisees and scribes. 5

206


Matt 20:26

οὐχ οὕτως ἔσται ἐν ὑµῖν, It shall not be thus among you.6

1 Cor 9:15

Ἐγὼ δὲ οὐ κέχρηµαι οὐδενὶ τούτων. Οὐκ ἔγραψα δὲ ταῦτα, ἵνα οὕτως γένηται ἐν ἐµοί· καλὸν γάρ µοι µᾶλλον ἀποθανεῖν ἤ—τὸ καύχηµά µου οὐδεὶς κενώσει. But I have not used any of these. And I am not writing these things in order to make it happen for me. For it would be better for me to die than—no one shall nullify my boast. (≈ “No one will pay me for preaching the gospel and deprive me of my boast.”)7

7.2 The Negated Hortatory Subjunctive: “Let us not do that.” Some scholars might dispute the prohibitory force of the negated first person subjunctive. But in his study comparing ancient Greek to 19th-century Greek, Jules David speaks of the subjunctive mood as filling a need that the imperative mood could not address for the Greek language. He remarks, “The Hellenic language renders the Subjunctive Mood by itself only, first imperativally; by which means it has supplied the place of the first person, which was wanting, of the imperative.”8 So also Basil Gildersleeve states rather blandly, “The subjunctive is used as the imperative of the first person, positive and negative. The negative particle is µή.”9 Likewise, Rijksbaron ——— 6

The Synoptic parallels have different constructions: Mark 10:43 uses the negated pres. ind. ἐστιν and Luke 22:26 uses no explicit verb form; see both in section 10.1 of Chapter 10. 7

While English versions often smooth it out, the syntax of 1 Cor 9:15 is awkward (but in a somewhat typical Pauline way). NRSV comes closest to preserving the disruption: “Indeed, I would rather die than that—no one will deprive me of my ground for boasting!” In arguing for his apostolic authority dispite his refusal to claim apostolic privileges, Paul’s passion is seen in his breaking off in the middle of one sentence (a.k.a. aposiopesis) and in his sudden introduction of a new and differently constructed sentence (a.k.a. anacoluthon). Constructed with a negated fut. tense-form (οὐδεὶς κενώσει), in this context the new sentence is not merely Paul’s prediction about the future, but an expression of his determined will regarding what people do. Thus, we judge it as having prohibitory force. Paul’s use of a future tense-form prohibition is evidence not only for his passion here, but also for his claim to authority. 8

Jules David, A Grammatical Parallel of the Ancient and Modern Greek Languages (trans. John Mitchell; London: Black, Young & Young, 1824), 117. 9

Gildersleeve and Miller, Syntax of Classical Greek from Homer to Demosthenes, 148 (§373).


207

writes, “The adhortative subjunctive only occurs in the 1st person, more often plural than singular. It signifies that the speaker considers it necessary that a state of affairs be carried out, either by himself or by two or more people including himself; the negative is µή ….”10 James Clyde also testifies to the normalcy of a first person imperatival use of the subjunctive mood, but he qualifies such usage as imperatival in form and “interjectional in force.” He continues, “In the second and third persons only, the aorist is used imperatively, and that with µή.”11 Similarly, A. T. Robertson remarks, “The aorist subjunctive held its own in prohibitions of the second person and usually of the third as the subj. did completely for all commands of the first person.”12 Thus, first person plural subjunctives are often referred to as “hortatory subjunctives” where the speaker is inviting others to join him. Writing about J. M. Stahl’s view of the subjunctive, Basil Gildersleeve remarks, “According to him, we must distinguish between the prohibitive subjunctive of prohibition and the prohibitive subjunctive of apprehension.”13 And, indeed, the borders can be rather fuzzy regarding where an invitation becomes a request and where a request becomes a command and where a command becomes a demand. Nevertheless, in their contexts, the NT examples provided below warrant consideration as true prohibitions. In the end, I think we can agree with Kerry Robichaux and Roger Good who state rather plainly, “In Greek a command or prohibition can be first, second, or third person”14 On a pragmatics scale of intensity, commands constructed with the first person subjunctive would be understood as more polite, since they place the same expectation upon the speaker/writer as they do upon the hearer/reader. ——— 10

Albert Rijksbaron, The Syntax and Semantics of the Verb in Classical Greek: An Introduction (3rd ed.; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002), 39 (§13.1). He continues, “The prohibitive subjunctive almost exclusively occurs in the 2nd person, occasionally in the 3rd, and is limited to the aorist stem. It expresses a prohibition.” He notes further, “Prohibitions in the present stem are expressed by the imperative. In general, this holds for prohibitions in the 3rd person of the aorist stem as well”; p. 40 (§13.1, Note 1). 11

James Clyde, Greek Syntax with a Rationale of the Constructions (Prefatory Notice by John S. Blackie; 6th ed.; London: Simpkin, Marshall & Co., 1881), 86 (§41c). 12

A. T. Robertson, A Short Grammar of the Greek New Testament: For Students Familiar with the Elements of Greek (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1908), 131–32. 13

Basil Lanneau Gildersleeve, “Stahl’s Syntax of the Greek Verb: Third Article.” American Journal of Philology 30.1 (1909): 6. 14

Kerry S. Robichaux and Roger Good, A Reader’s Grammar of the Greek New Testament (Anaheim, CA.: A & C, 2000), 114.

208


While positive hortatory subjunctives are common enough in the New Testament, prohibitory hortatory subjunctives are relatively rare; and there are no NT examples of singular hortatory subjunctives with prohibitory expectation upon the speaker/writer but not the hearer/reader. We have divided the listings here by tense-forms: of the eight prohibitory hortatory subjunctives in the New Testament, seven use the present and (somewhat in line with the observations of Clyde and Robertson in the discussion above) only one uses the aorist.15 The prohibitory phrases here are put in bold typeface both in the Greek and the English translation. NT PROHIBITIONS USING THE NEGATED HORTATORY SUBJUNCTIVE: “L ET US NOT DO THAT .” Section #

7.2.1 Negated Present Tense Hortatory Verbs: .......................................... 7 7.2.2 Negated Aorist Tense Hortatory Verbs: ............................................ 1 (+ 1 lexically negated aor. subj. in Rom 13:12 listed in sec. 9.2)

TOTAL:

8

Table 7.2 7.2.1 Negated Hortatory Subjunctive—Present Tense Rom 14:13a

Μηκέτι οὖν ἀλλήλους κρίνωµεν· Therefore let us no longer pass judgment on one another.

1 Cor 10:8

µηδὲ πορνεύωµεν Let us not commit sexual immorality

1 Cor 10:9

µηδὲ ἐκπειράζωµεν τὸν Χριστόν Let us not test Christ

Gal 5:26

µὴ γινώµεθα κενόδοξοι, ἀλλήλοις φθονοῦντες.

ἀλλήλους

προκαλούµενοι,

Let us not become conceited, provoking one another, envying one another. ——— In addition, an aor. hortatory subj. occurs in Rom 13:12 using the word ἀποτίθηµι (“I put off”), which is lexically negated and thus is accounted for in section 9.2 of Chapter 9. 15

CHAPTER 7—PROHIBITIONS USING OTHER NEGATED VERBS Gal 6:9a

209

τὸ δὲ καλὸν ποιοῦντες µὴ ἐγκακῶµεν And let us not grow weary of doing good

1 Thess 5:6

ἄρα οὖν µὴ καθεύδωµεν ὡς οἱ λοιποί ἀλλὰ γρηγορῶµεν καὶ νήφωµεν. So then, let us not sleep, as others, but let us be awake and let us be sober.

1 John 3:18a

Τεκνία, µὴ ἀγαπῶµεν λόγῳ µηδὲ τῇ γλώσσῃ ἀλλὰ ἐν ἔργῳ καὶ ἀληθείᾳ. Little children, let us not love in word nor in tongue but in work and in truth.

7.2.2 Negated Hortatory Subjunctive—Aorist Tense John 19:24

εἶπαν οὖν πρὸς ἀλλήλους· µὴ σχίσωµεν αὐτόν, ἀλλὰ λάχωµεν περὶ αὐτοῦ τίνος ἔσται· Therefore they said to one another, “Let us not tear it, but let us cast lots concerning whose it will be.”

7.3 The Negated Optative: “May it not be!” Of the 68 occurrences of optative mood forms in the New Testament (31 in Paul + 28 in Luke–Acts + 9 in the remainder of the NT), 17 are used with prohibitory force (see Table 7.3). The first is clearly a curse (Mark 11:14) and the last is a negative wish (2 Tim 4:16). The other 15 are all uses of the phrase µὴ γένοιτο (“may it not be/happen”), which “has become a stereotyped, idiomatic exclamation indicating revulsion and indignant, strong rejection.”16 Thus, all 17 prohibitory optatives in the New Testament are examples of the volitive optative (or the optative of wish).17 All of the optative prohibitions are constructed as aorist 3rd person singular forms. In each citation here, the negated optative is placed in bold typeface. ——— 16

Boyer, “Classification of Optatives,” 130. The most common verb forms in the optative mood are εἴη (12 times = 11 in Luke–Acts + 1 in John) and γένοιτο (17 times = 14 in Paul + 3 in Luke–Acts). All 14 of Paul’s uses of γένοιτο are negated with µὴ, and all but Gal 6:14 are complete two-word sentences giving firm negative replies to rhetorical questions. 17

Boyer notes that altogether (i.e., including the positive and prohibitory uses) 39 of the 68 NT optatives are volitives (“Classification of Optatives,” 130).

210


NT PROHIBITIONS USING THE NEGATED OPTATIVE: “M AY IT NOT BE !” Optative Curse (Mark 11:14): .......................................................................... 1 Negative Wish (2 Tim 4:16): ........................................................................... 1 µὴ γένοιτο (“may it not be/happen”): ...................................................... 15 Lukan Exclamations (Luke 20:16): ................................................... 1 Pauline Exclamations: ................................................................. 13 Pauline Non-exclamatory Sentence (Gal 6:14): ............................... 1 TOTAL:

17

Table 7.3 Mark 11:14

µηκέτι εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα ἐκ σοῦ µηδεὶς καρπὸν φάγοι. May no one ever again eat fruit from you forever.18

Luke 20:16

ἐλεύσεται καὶ ἀπολέσει τοὺς γεωργοὺς τούτους καὶ δώσει τὸν ἀµπελῶνα ἄλλοις. ἀκούσαντες δὲ εἶπαν· µὴ γένοιτο. ‘He will come and will destroy those farmers and will give the vineyard to others.’ And hearing this they said, ‘May it not be!’

Rom 3:4

{τί γάρ; εἰ ἠπίστησάν τινες, µὴ ἡ ἀπιστία αὐτῶν τὴν πίστιν τοῦ θεοῦ καταργήσει;...} µὴ γένοιτο· {What then? If some did not believe, their unbelief will not nullify the faithfulness of God, will it?...} May it not be!

Rom 3:6

{εἰ δὲ ἡ ἀδικία ἡµῶν θεοῦ δικαιοσύνην συνίστησιν, τί ἐροῦµεν; µὴ ἄδικος ὁ θεὸς ὁ ἐπιφέρων τὴν ὀργήν; κατὰ ἄνθρωπον λέγω....} µὴ γένοιτο· {But if our unrightousness confirms the righteousness of God, what will we say? A God inflicting wrath is not unrighteous, is he? I am speaking in a human way....} May it not be!

——— 18

The Synoptic parallel to Mark 11:14 in Matt 21:19 is constructed with a 3rd per. aor. subj. prohibition; see in section 6.1.2 of Chapter 6.

CHAPTER 7—PROHIBITIONS USING OTHER NEGATED VERBS Rom 3:31

211

νόµον οὖν καταργοῦµεν διὰ τῆς πίστεως; µὴ γένοιτο· So, do we nullify the law through faith? May it not be!

Rom 6:2a

{Τί οὖν ἐροῦµεν; ἐπιµένωµεν τῇ ἁµαρτίᾳ, ἵνα ἡ χάρις πλεονάσῃ;...} µὴ γένοιτο. {What will we say then? Should we continue in sin so that grace may increase?...} May it not be!

Rom 6:15b

Τί οὖν; ἁµαρτήσωµεν, ὅτι οὐκ ἐσµὲν ὑπὸ νόµον ἀλλὰ ὑπὸ χάριν; µὴ γένοιτο. What then? Should we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? May it not be!

Rom 7:7b

Τί οὖν ἐροῦµεν; ὁ νόµος ἁµαρτία; µὴ γένοιτο· What will we say then? That the law is sin? May it not be!

Rom 7:13

Τὸ οὖν ἀγαθὸν ἐµοὶ ἐγένετο θάνατος; µὴ γένοιτο· Therefore did that which is good become death for me? May it not be!

Rom 9:14b

Τί οὖν ἐροῦµεν; µὴ ἀδικία παρὰ τῷ θεῷ; µὴ γένοιτο. What will we say then? There is not unrighteousness on God’s part, is there? May it not be!

Rom 11:1

Λέγω οὖν, µὴ ἀπώσατο ὁ θεὸς τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ; µὴ γένοιτο· I say then, God has not rejected his people, has he? May it not be!

Rom 11:11

Λέγω οὖν, µὴ ἔπταισαν ἵνα πέσωσιν; µὴ γένοιτο· I say then, they did not stumble in order that they might fall, did they? May it not be!

1 Cor 6:15b

οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι τὰ σώµατα ὑµῶν µέλη Χριστοῦ ἐστιν; ἄρας οὖν τὰ µέλη τοῦ Χριστοῦ ποιήσω πόρνης µέλη; µὴ γένοιτο. Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? So taking the members of Christ, should I make them members of a prostitute? May it not be!

212 Gal 2:17

PROHIBITIONS IN THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT εἰ δὲ ζητοῦντες δικαιωθῆναι ἐν Χριστῷ εὑρέθηµεν καὶ αὐτοὶ ἁµαρτωλοί, ἆρα Χριστὸς ἁµαρτίας διάκονος; µὴ γένοιτο. But if, while seeking to be justified in Christ, we ourselves also were found to be sinners, is Christ then a minister of sin? May it not be!

Gal 3:21

ὁ οὖν νόµος κατὰ τῶν ἐπαγγελιῶν [τοῦ θεοῦ]; µὴ γένοιτο· So, is the law against the promises [of God]? May it not be!

Gal 6:14

Ἐµοὶ δὲ µὴ γένοιτο καυχᾶσθαι εἰ µὴ ἐν τῷ σταυρῷ τοῦ κυρίου ἡµῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, δι᾿ οὗ ἐµοὶ κόσµος ἐσταύρωται κἀγὼ κόσµῳ. But may it not be for me to boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me and I to the world.19

2 Tim 4:16

Ἐν τῇ πρώτῃ µου ἀπολογίᾳ οὐδείς µοι παρεγένετο, ἀλλὰ πάντες µε ἐγκατέλιπον· µὴ αὐτοῖς λογισθείη· At my first defense no one came with me, but all deserted me. May it not be charged against them.

7.4 The Negated Infinitive: “I am telling you not to do that.” As verbal nouns, infinitives can serve a variety of roles in the syntax of NT Greek. At this juncture, our concern for prohibitions limits us to the uses of the negated infinitive. We count 131 negated infinitives in the Greek New Testament.20 While negated infinitives are quite naturally sometimes used in non-prohibitory manners, 86 of the 131 NT negated infinitives (66%) can be understood as indicating prohibitory force on some level. Some of these are intended for the NT reader to heed (e.g., Rom 12:3); some simply report that a prohibition had been given to someone (e.g., Matt 2:12 to the magi, not the readers of Matthew). ——— 19 Gal 6:14 has the only NT use of µὴ γένοιτο that is part of a longer sentence instead of its own two-word exclamation. 20 Clyde Votaw counts only 82 negated infinitives in the NT (noting 35 articular + 47 anarthrous); Clyde W. Votaw, The Use of the Infinitive in Biblical Greek. Chicago: by the Author, 1896), 58.

213


NT PROHIBITIONS USING THE NEGATED INFINITIVE: “I AM TELLING YOU NOT TO DO THAT .” Section #

7.4.1 Negated Indirect Discourse Infinitive: ............................................ 58 7.4.2 Negated Subject Infinitive: ................................................................ 8 (+ 1 lexically negated inf. in Titus 1:11a in sec. 9.2)

7.4.3 Negated Appositional Infinitive: ....................................................... 3 (+ 2 lexically negated infs. in Acts 15:29a; 1 Thess 4:3 in sec. 9.2)

7.4.4 Negated Purposive Infinitive: .......................................................... 12 7.4.5 Negated Complementary Infinitive: ................................................. 4 (+ 1 negated inf. used with a vision verb in Matt 6:1 in sec. 8.1.1)

TOTAL:

85

Table 7.4 Of the 86 prohibitory infinitive constructions, 69 can be categorized as substantival and 17 as adverbial. For the substantival uses, when a prohibition is expressed by the negated infinitive as the direct object (in the broad sense) of a verb of speech or perception, we label it an indirect discourse infinitive.21 With a count of 58, this is the largest subcategory of infinitival prohibitions in the New Testament.22 There are other ways to portray indirect discourse; see Table 7.6.2 below for a tally of all NT indirect discourse prohibitions. The eight prohibitory subject infinitive constructions are used with δεῖ, εἰµὶ, or δοκέω, or with καλὸν and a presumed verb of being (“is good”).23 While common enough in positive constructions, only three times is a negated infinitive used in an appositional manner to describe a prior substantive (Luke 9:3f and twice in 1 Thess 4:6a–b where both are negated by a single occurrence of µή). Of the 50 total negated infinitives used adverbially in the New Testament (i.e., expressing purpose, result, cause, or complement), only 17 have ——— 21 Using a slightly different taxonomy of NT inf. uses, Boyer considers the groupings of “indirect discourse,” “complementary” and “true object” as subcategories of “direct object infinitives” in a broader sense; Boyer, “Infinitives,” 6–10. 22 The NT contains nine negated indirect discourse infinitive constructions that do not have any apparent prohibitory force: Matt 22:23; Mark 12:18; Luke 2:26; 20:7, 27; Acts 23:8; 25:25; and 2 Cor 2:1; 11:5. 23

There are three negated subject infinitives in the NT that do not have prohibitory force: see in Luke 17:1; Acts 25:27; and 2 Pet 2:21.

214


prohibitory force in two categories.24 Twelve of these are purposive and five are complementary (a.k.a. supplementary, i.e., supplementing or completing the thought of the main verb, which is sometimes dubbed a “helper verb” by grammarians).25 Interestingly, some of these negated adverbial infinitives are used in such a way as to nevertheless portray indirect discourse in their particular contexts (e.g. Luke 4:42; Acts 10:47b; 14:18). Among all the prohibitory infinitive constructions, use without the article is preferred (16 articular and 70 anarthrous), and the negated infinitive can be controlled by a finite verb, a participle, another infinitive, an adjective, or a substantive. In citing the prohibitory uses of infinitives here, the negated infinitive is in bold (along with any ruling preposition) and the controlling verb (or verbal idea or term) is underlined. Finally, we must note that our listing here does not include one negated complementary infinitive that is used as the object of a vision verb (Matt 6:1), as it is tallied in that list instead (see section 8.1.1 of Chapter 8).26 7.4.1 Negated Indirect Discourse Infinitive Matt 2:12

καὶ χρηµατισθέντες κατ᾿ ὄναρ µὴ ἀνακάµψαι πρὸς Ἡρῴδην, δι᾿ ἄλλης ὁδοῦ ἀνεχώρησαν εἰς τὴν χώραν αὐτῶν. And being warned in a dream not to return to Herod, they departed to their own country by another way. (≈ “Do not return to Herod.”)

Matt 5:34a

ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑµῖν µὴ ὀµόσαι ὅλως·... But I say to you not to make an oath at all,... (≈ “Do not make an oath at all.”)

——— 24 In the NT, without prohibitory force, there are five negated purposive infinitives (Luke 24:16; Acts 7:19; Rom 6:6; 1 Cor 9:18; 1 Thess 2:9), 14 negated result infinitives (Matt 8:28; Mark 1:45; 2:2; 3:20a; Acts 20:20 [bis], 27; Rom 7:3; 1 Cor 1:7; 2 Cor 3:7; Gal 5:7; 1 Thess 1:8; Heb 11:3, 5), nine negated causal infinitives (Matt 13:5, 6; Mark 4:5, 6; Luke 8:6; Acts 28:18; 2 Cor 2:13; Heb 10:2; Jas 4:2), and five negated complementary infinitives (Mark 3:20b; Acts 4:20; 7:28; Rom 13:3; 1 Cor 9:6). 25 In six groupings Boyer outlines 72 different verbs used in the NT with complementary infinitives; Boyer, “Infinitives,” 6–7. 26 It is also worth noting here that three additional infinitives used in NT prohibitions are lexically negated and accounted for in section 9.2 of Chapter 9: Acts 15:29a; 1 Thess 4:3; and Titus 1:11a.

CHAPTER 7—PROHIBITIONS USING OTHER NEGATED VERBS Matt 5:39

215

ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑµῖν µὴ ἀντιστῆναι τῷ πονηρῷ· But I say to you not to resist the evil person. (≈ “Do not resist the evil person.”)

Luke 5:14

καὶ αὐτὸς παρήγγειλεν αὐτῷ µηδενὶ εἰπεῖν, ἀλλὰ.... And he commanded him to tell no one, but.... (≈ “Do not tell anyone, but....”)

Luke 8:56

καὶ ἐξέστησαν οἱ γονεῖς αὐτῆς· ὁ δὲ παρήγγειλεν αὐτοῖς µηδενὶ εἰπεῖν τὸ γεγονός. And her parents were amazed, but he commanded them to tell no one what had happened. (≈ “Do not tell anyone what has happened.”)

Luke 9:21b

ὁ δὲ ἐπιτιµήσας αὐτοῖς παρήγγειλεν µηδενὶ λέγειν τοῦτο. And rebuking, he commanded them to tell no one this. (≈ “Do not tell anyone this.”)

Luke 21:14

θέτε οὖν ἐν ἀπολογηθῆναι·

ταῖς

καρδίαις

ὑµῶν

µὴ

προµελετᾶν

Therefore determine in your hearts not to prepare ahead of time to defend yourselves. (≈ “Do prepare ahead of time how to defend yourselves.”) Luke 22:40

προσεύχεσθε µὴ εἰσελθεῖν εἰς πειρασµόν. Pray not to enter into temptation. (≈ “Pray, ‘Do not let us enter into temptation’.”)

Acts 1:4

παρήγγειλεν αὐτοῖς ἀπὸ Ἱεροσολύµων µὴ χωρίζεσθαι he commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem (≈ “Do not depart from Jerusalem.”)

Acts 4:17b

...ἀπειλησώµεθα αὐτοῖς µηκέτι λαλεῖν ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόµατι τούτῳ µηδενὶ ἀνθρώπων. ...let us threaten them to speak no longer in this name to anyone. (≈ “Do not speak any longer in this name to anyone.”)

216 Acts 4:18a

PROHIBITIONS IN THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT Καὶ καλέσαντες αὐτοὺς παρήγγειλαν τὸ καθόλου µὴ φθέγγεσθαι... And calling them they commanded them not to speak and... (≈ “Do not speak and...”)

Acts 4:18b

{παρήγγειλαν τὸ καθόλου...} µηδὲ διδάσκειν ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόµατι τοῦ Ἰησοῦ. {they commanded them...} not to teach at all in the name of Jesus. (≈ “... do not teach at all in the name of Jesus.”)

Acts 5:28

[οὐ] παραγγελίᾳ παρηγγείλαµεν ὑµῖν µὴ διδάσκειν ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόµατι τούτῳ, We strictly commanded you not to teach in this name, (≈ “Do not teach in this name.”)

Acts 5:40

καὶ προσκαλεσάµενοι τοὺς ἀποστόλους δείραντες παρήγγειλαν µὴ λαλεῖν ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόµατι τοῦ Ἰησοῦ καὶ ἀπέλυσαν. and summoning and beating the apostles, they commanded them not to speak in the name of Jesus and they released them. (≈ “Do not speak in the name of Jesus.”)

Acts 10:28b

...κἀµοὶ ὁ θεὸς ἔδειξεν µηδένα κοινὸν ἢ ἀκάθαρτον λέγειν ἄνθρωπον· ...but God has shown to me not to call anyone common or unclean. (≈ “Do not call anyone common or unclean.”)

Acts 15:19

διὸ ἐγὼ κρίνω µὴ παρενοχλεῖν τοῖς ἀπὸ τῶν ἐθνῶν ἐπιστρέφουσιν ἐπὶ τὸν θεόν, Therefore I myself judge not to trouble those from the Gentiles who are turning to God, (≈ “Do not trouble those from the Gentiles who are turning to God.”)

CHAPTER 7—PROHIBITIONS USING OTHER NEGATED VERBS Acts 15:38

217

Παῦλος δὲ ἠξίου, τὸν ἀποστάντα ἀπ᾿ αὐτῶν ἀπὸ Παµφυλίας καὶ µὴ συνελθόντα αὐτοῖς εἰς τὸ ἔργον µὴ συµπαραλαµβάνειν τοῦτον. But Paul was thinking it best not to take along this one who had withdrawn from them from Pamphylia and had not gone on with them for the work. (≈ “Do not take along one who deserted us in Pamphylia.”)

Acts 19:31

τινὲς δὲ καὶ τῶν Ἀσιαρχῶν, ὄντες αὐτῷ φίλοι, πέµψαντες πρὸς αὐτὸν παρεκάλουν µὴ δοῦναι ἑαυτὸν εἰς τὸ θέατρον. And even some of the Asiarchs, who were friends of his, sending to him were urging him not to venture into the theater. (≈ “Do not venture into the theater.”)

Acts 21:4

οἵτινες τῷ Παύλῳ ἔλεγον διὰ τοῦ πνεύµατος µὴ ἐπιβαίνειν εἰς Ἱεροσόλυµα. They were telling Paul through the Spirit not to go to Jerusalem. (≈ “Do not go to Jerusalem.”)

Acts 21:12

ὡς δὲ ἠκούσαµεν ταῦτα, παρεκαλοῦµεν ἡµεῖς τε καὶ οἱ ἐντόπιοι τοῦ µὴ ἀναβαίνειν αὐτὸν εἰς Ἰερουσαλήµ. And as we heard these things, both we and the locals were urging him not to go up to Jerusalem. (≈ “Do not go up to Jerusalem.”)

Acts 21:21b

...λέγων µὴ περιτέµνειν αὐτοὺς τὰ τέκνα.... ...telling them not to circumcise their children and... (≈ “Do not circumcise your children and...”)

Acts 21:21c

{λέγων...} µηδὲ τοῖς ἔθεσιν περιπατεῖν. {telling them...}not to walk according to our customs. (≈ “...do not walk according to our customs.”)

Acts 23:12a

οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι ἀνεθεµάτισαν ἑαυτοὺς λέγοντες µήτε φαγεῖν... The Jews pledged themselves saying not to eat and... (≈ “Let us not eat and...”)

218


Acts 23:12b

{ἀνεθεµάτισαν...λέγοντες...} ἀποκτείνωσιν τὸν Παῦλον.

µήτε

πιεῖν

ἕως

οὗ

{pledged... saying...} not to drink until they killed Paul. (≈ “...let us not drink until we kill Paul.”) Acts 23:14

ἀναθέµατι ἀνεθεµατίσαµεν ἑαυτοὺς µηδενὸς γεύσασθαι ἕως οὗ ἀποκτείνωµεν τὸν Παῦλον. We pledged ourselves with a curse not to taste any food until we killed Paul. (≈ “Let us not eat any food until we kill Paul.”)

Acts 23:21b

οἵτινες ἀνεθεµάτισαν ἑαυτοὺς µήτε φαγεῖν... They pledged themselves not to eat and... (≈ “Let us not eat and...”)

Acts 23:21c

{οἵτινες ἀνεθεµάτισαν...} µήτε πιεῖν ἕως οὗ ἀνέλωσιν αὐτόν {They pledged...} not to drink until they killed him (≈ “... and let us not drink until we kill Paul.”)

Acts 23:22

ὁ µὲν οὖν χιλίαρχος ἀπέλυσε τὸν νεανίσκον παραγγείλας µηδενὶ ἐκλαλῆσαι ὅτι ταῦτα ἐνεφάνισας πρός µε. So then the commander dismissed the young man, commanding ‘not to tell anyone that you reported these things to me.’ (≈ “Do not tell anyone that you reported these things to me.”)27

Acts 24:23

διαταξάµενος τῷ ἑκατοντάρχῃ τηρεῖσθαι αὐτὸν ἔχειν τε ἄνεσιν καὶ µηδένα κωλύειν τῶν ἰδίων αὐτοῦ ὑπηρετεῖν αὐτῷ. having given orders to the centurion to guard him, but to have some liberty, and not to prevent any of his friends from serving him. (≈ “Guard him, give him some liberty, and do not prevent any of his friends from serving him.”)

——— 27

The syntax in Acts 23:22 is a bit mixed, and most English translations render the whole sentence as direct discourse and not indirect discourse.

CHAPTER 7—PROHIBITIONS USING OTHER NEGATED VERBS Acts 25:24

219

θεωρεῖτε τοῦτον περὶ οὗ ἅπαν τὸ πλῆθος τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἐνέτυχόν µοι ἔν τε Ἱεροσολύµοις καὶ ἐνθάδε βοῶντες µὴ δεῖν αὐτὸν ζῆν µηκέτι. You see this one about whom all the multitude of the Jews appealed to me, both in Jerusalem and here, shouting not to need him to live any longer. (≈ “Do not let him live any longer.”)28

Acts 27:21

ἔδει µέν, ὦ ἄνδρες, πειθαρχήσαντάς µοι µὴ ἀνάγεσθαι ἀπὸ τῆς Κρήτης κερδῆσαί τε τὴν ὕβριν ταύτην καὶ τὴν ζηµίαν. O men, you should have obeyed me not to sail from Crete and to sustain this injury and loss. (≈ “Do not sail from Crete.”)29

Rom 2:21b

ὁ κηρύσσων µὴ κλέπτειν κλέπτεις; You who preach not to steal, do you steal? (≈ “Do not steal.”)

Rom 2:22a

ὁ λέγων µὴ µοιχεύειν µοιχεύεις; You who say not to commit adultery, do you commit adultery? (≈ “Do not commit adultery.”)

Rom. 12:3

Λέγω γὰρ διὰ τῆς χάριτος τῆς δοθείσης µοι παντὶ τῷ ὄντι ἐν ὑµῖν µὴ ὑπερφρονεῖν παρ᾿ ὃ δεῖ φρονεῖν For, by the grace given to me, I say to everyone who is among you not to think of himself more highly than it is necessary to think (≈ “Do not think of yourself more highly than it is necessary to think.”)

——— 28 In Acts 25:24 the inf. of δεῖ takes the complementary inf. ζῆν to complete it. Both inf. constructions are negated here, but unlike English, such “double negatives” do not cancel each other. Rather, some argue that Greek “double negatives” heighten the prohibitory intent. 29 In Acts 27:21 πειθαρχήσαντάς is not itself a verb of speech, but its use to reference “obeying” implies that a command had been given; thus, the negated inf. here is recognized as an indirect discourse inf.

220 Rom 14:13b

PROHIBITIONS IN THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT ἀλλὰ τοῦτο κρίνατε µᾶλλον, τὸ µὴ τιθέναι πρόσκοµµα τῷ ἀδελφῷ ἢ σκάνδαλον. But rather decide this: to not put before a brother a stumbling block or cause of sin. (≈ “Do not put before a brother a stumbling block or cause of sin.”)

1 Cor 5:9

Ἔγραψα ὑµῖν ἐν τῇ ἐπιστολῇ µὴ συναναµίγνυσθαι πόρνοις, I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people, (≈ “Do not associate with sexually immoral people.”)

1 Cor 5:11a

νῦν δὲ ἔγραψα ὑµῖν µὴ συναναµίγνυσθαι ἐάν τις ἀδελφὸς ὀνοµαζόµενος ᾖ πόρνος ἢ πλεονέκτης ἢ εἰδωλολάτρης ἢ λοίδορος ἢ µέθυσος ἢ ἅρπαξ,... But now I write to you not to associate with anyone naming himself a brother and is a promiscuous person or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or a thief,... (≈ “Do not associate with anyone naming himself a brother and is a promiscuous person or....”)

1 Cor 5:11b

{νῦν δὲ ἔγραψα ὑµῖν...} τῷ τοιούτῳ µηδὲ συνεσθίειν. {But now I write to you...} not even to eat with such a one. (≈ “... do not even eat with such a person.”)

1 Cor 7:10

Τοῖς δὲ γεγαµηκόσιν παραγγέλλω, οὐκ ἐγὼ ἀλλὰ ὁ κύριος, γυναῖκα ἀπὸ ἀνδρὸς µὴ χωρισθῆναι,... To the married I command (not I, but the Lord): a wife is not to be separated from her husband... (≈ “Wives, do not be separated from your husband.”)

1 Cor 7:11b

{παραγγέλλω...} καὶ ἄνδρα γυναῖκα µὴ ἀφιέναι. {I command...} and a husband is not to divorce his wife. (≈ “Husbands, do not divorce your wife.”)

2 Cor 6:1

Συνεργοῦντες δὲ καὶ παρακαλοῦµεν µὴ εἰς κενὸν τὴν χάριν τοῦ θεοῦ δέξασθαι ὑµᾶς·


221

And working together, we also urge you not to receive the grace of God in vain. (≈ “Do not receive the grace of God in vain.”) 2 Cor 10:2

δέοµαι δὲ τὸ µὴ παρὼν θαρρῆσαι τῇ πεποιθήσει ᾗ λογίζοµαι τολµῆσαι ἐπί τινας τοὺς λογιζοµένους ἡµᾶς ὡς κατὰ σάρκα περιπατοῦντας. But I ask that when present I do not have to be bold with the confidence that I intend to venture against some who consider us as walking according to the flesh. (≈ “Do not force me to be overly bold when I come.”)

2 Cor 13:7

εὐχόµεθα δὲ πρὸς τὸν θεὸν µὴ ποιῆσαι ὑµᾶς κακὸν µηδέν But we pray to God for you not to do anything wrong (≈ “Do not do anything wrong.”)

Eph 3:13

διὸ αἰτοῦµαι µὴ ἐγκακεῖν ἐν ταῖς θλίψεσίν µου ὑπὲρ ὑµῶν Therefore I ask you not to become discouraged over my troubles for you (≈ “Do not become discouraged over by troubles for you.”)

Eph 4:17

Τοῦτο οὖν λέγω καὶ µαρτύροµαι ἐν κυρίῳ, µηκέτι ὑµᾶς περιπατεῖν, καθὼς καὶ τὰ ἔθνη περιπατεῖ ἐν µαταιότητι τοῦ νοὸς αὐτῶν, Therefore I say this and I testify in the Lord, that you are no longer to walk as the Gentiles walk in the futility of their mind. (≈ “Do not walk any longer as the Gentiles walk in the futility of their mind.”)

2 Thess 2:2a

{᾽Ερωτῶµεν δὲ ὑµᾶς...} εἰς τὸ µὴ ταχέως σαλευθῆναι ὑµᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ νοὸς... {Now we are asking you...} not to be quickly shaken from your mind and... (≈ “Do not be quickly shaken from your mind and...”)30

——— 30

The controlling verb for the indirect discourse prohibitions of 2 Thess 2:2a and 2b is ἐρωτῶµεν in 2 Thess 2:1.

222 2 Thess 2:2b

PROHIBITIONS IN THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT {᾽Ερωτῶµεν δὲ ὑµᾶς...}...µηδὲ θροεῖσθαι {Now we are asking you...}...not to be alarmed (≈ “Do not be alarmed.”)

1 Tim 1:3

Καθὼς παρεκάλεσά σε προσµεῖναι ἐν Ἐφέσῳ πορευόµενος εἰς Μακεδονίαν, ἵνα παραγγείλῃς τισὶν µὴ ἑτεροδιδασκαλεῖν... As I urged you when I was going into Macedonia, to remain at Ephesus in order that you may command certain persons not to teach any different doctrine... (≈ “Do not teach any different doctrine.”)

1 Tim 1:4

{παραγγείλῃς τισὶν...}...µηδὲ γενεαλογίαις ἀπεράντοις

προσέχειν

µύθοις

καὶ

{you may command certain persons...}...and not to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies (≈ “Do not pay attention to myths and endless genealogies.”) 1 Tim 1:20

Ὑµέναιος καὶ Ἀλέξανδρος, οὓς παρέδωκα τῷ σατανᾷ, ἵνα παιδευθῶσιν µὴ βλασφηµεῖν. Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I handed over to Satan in order that they may learn to not blaspheme. (≈ “Do not blaspheme.”)

1 Tim 6:17a

Τοῖς πλουσίοις ὑψηλοφρονεῖν...

ἐν

τῷ

νῦν

αἰῶνι

παράγγελλε

µὴ

As for the rich in the present age, command them not to be haughty and... (≈ “Do not be haughty.”) 1 Tim 6:17b

{παράγγελλε...}...µηδὲ ἠλπικέναι ἐπὶ πλούτου ἀδηλότητι {command them...}...and not to hope upon the uncertainty of riches (≈ “Do not hope upon the uncertainty of riches.”)

CHAPTER 7—PROHIBITIONS USING OTHER NEGATED VERBS 2 Tim 2:14b

223

Ταῦτα ὑποµίµνῃσκε διαµαρτυρόµενος ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ µὴ λογοµαχεῖν Remind them of these things, solemnly warning them before God not to quarrel about words (≈ “Do not quarrel about words.”)

Titus 3:2a

{῾Υποµίµνῃσκε αὐτοὺς...} µηδένα βλασφηµεῖν {Remind them...} not to blaspheme anyone (≈ “Do not blaspheme anyone.”)

Heb 3:18

τίσιν δὲ ὤµοσεν µὴ εἰσελεύσεσθαι εἰς τὴν κατάπαυσιν αὐτοῦ εἰ µὴ τοῖς ἀπειθήσασιν; And to whom did he swear that they will not enter his rest, but to those who were disobedient? (≈ “Let the disobedient not enter my rest.”)31

Heb. 9:8

τοῦτο δηλοῦντος τοῦ πνεύµατος τοῦ ἁγίου, µήπω πεφανερῶσθαι τὴν τῶν ἁγίων ὁδὸν ἔτι τῆς πρώτης σκηνῆς ἐχούσης στάσιν, The Holy Spirit is indicating this, the way into the holy places was not yet to have been disclosed while the first tabernacle had standing (≈ “Do not yet disclose the way into the holy places while the first tabernacle has standing.”)

Heb 12:19

καὶ σάλπιγγος ἤχῳ καὶ φωνῇ ῥηµάτων, ἧς οἱ ἀκούσαντες παρῃτήσαντο µὴ προστεθῆναι αὐτοῖς λόγον, and to the blast of a trumpet and the sound of words—those hearing it begged that another word not to be added to them. (≈ “Do not let another word be spoken to us.”)

Jas 5:17

Ἠλίας ἄνθρωπος ἦν ὁµοιοπαθὴς ἡµῖν, καὶ προσευχῇ προσηύξατο τοῦ µὴ βρέξαι Elijah was a man of similar nature to us, and he prayed fervently for it not to rain (≈ “Do not let it rain.”)

——— 31

Heb 3:18 portrays a prohibitory curse; cf. the discussions on pp. 180–81 and 199.

224


7.4.2 Negated Subject Infinitive It is worth noting that all eight NT prohibitory negated subject infinitives occur in constructions that could be included with prohibitory emulation statements, particularly with negated statements of lawfulness or obligation (cf. section 10.1 of Chapter 10). As members of this easily identifiable grammatical construction, however, we have grouped them together here. Matt 23:23b

ταῦτα [δὲ] ἔδει ποιῆσαι κἀκεῖνα µὴ ἀφιέναι. [But] to do these things and not to neglect the others is necessary. (≈ “Do not neglect the other things.”)

Luke 11:42b

ταῦτα δὲ ἔδει ποιῆσαι κἀκεῖνα µὴ παρεῖναι. But to do these things and not to neglect the others is necessary. (≈ “Do not neglect the other things.”)

Luke 18:1

Ἔλεγεν δὲ παραβολὴν αὐτοῖς πρὸς τὸ δεῖν πάντοτε προσεύχεσθαι αὐτοὺς καὶ µὴ ἐγκακεῖν, And he was telling them a parable to the effect that it is necessary for them always to pray and not to become discouraged. (≈ “Always pray and do not become discouraged.”)

Acts 15:28

ἔδοξεν γὰρ τῷ πνεύµατι τῷ ἁγίῳ καὶ ἡµῖν µηδὲν πλέον ἐπιτίθεσθαι ὑµῖν βάρος πλὴν τούτων τῶν ἐπάναγκες,... For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to lay on you a greater burden than these requirements:... (≈ “Do not lay on the Gentiles a greater burden than these requirements...”)

Acts 19:36

ἀναντιρρήτων οὖν ὄντων τούτων δέον ἐστὶν ὑµᾶς κατεσταλµένους ὑπάρχειν καὶ µηδὲν προπετὲς πράσσειν. Therefore, these things being undeniable, it is necessary for you to be calm and to do nothing reckless. (≈ “Be calm and do not do anything reckless.”)

CHAPTER 7—PROHIBITIONS USING OTHER NEGATED VERBS Rom 14:21a

225

καλὸν τὸ µὴ φαγεῖν κρέα... [It is] good not to eat meat and... (≈ “Do not eat meat and...”)

Rom 14:21b

{καλὸν...} µηδὲ πιεῖν οἶνον... {[It is] good...} not to drink wine... (≈ “... do not drink wine and...”)32

1 Cor 7:1

καλὸν ἀνθρώπῳ γυναικὸς µὴ ἅπτεσθαι· [It is] good for a man not to touch a woman. (≈ “Do not touch a woman.”)

7.4.3 Negated Appositional Infinitive Luke 9:3f

{µηδὲν αἴρετε εἰς τὴν ὁδόν...} µήτε [ἀνὰ] δύο χιτῶνας ἔχειν. {Do not be taking anything for the journey]... no possession of two tunics. (≈ “Do not take two tunics.”)33

1 Thess 4:6a

{Τοῦτο γάρ ἐστιν θέληµα τοῦ θεοῦ,...} τὸ µὴ ὑπερβαίνειν καὶ... {For this is the will of God...} not to wrong and... (≈ “Do not wrong.”)

1 Thess 4:6b

{Τοῦτο γάρ ἐστιν θέληµα τοῦ θεοῦ,...µὴ...} πλεονεκτεῖν ἐν τῷ πράγµατι τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ, {For this is the will of God...not...} to take advantage of his brother in this matter, (≈ “Do not take advantage your brother in this matter.”)

——— 32

For Rom 14:21c, see in section 13.1 of Chapter 13.

Luke 9:3a–f has a list of acc. nouns negated by µήτε, each an appositional description of the adjective µηδὲν (“nothing”); see Luke 9:3a in section 5.1.1 of Chapter 5 and 9:3b–e in section 13.1 of Chapter 13. Luke 9:3f closes the list with a substantival use of the inf. ἔχειν, while the parallel in Matt 10:10b has simply µήτε δύο χιτῶνας (“nor two tunics”; see in section 13.1 of Chapter 13) and the parallel in Mark 6:9 has a separate verbal construction: καὶ µή ἐνδύσησθε δύο χιτῶνας (“and do not put on two tunics”; see in section 6.1.1 of Chapter 6). 33

226


7.4.4 Negated Purposive Infinitive Acts 10:47b

µήτι τὸ ὕδωρ δύναται κωλῦσαί τις τοῦ µὴ βαπτισθῆναι τούτους, οἵτινες τὸ πνεῦµα τὸ ἅγιον ἔλαβον ὡς καὶ ἡµεῖς; Is anyone able to refuse water so that these not be baptized, who received the Holy Spirit just as we have? (≈ “Can anyone say, ‘Do not baptize these people’?”)

Rom 11:8a

ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς ὁ θεὸς πνεῦµα κατανύξεως, ὀφθαλµοὺς τοῦ µὴ βλέπειν καὶ.... God gave to them a spirit of stupor, eyes not to see and.... (≈ “Eyes, do not see.”)34

Rom 11:8b

{ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς ὁ θεὸς...} ὦτα τοῦ µὴ ἀκούειν, ἕως τῆς σήµερον ἡµέρας. {God gave...} ears not to hear, until this very day. (≈ “Ears, do not hear.”)35

Rom 11:10

σκοτισθήτωσαν οἱ ὀφθαλµοὶ αὐτῶν τοῦ µὴ βλέπειν καὶ τὸν νῶτον αὐτῶν διὰ παντὸς σύγκαµψον. Let their eyes be darkened so as not to see, and bend their backs forever. (≈ “Eyes, do not see.”)36

1 Cor 10:6

Ταῦτα δὲ τύποι ἡµῶν ἐγενήθησαν, εἰς τὸ µὴ εἶναι ἡµᾶς ἐπιθυµητὰς κακῶν, καθὼς κἀκεῖνοι ἐπεθύµησαν. And these things happened as examples for us, that we are not to be desirers of evil as they desired. (≈ “Do not be desirers of evil as they desired it.”)

2 Cor 3:13

...οὐ καθάπερ Μωϋσῆς ἐτίθει κάλυµµα ἐπὶ τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ πρὸς τὸ µὴ ἀτενίσαι τοὺς υἱοὺς Ἰσραὴλ εἰς τὸ τέλος τοῦ καταργουµένου.

——— 34 Each purposive inf. in Rom 11:8a, 8b, and 10 is used to portray a prohibitory curse; cf. the discussions on pp. 180–81 and 199. 35

On Rom 11:8b, see the previous footnote.

36

On Rom 11:10, see the footnote for Rom 11:8a above.


227

...not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face so that the Israelites might not gaze at the end of what was fading. (≈ “Do not gaze at the fading glow.”) 2 Cor 4:4

ἐν οἷς ὁ θεὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου ἐτύφλωσεν τὰ νοήµατα τῶν ἀπίστων εἰς τὸ µὴ αὐγάσαι τὸν φωτισµὸν τοῦ εὐαγγελίου τῆς δόξης τοῦ Χριστοῦ, ὅς ἐστιν εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ. For them the god of this world blinded the minds of the unbelievers in order that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, might not shine. (≈ “Do not let the light of the gospel shine on them.”)

1 Thess 3:3

{εἰς τὸ στηρίξαι ὑµᾶς καὶ παρακαλέσαι ὑπὲρ τῆς πίστεως ὑµῶν...} τὸ µηδένα σαίνεσθαι ἐν ταῖς θλίψεσιν ταύταις. {to strengthen and to encourage you regarding your faith...} so that no one be moved by these troubles. (≈ “Do not be moved by these troubles.”)

2 Thess 3:8

ἀλλ᾿ ἐν κόπῳ καὶ µόχθῳ νυκτὸς καὶ ἡµέρας ἐργαζόµενοι πρὸς τὸ µὴ ἐπιβαρῆσαί τινα ὑµῶν· but with toil and labor working night and day to not be a burden on any of you. (≈ “Do not be a burden on others.”)37

2 Thess 3:14

Εἰ δέ τις οὐχ ὑπακούει τῷ λόγῳ ἡµῶν διὰ τῆς ἐπιστολῆς, τοῦτον σηµειοῦσθε µὴ συναναµίγνυσθαι αὐτῷ, ἵνα ἐντραπῇ· And if anyone does not obey our message in this letter, take note of this one, so as not to associate with him, that he may be ashamed. (≈ “Do not associate with anyone who does not obey the message in our letter.”)38

——— 37 The imperatival force of 2 Thess 3:8 comes from the emulatory nature of its context (cf. section 10.3 of Chapter 10), made more explicit in 3:7 and 9. We slot it here on the prohibitory strength of its negated purposive inf. 38

Wallace categorizes the inf. in 2 Thess 3:14 as “almost surely result”; GGBB 608, n. 59. Boyer counts it as an “imperatival infinitive”; Boyer, “Infinitives,” 15, n. 29.

228 1 Pet 3:7

PROHIBITIONS IN THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT Οἱ ἄνδρες ὁµοίως, συνοικοῦντες κατὰ γνῶσιν ὡς ἀσθενεστέρῳ σκεύει τῷ γυναικείῳ, ἀπονέµοντες τιµὴν ὡς καὶ συγκληρονόµοις χάριτος ζωῆς εἰς τὸ µὴ ἐγκόπτεσθαι τὰς προσευχὰς ὑµῶν. Likewise, husbands, live with your wife with understanding, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, and as co-heirs of the grace of life, so that your prayers are not to be hindered. (≈ “By honoring your wife, do not let your prayers be hindered.”)

1 Pet 3:10b

ὁ γὰρ θέλων ζωὴν ἀγαπᾶν καὶ ἰδεῖν ἡµέρας ἀγαθὰς παυσάτω τὴν γλῶσσαν ἀπὸ κακοῦ καὶ χείλη τοῦ µὴ λαλῆσαι δόλον, For ‘Whoever desires to love life and to see good days, let him keep his tongue from evil and his lips so as not to speak deceit.’ (≈ “Keep your tongue from evil and do not speak deceit.”)39

7.4.5 Negated Complementary Infinitive Luke 4:42

καὶ οἱ ὄχλοι ἐπεζήτουν αὐτὸν καὶ ἦλθον ἕως αὐτοῦ καὶ κατεῖχον αὐτὸν τοῦ µὴ πορεύεσθαι ἀπ᾿ αὐτῶν. And the crowds were seeking him and came to him and were detaining him to not depart from them. (≈ “Do not depart from us.”)40

Acts 14:18

καὶ ταῦτα λέγοντες µόλις κατέπαυσαν τοὺς ὄχλους τοῦ µὴ θύειν αὐτοῖς.

——— 39 The paraphrase in 1 Pet 3:10 uses the vocabulary of Ps 33:13–14 LXX. The prohibition using παυσάτω (“let him stop his tongue from evil”) in 1 Pet 3:10a is counted with other lexical prohibitions in section 9.1.2 of Chapter 9. Wallace categorizes the negated inf. in 1 Pet 3:10b as an articular substantival inf., apparently rendering the µὴ as emphatically redundant of the ceasing verb in the first part of the verse; GGBB 235. It seems just as likely to render it as a purposive inf.: “let him stop his lips in such a way that they do not speak deceit.” 40 The complementary use of the inf. in Luke 4:42 is equivalent to indirect discourse, i.e., the “detaining” action (κατέχω) would likely have been verbal pleading and not physical restraint. Cf. Acts 14:18 immediately below, which explicitly describes a “restraining” action (καταπαύω) as verbal (καὶ ταῦτα λέγοντες).


229

Even saying these things they scarcely restrained the crowds to not offer sacrifice to them. (≈ “Do not offer sacrifice to us.”)41 Rom 15:1

Ὀφείλοµεν δὲ ἡµεῖς οἱ δυνατοὶ τὰ ἀσθενήµατα τῶν ἀδυνάτων βαστάζειν καὶ µὴ ἑαυτοῖς ἀρέσκειν. We who are strong ought to bear with the failings of the weak, and to not please ourselves. (≈ “Let us bear with the failings of the weak and let us not please ourselves.”)

1 Tim 5:14

Βούλοµαι οὖν νεωτέρας γαµεῖν, τεκνογονεῖν, οἰκοδεσποτεῖν, µηδεµίαν ἀφορµὴν διδόναι τῷ ἀντικειµένῳ λοιδορίας χάριν· Therefore I want younger widows to marry, to bear children, to manage their households, and to give no occasion for slander to the adversary. (≈ “Younger widows, marry, bear children, manage your households, and do not give to the adversary occasion for slander.”)

7.5 The Negated Participle: “... not doing that.” As a verbal adjective, the participle can serve a wider variety of roles in NT Greek syntax than the infinitive, and its negation occurs more often as well: 239 times.42 Nevertheless, the New Testament has fewer prohibitory uses of the negated participle than it does of the negated infinitive.43 The three participle roles utilized in NT prohibition constructions are that of ——— 41

On Acts 14:18, see the previous footnote for Luke 4:42.

42 Of the 239 negated ptcs. in the NT, 219 are negated with µή (or one of its cognates) and 20 are negated with οὐ (or one of its cognates). 43 Of the 131 negated inf. constructions in the NT, 86 (66%) are used with prohibitory force. Of the 239 negated ptc. constructions in the NT, 41 (17%) are used with prohibitory force. Of the 198 non-prohibitory negated ptc. constructions in the NT, 125 are adjectival participles (69 attributive, 55 substantival, 1 pendant), 72 are adverbial (causal, temporal, modal, etc.), and one is independent indicative (διδόντες in 2 Cor 6:3, although it can be understood as an attendant circumstance ptc. ruled by παρακαλοῦµεν in 1 Cor 6:1). Perhaps surprisingly, unlike the negated inf., there are no uses of the negated indirect discourse ptc. in the NT.

230


adverbial, attributive, and independent imperatival participles. We acknowledge that adverbial participle is a broad category, but the precise adverbial nature of some of the 19 NT prohibitory occurrences is debated. Nevertheless, the broad label is still useful when recognizing that the negated participle is used to express a prohibition of some activity accompanying the sentence’s main verb, which is usually in the imperative mood or otherwise bearing some imperatival force.44 Of the 18 negated attributive participles, fourteen are Pauline (mostly in haustafeln character lists), two occur in Luke–Acts, and two occur in 1 Peter.45 Here we use the label independent imperatival for a participle serving by itself as the main prohibitory verb in the sentence, and we identify two such negated uses in the New Testament, although we note that there are other ways to explain the imperatival force of those participles (see below). NT PROHIBITIONS USING THE NEGATED PARTICIPLE: “... NOT DOING THAT .” Section #

7.5.1 Negated Adverbial Participle: .......................................................... 19 (+ 7 lexically negated ptcs. in Acts 15:29b; Eph 4:25; 6:9; 1 Tim 6:20; Heb 12:1; Jas 1:21; 1 Pet 2:1 listed in sec. 9.2)

7.5.2 Negated Attributive Participle: ........................................................ 18 (+ 2 negated ptcs. with vision verbs in Heb 12:15a; 1 Pet 5:3 listed in sec. 8.1.1; + 1 lexically negated ptc. in Luke 1:20a listed in sec. 9:2)

7.5.3 Negated Independent Imperatival Participle: .................................. 2 (+ 1 lexically negated ptc. in Rom 12:9b listed in sec. 9.2)

TOTAL:

39

Table 7.5 7.5.1 Negated Adverbial Participle As already noted, the precise adverbial natures of some of these are debated. Two are clearly conditional participles (Gal 6:9b; 1 Pet 3:6) and many might be classified as attendant circumstance participles. But arguments can ——— 44

An additional seven adv. ptcs. used in NT prohibitions are lexically negated and thus accounted for in section 9.2 of Chapter 9: Acts 15:29b; Eph 4:25; 6:9; 1 Tim 6:20; Heb 12:1; Jas 1:21; 1 Pet 2:1. 45 In addition, two prohibitions use a negated ptc. as the object of a vision verb (in Heb 12:15a and 1 Pet 5:3), which are included in that list rather than here; see in section 8.1.1 of Chapter 8. Also a lexically negated attributive ptc. is used in a prohibition in Luke 1:20a and thus is accounted for in section 9.2 of Chapter 9.


231

be made for ten of them to be identified as modal participles, i.e. describing the (emotional/attitudinal) manner in which the controlling verb is to be accomplished (e.g. Luke 6:35; Acts 10:20; 11:12; 1 Cor 10:25, 27; Phil 1:28; 2:4; 1 Tim 5:21b; Heb 13:17; Jas 1:6).46 For the sake of clarity, in the citations of this section we put in bold typeface the negated participle and underline its controlling verb. Luke 6:35

πλὴν ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑµῶν καὶ ἀγαθοποιεῖτε καὶ δανίζετε µηδὲν ἀπελπίζοντες· ... But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return, ... (≈ “Lend and do not expect anything in return.”)

Acts 10:20

ἀλλὰ ἀναστὰς κατάβηθι καὶ πορεύου σὺν αὐτοῖς µηδὲν διακρινόµενος ὅτι ἐγὼ ἀπέσταλκα αὐτούς. But getting up go down and go with them not discriminating for I have sent them. (≈ “Go and do not discriminate.”)

Acts 11:12

εἶπεν δὲ τὸ πνεῦµά διακρίναντα....

µοι

συνελθεῖν

αὐτοῖς

µηδὲν

And the Spirit said to me to go with them not discriminating.... (≈ “Go and do not discriminate.”)47 Rom 12:19

µὴ ἑαυτοὺς ἐκδικοῦντες, ἀγαπητοί, ἀλλὰ δότε τόπον τῇ ὀργῇ, Not avenging yourselves, beloved, but give place to the wrath [of God], (≈ “Do not avenge yourselves, but give place to the wrath of God.”)

——— It might be possible to read Acts 27:7 as if the negated ptc. προσεῶντος (pres. act. ptc. masc. sg. gen. of προσεάω, “I permit to go farther”) portrays the anthropomorphic idea that the wind had issued a prohibition against the ship: “Do not go any farther.” We have not counted it as such, however, because the context does not seem to promote such a reading. 46

47 In Acts 11:12 συνελθεῖν is an inf. of indirect discourse, but even as part of that indirect discourse, the negated ptc. διακρίναντα modifies the inf. (and is thus in the acc. case) and is itself not a ptc. of indirect discourse; this is confirmed by Acts 10:20.

232


1 Cor 10:25

Πᾶν τὸ ἐν µακέλλῳ πωλούµενον ἀνακρίνοντες διὰ τὴν συνείδησιν·

ἐσθίετε

µηδὲν

Eat whatever is sold in the meat market not raising any question on the ground of conscience. (≈ “Eat whatever is sold in the meat market and do not raise any question on the ground of conscience.”) 1 Cor 10:27

εἴ τις καλεῖ ὑµᾶς τῶν ἀπίστων καὶ θέλετε πορεύεσθαι, πᾶν τὸ παρατιθέµενον ὑµῖν ἐσθίετε µηδὲν ἀνακρίνοντες διὰ τὴν συνείδησιν. If one of the unbelievers invites you and you are willing to go, eat whatever is set before you not raising any question on the ground of conscience. (≈ “Eat whatever is set before you and do not raise any question on the ground of conscience.”)

1 Cor 10:33

καθὼς κἀγὼ πάντα πᾶσιν ἀρέσκω µὴ ζητῶν τὸ ἐµαυτοῦ σύµφορον ἀλλὰ τὸ τῶν πολλῶν, ἵνα σωθῶσιν. just as I also please all in all things, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, that they may be saved. (≈ “Do not be seeking your own advantage, but that of many, that they may be saved.”)48

Gal 6:9b

τὸ δὲ καλὸν ποιοῦντες µὴ ἐγκακῶµεν, καιρῷ γὰρ ἰδίῳ θερίσοµεν µὴ ἐκλυόµενοι. And let us not grow weary of doing good, for in due time we will reap, if we do not give up. (≈ “Do not be weary and do not give up.”)49

——— The imperatival force of 1 Cor 10:32 (with γίνεσθε) is at work in v. 33. In the very next line Paul instructs his readers further, “Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ” (1 Cor 11:1). Thus, 1 Cor 10:33 might be judged a prohibitory emulation statement (cf. section 10.3 of Chapter 10), but we slot it here on the prohibitory strength of its negated adv. ptc. 48

49 Although clearly a conditional ptc., the negated pl. nom. ptc. ἐκλυόµενοι in Gal 6:9b gathers prohibitory force in the context of the negated hortatory subj. (µὴ ἐγκακῶµεν) in v. 9a, which is slotted in section 7.2.1 above.

CHAPTER 7—PROHIBITIONS USING OTHER NEGATED VERBS Phil 1:28

233

{ἵνα...ἀκούω τὰ περὶ ὑµῶν, ὅτι στήκετε...} καὶ µὴ πτυρόµενοι ἐν µηδενὶ ὑπὸ τῶν ἀντικειµένων, {in order that...I may hear things about you, that you are standing firm...} and not being frightened in anything by the opponents, (≈ “Stand firm and do not be frightened in anything by the opponents.”)50

Phil 2:4

{πληρώσατέ µου τὴν χαρὰν ἵνα τὸ αύτὸ φρονῆτε...} µὴ τὰ ἑαυτῶν ἕκαστος σκοποῦντες ἀλλὰ [καὶ] τὰ ἑτέρων ἕκαστοι. {fulfill my joy that you may think the same way...} each one not looking after his own interests, but also the interests of others. (≈ “Think the same way and do not look only after your own interests, but also the interests of others.”)51

1 Tim 5:21b

Διαµαρτύροµαι ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ καὶ τῶν ἐκλεκτῶν ἀγγέλων, ἵνα ταῦτα φυλάξῃς χωρὶς προκρίµατος, µηδὲν ποιῶν κατὰ πρόσκλισιν. Before God and Christ Jesus and the elect angels I solemnly charge you that you may keep these things without prejudice, not doing anything out of favoritism. (≈ “Keep these things without prejudice and do nothing out of favoritism.”)52

——— 50 For Phil 1:28, the controlling verb στήκετε is found in 1:27. Considering the syntax of Phil 1:27–28, some might want to identify the negated ptc. µὴ πτυρόµενοι as an indirect discourse ptc. (even though it is nom.; cf. GGBB 645). Rather, in Phil 1:27 the subj. ἀκούω takes the acc. τὰ περὶ ὑµῶν as indirect discourse, which in turn is described epexegetically by the ὅτι clause. Within that ὅτι clause, the negated nom. ptc. of Phil 1:28 (µὴ πτυρόµενοι) indicates a circumstance attendant with στήκετε (or the manner of it, if taken as a modal ptc.). 51

For Phil 2:4, the controlling impv. verb φρονῆτε is found in 2:2.

The ἵνα clause of 1 Tim 5:21b might be identified as a “substantival ἵνα clause–direct object” (so GGBB 475; a.k.a. “content ἵνα clause”) or an “imperatival ἵνα clause,” since it serves as a (positive) command introduced by a verb of speech (διαµαρτύροµαι). Regardless, the negated ptc. here describes a circumstance attendant to the main verb of the command, aor. act. subj. 2nd per. sg. φυλάξῃς (“keep”). 52

234


Titus 1:14

{ἔλεγχε αὐτοὺς ἀποτόµως ἵνα ὑγιαίνωσιν ἐν τῇ πίστει,...} µὴ προσέχοντες Ἰουδαϊκοῖς µύθοις καὶ ἐντολαῖς ἀνθρώπων ἀποστρεφοµένων τὴν ἀλήθειαν. {rebuke them severely so that they may be sound in the faith...} not paying attention to Jewish myths and commands of people turning away from the truth. (≈ “Be sound in the faith and do not be paying attention to Jewish myths and commands of people turning away from the truth.”)53

Titus 2:8

λόγον ὑγιῆ ἀκατάγνωστον, ἵνα ὁ ἐξ ἐναντίας ἐντραπῇ µηδὲν ἔχων λέγειν περὶ ἡµῶν φαῦλον. uncondemnable sound speech, in order that the opponent may be ashamed, having nothing evil to say about us. (≈ “Let the opponent be ashamed and do not let them have anything evil to say about us.”)54

Heb 6:1

Διὸ ἀφέντες τὸν τῆς ἀρχῆς τοῦ Χριστοῦ λόγον ἐπὶ τὴν τελειότητα φερώµεθα, µὴ πάλιν θεµέλιον καταβαλλόµενοι µετανοίας ἀπὸ νεκρῶν ἔργων καὶ πίστεως ἐπὶ θεόν, Therefore, leaving the discussion of the beginning things about the Messiah, let us go on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith in God, (≈ “Leave the beginning level Messiah discussion, move on to maturity, and do not lay again the foundational points about repentance from dead works and about faith in God.”)

Heb 10:25

{καὶ κατανοῶµεν ἀλλήλους...} µὴ ἐγκαταλείποντες τὴν ἐπισυναγωγὴν ἑαυτῶν,

——— For Titus 1:14, the controlling verb ὑγιαίνωσιν is found in 1:13 in a positive purposive ἵνα clause, which is thus not numbered with the purposive ἵνα prohibitions in section 8.2.1 of Chapter 8. The negated ptc. in Titus 1:14, however, indicates a prohibitory circumstance attendant to that positive purpose; cf. the English renderings of HCSB, NIV, and NLT. 53

54 Because the purposive ἵνα clause in Titus 2:8 is not negated, it is not numbered with the purposive ἵνα prohibitions listed in section 8.2.1 of Chapter 8. The negated ptc., however, indicates a prohibitory circumstance attendant to that positive purpose; cf. the NLT rendering.


235

{and let us be concerned for one another...} not neglecting the gathering together of ourselves, (≈ “Be concerned for one another and do not neglect the gathering together of ourselves.”) Heb 13:17

Πείθεσθε τοῖς ἡγουµένοις ὑµῶν καὶ ὑπείκετε, αὐτοὶ γὰρ ἀγρυπνοῦσιν ὑπὲρ τῶν ψυχῶν ὑµῶν ὡς λόγον ἀποδώσοντες, ἵνα µετὰ χαρᾶς τοῦτο ποιῶσιν καὶ µὴ στενάζοντες· Obey and submit to your leaders, for they are watching over your souls as those who will give an account, so that they may do this with joy and not be groaning. (≈ “Obey and submit to your leaders and let them do this with joy and do not force them to groan about it.”)

Jas 1:6

αἰτείτω δὲ ἐν πίστει µηδὲν διακρινόµενος· But let him ask in faith, not doubting. (≈ “Ask in faith and do not doubt.”)

Jas 1:25

ὁ δὲ παρακύψας εἰς νόµον τέλειον τὸν τῆς ἐλευθερίας καὶ παραµείνας, οὐκ ἀκροατὴς ἐπιλησµονῆς γενόµενος ἀλλὰ ποιητὴς ἔργου, οὗτος µακάριος ἐν τῇ ποιήσει αὐτοῦ ἔσται. But the one who peers into the perfect law of freedom and continues, not becoming a forgetful hearer but a doer of work, this one will be blessed in his doing. (≈ “Do not become a forgetful hearer of the perfect law of freedom.”)55

1 Pet 3:6

ἧς ἐγενήθητε τέκνα ἀγαθοποιοῦσαι καὶ µὴ φοβούµεναι µηδεµίαν πτόησιν. whose children you become, if doing good and not fearing any terror. (≈ “Do good and do not fear any terror.”)

——— 55 The imperatival force of Jas 1:25 comes from its pragmatic structure (cf. section 12.3 of Chapter 12 on prohibitory promises); but we slot it here on the prohibitory strength of its negated adv. ptc.

236


7.5.2 Negated Attributive Participle Attributive participles are those that serve in adjectival roles. In the New Testatment 18 negated attributive participles serve prohibitory functions. Most of these serve as subjects or complements with verbs of being (all except Rom 1:28; Col 1:23; 1 Tim 5:9, and 13), and many of these appear alongside other copulative descriptors discussed in Chapters 9 and 13 (see in sections 9.2 and 13.3; cf. Table 13.3.2 on p. 450). Again in this section, for each citation we put the negated participle in bold typeface, underline its controlling verb, and provide an equivalent prohibitory gloss. Luke 1:20b

καὶ ἰδοὺ ἔσῃ σιωπῶν καὶ µὴ δυνάµενος λαλῆσαι And behold, you will be silent and not be able to speak (≈ “Be silent and be unable to speak.”)56

Acts 13:11

καὶ νῦν ἰδοὺ χεὶρ κυρίου ἐπὶ σὲ καὶ ἔσῃ τυφλὸς µὴ βλέπων τὸν ἥλιον ἄχρι καιροῦ. And now, behold, the hand of the Lord is upon you, and you will be blind not seeing the sun for a time. (≈ “Be blind and not seeing the sun for a time.”)57

Rom 1:28

Καὶ καθὼς οὐκ ἐδοκίµασαν τὸν θεὸν ἔχειν ἐν ἐπιγνώσει, παρέδωκεν αὐτοὺς ὁ θεὸς εἰς ἀδόκιµον νοῦν, ποιεῖν τὰ µὴ καθήκοντα, And as they did not approve to hold God in acknowledgement, God delivered them to a disreputable mind to do the things that are not proper. (≈ “No one is to do what their disreputable mind brings about.”)58

——— The double ptc. construction of Luke 1:20a–b (fut. ἔσῃ + ptc. σιωπῶν + negated ptc. δυνάµενος) is clearly a curse, so we include both parts as kinds of negative commands; see also Acts 13:11 below and the discussion on pp. 180–81 and 199. As a lexical prohibition, Luke 1:20a (σιωπῶν) is listed in section 9.2 of Chapter 9. 56

Paired with the adj. τυφλὸς, we judge the negated ptc. βλέπων in Acts 13:11 to be an adjectival ptc. rather than periphrastic. As with other prohibitory curse passages, we include Acts 13:11 as indicative of a kind of negative command; cf. pp. 180–81 and 199. 57

58

The imperatival force of Rom 1:28 comes more from its status as an emulation statement (cf. section 10.1 of Chapter 10), but we slot it here on the prohibitory strength of its negated substantival ptc. The “things that are not proper” in Rom 1:28 are described and warned against in Rom 1:26–27, 29–32; see in section 12.2 of Chapter 12.

CHAPTER 7—PROHIBITIONS USING OTHER NEGATED VERBS Rom 14:22

237

µακάριος ὁ µὴ κρίνων ἑαυτὸν ἐν ᾧ δοκιµάζει· Happy [is] the one not condemning himself by what he approves. (≈ “Do not condemn yourself by what you approve.”)59

1 Cor 7:29

τὸ λοιπόν, ἵνα καὶ οἱ ἔχοντες γυναῖκας ὡς µὴ ἔχοντες ὦσιν... From now on, let those who have wives be as though they have none,... (≈ “If married, do not be living as though you have a wife.”)

1 Cor 7:30a

{ὦσιν...}...καὶ οἱ κλαίοντες ὡς µὴ κλαίοντες... ... and {let} those who are weeping {be} as though they were not weeping,... (≈ “If weeping, do not be living as though you are weeping.”)

1 Cor 7:30b

{ὦσιν...}...καὶ οἱ χαίροντες ὡς µὴ χαίροντες... ... and {let} those who are rejoicing {be} as though they were not rejoicing,... (≈ “If rejoicing, do not be living as though you are rejoicing.”)

1 Cor 7:30c

{ὦσιν...}...καὶ οἱ ἀγοράζοντες ὡς µὴ κατέχοντες,... ... and {let} those who are buying {be} as though they were not owning,... (≈ “If buying, do not be living as though you are owning.”)

1 Cor 7:31

{ὦσιν...}...καὶ οἱ χρώµενοι τὸν κόσµον ὡς µὴ καταχρώµενοι· παράγει γὰρ τὸ σχῆµα τοῦ κόσµου τούτου. ... and {let} those who are using the world {be} as though they are not making full use. For the form of this world is passing away. (≈ “Those who are using the world, do not be living as though you are making full use.”)

——— 59 The imperatival force of Rom 14:22 comes from its pragmatic structure (cf. section 12.3 of Chapter 12 on prohibitory promises); but we slot it here on the prohibitory strength of its negated substantival ptc.

238


Col 1:23

εἴ γε ἐπιµένετε τῇ πίστει τεθεµελιωµένοι καὶ ἑδραῖοι καὶ µὴ µετακινούµενοι ἀπὸ τῆς ἐλπίδος τοῦ εὐαγγελίου οὗ ἠκούσατε if indeed you remain in the faith grounded and firm and not being shifted away from the hope of the gospel which you heard. (≈ “Do not be shifted away from the hope of the gospel which you heard.”)

1 Tim 3:8b

{δεῖ...εἶναι...} Διακόνους ὡσαύτως σεµνούς, µὴ διλόγους, µὴ οἴνῳ πολλῷ προσέχοντας, µὴ αἰσχροκερδεῖς, Deacons likewise {must be} reverent, not insincere, not addicted to much wine, not greedy. (≈ “Do not have deacons who are addicted to much wine.”)60

1 Tim 5:9

Χήρα καταλεγέσθω µὴ ἔλαττον ἐτῶν ἑξήκοντα γεγονυῖα, Let a widow be enrolled who is not less than sixty years of age, (≈ “Do not enroll widows over sixty years of age.”)61

1 Tim 5:13

ἅµα δὲ καὶ ἀργαὶ µανθάνουσιν περιερχόµεναι τὰς οἰκίας, οὐ µόνον δὲ ἀργαὶ ἀλλὰ καὶ φλύαροι καὶ περίεργοι, λαλοῦσαι τὰ µὴ δέοντα. And besides that, they learn to be idlers, going about from house to house, and not only idlers, but also gossips and busybodies, saying the things they must not. (≈ “They must not say these things.”)62

——— 60 For 1 Tim 3:2–6 and 8–11, the controlling verbal construction δεῖ εἶναι (“it is necessary for ... to be”) is presumed from 1 Tim 3:2, and the presumption of the inf. is why διάκονος and its modifiers are here in the acc. case. The negative expression prohibitions of 1 Tim 3:8a and 3:8c are listed in section 13.3 of Chapter 13. 61

Translating the negated ptc. in 1 Tim 5:9 as an if clause (i.e., “if she is not less than sixty years of age”) would seem to change its classification to that of conditional ptc. Note that after three descriptors of the widow (vv. 9–10a), the remaining five descriptors (v. 10b) are stated explicitly as if clauses, each with its own occurrence of εἰ (and these five may well be intended expositions of µαρτυρουµένη in v. 10a; see NKJV, ESV, HCSB; cf. NASB). 62

The imperatival force of 1 Tim 5:13 comes more from its status as an emulation statement (cf. section 10.1 of Chapter 10), but we slot it here on the prohibitory strength of its negated substantival ptc.

CHAPTER 7—PROHIBITIONS USING OTHER NEGATED VERBS Titus 2:3b

239

{εἶναι...} πρεσβύτιδας ὡσαύτως ἐν καταστήµατι ἱεροπρεπεῖς, µὴ διαβόλους µὴ οἴνῳ πολλῷ δεδουλωµένας, Likewise, older women {are to be} reverent in behavior, not slanderers, not enslaved to much wine, (≈ “Older women, do not be enslaved to much wine.”)63

Titus 2:9

{εἶναι...} Δούλους ἰδίοις δεσπόταις ὑποτάσσεσθαι ἐν πᾶσιν, εὐαρέστους εἶναι, µὴ ἀντιλέγοντας, Slaves {are} to be submissive to their own masters in everything, to be well-pleasing, not talking back,... (≈ “Slaves, be submissive to your own masters in everything and do not be talking back.”)64

Titus 2:10

{Δούλους...εἶναι...} µὴ νοσφιζοµένους, ἀλλὰ πᾶσαν πίστιν ἐνδεικνυµένους ἀγαθήν, {Slaves are to be} not stealing, but showing all good faith, (≈ “Slaves, do not be stealing, but showing all good faith.”)65

1 Pet 1:14

ὡς τέκνα ὑπακοῆς µὴ συσχηµατιζόµενοι ταῖς πρότερον ἐν τῇ ἀγνοίᾳ ὑµῶν ἐπιθυµίαις {ἀλλὰ...καὶ αὐτοὶ ἅγιοι ἐν πάσῃ ἀναστροφῇ γενήθητε,} As obedient children not being conformed to the desires of your former ignorance, {but... you yourselves also be holy in all conduct.} (≈ “As obedient children, do not be conformed to the desires of your former ignorance, but be holy.”)66

——— For Titus 2:2–10, the controlling verb is the inf. εἶναι (“to be,” in v. 2, an indirect discourse inf. for λάλει in Titus 2:1), which is why πρεσβῦτις, δούλος, and their modifiers are here in the acc. case. The negated complement prohibition of 2:3a (µὴ διαβόλους) is listed in section 13.3 of Chapter 13. 63

64

On Titus 2:9, see the previous footnote.

65

On Titus 2:10, see the footnote for Titus 2:3b above.

66

Although 1 Pet 1:14 is sometimes listed displaying an example of an impv. ptc., there is a controlling impv. verb (γενήθητε) in 1:15.

240


1 Pet 3:9

µὴ ἀποδιδόντες κακὸν ἀντὶ κακοῦ ἢ λοιδορίαν ἀντὶ λοιδορίας, τοὐναντίον δὲ εὐλογοῦντες ὅτι εἰς τοῦτο ἐκλήθητε ἵνα εὐλογίαν κληρονοµήσητε. Not repaying evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary, blessing, because for this you were called in order that you may inherit a blessing. (≈ “Do not repay evil for evil or reviling for reviling.”)67

7.5.3 Negated Independent Imperatival Participle This last subcategory of negated participles has seen lengthy discussion in the scholarly literature, including proposals regarding the origin of the imperatival participle and questions about whether or not it is a legitimate grammatical-syntactical category. Moulton argues that, by virtue of habit— esp. in the papyri of the Hellenistic period—the participle came to be used imperativally by itself.68 David Daube, however, re-evaluates Moulton’s extra-biblical evidence and argues for a Hebrew background to these constructions whereby they are appeals or allusions to codes of living, without giving the codes’ proper imperatives.69 On the other hand, Henry G. Meecham argues against Daube’s proposal and, with several examples from the papyri, concludes (in support of Moulton) “that in epistolary formulae at least the participle is sometimes used for the imperative.”70 Others have favored a both–and solution, i.e., a Hebrew-influenced ellipsis of the impera——— 67 The string of pl. nom. adjectives in 1 Pet 3:8 is such that each appears to be a pred. nom. for the subject nom. πάντες, with a presumed impv. verb of being. Rather than view it as an independent imperatival ptc. (e.g., ATR 945–46), we see the negated pl. nom. ptc. of 1 Pet 3:9 as an attributive adjective that fits into this string of other attributive adjectives. 68

MHT 1:180–83 and 1:223–24. See the discussions in ATR 945–46, VAG 370–77, and VANT 386–88. 69

David Daube, “Participle and Imperative in 1 Peter,” appended note in Edward Gordon Selwyn, The First Epistle of St. Peter (2nd ed.; New York: Macmillan, 1947), 467–88. Daube remarks, “It is conceivable that the New Testament participles derive from Aramaic speech. But Hebrew origin is much more likely in this case. Religious codes at that period were normally written in Hebrew.... In the passages from the epistles here under discussion, the Semitism belongs to the technical language of religious codes—which was Hebrew” (p. 480). 70

Henry G. Meecham, “The Use of the Participle for the Imperative in the New Testament,” ExpT 58 (1947): 207–208; the quote is from p. 208. Meecham lists the following NT passages as having independent (a.k.a. “absolute”) participles serving with imperatival force (both positive and negative): Rom 12:9–19; Col 3:16; 1 Pet 2:18; 3:1, 7, 16; 4:8–10. To this list some add 2 Cor 8:24 and 1 Pet 1:14.


241

tive form of the verb of being.71 Robertson offers a dictum on the imperatival participle: “In general it may be said that no participle should be explained this way that can properly be connected with a finite verb.”72 Perhaps, then, ellipsis of a finite verb—esp. a verb of being, whose ellipsis in Greek is not uncommon—is the solution for the apparent finite uses of the so-called independent imperatival participle.73 Eventually the debate becomes a moot discussion; that is, we can note that the label independent imperatival participle can be read as shorthand for acknowledging the ellipsis of a governing verb of being in the imperative mood to go with the expressed periphrastic participle. The real question might be a more pragmatic one: where on the scale of strength or urgency does the imperatival use of a participle lie in comparison to other imperatival constructions? In the project at hand, we leave this question to the side. Our list of NT negated independent imperatival participles contains only two. But the lexically negated participle in Rom 12:9b also qualifies as a prohibitory imperatival participle (see in section 9.2 of Chapter 9). Rom 12:16a

τὸ αὐτὸ εἰς ἀλλήλους φρονοῦντες, µὴ τὰ ὑψηλὰ φρονοῦντες ἀλλὰ τοῖς ταπεινοῖς συναπαγόµενοι. µὴ γίνεσθε φρόνιµοι παρ᾿ ἑαυτοῖς.

——— 71 See Turner in MHT 3:343; 4:128; and Grammatical Insights into the New Testament (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1965), 165–68. See now the most recent treatment of Jeffrey S. Lamp, “An Alternative Explanation for the Alleged ‘Imperatival’ Participles of Romans 12:9– 21,” Tyndale Bulletin 61.2 (2010): 311–16. 72

ATR 1133–34. Likewise, BDF suggest that the (very rare) NT “imperatival infinitives” be best explained as occurring due to the ellipsis of a governing verb of saying (like λέγω) or of necessity (like δεῖ); BDF 196–97 (§389). There are only three (and all positive) NT imperatival infinitives: Rom 12:15 (bis) and Phil 3:16; see the discussion in GGBB 608, n. 59. 73 This is the explanation for the ptcs. in Rom 12:9–21 recommended by Lamp, who gives an eight-fold argument for acknowledging an implied impv. form of the copula (ἐστέ, “be”) to govern the ptcs. in the (universally agreed upon) imperatival context of Romans 12; Lamp, “An Alternative Explanation for the Alleged ‘Imperatival’ Participles,” 311–16. If this solution is accepted for all independent imperatival uses of the ptc. in the NT, it dissolves the uniqueness of the category. As Lamp puts it, “It would shift the imperatival force in the clauses from the participles to the implied copula, thus leaving the participles to function in a more robust adjectival sense by predicating a quality in terms of a verbal action to the subject. It allows the participles to be construed in a way that is semantically quite common for participles while maintaining the sense of exhortation found in the passage” (p. 316; cf. VAG 375).

242

PROHIBITIONS IN THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT thinking in harmony with one another, not thinking proud thoughts, but associating with the lowly. Do not be wise in your own estimation. (≈ “Think in harmony with one another and do not think proud thoughts, but associate with the lowly. Do not be wise in your own estimation.”)74

Rom 12:17

µηδενὶ κακὸν ἀντὶ κακοῦ ἀποδιδόντες, προνοούµενοι καλὰ ἐνώπιον πάντων ἀνθρώπων· Not repaying anyone evil for evil, but trying to do what is honorable before all people. (≈ “Do not repay anyone evil for evil, but try to do what is honorable before all people.”)75

——— 74 Due to their related content, with a change of punctuation, it is possible to render the three ptcs. in Rom 12:16a as attendant circumstance ptc. dependent upon (i.e., getting their imperatival force from) the negated pres. impv. µὴ γίνεσθε in 12:16b. 75 Due to their related content, with a change of punctuation, it is possible to render the three ptcs. in Rom 12:17–18 as attendant circumstance ptcs.—along with the one in Rom 12:19—dependent upon (i.e., getting their imperatival force from) the aor. impv. δότε in v. 19.

—CHAPTER 8— Prohibitions Using Negated Dependent Clause Constructions This chapter covers the last of the more purely grammatical-syntactical groupings of Greek prohibitions. The Greek New Testament communicates prohibitions using two kinds of negated dependent clause constructions, each with recognizable subcategories as surveyed in Table 8.0. This chapter briefly describes each of these classifications of prohibitory statements and lists all the NT occurrences of each. NT PROHIBITIONS USING NEGATED DEPENDENT CLAUSES Section #

8.1 Negated Object Clauses: “… that you not do that.” .......................... 65 8.1.1 Negated Object Clauses with Vision Verbs: ................. 31 8.1.2 Negated Object Clauses with Speech Verbs: ................ 22 8.1.3 Negated Object Clauses with Fearing Verbs: ............... 12 8.2 Negated Final Clauses: “… in order that you not do that.” .............. 101 8.2.1 Negated Conjunctive Purpose Clauses with ἵνα: ......... 62 8.2.2 Negated Conjunctive Purpose Clauses with µήποτε: ... 28 8.2.3 Negated Conjunctive Purpose Clauses with ὅπως: ........ 5 8.2.4 Negated Purpose Clauses Lacking a Conjunction: ........ 6 TOTAL:

166

Table 8.0

8.1 Negated Object Clauses: “… that you not do that.” This first negated dependent clause classification of prohibitions has been recognized by various Greek scholars, but in doing so there has been little agreement on what unifies the grouping. This is readily seen in the various (and sometimes less-than-helpful) titles used for the classification,

244


which has included “the subjunctive with verbs of fearing, etc.”1 or “positive commands not to do.”2 These such labels reveal that the classification collects together several sub-groups. As we describe them, what these subgroups have in common is that the head verbs introduce a prohibition expressed in an object clause. We specify three sub-groupings: vision verbs, speech verbs, and fearing verbs, and Table 8.1 displays the NT tallies for each of these. Even apart from their lexical distinctions, the groupings have other distinguishing differences. The imperative vision verbs3 are sometimes so introductory that some scholars have simply counted some of their object clauses as examples of simple aorist subjunctive prohibitions, but these vision verbs are not technically mere introductions. On the other hand, the speech verbs with prohibitory object clauses, are more naturally introductory. And, unlike the vision verbs, the speech verbs are not in the imperative mood. Finally, the fearing verbs with prohibitory object clauses split the difference in the extreme. That is, in the first person the fearing verbs are part of what seem to be very polite direct prohibitions, and in the third person the fearing verbs report indirectly prohibitions that are about life-and-death situations. NT PROHIBITIONS USING NEGATED OBJECT CLAUSES: “... THAT YOU NOT DO THAT .” Section #

8.1.1 Negated Object Clauses with Vision Verbs: ............................... 31 8.1.2 Negated Object Clauses with Speech Verbs: .............................. 22 8.1.3 Negated Object Clauses with Fearing Verbs: .............................. 12 TOTAL:

65

Table 8.1

——— 1

Wallace, GGBB 477.

2

Boyer, “Supplemental Manual of Information: Imperative Verbs,” 65. Our list here is similar to Boyer’s except that he (accidentally?) excludes Matt 6:1; 9:30b; 24:6; Luke 21:34; Gal 6:1; and 2 John 8; and that he includes Luke 21:14 (inf.); John 6:27 (pres. impv.); 1 Tim 5:9 (ptc.); 6:17 (inf.); and 1 Pet 3:3 (negative expression), which are prohibitions that we have slotted elsewhere as noted. 3

The vision verb participles in the prohibitions of Gal 6:1; Heb 12:15a; and 1 Pet 5:2 have imperatival force from their controlling verbs, which are in the impv. mood.

CHAPTER 8—PROHIBITIONS USING NEGATED CLAUSES

245

8.1.1 Negated Object Clauses with Vision Verbs: Of the NT verbs used for watching out or paying attention, five occur in prohibitory communications: βλέπω, ἐπισκοπέω, προσέχω, ὁράω, and σκοπέω.4 When used in a prohibition, these vision verbs have the content of their warning spelled out more clearly with a negated object clause, and most often this is done with µή + the aorist subjunctive. In three passages a conjunction is used (i.e, ἵνα in 2 John 8; µήποτε in Heb. 3:12; and Luke 21:34, with two verbs). Interestingly, vision verb object clause prohibitions are almost always translated conjunctively into English (i.e., “See to it that you do not do...”). A handful of other constructions brings the total to 31 NT occurrences of prohibitions with vision verbs as outlined in Table 8.1.1.5 As mentioned above, some may consider the vision words here to be mere exclamatory introductions and classify these passages as additional examples of the main group of aorist subjunctive prohibitions (and thus preferring that they be listed in Chapter 6 above). But such classification would not account for all of the prohibitions in this group. Furthermore, unlike the usual third person (e.g., “He said, ‘Do not do that’”) or even the more rare first person (e.g., “I say, ‘Do not do that’”)6 introductory phrases for prohibitions in the aorist subjunctive classification, the second person imperative vision verbs are part of the command or request itself (e.g., “He said, ‘See to it that you do not do that’”).7 This use of imperative vision verbs seems to add a sense of urgency, a sense which is borne more overtly in ——— 4 In addition to four of these five verbs (ἐπισκοπέω being excepted), LN 1:333–34 (§§27.55–60) lists together these other verbs of vision and attention: ἀγρυπνέω, γρηγορέω, ἐπέχω, παραιτέοµαι, and the idiom ἀναζώννυµαι τὰς ὀσφύας τῆς διανοίας—to bind up the loins of the mind.

Our count does not include the two NT occurrences of γρηγορεῖτε καὶ προσεύχεσθε, ἵνα µὴ … (“Watch and pray in order that you may not …”) as vision verb constructions because we have rendered the ἵνα clause as dependent only upon the speech verb προσεύχεσθε; see the rationale under Matt 26:41 and Mark 14:38 in section 8.1.2 below. Notice also that γρηγορέω (“stay awake”) is never used in any other vision verb prohibitory constructions in the NT. Some might want to include here the seven NT προσέχω + ἀπό constructions (Matt 7:15; 10:17; 16:6, 11, 12; Luke 12:1; 20:46) and the two Markan βλέπω + ἀπό constructions (Mark 8:15b; 12:38; cf. Luke 21:30) as these warn against particular people or things. But, since these nine constructions do not involve a negated object clause, we have listed them under lexical prohibitions in Chapter 9 (most in section 9.1.1, but Matt 6:12 in section 9.3). 5

6

See Mark 5:7; 9:25b; and Luke 8:28 in section 6.1.1 of Chapter 6.

7 Where the vision word of a prohibition is not spelled in the impv. mood, it is a ptc. that takes the imperatival force of the main verb of the passage. This happens in three NT passages (involving nine vision verb prohibitions): Gal 6:1; Heb 12:15–16; and 1 Pet 5:2–3.

246


some of their lexical values (e.g., προσέχω, pay attention). In the citations here, the prohibitory clause is in bold typeface and the controlling vision verb is underlined. NT PROHIBITORY OBJECT CLAUSES WITH VISION VERBS with µή + aor. subj. (6 in 2nd per. + 7 in 3rd per.) ...... 13 with µηδείς + aor. subj. (2nd per.) .......................... 2 with µή alone ...................................................... 2 with µήποτε + aor. subj. (3rd per.) .......................... 2 with µήποτε + ἔσται ............................................ 1 with ἵνα + µή + aor. subj. (2nd per) ........................ 1 with µή + pres. impv. (2nd per.) .............................. 1 with µηδείς + pres. impv. (3rd per.) ........................ 1 with µή + pres. inf. .............................................. 1 with µή + ἔσται + ptc. ......................................... 1 with µή + ἐστίν ................................................... 1 with µή + (implied cop.) + noun + adj. .............. 1 with µή + ptc. ...................................................... 1 with µήδε + ptc. .................................................. 1 with µή + adverb ................................................. 1 with µήδε + adverb .......................................... 1 TOTAL:

VERBS U SED βλέπω ....... 11 ἐπισκοπέω* .. 7 προσέχω* ..... 3 ὁράω ............ 8 σκοπέω ..... 2 TOTAL: *

31

Sometimes with single occurrences ruling more than one prohibitory object.

31

Table 8.1.1 Matt 6:1

Προσέχετε [δὲ] τὴν δικαιοσύνην ὑµῶν µὴ ποιεῖν ἔµπροσθεν τῶν ἀνθρώπων πρὸς τὸ θεαθῆναι αὐτοῖς· Pay attention not to be doing your righteousness in front of people so as to be seen by them. (≈ “Do not be doing your righteousness in front of people.”)8

Matt 8:4

ὅρα µηδενὶ εἴπῃς, ἀλλὰ ὕπαγε … See that you tell no one, but go … (≈ “Do not tell anyone.”)

——— 8 Interestingly, Boyer classifies the infinitive of Matt 6:1 as that of “indirect discourse” (Boyer, “Infinitives,” 8) and Wallace classifies it as a “purpose” infinitive (GGBB 592). Our identification of its use here as the object of a vision verb places it more in the traditional “complementary” category. This playfulness should keep us humble about our modern labels.

CHAPTER 8—PROHIBITIONS USING NEGATED CLAUSES Matt 9:30b

247

ὁρᾶτε µηδεὶς γινωσκέτω. See that no one comes to know this. (≈ “Do not let anyone come to know this.”)

Matt 18:10

Ὁρᾶτε µὴ καταφρονήσητε ἑνὸς τῶν µικρῶν τούτων· See to it that you do not despise one of these little ones. (≈ “Do not despise one of these little ones.”)

Matt 24:4

βλέπετε µή τις ὑµᾶς πλανήσῃ· See to it that no on misleads you. (≈ “Do not let anyone mislead you.”)

Matt 24:6

ὁρᾶτε µὴ θροεῖσθε· See that you are not alarmed. (≈ “Do not be alarmed.”)

Mark 1:44

ὅρα µηδενὶ µηδὲν εἴπῃς, ἀλλὰ ὕπαγε … See that you say nothing to anyone, but go … (≈ “Do not say anything to anyone, but go ….”)

Mark 13:5

βλέπετε µή τις ὑµᾶς πλανήσῃ· See to it that no on misleads you. (≈ “Do not let anyone mislead you.”)

Luke 11:35

σκόπει οὖν µὴ τὸ φῶς τὸ ἐν σοὶ σκότος ἐστίν. Watch out therefore that the light in you not be darkness. (≈ “Do not let the light in you be darkness.”)

Luke 21:8a

βλέπετε µὴ πλανηθῆτε· See that you are not led astray. (≈ “Do not be led astray.”)

Luke 21:34a

Προσέχετε δὲ ἑαυτοῖς µήποτε βαρηθῶσιν ὑµῶν αἱ καρδίαι ἐν κραιπάλῃ καὶ µέθῃ καὶ µερίµναις βιωτικαῖς καὶ … But pay attention to yourselves lest your hearts be weighted down with excess and drunkenness and worries of life, and... (≈ “Do not let your hearts be weighted down …”)

248


Luke 21:34b

{Προσέχετε δὲ ἑαυτοῖς µήποτε...} ἐπιστῇ ἐφ᾿ ὑµᾶς αἰφνίδιος ἡ ἡµέρα ἐκείνη… {But pay attention to yourselves lest...} that day come upon you suddenly … (≈ “Do not let that day come upon you suddenly …”)9

Acts 13:40

βλέπετε οὖν µὴ ἐπέλθῃ τὸ εἰρηµένον ἐν τοῖς προφήταις· Therefore, see that what has been said by the prophets does not happen. (≈ “Do not let happen what has been said ….”)

1 Cor 8:9

βλέπετε δὲ µή πως ἡ ἐξουσία ὑµῶν αὕτη πρόσκοµµα γένηται τοῖς ἀσθενέσιν. But see that this right of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. (≈ “Do not let this right of yours somehow become...”)

1 Cor 10:12

Ὥστε ὁ δοκῶν ἑστάναι βλεπέτω µὴ πέσῃ. Thus the one thinking that he stands, must see to it that he does not fall. (≈ “The one thinking that he stands must not fall.”)

Gal 5:15

εἰ δὲ ἀλλήλους δάκνετε καὶ κατεσθίετε, βλέπετε µὴ ὑπ᾿ ἀλλήλων ἀναλωθῆτε. But if you bite and devour one another, watch out that you are not destroyed by one another. (≈ “Do not be destroyed by one another.”)

Gal 6:1

ὑµεῖς οἱ πνευµατικοὶ καταρτίζετε τὸν τοιοῦτον ἐν πνεύµατι πραΰτητος, σκοπῶν σεαυτὸν µὴ καὶ σὺ πειρασθῇς. you who are spiritual restore this one in a spirit of gentleness, watching yourself so that you may not also be tempted. (≈ “Do not be tempted also.”)10

——— 9

Luke 21:34a–b contains one of the few pairs of NT prohibitions with two different verbs utilizing a single occurrence of a negative (µήποτε); cf. the note for Heb 12:15a below. 10

The vision word in Gal 6:1 (σκοπῶν) is a ptc. but gets its imperatival force from the main verb of the sentence, καταρτίζετε (pres. impv. act. 2nd per. pl. of καταρτίζω, “I restore”).

CHAPTER 8—PROHIBITIONS USING NEGATED CLAUSES Col 2:8

249

Βλέπετε µή τις ὑµᾶς ἔσται ὁ συλαγωγῶν διὰ τῆς φιλοσοφίας καὶ κενῆς ἀπάτης κατὰ τὴν παράδοσιν τῶν ἀνθρώπων, See that no one will be taking you captive through philosophy and empty deceit according to human tradition, (≈ “Do not be taken captive through philosophy and empty deceit according to human tradition.”)

1 Thess 5:15

ὁρᾶτε µή τις κακὸν ἀντὶ κακοῦ τινι ἀποδῷ, See that no one repays anyone evil for evil. (≈ “Do not let anyone repay anyone evil for evil.”)

Heb 3:12

Βλέπετε, ἀδελφοί, µήποτε ἔσται ἔν τινι ὑµῶν καρδία πονηρὰ ἀπιστίας ἐν τῷ ἀποστῆναι ἀπὸ θεοῦ ζῶντος, See, brothers, that there will not be an evil heart of unbelief in any one of you for turning from the living God. (≈ “Do not let an evil heart of unbelief be in any.”)

Heb 12:15a

ἐπισκοποῦντες µή τις ὑστερῶν ἀπὸ τῆς χάριτος τοῦ θεοῦ, … seeing that no one is falling short of the grace of God,... (≈ “Do not let anyone fall short of the grace of God.”)11

Heb 12:15b

{ἐπισκοποῦντες...} µή τις ῥίζα πικρίας ἄνω φύουσα ἐνοχλῇ καὶ … {seeing...} that no root of bitterness springing up causes trouble and... (≈ “Do not let a root of bitterness cause trouble.”)

Heb 12:15c

{ἐπισκοποῦντες... µή τις...} δι᾿ αὐτῆς µιανθῶσιν πολλοί, {seeing... that not...} by it many are defiled. (≈ “Do not let many be defiled by it.”)

——— The pres. ptc. ἐπισκοποῦντες in Heb 12:15a takes its imperatival force from διώκετε (pres. impv. act. 2nd per. pl. of διώκω, “I pursue”) in 12:14. The one occurrence of the ptc. has four direct object clauses in Heb 12:15a–c and 16 (the same occurs in 1 Pet 5:2–3 where one occurrence of ἐπισκοποῦντες has three direct object clauses; see below). Note also that the pair of object clauses in Heb 12:15b–c share one occurrence of a negative (µή) for two prohibitory ideas. Cf. Luke 21:34a–b (above) and Jas 3:14a–b in section 5.1.1 of Chapter 5. 11

250 Heb 12:16a

PROHIBITIONS IN THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT {ἐπισκοποῦντες ...} µή τις πόρνος ἢ... {seeing...} that no one [is] sexually immoral or... (≈ “Do not let anyone be sexually immoral.”)

Heb 12:16b

{ἐπισκοποῦντες...µή τις...} βέβηλος ὡς ᾽Ησαῦ, {seeing... that no one...} [is] irreverent like Esau, (≈ “Do not let anyone be irreverent like Esau.”)

Heb 12:25

Βλέπετε µὴ παραιτήσησθε τὸν λαλοῦντα· See that you do not reject the one who speaks. (≈ “Do not reject the one who speaks.”)

1 Pet 5:2a

ποιµάνατε τὸ ἐν ὑµῖν ποίµνιον τοῦ θεοῦ [ἐπισκοποῦντες] µὴ ἀναγκαστῶς ἀλλὰ ἑκουσίως κατὰ θεόν, … Tend the flock of God that is among you, [overseeing] not by constraint, but willingly according to God; … (≈ “Do not oversee in a forced fashion but willingly.”)12

1 Pet 5:2b

{ἐπισκοποῦντες...} µηδὲ αἰσχροκερδῶς ἀλλὰ προθύµως,… {overseeing...} not for shameful gain, but eagerly… (≈ “Do not oversee for shameful gain but eagerly.”)

1 Pet 5:3

{ἐπισκοποῦντες...} µηδ᾽ ὡς κατακυριεύοντες τῶν κλήρων ἀλλὰ τύποι γινόµενοι τοῦ ποιµνίου· {overseeing...} not as domineering your charges but being the flock’s examples. (≈ “Do not oversee in a domineering fashion but by being the flock’s example.”)

——— 12 The disputed reading of the pres. ptc. ἐπισκοποῦντες in 1 Pet 5:2 is being treated here as original, which renders all three contrasting statements in 5:2–3 as under its control with its imperatival force from the aor. impv. ποιµάνατε (aor. impv. act. 2nd per. pl. of ποιµαίνω, “I shepherd”). See the standard commentaries on 1 Peter and those on the NT text. If ἐπισκοποῦντες is inauthentic here, then the prohibitory phrases of 5:2a and 2b (negations of adverbs) would be listed in section 13.2 of Chapter 13 and that of 5:3 (a negated ptc.) would be listed in section 7.5.1 of Chapter 7.

CHAPTER 8—PROHIBITIONS USING NEGATED CLAUSES 2 John 8

251

βλέπετε ἑαυτούς, ἵνα µὴ ἀπολέσητε ἃ εἰργασάµεθα Watch yourselves that you may not lose what we worked for (≈ “Do not lose what we worked for.”)

Rev 19:10

ὅρα µή· See that you don’t. (≈ “Do not do that.”)

Rev 22:9

ὅρα µή· See that you don’t. (≈ “Do not do that.”)

8.1.2 Negated Object Clauses with Speech Verbs: We have already noted prohibitions constructed with infinitives and verbs of speech or perception to portray indirect discourse. There are several other ways available to an author desiring to communicate an indirect prohibition—i.e., to inform the reader about a prohibition that had been given without quoting the prohibition itself. The several methods used in the New Testament are outlined in Table 8.1.2. In the subsection here, we cover the use of a conjunctive object clause attached to a verb of speech (including prayer in “prohibitory requests”).13 In these, the object clause functions epexegetically, that is, it gives more specifically the content indicated by the main indicative verb of speech. Sometimes an imperative verb of speech (including prayer) is followed by a conjunctive object clause that functions epexegetically, giving indirectly the content of the thing to say (e.g., Matt 24:20a; Mark 13:18; Acts 8:24). Of the 22 NT constructions listed here, 21 utilize ἵνα with µή (or one of its compounds) and one utilizes ὅπως µηδέν (Acts 8:24). In the instance of John 6:39, the object clause is descriptive not of a verb of speech or willing but of a pronoun (τοῦτο) which in turn represents a noun of willing (θέληµα); ——— 13

See Margaret G. Sim, Marking Thought and Talk in New Testament Greek: New Light from Linguistics on the Particles ἵνα and ὅτι (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2010), esp. pp. 75–98. Sim suggests “that in using ἵνα with the subjunctive to indicate the content of the request after a verb of asking, commanding or praying, a writer is inviting his readers to infer the attitude of the speaker. The particle ἵνα signals the representation of the speaker’s thought or utterance in the following clause. If the speaker’s attitude is not in focus, then the writer will use the (accusative and) infinitive. If, however, the writer wishes to present the reader with the actual words said to be used, so that it is the reader’s responsibility to interpret the utterance, then he will introduce the direct speech by a form of λέγω, usually a participle” (p. 97).

252


we included this verse here nonetheless, since it gives the content of a commanded message. The most questionable constructions included here are those configured with first person indicative verbs of speech/communication, as these could be understood as nothing more than explanations—perhaps as true purpose/result clauses—without any epexegetical prohibitory function (e.g., John 16:1; Col 2:4; 1 John 2:1). In the citations here, the prohibitory clause is in bold typeface and the controlling verb of speech is underlined. NT PROHIBITIONS IN INDIRECT DISCOURSE Indirect Discourse Infinitives (section 7.4.1 of Chapter 7) ...................... 58 Purposive Infinitives Portraying Indirect Discourse ........................ 1 (Acts 10:47b in section 7.4.4 of Chapter 7)

Complementary Infinitives Portraying Indirect Discourse .............. 2 (Luke 4:42 and Acts 14:18 in section 7.4.5 of Chapter 7)

Adverbial Participles within Indirect Discourse ............................... 3 (Acts 11:12; Phil 1:28; 1 Tim 5:21b in section 7.5.1 of Chapter 7)

Attributive Participles within Indirect Discourse ............................. 3 (Titus 2:3b, 9, 10 in section 7.5.2 of Chapter 7)

Lexical Prohibitions in Indirect Discourse (section 9.3 of Chapter 9) ... 22 Lexically Implied Indirect Discourse Prohibitions .......................... 24 (section 9.5 of Chapter 9)

Object Clauses with Speech Verbs (section 8.1.2) ............................. 22 TOTAL:

135

Table 8.1.2 Matt 12:16b

καὶ ἐπετίµησεν αὐτοῖς ἵνα µὴ φανερὸν αὐτὸν ποιήσωσιν, and he rebuked them that they must not make him known, (≈ “Do not make me known.”)

Matt 16:20b

τότε διεστείλατο τοῖς µαθηταῖς ἵνα µηδενὶ εἴπωσιν ὅτι αὐτός ἐστιν ὁ χριστός. Then he charged the disciples that they must not tell anyone that he is the Christ. (≈ “Do not tell anyone that I am the Christ.)

Matt 24:20a

προσεύχεσθε δὲ ἵνα µὴ γένηται ἡ φυγὴ ὑµῶν χειµῶνος … But pray that your flight may not be in winter … (≈ “Pray, ‘Do not let our flight be in winter’.”)

CHAPTER 8—PROHIBITIONS USING NEGATED CLAUSES Matt 26:41

253

γρηγορεῖτε καὶ προσεύχεσθε, ἵνα µὴ εἰσέλθητε εἰς πειρασµόν· τὸ µὲν πνεῦµα πρόθυµον ἡ δὲ σὰρξ ἀσθενής. Stay awake and be praying so that you may not enter into temptation. The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak. (≈ “Pray, ‘Do not let us enter into temptation’.”)14

Mark 3:12b

καὶ πολλὰ ἐπετίµα αὐτοῖς ἵνα µὴ αὐτὸν φανερὸν ποιήσωσιν and he was rebuking them much that they must not make him known, (≈ “Do not make me known.”)

Mark 5:10

καὶ παρεκάλει αὐτὸν πολλὰ ἵνα µὴ αὐτὰ ἀποστείλῃ ἔξω τῆς χώρας. And he was urging him much that he would not send them out of the territory. (≈ “Do not send us out of the territory.”)

Mark 5:43b

καὶ διεστείλατο αὐτοῖς πολλὰ ἵνα µηδεὶς γνοῖ τοῦτο, And he strictly charged them that no one should know this, (≈ “Do not let anyone know this.”)

Mark 6:8a

καὶ παρήγγειλεν αὐτοῖς ἵνα µηδὲν αἴρωσιν εἰς ὁδὸν εἰ µὴ ῥάβδον µόνον,... And he commanded them that they would be taking nothing on the journey except a staff only,... (≈ “Do not take anything on the journey ….’”)15

——— 14 In the context of the disciples sleeping, in both Matt 26:41 and Mark 14:38 we are reading the first impv. verb (γρηγορεῖτε) as a positive command and the ἵνα clause with the prohibitory content as dependent only upon the second impv. verb (προσεύχεσθε). If the ἵνα clause is dependent upon both impv. verbs here, both Matt 26:41 and Mark 14:38 might be classified with the other vision verb object clauses in section 8.1.1 above. Luke’s version of this command is instructive: he uses the word for “arise” (ἀνίστηµι) instead of the alertness verb (γρηγορέω) and he uses it as a participle, thus rendering “pray” as the reigning verb for the ἵνα clause; see Luke 22:46b below.

Cf. the Synoptic parallels to Mark 6:8a where Matt 10:9a has the aor. subj. µὴ κτήσησθε (“do not acquire”; see in section 6.1.1 of Chapter 6) and Luke 9:3a has the pres. impv. µηδὲν αἴρετε (“do not be taking anything”; see in section 5.1.1 of Chapter 5). For the remainder of their lists (i.e., Matt 10:9b–c, 10a–d; Mark 6:8b–d; Luke 9:3b–e), see in section 13.1 of Chapter 13 (but Luke 9:3f, with a negated inf., in section 7.4.3 of Chapter 7). 15

254


Mark 7:36b

καὶ διεστείλατο αὐτοῖς ἵνα µηδενὶ λέγωσιν· ὅσον δὲ αὐτοῖς διεστέλλετο, αὐτοὶ µᾶλλον περισσότερον ἐκήρυσσον. And he charged them that they would tell no one. But the more he charged them, the more boldly they proclaimed. (≈ “Do not tell anyone this.”)

Mark 8:30b

καὶ ἐπετίµησεν αὐτοῖς ἵνα µηδενὶ λέγωσιν περὶ αὐτοῦ. And he rebuked them that they tell no one concerning him. (≈ “Do not tell anyone about me.”)

Mark 9:9b

διεστείλατο αὐτοῖς ἵνα µηδενὶ ἃ εἶδον διηγήσωνται, he charged them that they should explain to no one what they saw, (≈ “Do not explain what you saw to anyone.”)

Mark 13:18

προσεύχεσθε δὲ ἵνα µὴ γένηται χειµῶνος· But pray that it may not be in winter … (≈ “Pray, ‘Do not let our flight be in winter’.”)

Mark 14:38

γρηγορεῖτε καὶ προσεύχεσθε, ἵνα µὴ ἔλθητε εἰς πειρασµόν· Stay awake and be praying so that you may not enter into temptation. (≈ “Pray, ‘Do not let us enter into temptation’.”)16

Luke 8:31

καὶ παρεκάλουν αὐτὸν ἵνα µὴ ἐπιτάξῃ αὐτοῖς εἰς τὴν ἄβυσσον ἀπελθεῖν. And they were urging him that he would not order them to depart into the abyss. (≈ “Do not order us to depart into the abyss.”)

Luke 16:28b

ὅπως διαµαρτύρηται αὐτοῖς, ἵνα µὴ καὶ αὐτοὶ ἔλθωσιν εἰς τὸν τόπον τοῦτον τῆς βασάνου. so that he may warn them, so that they do not also come into this place of torment. (≈ “Do not go into the place of torment.”)

——— 16

On Mark 14:38, see the footnote for Matt 26:41 above.

CHAPTER 8—PROHIBITIONS USING NEGATED CLAUSES Luke 22:32

255

ἐγὼ δὲ ἐδεήθην περὶ σοῦ ἵνα µὴ ἐκλίπῃ ἡ πίστις σου· But I prayed for you that your faith may not fail. (≈ “Do not let his faith fail.”)

Luke 22:46b

ἀναστάντες προσεύχεσθε, ἵνα µὴ εἰσέλθητε εἰς πειρασµόν. Rising pray so that you may not enter into temptation. (≈ “Rising pray, ‘Do not let us enter into temptation’.”)

John 6:39

τοῦτο δέ ἐστιν τὸ θέληµα τοῦ πέµψαντός µε, ἵνα πᾶν ὃ δέδωκέν µοι µὴ ἀπολέσω ἐξ αὐτοῦ, ἀλλὰ ἀναστήσω αὐτὸ [ἐν] τῇ ἐσχάτῃ ἡµέρᾳ. And this is the will of the one who sent me: that I should not lose any out of all he has given to me, but raise it up on the last day. (≈ “Do not loose any of those I give you... .”)

John 16:1

Ταῦτα λελάληκα ὑµῖν ἵνα µὴ σκανδαλισθῆτε. I have said these things to you so that you would not fall away. (≈ “Do not fall away.”)

John 19:31

Οἱ οὖν Ἰουδαῖοι, ἐπεὶ παρασκευὴ ἦν, ἵνα µὴ µείνῃ ἐπὶ τοῦ σταυροῦ τὰ σώµατα ἐν τῷ σαββάτῳ, ἦν γὰρ µεγάλη ἡ ἡµέρα ἐκείνου τοῦ σαββάτου, ἠρώτησαν τὸν Πιλᾶτον ἵνα κατεαγῶσιν αὐτῶν τὰ σκέλη καὶ ἀρθῶσιν. Since it was the day of Preparation, the Jews therefore asked Pilate that their legs be broken and they be taken away so that the bodies would not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day). (≈ “Do not leave their bodies on the cross on the Sabbath.”)

Acts 8:24

δεήθητε ὑµεῖς ὑπὲρ ἐµοῦ πρὸς τὸν κύριον ὅπως µηδὲν ἐπέλθῃ ἐπ᾿ ἐµὲ ὧν εἰρήκατε. Pray for me to the Lord that nothing of what you have said may come upon me. (≈ “Pray, ‘Do not let the things we have said come upon him’.”)

256


1 Cor 1:10

Παρακαλῶ δὲ ὑµᾶς, ἀδελφοί, διὰ τοῦ ὀνόµατος τοῦ κυρίου ἡµῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἵνα τὸ αὐτὸ λέγητε πάντες καὶ µὴ ᾖ ἐν ὑµῖν σχίσµατα, And I urge you, brothers, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that divisions not be among you, (≈ “Do not have divisions among you.”)

8.1.3 Negated Object Clauses with Fearing Verbs: The only fearing verb used in NT prohibitions is φοβέω (found there only in middle/passive and thus often treated as though deponent: φοβέοµαι). Four times in Acts, Luke uses the third person to report indirectly life-anddeath related prohibitions. Paul uses the verb three times in the first person as part of seven direct, polite prohibitory commands (Gal 4:11; 2 Cor 11:3; and 12:20–21 where one occurrence serves five object clauses). It occurs once in Heb 4:1 as a hortatory subjunctive with µήποτε negating the object clause. Ten of the twelve constructions are with aorist subjunctive objects; one is with a perfect indicative object (Gal 4:11); and with an implied subjunctive copulative (2 Cor 12:20c). Thus, the prohibitory use of object clauses with φοβέοµαι can be outline as in Table 8.1.3. It is worth noting that this tally does not include the 21 prohibitions using µή with the present imperative of φοβέοµαι and the four using µή with the aorist subjunctive of φοβέοµαι.17 NT PROHIBITORY OBJECT CLAUSES WITH FEARING VERBS Book of Acts: pass. ptc. + µή + aor. subj. (1 in 1st per. + 3 in 3rd per.) .... 4 2 Corinthians: 2 x φοβοῦµαι (11:3 and 12:20) + 4 x µή (3 with πως + 1 alone + 2 serving twice = 6) + 5 aor. subj. (3 in 1st per. + 2 in 3rd per. + 1 implied = 6) ....... 6 Galatians: φοβοῦµαι + µή πως + pf. ind. (1st per.) ............................. 1 Hebrews: hortatory subj. + µήποτε + aor. subj. (3rd per.) ............... 1 TOTAL:

12

Table 8.1.3 ——— The 21 present impv. prohibitions with φοβέοµαι are found in Matt 10:28, 31; 14:27; 17:7; 28:5, 10; Mark 5:36; 6:50; Luke 1:13, 30; 2:10; 5:10; 8:50; 12:7, 32; John 6:20; 12:15; Acts 18:9a; 27:24; Rev 1:17; 2:10; see in section 5.1.1 of Chapter 5. The four aorist subj. prohibitions with φοβέοµαι are found in Matt 1:20; 10:26; Luke 12:4; 1 Pet 3:14a; see in section 6.1.1 of Chapter 6). 17


257

Those, of course, are commands to “not fear” and not commands to “be afraid so as not to do” something else. In the citations listed here, the prohibitory clause is in bold typeface and the controlling verb of fear is underlined. Acts 5:26

ἐφοβοῦντο γὰρ τὸν λαὸν µὴ λιθασθῶσιν. for they were afraid lest they would be stoned by the people. (≈ “Do not let the people stone us.”)

Acts 23:10

Πολλῆς δὲ γινοµένης στάσεως φοβηθεὶς ὁ χιλίαρχος µὴ διασπασθῇ ὁ Παῦλος ὑπ᾿ αὐτῶν ἐκέλευσεν τὸ στράτευµα καταβὰν ἁρπάσαι αὐτὸν ἐκ µέσου αὐτῶν... When the dissension became great, the commander, fearing lest Paul would be torn apart by them, he commanded the troops, going down, to take him from their midst... (≈ “Do not let Paul be torn apart by them.”)

Acts 27:17

φοβούµενοί τε µὴ εἰς τὴν Σύρτιν ἐκπέσωσιν,... and fearing lest they might run aground on the Syrtis... (≈ “Do not let us run aground on the shallows of Syrtis.”)

Acts 27:29

φοβούµενοί τε µή που κατὰ τραχεῖς τόπους ἐκπέσωµεν, ἐκ πρύµνης ῥίψαντες ἀγκύρας τέσσαρας ηὔχοντο ἡµέραν γενέσθαι. And fearing lest we might run aground somewhere on rocky places, casting four anchors from the stern, they were praying for day to come. (≈ “Do not let us run aground somewhere on rocky places.”)

2 Cor 11:3

φοβοῦµαι δὲ µή πως, ὡς ὁ ὄφις ἐξηπάτησεν Εὕαν ἐν τῇ πανουργίᾳ αὐτοῦ, φθαρῇ τὰ νοήµατα ὑµῶν ἀπὸ τῆς ἁπλότητος [καὶ τῆς ἁγνότητος] τῆς εἰς τὸν Χριστόν. But I fear lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds may be corrupted away from the sincerity [and purity] that is in Christ. (≈ “Do not let your minds be corrupted away from the sincerity [and purity] that is in Christ.”)

258


2 Cor 12:20a

φοβοῦµαι γὰρ µή πως ἐλθὼν οὐχ οἵους θέλω εὕρω ὑµᾶς... For I fear lest coming I may find you not as I wish... (≈ “Do not let me find you in an undesirable condition.”)18

2 Cor 12:20b

{φοβοῦµαι γὰρ µή...} κἀγὼ εὑρεθῶ ὑµῖν οἷον οὐ θέλετε·... {For I fear lest...} and that I may be found by you not as you wish... (≈ “Do not let me be found in an undesirable condition.”)

2 Cor 12:20c

{φοβοῦµαι γὰρ µή...} µή πως ἔρις, ζῆλος, θυµοί, ἐριθείαι, καταλαλιαί, ψιθυρισµοί, φυσιώσεις, ἀκαταστασίαι· {For I fear lest...} that somehow [there may be] strife, jealousy, anger, disputes, slander, gossip, conceit, disturbances; (≈ “Do not have strife, jealousy, anger,....”)19

2 Cor 12:21a

{φοβοῦµαι...} µὴ πάλιν ἐλθόντος µου ταπεινώσῃ µε ὁ θεός µου πρὸς ὑµᾶς καὶ... And again {I fear lest...} when I come my God may humble me before you, and... (≈ “Do not make me be humbled by God when I come.”)

2 Cor 12:21b

{φοβοῦµαι...µή...} πενθήσω πολλοὺς τῶν προηµαρτηκότων {And I fear lest...} I may have to mourn many who have sinned previously (≈ “Do not make me mourn many who previously sinned.”)

Gal 4:11

φοβοῦµαι ὑµᾶς µή πως εἰκῇ κεκοπίακα εἰς ὑµᾶς. I fear for you, lest somehow I have labored for you in vein. (≈ “Do not render my labor for you in vein.”)

Heb 4:1

Φοβηθῶµεν οὖν, µήποτε καταλειποµένης ἐπαγγελίας εἰσελθεῖν εἰς τὴν κατάπαυσιν αὐτοῦ δοκῇ τις ἐξ ὑµῶν ὑστερηκέναι.

——— The one occurrence of φοβοῦµαι in 2 Cor 12:20a has five object clauses in vv. 20a–c and 21a–b. Note also the object pairs in 12:20a–b and 21a–b, each sharing one negative (µή). 18

With the repetition of µή in 2 Cor 12:20c, the subj. verb of being is presumed as a third object of the verb of fearing in this verse. 19


259

Therefore, let us fear lest, while a promise remains to enter his rest, any of you should seem to have come short of it. (≈ “Do not think you have come short of his rest.”)

8.2 Negated Final Clauses: “… in order that you not do that.” We have already considered the potential for expressing prohibitions in purpose clauses constructed with the infinitive (section 7.4.4 of Chapter 7). We turn now to investigate purpose clauses constructed with conjunctions, labeled “final clauses” by some grammarians. The conjunctions used in NT Greek prohibitory final clauses are ἵνα + µή, µήποτε, and more rarely ὅπως + µή.20 It is clear enough that not every final clause is intended to communicate a prohibition, not even those with negative particles. Furthermore, some NT prohibitions constructed with negated conjunction clauses are counted in the lists of object clauses with verbs of vision, with verbs of speech, and with verbs of fearing (see sections 8.1.1–3 above). Thus, the contextual setting of the final clause is important for recognizing the presence of potential prohibitory implications, which are sometimes directed at the reader and are other times simply reported (indirectly) to the reader. A negated conjunctive purpose clause attached to an imperative verb usually gives more detail to that direct command such that the imperative verb expresses the means by which the prohibition is carried out (e.g., περιπατεῖτε in John 12:35; ἐξέλθατε in Rev 18:4). The imperative verb may be presumed or inferred from earlier (e.g., Matt 26:5b where the presumed verb form is explicitly negated with µὴ). If a negated final clause is attached to an indicative verb, it typically does not have prohibitory force.21 The prohibitory force of conjunctive purpose clauses is more obvious in some examples than it is in others. Apart from pointing to the items in the list here, we might illustrate the prohibitory force of conjunctive purpose clauses by examining how a non-example would be converted into a true prohibitory statement. Notice, for instance, Gal 4:16: πνεύµατι περιπατεῖτε καὶ ἐπιθυµίαν ——— 20

Notice that these are syntactically distinct from non-prohibitory purpose clauses that are negated by οὐ (and its compounds); see the NT examples of οὐχ ἵνα clauses in Mark 4:21; John 6:38; 1 Cor 7:35; 2 Cor 2:4; 8:13; 13:7. 21

Exceptions are found in such places as narrative passages (e.g., Luke 16:26a and b; Acts 20:16; 27:42), in passages where imperatival intention is otherwise clear (e.g., Mark 3:9; Acts 4:17a; 24:4; Rom 11:25b; 1 Cor 1:17b), and in the small group of final clauses without conjunctions (e.g., 2 Cor 2:7; 8:20; 9:4; 12:6). A most interesting exception is 1 Cor 4:6b, which is also odd in that the negated ἵνα clause has an ind. verb form instead of a subj. one.

260


σαρκὸς οὐ µὴ τελέσητε. As it is, the positive command clause is ajoined to a negated result clause by the conjunction καί. If, however, the positive command, πνεύµατι περιπατεῖτε (pres. impv.: “be walking by the Spirit”) were followed by a conjunctive purpose clause (i.e., if καὶ were replaced by ἵνα), then we would render the conjunctive purpose clause as a prohibition: the positive command would be explained as a way to carry out the prohibition: “By walking by the Spirit, do not fulfill the desires of the flesh.” As it is, however, without the ἵνα, we understand the second clause to be merely declaring the result of the positive command: “Be walking by the Spirit and you will not fulfill the desires of the flesh.” NT PROHIBITIONS USING NEGATED FINAL CLAUSES: “... IN ORDER THAT YOU NOT DO THAT .” Section #

8.2.1 8.2.2 8.2.3 8.2.4

Negated Conjunctive Purpose Clauses with ἵνα: ........................ 62 Negated Conjunctive Purpose Clauses with µήποτε: ................. 28 Negated Conjunctive Purpose Clauses with ὅπως: ..................... 5 Negated Purpose Clauses Lacking a Conjunction: .................... 6

TOTAL:

101

Table 8.2 In our listing of final clause prohibitions, we put each final clause in bold typeface and provide both a wooden English translation and a roughly equivalent prohibitory gloss. We group these NT prohibitions by the separate conjunctions utilized (i.e., ἵνα, or µήποτε, or ὅπως) or in a small group of final clauses without conjunctions; the NT tallies for these can be seen in Table 8.2. There are eight passages where prohibitory final clauses are attached to prohibitory main clauses. While these final clauses can be understood as mere explanations of their main prohibitions, we include them here because, even apart from their service as explanations, they seem to have their own prohibitory implications (see below Matt 7:1b; 26:5b; John 5:14; Acts 4:17a; 1 Cor 7:5b; Col 3:21b; 1 Tim 3:6b; Jas 5:9b). 8.2.1 Negated Conjunctive Purpose Clauses with ἵνα: By far the most common prohibitory final clause construction in the New Testament is that which utilizes ἵνα. Note that the 21 uses of ἵνα clauses as the objects of verbs of speech are counted above (in section 8.1.2) and are not final clauses as we define them here. We do not include here the one prohibitory use of a ἵνα final clause as the object of a vision verb (2 John 8)

261


as it has been counted already in that category (see in section 8.1.1 above). Likewise, we do not include here the six prohibitory remarks in ἵνα final clauses that involve lexically negated terms (Rom 3:19; Phil 2:15a, 15b, 15c; 1 Tim 5:7; 1 Pet 2:24), as those are accounted for in Chapter 9 (see in section 9.2). Curiously, one prohibitory ἵνα final clause is constructed with the negative conjunction µήποτε as its negation (Luke 14:29). In the end, the 62 NT occurrences of prohibitory ἵνα final clauses can be noted in a small variety of constructions, as pictured in Table 8.2.1.22 NT PROHIBITIONS USING NEGATED FINAL CLAUSES WITH ἵνα ἵνα + Present Subj.: ................................................................................ 24 (+ 1 Tim 5:7 in sec. 9.2)

ἵνα + Aorist Subj.: .................................................................................. 36 (+ 2 John 8 in sec. 8.1.1 ; and Rom 3:19; Phil 2:15a, 15b, 15c; 1 Pet 2:24 in sec. 9.2)

ἵνα + Present Ind. (1 Cor 4:6b): ................................................................. 1 ἵνα + Future Ind. (John 12:40d): ................................................................ 1 TOTAL:

62

Table 8.2.1 Matt 7:1b

Μὴ κρίνετε, ἵνα µὴ κριθῆτε· “Judge not, that you be not judged. (≈ “By means of not judging others, do not allow yourselves to be judged.”)

Matt 17:27

ἵνα δὲ µὴ σκανδαλίσωµεν αὐτούς, πορευθεὶς εἰς θάλασσαν βάλε ἄγκιστρον καὶ τὸν ἀναβάντα πρῶτον ἰχθὺν ἆρον, καὶ ἀνοίξας τὸ στόµα αὐτοῦ εὑρήσεις στατῆρα· ἐκεῖνον λαβὼν δὸς αὐτοῖς ἀντὶ ἐµοῦ καὶ σοῦ. But, in order that we not give offense to them, go to the sea and cast a hook and take the first fish that comes up, and opening its mouth you will find a shekel. Taking that, give it to them for me and you. (≈ “By means of paying the tax with money found in the fish, do not offend them.”)

——— 22 Voelz remarks, “It is noteworthy that the construction ἵνα + present subjunctive as a negative command, evidenced in the papyri, is not well attested in the NT”; Voelz, “The Language of the New Testament,” 945.

262


Matt 26:5b

µὴ ἐν τῇ ἑορτῇ, ἵνα µὴ θόρυβος γένηται ἐν τῷ λαῷ. Not during the festival, so that there will not be an uproar among the people. (≈ “By not arresting him during the festival, do not let there be an uproar among the people.”)

Mark 3:9

καὶ εἶπεν τοῖς µαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ ἵνα πλοιάριον προσκαρτερῇ αὐτῷ διὰ τὸν ὄχλον ἵνα µὴ θλίβωσιν αὐτόν· And he said to his disciples that a boat should stand ready for him because of the crowd in order that they not crush him. (≈ “By making a boat ready, do not let the crowd crush me.”)

Mark 4:12a

ἵνα βλέποντες βλέπωσιν καὶ µὴ ἴδωσιν, … in order that while seeing they may see and not perceive … (≈ “By teaching in parables, do not let them perceive.”)23

Mark 4:12b

{ἵνα...} καὶ ἀκούοντες ἀκούωσιν καὶ µὴ συνιῶσιν,... {in order that...} and while hearing they may hear and not understand … (≈ “By teaching in parables, do not let them understand.”)

Luke 8:10a

ἵνα βλέποντες µὴ βλέπωσιν, … in order that while seeing they may not be seeing … (≈ “By teaching in parables, do not let them be seeing.”)24

Luke 8:10b

{ἵνα...} καὶ ἀκούοντες µὴ συνιῶσιν, {in order that...} and while hearing they may not understand … (≈ “By teaching in parables, do not let them understand.”)

——— 23 Regarding Mark 4:12a–b and Luke 8:10a–b, see the significant discussion on the NT citations of Isa 6:9–10 in the footnote for Matt 13:14a in section 6.1.1 of Chapter 6. The discussion continues in the footnotes to Mark 4:12c; Matt 13:15a; and Acts 28:27a below under negated purpose clauses with µήποτε (section 8.2.2). See also John 12:40a–d below. 24

On Luke 8:10a–b, see the previous footnote for Mark 4:12a–b.

CHAPTER 8—PROHIBITIONS USING NEGATED CLAUSES Luke 14:29

263

ἵνα µήποτε θέντος αὐτοῦ θεµέλιον καὶ µὴ ἰσχύοντος ἐκτελέσαι πάντες οἱ θεωροῦντες ἄρξωνται αὐτῷ ἐµπαίζειν So that, when he has laid a foundation and is not able to finish, all those seeing it may not begin to mock him, (≈ “Do not let observers mock you for your lack of planning.”)

John 4:15a

κύριε, δός µοι τοῦτο τὸ ὕδωρ, ἵνα µὴ διψῶ µηδὲ διέρχωµαι ἐνθάδε ἀντλεῖν. Lord, give this water to me, in order that I may not thirst nor come here to draw water. (≈ “By giving me this water, do not let me thirst....”)

John 4:15b

λέγει πρὸς αὐτὸν ἡ γυνή· κύριε, δός µοι τοῦτο τὸ ὕδωρ, ἵνα µὴ διψῶ µηδὲ διέρχωµαι ἐνθάδε ἀντλεῖν. Lord, give this water to me, in order that I may not thirst nor come here to draw water. (≈ “By giving me this water,... do not let me come here to draw water.”)

John 5:14b

ἴδε ὑγιὴς γέγονας, µηκέτι ἁµάρτανε, ἵνα µὴ χεῖρόν σοί τι γένηται. See you have become healthy. Sin no more, so that no thing worse may happen to you. (≈ “By not sinning, do not get yourself into worse trouble.”)

John 6:12

συναγάγετε τὰ περισσεύσαντα κλάσµατα, ἵνα µή τι ἀπόληται. Collect the leftover fragments, so that no thing is wasted. (≈ “By collecting the leftovers, do not let anything be wasted.”)

John 12:35

περιπατεῖτε ὡς τὸ φῶς ἔχετε, ἵνα µὴ σκοτία ὑµᾶς καταλάβῃ· Walk while you have the light, so that darkness may not overtake you. (≈ “By walking while you have the light, do not let darkness overtake you.”)

264 John 12:40a

PROHIBITIONS IN THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT … ἵνα µὴ ἴδωσιν τοῖς ὀφθαλµοῖς

…

… so that they may not see with their eyes … (≈ “By their hardened heart, do not let them see.”)25 John 12:40b

{ἵνα µὴ...} καὶ νοήσωσιν τῇ καρδίᾳ … … and {so that they may not...} understand with the heart… (≈ “By their hardened heart, do not let them understand.”)

John 12:40c

{ἵνα µὴ...} καὶ στραφῶσιν, … … and {so that they may not...} return … (≈ “By their hardened heart, do not let them return.”)

John 12:40d

{ἵνα µὴ...} καὶ ἰάσοµαι αὐτούς. … and {so that...} I will {not} heal them. (≈ “By their hardened heart, do not let me heal them.”)

Acts 4:17a

ἀλλ᾿ ἵνα µὴ ἐπὶ πλεῖον διανεµηθῇ εἰς τὸν λαὸν ἀπειλησώµεθα αὐτοῖς µηκέτι λαλεῖν ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόµατι τούτῳ µηδενὶ ἀνθρώπων.

——— 25 Unlike the closer quotation of the LXX Isa 6:9–10 in Matt 13:14–15 and Acts 28:26– 27, which both have five-verb µήποτε purpose clause renderings of Isa 6:10 (see in section 8.2.2 below), and unlike the paraphrase of Isa 6:9–10 in Mark 4:12 with the two-verb µήποτε purpose clause for citing Isa 6:10 (see in section 8.2.2 below), John here paraphrases only Isa 6:10 and does so with a four-verb ἵνα purpose clause. While Matthew and Acts follow the LXX of Isa 6:10 with three aorist indicative verbs reporting the people’s behavior leading up to the purpose clause, and the MT of the verse is constructed with three impv. verbs commanding the prophet, John goes further in his paraphrase to emphasize divine causation: “He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, lest they see with their eyes, …” (ESV). The LXX rendering leads some to suppose the purpose clause as describing mere result, but the impv. verbs in the MT bring out a third person prohibitory force to the purpose clause, which John renders most harshly as a prohibitory curse. If we see Isa 6:9–10 as involving an ironic prohibition—a command that God gives because it is what the people want and not what he desires—even John’s prohibitory curse understanding of Isaiah’s ministry and its typological analog in Jesus’ use of parables make sense. The LXX shift, followed by Matthew and Acts serves to focus the blame on the people themselves, rather than on the divine intention more visible in the MT and here in John. See the discussion in section 6.1.1 of Chapter 6 under Matt 13:14a regarding the prohibitory force of the two double negative constructions in the LXX of Isa 6:9 cited in both Matt 13:14 and Acts 28:26. See also the different grammatical constructions for citing Isa 6:9 in Mark 4:12a–b and Luke 8:10a–b immediately above.


265

But so that it may not spread any further among the people, let us threaten them no longer to speak in this name to anyone. (≈ “By warning them to no longer speak in this name to anyone, do not let this message spread any further among the people.”) Acts 24:4

ἵνα δὲ µὴ ἐπὶ πλεῖόν σε ἐγκόπτω, παρακαλῶ ἀκοῦσαί σε ἡµῶν συντόµως τῇ σῇ ἐπιεικείᾳ. But, in order that I may not detain you any further, I urge you to hear us briefly in your kindness. (≈ “By hearing us briefly, do not let me detain you any further.”)

Rom 11:25b

Οὐ γὰρ θέλω ὑµᾶς ἀγνοεῖν, ἀδελφοί, τὸ µυστήριον τοῦτο, ἵνα µὴ ἦτε [παρ᾿] ἑαυτοῖς φρόνιµοι, ὅτι πώρωσις ἀπὸ µέρους τῷ Ἰσραὴλ γέγονεν ἄχρι οὗ τὸ πλήρωµα τῶν ἐθνῶν εἰσέλθῃ For I do not want you to be ignorant, brothers, of this mystery, so that you may not be wise in yourselves,... (≈ “By knowing about the mystery, do not be wise in yourselves.”)

1 Cor 1:17b

οὐ γὰρ ἀπέστειλέν µε Χριστὸς βαπτίζειν ἀλλὰ εὐαγγελίζεσθαι, οὐκ ἐν σοφίᾳ λόγου, ἵνα µὴ κενωθῇ ὁ σταυρὸς τοῦ Χριστοῦ. For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, not in the wisdom of word, so that the cross of Christ may not be emptied of its effect. (≈ “By preaching the gospel without dependence upon the wisdom of words, I was sent with the instruction: do not empty the cross of Christ of its effect.”)

1 Cor 4:6b

...ἵνα µὴ εἷς ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἑνὸς φυσιοῦσθε κατὰ τοῦ ἑτέρου. ...in order that you may not be conceited one over one against another. (≈ “Do not be conceited in favoring one over another.”)26

——— 26

Oddly, the ἵνα clause in 1 Cor 4:6b has an ind. verb form instead of a subj. one.

266 1 Cor 7:5b

PROHIBITIONS IN THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT µὴ ἀποστερεῖτε ἀλλήλους, εἰ µήτι ἂν ἐκ συµφώνου πρὸς καιρόν, ἵνα σχολάσητε τῇ προσευχῇ καὶ πάλιν ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ ἦτε, ἵνα µὴ πειράζῃ ὑµᾶς ὁ σατανᾶς διὰ τὴν ἀκρασίαν ὑµῶν. Do not be denying one another, except for by agreement for a time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer and come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. (≈ “By coming back together, do not let Satan tempt you through your lack of self-control.”)

1 Cor 11:34

εἴ τις πεινᾷ, ἐν οἴκῳ ἐσθιέτω, ἵνα µὴ εἰς κρίµα συνέρχησθε.... If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, so that you will not come together for judgment.... (≈ “By eating at home if you are hungry, do not come together for judgment.”)

1 Cor 16:2

κατὰ µίαν σαββάτου ἕκαστος ὑµῶν παρ᾿ ἑαυτῷ τιθέτω θησαυρίζων ὅ τι ἐὰν εὐοδῶται, ἵνα µὴ ὅταν ἔλθω τότε λογεῖαι γίνωνται. On the first of the week, each of you is to put something aside, storing it up according how he may prosper, so that there may be no contribution when I come. (≈ “By setting aside contributions now, do not plan to take up a collection when I come.”)

2 Cor 1:9

ἀλλὰ αὐτοὶ ἐν ἑαυτοῖς τὸ ἀπόκριµα τοῦ θανάτου ἐσχήκαµεν, ἵνα µὴ πεποιθότες ὦµεν ἐφ᾿ ἑαυτοῖς ἀλλ᾿ ἐπὶ τῷ θεῷ τῷ ἐγείροντι τοὺς νεκρούς· But we ourselves have received the sentence of death in ourselves in order that we would not be relying on ourselves but on God who raises the dead. (≈ “By receiving what seemed like a death sentence, we were instructed: do not rely on yourselves but on the God who raises the dead.”)

CHAPTER 8—PROHIBITIONS USING NEGATED CLAUSES 2 Cor 2:3

267

καὶ ἔγραψα τοῦτο αὐτό, ἵνα µὴ ἐλθὼν λύπην σχῶ ἀφ᾿ ὧν ἔδει µε χαίρειν, πεποιθὼς ἐπὶ πάντας ὑµᾶς ὅτι ἡ ἐµὴ χαρὰ πάντων ὑµῶν ἐστιν. And I wrote this very thing, so that when I came I would not have grief from those about whom it is necessary for me to rejoice, being confident about you all that my joy is all of yours. (≈ “By paying attention to what I wrote, do not let my next visit be a painful one.”)

2 Cor 2:10–11 ᾧ δέ τι χαρίζεσθε, κἀγώ· καὶ γὰρ ἐγὼ ὃ κεχάρισµαι, εἴ τι κεχάρισµαι, δι᾿ ὑµᾶς ἐν προσώπῳ Χριστοῦ, ἵνα µὴ πλεονεκτηθῶµεν ὑπὸ τοῦ σατανᾶ· οὐ γὰρ αὐτοῦ τὰ νοήµατα ἀγνοοῦµεν. If you forgive something to someone, I do too. For indeed what I have forgiven—if I have forgiven anything—I did so because of you in the presence of Christ, so that we may not be taken advantage of by Satan. For we are not ignorant of his schemes. (≈ “By forgiving along with one another, let us not be taken advantage of by Satan.”) 2 Cor 5:15

καὶ ὑπὲρ πάντων ἀπέθανεν, ἵνα οἱ ζῶντες µηκέτι ἑαυτοῖς ζῶσιν ἀλλὰ τῷ ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν ἀποθανόντι καὶ ἐγερθέντι. And he died for all, so that those living would no longer live for themselves but for the one who died and was raised for them. (≈ “Because Christ died for you, do not live for yourself but for the one who died and was raised for you.”)

2 Cor 12:7a

διὸ ἵνα µὴ ὑπεραίρωµαι, ἐδόθη µοι σκόλοψ τῇ σαρκί,... Therefore, in order that I may not be arrogant, a thorn in the flesh was given to me,... (≈ “A thorn in the flesh was given to me as a reminder: do not be arrogant.”)

268 2 Cor 12:7b

PROHIBITIONS IN THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT ...ἄγγελος σατανᾶ, ἵνα µε κολαφίζῃ, ἵνα µὴ ὑπεραίρωµαι. ...a messenger of Satan, in order to trouble me, in order that I may not be arrogant. (≈ “A messenger of Satan troubles me as a reminder: do not be arrogant.”)

Eph 2:9

οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων, ἵνα µή τις καυχήσηται. not by works, so that no one may boast. (≈ “Because your salvation is not by your own works, do not boast as if it is.”)

Eph 4:14

ἵνα µηκέτι ὦµεν νήπιοι, κλυδωνιζόµενοι καὶ περιφερόµενοι παντὶ ἀνέµῳ τῆς διδασκαλίας ἐν τῇ κυβείᾳ τῶν ἀνθρώπων, ἐν πανουργίᾳ πρὸς τὴν µεθοδείαν τῆς πλάνης, so that we may no longer be infants, waved-tossed and carried about by every wind of teaching by human trickery, by craftiness with deceitful schemes (≈ “By being equipped by the gifted leaders of the church, do not be little infants any longer, gullible to any teaching and led astray by human trickery.”)27

Col 2:4

Τοῦτο λέγω, πιθανολογίᾳ.

ἵνα

µηδεὶς

ὑµᾶς

παραλογίζηται

ἐν

I am saying this so that no one may delude you with enticing arguments. (≈ “By paying attention to my words, do not be deluded with enticing arguments.”) Col 3:21b

Οἱ πατέρες, µὴ ἐρεθίζετε τὰ τέκνα ὑµῶν, ἵνα µὴ ἀθυµῶσιν. Fathers, do not be provoking your children, so that they do not become discouraged. (≈ “By means of not provoking your children, do not let them become discouraged.”)

——— 27 Eph 4:14 is part of a long complex sentence on gifted leaders and mature church life in vv. 11–16. While NASB and NRSV render it as a prohibition, HCSB, NIV, and NLT translate Eph 4:14 as a result clause: e.g., “Then we will no longer be infants.” ESV and NKJV are a bit more nebulous.

CHAPTER 8—PROHIBITIONS USING NEGATED CLAUSES 1 Thess 4:12

269

ἵνα περιπατῆτε εὐσχηµόνως πρὸς τοὺς ἔξω καὶ µηδενὸς χρείαν ἔχητε. so that you may walk honestly before outsiders and may not be dependent upon anyone. (≈ “[By living quietly] walk honestly before outsiders and do not be dependent upon anyone.”)

1 Thess 4:13b Οὐ θέλοµεν δὲ ὑµᾶς ἀγνοεῖν, ἀδελφοί, περὶ τῶν κοιµωµένων, ἵνα µὴ λυπῆσθε καθὼς καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ οἱ µὴ ἔχοντες ἐλπίδα. But we do not want you to be ignorant, brothers, concerning those who are sleeping, so that you may not grieve even as those who have no hope. (≈ “Given the teaching about what happens to believers who die, do not grieve like those who have no hope.”) 1 Tim 3:6b

µὴ νεόφυτον, ἵνα µὴ τυφωθεὶς εἰς κρίµα ἐµπέσῃ τοῦ διαβόλου. not a recent convert, so that becoming proud he may not fall into the judgment of the devil. (≈ “By means of not appointing a new convert [as overseer], do not let him fall into judgment by becoming proud.”)

1 Tim 3:7

δεῖ δὲ καὶ µαρτυρίαν καλὴν ἔχειν ἀπὸ τῶν ἔξωθεν, ἵνα µὴ εἰς ὀνειδισµὸν ἐµπέσῃ καὶ παγίδα τοῦ διαβόλου. And he must also have a good report from outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace and a snare of the devil. (≈ “By having a good reputation even among outsiders, do not let him fall into disgrace and a snare of the devil.”)

1 Tim 6:1

Ὅσοι εἰσὶν ὑπὸ ζυγὸν δοῦλοι, τοὺς ἰδίους δεσπότας πάσης τιµῆς ἀξίους ἡγείσθωσαν, ἵνα µὴ τὸ ὄνοµα τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ ἡ διδασκαλία βλασφηµῆται. All who are under a yoke as slaves, let them regard their own masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be blasphemed. (≈ “By slaves regarding their masters as worthy of all honor, do not let the God’s name and the teaching be blasphemed.”)

270 Titus 2:5

PROHIBITIONS IN THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT σώφρονας ἁγνὰς οἰκουργοὺς ἀγαθάς, ὑποτασσοµένας τοῖς ἰδίοις ἀνδράσιν, ἵνα µὴ ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ βλασφηµῆται. self-controlled, pure, busy at home, good, submissive to their own husbands, so that the word of God may not be blasphemed. (≈ “By means of self-controlled, pure, busy at home, good, submissive to their own husbands, do not let the word of God be blasphemed.”)

Titus 3:13

Ζηνᾶν τὸν νοµικὸν καὶ Ἀπολλῶν σπουδαίως πρόπεµψον, ἵνα µηδὲν αὐτοῖς λείπῃ. Earnestly send Zenas the lawyer and Apollos on their way, so that nothing is lacking to them. (≈ “In earnestly sending Zenas the lawyer and Apollos on their way, do not let them be lacking anything.”)

Titus 3:14

µανθανέτωσαν δὲ καὶ οἱ ἡµέτεροι καλῶν ἔργων προΐστασθαι εἰς τὰς ἀναγκαίας χρείας, ἵνα µὴ ὦσιν ἄκαρποι. And let our people learn also to be devoted to good works for the cases of urgent need, so that they may not be unfruitful. (≈ “By letting our people learn to be devoted to good works for the cases of urgent need, do not let them be unfruitful.”)

Phlm 14

χωρὶς δὲ τῆς σῆς γνώµης οὐδὲν ἠθέλησα ποιῆσαι, ἵνα µὴ ὡς κατὰ ἀνάγκην τὸ ἀγαθόν σου ᾖ ἀλλὰ κατὰ ἑκούσιον. But I want to do nothing without your consent, so that your goodness may not be according to compulsion but according to willingness. (≈ “With my doing nothing without your consent, do not let your goodness be according to compulsion but according to willingness.”)

Heb 3:13

ἀλλὰ παρακαλεῖτε ἑαυτοὺς καθ᾿ ἑκάστην ἡµέραν … ἵνα µὴ σκληρυνθῇ τις ἐξ ὑµῶν ἀπάτῃ τῆς ἁµαρτίας But exhort one another every day … so that no one of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin (≈ “By exhorting one another every day... do not any of you be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin.”)

CHAPTER 8—PROHIBITIONS USING NEGATED CLAUSES Heb 4:11

271

Σπουδάσωµεν οὖν εἰσελθεῖν εἰς ἐκείνην τὴν κατάπαυσιν, ἵνα µὴ ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ τις ὑποδείγµατι πέσῃ τῆς ἀπειθείας. Let us strive therefore to enter that rest, so that none may fall by the same pattern of disobedience. (≈ “By striving to enter that rest, let no one fall by the same pattern of disobedience.”)

Heb 6:12

ἵνα µὴ νωθροὶ γένησθε, µιµηταὶ δὲ … so that you may not be sluggish, but imitators … (≈ “By being earnest, do not be sluggish, but imitators.”)

Heb 12:3

ἀναλογίσασθε γὰρ τὸν τοιαύτην ὑποµεµενηκότα ὑπὸ τῶν ἁµαρτωλῶν εἰς ἑαυτὸν ἀντιλογίαν, ἵνα µὴ κάµητε ταῖς ψυχαῖς ὑµῶν ἐκλυόµενοι. For consider the one who has endured from sinners such hardship against himself so that you may not be weary loosing heart. (≈ “By considering Jesus, do not be weary.”)

Heb 12:13

καὶ τροχιὰς ὀρθὰς ποιεῖτε τοῖς ποσὶν ὑµῶν, ἵνα µὴ τὸ χωλὸν ἐκτραπῇ, ἰαθῇ δὲ µᾶλλον. and make straight paths for your feet, so that what is lame may not be disjointed, but rather be healed. (≈ “By making straight paths for your feet, do not let what is lame be disjointed, but rather be healed.”)

Jas 5:9b

µὴ στενάζετε, ἀδελφοί, κατ᾿ ἀλλήλων ἵνα µὴ κριθῆτε· Do not be complaining, brothers, against one another in order that you may not be judged. (≈ “By not complaining against one another, brothers, do not be judged.”)

Jas 5:12e

ἤτω δὲ ὑµῶν τὸ ναὶ ναὶ καὶ τὸ οὒ οὔ, ἵνα µὴ ὑπὸ κρίσιν πέσητε. But let your “yes” be yes and your “no” be no, so that you many not fall under condemnation. (≈ “By letting your “yes” be yes and your “no” be no, do not fall under condemnation.”)

272 2 Pet 3:17

PROHIBITIONS IN THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT Ὑµεῖς οὖν, ἀγαπητοί, προγινώσκοντες φυλάσσεσθε, ἵνα µὴ τῇ τῶν ἀθέσµων πλάνῃ συναπαχθέντες ἐκπέσητε τοῦ ἰδίου στηριγµοῦ, You therefore, beloved, knowing this ahead of time, be on your guard, so that you may not fall from your own stability being led away by the error of lawless ones. (≈ “By knowing this ahead of time and being on your guard, beloved, do not fall away from your own stability being led away by the error of lawless ones.”)

1 John 2:1

Τεκνία µου, ταῦτα γράφω ὑµῖν ἵνα µὴ ἁµάρτητε. My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. (≈ “By paying attention to my words, do not sin.”)

1 John 2:28

Καὶ νῦν, τεκνία, µένετε ἐν αὐτῷ, ἵνα ἐὰν φανερωθῇ σχῶµεν παρρησίαν καὶ µὴ αἰσχυνθῶµεν ἀπ᾿ αὐτοῦ ἐν τῇ παρουσίᾳ αὐτοῦ. And now, little children, abide in him, in order that when he appears we may have confidence and may not be ashamed before him at his coming. (≈ “By abiding in him, give us confidence and do not let us be ashamed before him at his coming.”)

Rev 3:11

ἔρχοµαι ταχύ· κράτει ὃ ἔχεις, ἵνα µηδεὶς λάβῃ τὸν στέφανόν σου. Grasp what you have, so that no one may take your crown. (≈ “By grasping what you have, do not let anyone take your crown.”)

Rev 3:18

συµβουλεύω σοι ἀγοράσαι παρ᾿ ἐµοῦ … ἱµάτια λευκὰ ἵνα περιβάλῃ καὶ µὴ φανερωθῇ ἡ αἰσχύνη τῆς γυµνότητός σου, I advise you to buy from me … white garments, so that you may clothe yourself and the shame of your nakedness may not be seen, (≈ “By buying from me white garments, clothe yourselves and do not let the shame of your nakedness be seen.”)

CHAPTER 8—PROHIBITIONS USING NEGATED CLAUSES Rev 9:5

273

καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτοῖς ἵνα µὴ ἀποκτείνωσιν αὐτούς, ἀλλ᾿ ἵνα βασανισθήσονται µῆνας πέντε,.... and it was granted to them not that they kill them, but that they be tormented for five months,.... (≈ “Do not kill them, but they may be tormented for five months,....”)

Rev 13:17

καὶ ἵνα µή τις δύνηται ἀγοράσαι ἢ πωλῆσαι εἰ µὴ ὁ ἔχων τὸ χάραγµα τὸ ὄνοµα τοῦ θηρίου ἢ τὸν ἀριθµὸν τοῦ ὀνόµατος αὐτοῦ. so that no one is able to buy or to sell unless he has the mark, the name of the beast or the number of its name. (≈ “Do not let anyone do business without the mark of the beast.”)

Rev 16:15a

µακάριος ὁ γρηγορῶν καὶ τηρῶν τὰ ἱµάτια αὐτοῦ, ἵνα µὴ γυµνὸς περιπατῇ καὶ... Blessed is the one who stays awake keeping his garments on, so that he does not walk around naked and... (≈ “By staying awake and keeping your garments on, do not be caught walking around naked and...”)

Rev 16:15b

{ἵνα µὴ...} βλέπωσιν τὴν ἀσχηµοσύνην αὐτοῦ. {so that...} they do not see his shame. (≈ “... do not let people see your shame.”)

Rev 18:4

ἐξέλθατε ὁ λαός µου ἐξ αὐτῆς ἵνα µὴ συγκοινωνήσητε ταῖς ἁµαρτίαις αὐτῆς,... Come out of her, my people, so that you may not take part in her sins,... (≈ “By coming out of her, do not take part in her sins.”)

8.2.2 Negated Conjunctive Purpose Clauses with µήποτε: The 25 NT occurrences of µήποτε are constructed with 37 verbs, and 28 of these are listed here as used in prohibitory purpose clauses. We do not include here the three prohibitory uses of µήποτε constructions as the object of vision verbs (Luke 21:34a, 34b; Heb 3:12; see in section 8.1.1) and the one prohibitory use of µήποτε with a verb of fearing (Heb 4:1; see in section

274


8.1.3) as these have been included in the listings of those categories above. Table 8.2.2 portrays the tallies for the various µήποτε constructions.28 NT PROHIBITIONS USING NEGATED FINAL CLAUSES WITH µήποτε µήποτε + Present Subj. (Luke 14:8b; + Heb 4:1 in sec. 8.1.3): ............................. 1 µήποτε + Aorist Subj. (+ Luke 21:34a and 34b in sec. 8.1.1): ............................ 24 µήποτε + Future Ind. (Matt 7:6c; 13:15e; Acts 28:27e; + Heb 3:12 in sec. 8.1.1): .... 3 TOTAL:

28

Table 8.2.2 Matt 4:6

γέγραπται γὰρ ὅτι τοῖς ἀγγέλοις αὐτοῦ ἐντελεῖται περὶ σοῦ καὶ ἐπὶ χειρῶν ἀροῦσίν σε, µήποτε προσκόψῃς πρὸς λίθον τὸν πόδα σου. For it is written, ‘He will command his angels concerning you,’ and ‘they will lift you with their hands so that you may not strike your foot against a stone.’ (≈ “Lift him and do not let him strike his foot against a stone.”)29

Matt. 5:25

ἴσθι εὐνοῶν τῷ ἀντιδίκῳ σου ταχύ, ἕως ὅτου εἶ µετ᾿ αὐτοῦ ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ, µήποτέ σε παραδῷ ὁ ἀντίδικος τῷ κριτῇ... Come to agreement quickly with your adversary while you are with him on the way, so that your adversary may not deliver you to the judge... (≈ “Do not let your adversary deliver you to the judge....”)

Matt 7:6c

Μὴ δῶτε τὸ ἅγιον τοῖς κυσὶν µηδὲ βάλητε τοὺς µαργαρίτας ὑµῶν ἔµπροσθεν τῶν χοίρων, µήποτε καταπατήσουσιν αὐτοὺς ἐν τοῖς ποσὶν αὐτῶν καὶ...

——— The five occurrences of µήποτε that do not have prohibitory implications are used in deliberative/interrogatory contexts (Matt 25:9 with aor. subj.; Luke 3:15 with pres. opt.; John 7:26 with aor. ind.), with a simple “not” force (Heb 9:17 with pres. ind.), or with a mere “perhaps” meaning (2 Tim 2:25 with aor. subj., the only Pauline use of µήποτε). 28

29 Matt 4:6 offers a truncated citation of the LXX of Ps 90:11–12, i.e. leaving out τοῦ διαφυλάξαι σε ἐν πάσαις ταῖς ὁδοῖς σοῦ (“to guard you in all your ways”) after περὶ σοῦ; cf. Luke 4:10–11 below.


275

Do not give what is holy to the dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, so that they will not trample them with their feet and... (≈ “Do not let them trample your pearls underfoot.”) Matt 7:6d

{µήποτε...} στραφέντες ῥήξωσιν ὑµᾶς. {so that they not...} turning attack you. (≈ “Do not let them turn and attack you.”)

Matt 13:15a

…µήποτε ἴδωσιν τοῖς ὀφθαλµοῖς … … so that they may not see with their eyes … (≈ “By their dull heart, do not let them see.”)30

Matt 13:15b

{µήποτε...} καὶ τοῖς ὠσὶν ἀκούσωσιν … … and {so that they may not...} hear with their ears … (≈ “By their dull heart, do not let them hear.”)

——— 30

Matt 13:15a continues the citation of Isa 6:9–10 begun in Matt 13:14, following the LXX closely; Matthew (and Acts 28:27 also) merely lacks one αὐτῶν that the LXX includes. While Matthew (and Acts) follow the LXX of Isa 6:10 with three aorist indicative verbs reporting the people’s behavior (as dull, hard of hearing, and shut-eyed) leading up to the µήποτε clause, the MT of the verse is constructed with three impv. verbs commanding the prophet: ‫שׁ ָ֗מע וּ ְלבָב֥ וֹ י ִָב֛ין ו ָ ָ֖שׁב ו ָ ְ֥רפָא לֽוֹ׃‬ ְ ִ ‫ֵיניו ה ַ ָ֑שׁע פֶּן־י ְִר ֶ֨אה ְב ֵעי ָ֜ניו וּבְאָז ָ ְ֣נין י‬ ְ ‫ַה‬ ֣ ָ ‫שׁ ֵמ ֙ן לֵב־ה ָ ָ֣עם ַה ֶ֔זּה וְאָזְנָ ֥יו ַה ְכ ֵבּד ְוע‬ —“Make the heart of this people dull, and their ears heavy, and blind their eyes; lest they see with eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed” (Isa 6:10 ESV). The LXX rendering leads some to suppose the µήποτε clause as describing mere result, but the impv. verbs in the MT bring out a third person prohibitory force to the complex, five-verb purpose clause (Matt 13:15a–e and Act 28:27a–e). If we see Isa 6:9–10 as involving an ironic prohibition—a command that God gives because it is what the people want and not what he desires—the third person prohibition of Isaiah’s ministry and its typological analog in Jesus’ use of parables make better sense. The LXX shift, followed by Matthew here (and by Luke in Acts 28:27 below), serves to focus the blame on the people themselves, rather than on the divine intention of the command given to the prophet. Likewise, see the discussion in section 6.1.1 of Chapter 6 under Matt 13:14a regarding the prohibitory force of the two double negative constructions in the LXX of Isa 6:9 cited in both Matt 13:14 and Acts 28:26. See also the different grammatical constructions for citing Isa 6:9 in Mark 4:12a–b and Luke 8:10a–b under negated purpose clauses with ἵνα (section 8.2.1 above) and Mark’s two-verb µήποτε purpose clause for citing Isa 6:10 in Mark 4:12c–d below. Meanwhile John 12:40 paraphrases Isa 6:10 using a four-verb ἵνα purpose clause (see above).

276 Matt 13:15c

PROHIBITIONS IN THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT {µήποτε...} καὶ τῇ καρδίᾳ συνῶσιν… … and {so that they may not...} understand with their heart … (≈ “By their dull heart, do not let them understand.”)

Matt 13:15d

{µήποτε...} καὶ ἐπιστρέψωσιν … … and {so that they may not...} return … (≈ “By their dull heart, do not let them return.”)

Matt 13:15e

{µήποτε...} καὶ ἰάσοµαι αὐτούς. … and {so that...} I will {not} heal them. (≈ “By their dull heart, do not let me heal them.”)

Matt 13:29b

οὔ, µήποτε συλλέγοντες τὰ ζιζάνια ἐκριζώσητε ἅµα αὐτοῖς τὸν σῖτον. No [do not pull the weeds] so that in gathering the weeds you do not uproot the grain along with them. (≈ “By not pulling the weeds, do not uproot the grain.”)

Matt 15:32b

καὶ ἀπολῦσαι αὐτοὺς νήστεις οὐ θέλω, µήποτε ἐκλυθῶσιν ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ. And I am not willing to send them away hungry, so that they may not faint on the way. (≈ “Do not let them faint on the way.”)

Matt 27:64a

κέλευσον οὖν ἀσφαλισθῆναι τὸν τάφον ἕως τῆς τρίτης ἡµέρας, µήποτε ἐλθόντες οἱ µαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ κλέψωσιν αὐτὸν καὶ... Therefore order the tomb to be made secure until the third day, so that coming his disciples may not steal him and... (≈ “Do not let his disciples come and steal him...”)

Matt 27:64b

{µήποτε...} εἴπωσιν τῷ λαῷ· ἠγέρθη ἀπὸ τῶν νεκρῶν {so that his disciples may not...} tell the people, ‘He has been risen from the dead’ (≈ “Do not let his disciples... tell the people that he is risen.”)

Mark 4:12c

… µήποτε ἐπιστρέψωσιν …


277

… so that they will not return … (≈ “By their not understanding, do not let them return.”)31 Mark 4:12d

{µήποτε...} καὶ ἀφεθῇ αὐτοῖς. … and{so that...} [their sin] not be forgiven them. (≈ “By their not understanding, do not let their sin be forgiven them.”)

Mark 14:2b

µὴ ἐν τῇ ἑορτῇ, µήποτε ἔσται θόρυβος τοῦ λαοῦ. Not during the festival, so that there will not be a riot of the people. (≈ “Do not let there be a riot of the people [in response to seizing Jesus during the festival].”)

Luke 4:10–11 γέγραπται γὰρ ὅτι τοῖς ἀγγέλοις αὐτοῦ ἐντελεῖται περὶ σοῦ τοῦ διαφυλάξαι σε καὶ ὅτι ἐπὶ χειρῶν ἀροῦσίν σε, µήποτε προσκόψῃς πρὸς λίθον τὸν πόδα σου. For it is written, ‘He will command his angels concerning you to guard you,’ and ‘they will lift you with their hands so that you may not strike your foot against a stone.’ (≈ “Lift him and do not let him strike his foot against a stone.”)32 ——— 31 Closing the Isa 6:9–10 paraphrase begun in Mark 4:12a–b (see under ἵνα purpose clauses in section 8.2.1 above), the two-verb purpose clause here in Mark 4:12c–d is Mark’s summary from the concluding line of the longer Isa 6:10 five-verb source (see on Matt 13:15 above and Acts 28:27 below). Mark’s paraphrase skips from the early µήποτε to the closing line where he retains the verb ἐπιστρέψωσιν and substitutes ἀφεθῇ αὐτοῖς (“may be forgiven them”) for the LXX’s ἰάσοµαι αὐτούς (“I will heal them”). While the LXX of Isa 6:10 is structured with three aorist indicative verbs reporting the people’s behavior prior to the purpose clause, the MT of the verse is constructed as a command for the prophet to obey: “Make the heart of this people dull, and their ears heavy, and blind their eyes; lest they see with eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed” (ESV). The impv. verbs in the MT bring out a third person prohibitory force to the purpose clause, which is not lost in Mark’s paraphrase. In fact, comparing Mark’s paraphrase with the exact citations of Isa 6:10 in Matt 13:15 and Acts 28:27, Mark’s skipping over the LXX indicative verbs to the conclusion of the purpose clause is somewhat restorative of the third person prohibitory force of the purpose clause in the MT. See also the harsher paraphrase of Isa 6:10 and the four-verb purpose clause with ἵνα in John 12:40a–d in section 8.2.1 above.

Luke 4:10–11 cites the LXX of Ps 90:11–12, just slightly truncated, i.e. leaving out ἐν πάσαις ταῖς ὁδοῖς σοῦ (“in all your ways”) after τοῦ διαφυλάξαι σε; cf. Matt 4:6 above. 32

278


Luke 12:58

ὡς γὰρ ὑπάγεις µετὰ τοῦ ἀντιδίκου σου ἐπ᾿ ἄρχοντα, ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ δὸς ἐργασίαν ἀπηλλάχθαι ἀπ᾿ αὐτοῦ, µήποτε κατασύρῃ σε πρὸς τὸν κριτήν, As you are going with your adversary before the ruler, make an effort to settle with him on the way, so that he may not drag you to the judge, (≈ “Do not let your adversary drag you to the judge.”)

Luke 14:8b

...µήποτε ἐντιµότερός σου ᾖ κεκληµένος ὑπ᾿ αὐτοῦ, {...καὶ ἐλθὼν ὁ σὲ καὶ αὐτὸν καλέσας ἐρεῖ σοι· δὸς τούτῳ τόπον, καὶ τότε ἄρξῃ µετὰ αἰσχύνης τὸν ἔσχατον τόπον κατέχειν.} ...lest someone more distinguished than you may have been invited by him, {...and coming the one inviting you and him will say to you, ‘Give up this place,’ and then you will proceed with shame to take the last place.} (≈ “By not sitting in the place of honor, do not put yourself in the position to be humiliated by being displaced.”)33

Luke 14:12e

{µὴ φώνει...} µήποτε καὶ αὐτοὶ ἀντικαλέσωσίν σε … {do not be inviting...} so that they may not invite you in return … (≈ “By not inviting them, let them not invite you in return.”)

Luke 14:12f

{µὴ φώνει … µήποτε...} καὶ γένηται ἀνταπόδοµά σοι. {do not be inviting… so that...} repayment may {not} come to you. (≈ “By not inviting them, let repayment not come to you.”)

Acts 5:39

εἰ δὲ ἐκ θεοῦ ἐστιν, οὐ δυνήσεσθε καταλῦσαι αὐτούς, µήποτε καὶ θεοµάχοι εὑρεθῆτε. But if it is of God, you will not be able to destroy them, so that you may not be found even opposing God. (≈ “By leaving them be, do not be found opposing God.”)

——— 33

With our citation of Luke 14:8b, we include Luke 14:9 in curved brackets ({}), as this context helps clarify the prohibitory intent of final clause under discussion.

CHAPTER 8—PROHIBITIONS USING NEGATED CLAUSES Acts 28:27a

279

…µήποτε ἴδωσιν τοῖς ὀφθαλµοῖς… …so that they may not see with their eyes… (≈ “By their dull heart, do not let them see.”)34

Acts 28:27b

{µήποτε...} καὶ τοῖς ὠσὶν ἀκούσωσιν… …and {so that they may not...} hear with their ears… (≈ “By their dull heart, do not let them hear.”)

Acts 28:27c

{µήποτε...} καὶ τῇ καρδίᾳ συνῶσιν… …and {so that they may not...} understand with their heart … (≈ “By their dull heart, do not let them understand.”)

Acts 28:27d

{µήποτε...} καὶ ἐπιστρέψωσιν… …and {so that they may not...} return… (≈ “By their dull heart, do not let them return.”)

Acts 28:27e

{µήποτε...} καὶ ἰάσοµαι αὐτούς. …and {so that...} I will {not} heal them. (≈ “By their dull heart, do not let me heal them.”)

Heb 2:1

Διὰ τοῦτο δεῖ περισσοτέρως προσέχειν ἀκουσθεῖσιν, µήποτε παραρυῶµεν.

ἡµᾶς

τοῖς

On account of this, it is necessary for us to pay even more attention to what we have heard, so that we may not drift away. (≈ “Let us not drift away.”) 8.2.3 Negated Conjunctive Purpose Clauses with ὅπως: Five NT prohibitions are constructed with negated final clauses that use ὅπως as a conjunctive connector. Three of these are constructed with the aorist subjunctive (Matt 6:18; Acts 20:16; 1 Cor 1:29) and two with the ——— On the third person prohibitory force present in the five-verb µήποτε clause of Acts 28:27a–e, see the discussion in the footnote for Matt 13:15a above; cf. the two-verb µήποτε purpose clause in Mark 4:12c–d above and the four-verb ἵνα purpose clause in John 12:40a–d above. See also the briefer paraphrase of Isa 6:9 in Luke 8:10a–b under negated purpose clauses with ἵνα in section 8.2.1 above. 34

280


present subjunctive (Luke 16:26a, 26b). We do not include here the one occurrence of a prohibitory ὅπως construction as the object of a speech verb (Acts 8:24) as it has been included in that category (see in section 8.1.2). Matt 6:18

{σὺ δὲ νηστεύων ἄλειψαί σου τὴν κεφαλὴν καὶ τὸ πρόσωπόν σου νίψαι,...} ὅπως µὴ φανῇς τοῖς ἀνθρώποις νηστεύων ἀλλὰ τῷ πατρί σου τῷ ἐν τῷ κρυφαίῳ· {But when you are fasting, anoint your head and wash your face,...} so that you do not show your fasting to men but to your Father who is in secret. (≈ “By anointing and washing up, do not show your fasting to others.”)

Luke 16:26a

καὶ ἐν πᾶσι τούτοις µεταξὺ ἡµῶν καὶ ὑµῶν χάσµα µέγα ἐστήρικται, ὅπως οἱ θέλοντες διαβῆναι ἔνθεν πρὸς ὑµᾶς µὴ δύνωνται,... µηδὲ ἐκεῖθεν πρὸς ἡµᾶς διαπερῶσιν. And in addition to all this, a great chasm has been situated between us and you so that those wanting to cross over from here to you may not be able, nor may any cross over from there to us. (≈ “Do not ask for anyone to cross over from us to you.”)

Luke 16:26b

{ὅπως ...} µηδὲ ἐκεῖθεν πρὸς ἡµᾶς διαπερῶσιν. {so that ...} nor may any cross over from there to us. (≈ “Do not try to cross over from there to us.”)

Acts 20:16

κεκρίκει γὰρ ὁ Παῦλος παραπλεῦσαι τὴν Ἔφεσον, ὅπως µὴ γένηται αὐτῷ χρονοτριβῆσαι ἐν τῇ Ἀσίᾳ· For Paul had determined to sail passed Ephesus, so that it might not be necessary for him to spend time in Asia. (≈ “Do not let me spend time in Asia.”)

1 Cor 1:29

{καὶ τὰ ἀγενῆ...ἐξελέξατο ὁ θεός...} ὅπως µὴ καυχήσηται πᾶσα σὰρξ ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ. {and God chose what is low...} so that all flesh would not boast before God. (≈ “No one should boast before God.”)


281

8.2.4 Negated Purpose Clauses Lacking Conjunctions: Six NT prohibitions are constructed with negated final clauses that lack the expected conjunctive connector. All of these are constructed with the aorist subjunctive, three using µή τις and two using µή πως formulations. Four of the six occur in 2 Corinthians. Most of these are direct prohibitions (i.e., expressing the prohibition to the listener/reader; excepting Acts 27:42). Mark 13:36

µὴ ἐλθὼν ἐξαίφνης εὕρῃ ὑµᾶς καθεύδοντας. so that coming suddenly he may not find you sleeping. (≈ “Do not let him find you sleeping”)

Acts 27:42

Τῶν δὲ στρατιωτῶν βουλὴ ἐγένετο ἵνα τοὺς δεσµώτας ἀποκτείνωσιν, µή τις ἐκκολυµβήσας διαφύγῃ. The plan of the soldiers was that they would kill the prisoners so that no one would escape by swimming away. (≈ “Let no prisoner escape!”)

2 Cor 2:7

ὥστε τοὐναντίον µᾶλλον ὑµᾶς χαρίσασθαι καὶ παρακαλέσαι, µή πως τῇ περισσοτέρᾳ λύπῃ καταποθῇ ὁ τοιοῦτος. so that now on the contrary you are rather to forgive and to comfort so that such a person is not somehow swallowed up by excessive grief. (≈ “Do not let this one be swallowed up by excessive grief.”)

2 Cor 8:20

στελλόµενοι τοῦτο, µή τις ἡµᾶς µωµήσηται ἐν τῇ ἁδρότητι ταύτῃ τῇ διακονουµένῃ ὑφ᾿ ἡµῶν· journeying this way so that no one would blame us about this generous gift being administered by us. (≈ “Let no one blame us about this generous gift.”)

2 Cor 9:4

µή πως ἐὰν ἔλθωσιν σὺν ἐµοὶ Μακεδόνες καὶ εὕρωσιν ὑµᾶς ἀπαρασκευάστους καταισχυνθῶµεν ἡµεῖς, ἵνα µὴ λέγω ὑµεῖς, ἐν τῇ ὑποστάσει ταύτῃ. that somehow, if Macedonians come with me and find you unprepared, we—not to mention you—may not be ashamed in this confidence. (≈ “If Macedonians come with me, do not let any of us be ashamed.”)

282 2 Cor 12:6

PROHIBITIONS IN THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT φείδοµαι δέ, µή τις εἰς ἐµὲ λογίσηται ὑπὲρ ὃ βλέπει µε ἢ ἀκούει [τι] ἐξ ἐµοῦ But I refrain, so that no one may credit to me more than what he sees in me or hears from me (≈ “Do not credit me with more than you actually see in me or hear from me.”)

—CHAPTER 9— Lexical Prohibitions: “Refrain from that.” As negative commands, prohibitions are usually assumed to involve the word “not” (µή or οὐ or their compounds). A moment’s reflection, however, reveals that in Greek—as no less in English—prohibitions can be constructed with words that lexically contain an otherwise unexpressed “do not” idea. In other words, a positive command (e.g., constructed with a non-negated impv. verb form) can nevertheless pragmatically bear prohibitory force due to the lexical value of the term being used. In NT Greek, such terms include verbs of separation/avoidance (e.g., ἀνθίστηµι, ἀπαρνέοµαι, ἀπέχω, ἀποστυγέω, ἀποτίθηµι, ἀποτρέπω, ἀρνέοµαι, ἀφίστηµαι, διατηρέω, ἐκκλείω, ἐκκλίνω, ἐκτρέπω, ἐπιτρέπω, παραιτέοµαι, περιΐστηµαι, στέλλω, φεύγω, φυλάσσω), verbs of silence (e.g., ἐπιστοµίζω, σιωπάω, σιγάω, φιµόω, φράσσω),1 and verbs of stopping/hindering (e.g., ἀναπαύω, ἀνίηµι, ἀπογίνοµαι, διακωλύω, κωλύω, παύω), and others as well. We must remember here, however, that the semantic domain of any particular term can be such that it does not always and only represent either a positive (and potentially command) concept or a negative (and potentially prohibitory) concept. For example, φυλάσσω is often used in the New Testament with a positive sense of “guard” or “keep,” but it can be used to mean “keep away from” or “do not be involved with”—particularly (but not only) when used with ἀπό (e.g., Luke 12:15 and 1 John 5:21). This same flexibility is seen in some vision verbs, as the seven NT occurrences of προσέχω + ἀπό warn against someone or something (Matt 7:15; 10:17; 16:6, ——— 1 We make a slight distinction here between the ἐπιστοµίζω, σιωπάω, σιγάω, φιµόω (in pass.), and φράσσω (in pass.) word groups on the one hand and the ἡσυχάζω word group on the other. The former we see as having potential prohibitory force (i.e., “do not be talking”; per the citations collected here) and the latter as having positive force (i.e., ἡσυχάζω, “be in quietness, rest” as in Luke 14:4; 23:56; Acts 11:18; 21:14; 22:2; 1 Thess 4:11; 2 Thess 3:12; 1 Tim 2:2, 11; 3:11, 12; 1 Pet 3:4; cf. the active φιµόω in Matt 22:34; 1 Pet 2:15; and the active φράσσω in Heb 11:33). Cf. LN 1:402–403 (§§33.117–125).

284


11, 12; Luke 12:1; 20:46), but only two of the three NT occurrences of βλέπω + ἀπό are prohibitory (Mark 8:15a; 12:38; cf. Luke 21:30).2 As expected, some of the terms to consider in this category prove to be more difficult than others. The verb ἀφίηµι (“I leave, forgive, permit, neglect”), for example, is used without prohibitory implications in contexts that talk about physical departure and forgiveness. But in contexts about permission or allowance, its positive force begins to resemble a prohibition. For example, in Matt 15:14 the imperative ἄφετε αὐτούς can be understood as a replacement for “Do not bother with them.” Nevertheless, with most English translations, we still take such uses as positive commands—e.g., “Leave them be”—perhaps substituting for, but not actually being, outright prohibitions.3 Similarly, in the domain of rest related words, Louw and Nida remark on the NT use of ἀναπαύω (particularly in middle-passive forms) and its cognate noun, “In the use of ἀναπαύοµαι and ἀνάπαυσις, the focus of meaning seems to be upon the restorative character of rest rather than mere cessation of activity.”4 In discussing terms with lexically negative force, alpha-privative words form a special group for consideration. These words—primarily adjectives and adverbs—negate an idea by appending an α as a prefix. Where these terms are utilized in such a way that they borrow (or modify) the prohibitory force of their ruling verbs, we consider them here as indicating a prohibition at some level. Included are such terms as ἀδιαλείπτως (“without stopping”), ἀκέραιος (“without evil mixed in”), ἄµαχος (“without contention”), ἄµεµπτος (“without blame”), ἀµώµητος (“without blame”), ἄµωµος (“with——— 2

On prohibitions constructed with negated object clauses with vision verbs, see section 8.1.1 of Chapter 8. 3

See also Matt 7:4; 19:14; 23:13; 27:48; Mark 10:4; 14:6; 15:36; Luke 6:42; 13:8; 18:16; John 18:8; Acts 5:38; Heb 6:1. We can note (perhaps ironically) that with negation (οὐκ) in narrative reports, ἀφίηµι is used to indicate the prohibitory actions of others (e.g., “you do not allow them”); the NT examples of such uses are listed in section 10.4 of Chapter 10. The same observation can be made about the synonym ἐάω (“I permit, pass over”), which narrates a prohibition when negated but is used as a positive command in negative situations. Even Luke 22:51, where Jesus interrupts the conflict in Gethsemane with ἐᾶτε ἕως τούτου, is better understood as “Permit even this” (i.e., permit the arrest—so NKJV), rather than “No more of this” (i.e., no more sword play—so NASB, NRSV, ESV, HCSB, NIV). Notice that Matthew and John in the Gethsemane conflict record Jesus giving a positive command to put the sword away: ἀπόστρεψον τὴν µάχαιράν σου εἰς τὸν τόπον αὐτῆς (Matt. 26:52) and βάλε τὴν µάχαιραν εἰς τὴν θήκην (John 18:11). 4 LN 1:261 (§23.80). See the impv. forms of ἀναπαύω in Mark 6:31; Luke 12:19; and Phlm 20. Contextually, we understand the forms in Matt 26:45 and Mark 14:41a to be part of questions and thus in the ind. mood.

285

CHAPTER 9—LEXICAL PROHIBITIONS

out fault”), ἀνέγκλητος (“without accusation”), ἀνεπίληµπτος (“without criticism”), ἀνυπόκριτος (“without hypocrisy”), ἀπερισπάστως (“without distraction”), ἀπρόσκοπος (“without offense”), ἄσπιλος (“without spot”), and ἀφιλάργυρος (“without money loving”). In the end, this chapter contains a variety of syntactical constructions and statements at several levels of discourse. Their common denominator is that, rather than involving negations with οὐ or µή, they involve prohibitions based on the lexical value of the vocabulary involved. In this manner, we have here attempted to gather together all of the NT prohibitions that function as such due only to the lexical values of the terms involved.5 The sections of this chapter organize this collection of NT lexical prohibitions primarily by discourse level as outlined in Table 9.0. LEXICAL PROHIBITIONS IN THE NT: “R EFRAIN FROM THAT.” Section #

9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5

Prohibitions Using Lexically Negated Imperative Verbs: .............. Lexically Negated Terms in Other Prohibitory Contexts: ............. Lexical Prohibitions in Indirect Discourse: ................................... Lexical Reports of Prohibitions: ..................................................... Lexically Implied Indirect Discourse Prohibitions: .......................

TOTAL:

43 45 22 51 24

185

Table 9.0

9.1 Prohibitions Using Lexically Negated Imperative Verbs In this section we list the NT examples of prohibitions using such lexically negated imperative verbs. For each of the items listed here, the verb form (and sometimes a supporting preposition) is put in bold typeface and an equivalent prohibitory gloss is provided. We divide this listing into three groups: present imperative tense-forms (section 9.1.1), aorist imperative tense-forms (section 9.1.2), and perfect imperative tense-forms (section 9.1.3). Table 9.1 outlines the tallies of these prohibitions. ——— 5

The NT prohibitions using these vocabulary terms within otherwise negated syntactical constructions are listed in their appropriate negation categories in Chapters 5–8 above. E.g., “Do not be hindering” in Matt 19:14; Mark 9:39; 10:14; Luke 9:50; 18:16; 1 Cor 14:39; “Do not be neglecting” in 1 Tim 4:14; “Do not turn away” in Matt 5:42; “Do not withhold” in Luke 6:29; “Do not be silent” in Acts 18:9b; and “Do not rebuke” in 1 Tim 5:1.

286


NT PROHIBITIONS USING LEXICALLY NEGATED IMPERATIVE VERBS Section #

9.1.1 Present Imperative Tense-Forms: ................................................ 27 2nd Person: .............................................................................. 24 3rd Person: ............................................................................... 3

9.1.2 Aorist Imperative Tense-Forms: .................................................. 15 2nd Person: ................................................................................ 8 3rd Person: ................................................................................ 7

9.1.3 Perfect Imperative Tense-Forms: .................................................. 1 2nd Person (Mark 4:39c): ........................................................... 1

TOTAL:

43

Table 9.1 9.1.1 Lexically Negated Present Imperatives—2nd & 3rd Person Matt 7:15

Προσέχετε ἀπὸ τῶν ψευδοπροφητῶν, οἵτινες ἔρχονται πρὸς ὑµᾶς ἐν ἐνδύµασιν προβάτων, ἔσωθεν δέ εἰσιν λύκοι ἅρπαγες. Pay attention against false prophets who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. (≈ “Do not be victimized by false prophets.”)

Matt 10:17

Προσέχετε δὲ ἀπὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων· παραδώσουσιν γὰρ ὑµᾶς εἰς συνέδρια καὶ ἐν ταῖς συναγωγαῖς αὐτῶν µαστιγώσουσιν ὑµᾶς· And pay attention against men, for they will deliver you over to councils and in their synagogues they will beat you; (≈ “Do not be victimized by people.”)

Matt 16:6

ὁρᾶτε καὶ προσέχετε ἀπὸ τῆς ζύµης τῶν Φαρισαίων καὶ Σαδδουκαίων. Watch out and pay attention against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees. (≈ “Do not be driven by the spreading of that which influences the Pharisees and Sadducees.”)6

——— 6

The “yeast” in Matt 16:6, 11; and Mark 8:15b is identified more clearly as the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees in Matt 16:12 and as “hypocrisy” in the Luke 12:1 parallel.

CHAPTER 9—LEXICAL PROHIBITIONS Matt 16:11

287

προσέχετε δὲ ἀπὸ τῆς ζύµης τῶν Φαρισαίων καὶ Σαδδουκαίων. But pay attention against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees. (≈ “Do not be driven by the spreading of that which influences the Pharisees and Sadducees.”)7

Mark 4:39b

...σιώπα, πεφίµωσο. καὶ ἐκόπασεν ὁ ἄνεµος καὶ ἐγένετο γαλήνη µεγάλη. ‘Be quiet! Be still!’ And the wind ceased and there was a great calm. (≈ “Do not be stormy.”)8

Mark 8:15b

ὁρᾶτε, βλέπετε ἀπὸ τῆς ζύµης τῶν Φαρισαίων καὶ τῆς ζύµης Ἡρῴδου. Watch out! Beware of the yeast of the Pharisees and the yeast of Herod. (≈ “Do not be driven by the spreading of that which influences the Pharisees and Herod.”)9

Mark 12:38

βλέπετε ἀπὸ τῶν γραµµατέων τῶν θελόντων ἐν στολαῖς περιπατεῖν καὶ ἀσπασµοὺς ἐν ταῖς ἀγοραῖς... Beware of the scribes who want to walk around in long robes and want greetings in the marketplaces... (≈ “Do not be like the scribes who live pretentiously.”)10

——— 7

On Matt 16:11, see the previous footnote for Matt 16:6.

8 While it could be argued that Mark 4:39b portrays a positive command, it is significant to note that it is both introduced as a prohibition (“he rebuked...” in Mark 4:39a; see in section 9.4) and concluded with a report of ceased activity. 9

On Mark 8:15b, see the footnote for Matt 16:6 above.

10 The Synoptic parallels of Mark 12:38 and Luke 20:46 (below) are similarly structured as lexical prohibitions using vision verbs (βλέπετε + ἀπὸ and προσέχετε + ἀπό), but the parallel in Matt 23:3 has a more familiar pres. impv. prohibition, µὴ ποιεῖτε; see in section 5.1.1 of Chapter 5. After a description of the scribal activities (Mark 12:38–40 and Luke 20:46–47; cf. Matt 23:4–7;), a prohibitory warning of punishment is given (Mark 12:40 and Luke 20:47, but the Matt 23:14 parallel—absent from UBS4, NA27 and 28, and SBLGNT texts— is viewed as spurious); see in section 12.2 of Chapter 12.

288


Luke 12:1

προσέχετε ἑαυτοῖς ἀπὸ τῆς ζύµης, ἥτις ἐστὶν ὑπόκρισις, τῶν Φαρισαίων. Pay attention to yourselves against the yeast of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy. (≈ “Do not be driven by the spreading of that which influences the Pharisees, that is, by hypocrisy.”)11

Luke 12:15

ὁρᾶτε καὶ φυλάσσεσθε ἀπὸ πάσης πλεονεξίας, Watch and guard yourselves against every form of greed, (≈ “Do not be greedy.”)

Luke 20:46

προσέχετε ἀπὸ τῶν γραµµατέων τῶν θελόντων περιπατεῖν ἐν στολαῖς καὶ φιλούντων ἀσπασµοὺς ἐν ταῖς ἀγοραῖς καὶ πρωτοκαθεδρίας ἐν ταῖς συναγωγαῖς καὶ πρωτοκλισίας ἐν τοῖς δείπνοις,... Pay attention against the scribes who want to walk around in long robes and love greetings in the marketplaces and the best seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at banquets,... (≈ “Do not be like the scribes who live pretentiously.”)12

Rom 16:17

Παρακαλῶ δὲ ὑµᾶς, ἀδελφοί, σκοπεῖν τοὺς τὰς διχοστασίας καὶ τὰ σκάνδαλα παρὰ τὴν διδαχὴν ἣν ὑµεῖς ἐµάθετε ποιοῦντας, καὶ ἐκκλίνετε ἀπ᾿ αὐτῶν· I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those causing divisions and stumbling blocks contrary to the teaching that you learned, and turn away from them. (≈ “Do not associate with these.”)

1 Cor 6:18

Φεύγετε τὴν πορνείαν. ... Flee sexual immorality. ... (≈ “Do not be engaged in sexual immorality.”)13

——— 11

On Luke 12:1, see the footnote for Matt 16:6 above.

12

On Luke 20:46 see the footnote for Mark 12:38 above.

13 Of the nine NT occurrences of impv. forms of φεύγω, Paul alone (and only) uses it in prohibitions: 1 Cor 6:18; 10:14; 1 Tim 6:11; 2 Tim 2:22. The five occurrences having no prohibitory force are in Matt 2:13; 10:23; 24:16; Mark 13:14; and Luke 21:21.

CHAPTER 9—LEXICAL PROHIBITIONS 1 Cor 10:14

289

Διόπερ, ἀγαπητοί µου, φεύγετε ἀπὸ τῆς εἰδωλολατρίας. Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry. (≈ “Do not be involved in idolatry.”)14

1 Cor 14:28

ἐὰν δὲ µὴ ᾖ διερµηνευτής, σιγάτω ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ, But if there is no interpreter, let him keep silent in church, (≈ “If there is no interpreter, he must not speak in church.”)

1 Cor 14:30

ἐὰν δὲ ἄλλῳ ἀποκαλυφθῇ καθηµένῳ, ὁ πρῶτος σιγάτω. If something is revealed to another sitting there, let the first be silent. (≈ “If something is revealed to another one there, the first must stop speaking.”)

1 Cor 14:34a

αἱ γυναῖκες ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις σιγάτωσαν· ... the women must keep silent in the churches. ... (≈ “Do not let women speak in the churches.”)

1 Thess 5:22

ἀπὸ παντὸς εἴδους πονηροῦ ἀπέχεσθε. Abstain from every form of evil. (≈ “Do not be involved in any form of evil.”)

1 Tim 4:7

τοὺς δὲ βεβήλους καὶ γραώδεις µύθους παραιτοῦ. But refuse the vile and silly myths. (≈ “Do not accept vile and silly myths.”)

1 Tim 5:11

νεωτέρας δὲ χήρας παραιτοῦ· But refuse younger widows [for the widows list]. (≈ “Do not accept younger widows onto the widows list.”)

1 Tim 6:11

Σὺ δέ, ὦ ἄνθρωπε θεοῦ, ταῦτα φεῦγε·.... But you, O man of God, flee these things.... (≈ “Do not be involved in these things....”)15

——— 14

On 1 Cor 10:14, see the previous footnote.

15

On 1 Tim 6:11, see the footnote for 1 Cor 6:18 above.

290


2 Tim 2:16

τὰς δὲ βεβήλους κενοφωνίας περιΐστασο· But avoid irreverent, foolish talk. (≈ “Do not be involved in irreverent, foolish talk.”)

2 Tim 2:22

Τὰς δὲ νεωτερικὰς ἐπιθυµίας φεῦγε, δίωκε δὲ δικαιοσύνην... So flee youthful lusts and pursue righteousness,... (≈ “Do not be engaged in youthful lusts.”)16

2 Tim 2:23

τὰς δὲ µωρὰς καὶ ἀπαιδεύτους ζητήσεις παραιτοῦ, εἰδὼς ὅτι γεννῶσιν µάχας· But refuse foolish and uneducated debates, knowing that they breed quarrels. (≈ “Do not be involved in foolish and uneducated debates, knowing they breed quarrels.”)

2 Tim 3:5

ἔχοντες µόρφωσιν εὐσεβείας τὴν δὲ δύναµιν αὐτῆς ἠρνηµένοι· καὶ τούτους ἀποτρέπου. having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. So avoid these. (≈ “Do not associate with people who appear godly but deny any power of it.”)

2 Tim 4:15

ὃν καὶ σὺ φυλάσσου, λίαν γὰρ ἀντέστη τοῖς ἡµετέροις λόγοις. And you be on your guard concerning him, for he vigorously opposed our teaching. (≈ “Do not be involved with him”)

Titus 3:9

µωρὰς δὲ ζητήσεις καὶ γενεαλογίας καὶ ἔρεις καὶ µάχας νοµικὰς περιΐστασο· But avoid foolish debates and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law. (≈ “Do not be involved in foolish debates, genealogies, and arguments, and quarrels about the law.”)

——— 16

On 2 Tim 2:22, see the footnote for 1 Cor 6:18 above.

CHAPTER 9—LEXICAL PROHIBITIONS Titus 3:10

291

αἱρετικὸν ἄνθρωπον µετὰ µίαν καὶ δευτέραν νουθεσίαν παραιτοῦ, Reject a divisive man after one or two warnings. (≈ “After one or two warnings, do not associate with a divisive man.”)

9.1.2 Lexically Negated Aorist Imperatives—2nd & 3rd Person Matt 16:24

εἴ τις θέλει ὀπίσω µου ἐλθεῖν, ἀπαρνησάσθω ἑαυτὸν καὶ ἀράτω τὸν σταυρὸν αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀκολουθείτω µοι. If anyone wants to come along with me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. (≈ “Do not live for yourself, but be ready to die, and follow me.”)

Mark 1:25b

φιµώθητι καὶ ἔξελθε ἐξ αὐτοῦ. Be silent and come out of him! (≈ “Do not speak! Come out of him!”)

Mark 8:34

εἴ τις θέλει ὀπίσω µου ἀκολουθεῖν, ἀπαρνησάσθω ἑαυτὸν καὶ ἀράτω τὸν σταυρὸν αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀκολουθείτω µοι. If anyone wants to follow after me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. (≈ “Do not live for yourself, but be ready to die, and follow me.”)

Luke 4:35b

φιµώθητι καὶ ἔξελθε ἀπ᾿ αὐτοῦ Be silent and come out of him! (≈ “Do not speak! Come out of him!”)

Luke 9:23

εἴ τις θέλει ὀπίσω µου ἔρχεσθαι, ἀρνησάσθω ἑαυτὸν καὶ ἀράτω τὸν σταυρὸν αὐτοῦ καθ᾿ ἡµέραν καὶ ἀκολουθείτω µοι. If anyone wants to come along with me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me. (≈ “Do not live for yourself, but be ready to die every day, and follow me.”)

292 Acts 5:38

PROHIBITIONS IN THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT καὶ τὰ νῦν λέγω ὑµῖν, ἀπόστητε ἀπὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων τούτων καὶ ἄφετε αὐτούς· And for now I say to you, keep away from these men and leave them alone. (≈ “Do not be with these men and leave them alone.”)

Eph 4:31

πᾶσα πικρία καὶ θυµὸς καὶ ὀργὴ καὶ κραυγὴ καὶ βλασφηµία ἀρθήτω ἀφ᾿ ὑµῶν σὺν πάσῃ κακίᾳ. Let all bitterness and anger and wrath and clamor and blasphemy be taken away from you with all evil. (≈ “Do not exhibit these verbal evils or any kind of evil.”)

Col 3:5

Νεκρώσατε οὖν τὰ µέλη τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, πορνείαν ἀκαθαρσίαν πάθος ἐπιθυµίαν κακήν, καὶ τὴν πλεονεξίαν, ἥτις ἐστὶν εἰδωλολατρία, Put to death therefore the parts of you based upon the earth: sexual immorality, uncleanness, passion, evil desire, and greediness, which is idolatry (≈ “Do not live according to the earthly parts of you.”)

Col 3:8

νυνὶ δὲ ἀπόθεσθε καὶ ὑµεῖς τὰ πάντα, ὀργήν, θυµόν, κακίαν, βλασφηµίαν, αἰσχρολογίαν ἐκ τοῦ στόµατος ὑµῶν· But now you must put aside all these things: wrath, anger, evil, blasphemy, and filthy talk from your mouth. (≈ “Do not be have wrath, anger, evil, blasphemy, and filthy talk in your mouth.”)

2 Tim 2:19

ἀποστήτω ἀπὸ ἀδικίας πᾶς ὁ ὀνοµάζων τὸ ὄνοµα κυρίου. Let everyone who names the name of the Lord depart from unrighteousness. (≈ “Do not be doing unrighteousness.”)

Jas 4:7

ὑποτάγητε οὖν τῷ θεῷ, ἀντίστητε δὲ τῷ διαβόλῳ καὶ φεύξεται ἀφ᾿ ὑµῶν, Therefore, submit yourselves to God, but resist the devil and he will flee from you. (≈ “Submit to God, but do not submit to the devil.”)

CHAPTER 9—LEXICAL PROHIBITIONS 1 Pet 3:10a

293

ὁ γὰρ θέλων ζωὴν ἀγαπᾶν καὶ ἰδεῖν ἡµέρας ἀγαθὰς παυσάτω τὴν γλῶσσαν ἀπὸ κακοῦ... For ‘Whoever desires to love life and to see good days, let him stop his tongue from evil....’ (≈ “Do not speak evil.”)17

1 Pet 3:11

ἐκκλινάτω δὲ ἀπὸ κακοῦ καὶ ποιησάτω ἀγαθόν, ζητησάτω εἰρήνην καὶ διωξάτω αὐτήν· and he must turn away from evil and do good; he must seek peace and pursue it. (≈ “Do not do evil, but do good.”)18

1 Pet 5:9

ᾧ ἀντίστητε στερεοὶ τῇ πίστει εἰδότες τὰ αὐτὰ τῶν παθηµάτων τῇ ἐν [τῷ] κόσµῳ ὑµῶν ἀδελφότητι ἐπιτελεῖσθαι. Resist him, firm in the faith, knowing the same kinds of suffering to be experienced by your brotherhood throughout the world. (≈ “Being firm in the faith, do not submit to him,...”)

1 John 5:21

Τεκνία, φυλάξατε ἑαυτὰ ἀπὸ τῶν εἰδώλων. Little children, guard yourselves from idols. (≈ “Do not be involved with idols”)

9.1.3 Lexically Negated Perfect Imperatives—2nd Person Mark 4:39c

... σιώπα, πεφίµωσο. καὶ ἐκόπασεν ὁ ἄνεµος καὶ ἐγένετο γαλήνη µεγάλη. ‘Be quiet! Be still!’ And the wind ceased and there was a great calm. (≈ “Do not be stormy.”)19

——— 17 The paraphrase in 1 Pet 3:10a uses the vocabulary of Ps 33:13–14 LXX. On the rest of this citation in 1 Pet 3:10b, see with negated inf. constructions in section 7.4.4 of Chapter 7. 18 Continuing from 1 Pet 3:10, the OT citation in 1 Pet 3:11 paraphrases Ps 33:15 LXX, changing all four of its 2nd pers. aor. impv. constructions to 3rd pers. constructions. 19 See Mark 4:39b in section 9.1.1 above. The only four perfect impv. verbs in the NT include this lexical prohibition in Mark 4:39c, a prohibitory warning in Eph 5:5 (see in section 12.2 of Chapter 12) and positive uses in Acts 15:29 and Jas 1:19. See also Appendix D.

294


9.2 Lexically Negated Terms in Other Prohibitory Contexts This section contains an eclectic collection of NT prohibitions involving lexically negated terms that are not verbs in the imperative mood. Thus, the items here involve prohibitions constructed with lexically negated infinitives, participles, complements with verbs of being, adverbs, and even a hortatory subjunctive. Table 9.2 tallies all these NT prohibitions, distinguishing between the varying methods of portraying prohibitory force. In this listing we put the lexically negated term in bold typeface and underline any other terms that may make the imperatival force more readily apparent (e.g., the impv. verb being modified by the lexically negated adverb). For each of these an equivalent prohibitory gloss is provided. NT PROHIBITIONS USING OTHER LEXICALLY NEGATED TERMS Lexically Negated Hortatory Subjunctives: ..................................................... 1 (Rom 13:12)

Lexically Negated Infinitives: ......................................................................... 3 Subject Inf. (Titus 1:11a): ............................................................................. 1 Appositional Inf. (Acts 15:29a; 1 Thess 4:3): ................................................. 2

Lexically Negated Participles: ......................................................................... 9 Attributive Ptc. (Luke 1:20a): ....................................................................... 1 Adverbial Ptc. (Acts 15:29b; Eph 4:25; 6:9; 1 Tim 6:20; Heb 12:1; Jas 1:21; 1 Pet 2:1): ................................................................ 7 Independent Imperatival Ptc. (Rom 12:9b): ................................................ 1

Lexically Negated Final Clauses with ἵνα: ...................................................... 6 (Rom 3:19; Phil 2:15a, 15b, 15c; 1 Tim 5:7; 1 Pet 2:24)

Lexical Prohibitions as Complementary Adjectives: .................................... 18 (Matt 10:16; Acts 10:28a; Rom 12:9a; 16:19; 1 Cor 7:32; 10:32; 15:58; Eph 1:4; 1 Tim 3:2, 3c, 3d, 10; Titus 1:6a, 7a; Heb 13:4a, 5; Jas 3:17a, 17b)

Other Lexically Negated Adjectives: .............................................................. 4 (Heb 10:23; Jas 1:27; 2 Pet 3:14a, 14b)

Lexically Negated Adverbs: ............................................................................ 2 (1 Cor 7:35; 1 Thess 5:17)

Lexically Negated Prohibitory Emulation Statements: .................................. 2 (Rom 3:27; 1 Pet 4:1)

TOTAL:

45

Table 9.2 Matt 10:16

γίνεσθε οὖν φρόνιµοι ὡς οἱ ὄφεις καὶ ἀκέραιοι ὡς αἱ περιστεραί. Therefore be wise as serpents and untainted as doves. (≈ “Like serpents be wise and like doves do not be tainted.”)

CHAPTER 9—LEXICAL PROHIBITIONS Luke 1:20a

295

καὶ ἰδοὺ ἔσῃ σιωπῶν... And behold, you will be silent... (≈ “Be silent.”)20

Acts 10:28a

ὑµεῖς ἐπίστασθε ὡς ἀθέµιτόν ἐστιν ἀνδρὶ Ἰουδαίῳ κολλᾶσθαι ἢ προσέρχεσθαι ἀλλοφύλῳ· You know how it is unlawful for a Jewish man to associate with or to visit a foreigner. (≈ “Do not associate with or visit a foreigner.”)

Acts 15:29a

{τούτων τῶν ἐπάναγκες...} ἀπέχεσθαι εἰδωλοθύτων καὶ αἵµατος καὶ... {these requirements...} to abstain from food offered to idols and blood and... (≈ “Do not partake in food offered to idols and blood and...”)

Acts 15:29b

...ἐξ ὧν διατηροῦντες ἑαυτοὺς εὖ πράξετε. ... keeping yourselves from these things, you will do well. (≈ “Do not partake in these things.”)

Rom 3:19

οἴδαµεν δὲ ὅτι ὅσα ὁ νόµος λέγει τοῖς ἐν τῷ νόµῳ λαλεῖ, ἵνα πᾶν στόµα φραγῇ καὶ ὑπόδικος γένηται πᾶς ὁ κόσµος τῷ θεῷ· Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to the ones connected with the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world may be guilty before God. (≈ “Do not claim innocence under the law but recognize your guilt before God.”)

Rom 3:27

Ποῦ οὖν ἡ καύχησις; ἐξεκλείσθη. ... Where then is boasting? It is excluded. ... (≈ “Do not boast about earning righteousness.”)

——— 20 The doubled periphrastic construction of Luke 1:20a–b (fut. ἔσῃ + ptc. σιωπῶν + negated ptc. δυνάµενος) is clearly a curse, so we include both parts as a kind of negative command; see the discussion on pp. 180–81 and 199. As a negated ptc. construction (µὴ δυνάµενος), Luke 1:20b is listed in section 7.5.2 of Chapter 7.

296 Rom 12:9a

PROHIBITIONS IN THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT Ἡ ἀγάπη ἀνυπόκριτος.... [Let] love [be] without hypocrisy... (≈ “In your loving, do not have hypocrisy.”)21

Rom 12:9b

...ἀποστυγοῦντες τὸ πονηρόν, κολλώµενοι τῷ ἀγαθῷ, Abhorring what is evil, clinging to what is good. (≈ “Do not be involved with evil, but cling to what is good.”)22

Rom 13:12

ἀποθώµεθα οὖν τὰ ἔργα τοῦ σκότους, ἐνδυσώµεθα [δὲ] τὰ ὅπλα τοῦ φωτός. Therefore let us put aside the works of darkness [and] let us put on the armor of light. (≈ “Do not be wearing the works of darkness, but put on the armor of light.”)

Rom 16:19

θέλω δὲ ὑµᾶς σοφοὺς εἶναι εἰς τὸ ἀγαθόν, ἀκεραίους δὲ εἰς τὸ κακόν. but I want you to be wise regarding what is good and untainted regarding what is evil. (≈ “Be wise regarding what is good and do not be tainted with what is evil.”)

1 Cor 7:32

Θέλω δὲ ὑµᾶς ἀµερίµνους εἶναι. I want you to be without cares. (≈ “Do not have worries.”)

1 Cor 7:35

τοῦτο δὲ πρὸς τὸ ὑµῶν αὐτῶν σύµφορον λέγω, οὐχ ἵνα βρόχον ὑµῖν ἐπιβάλω ἀλλὰ πρὸς τὸ εὔσχηµον καὶ εὐπάρεδρον τῷ κυρίῳ ἀπερισπάστως.

——— 21 In the context of Rom 12, it is natural to presume an impv. verb of being (ἔστω) in v. 9a for the adj. (ἀνυπόκριτος) to serve as complement to the noun (ἀγάπη). 22 Naturally the presumed impv. verb of being in Rom 12:9a (see the previous footnote) could be understood in v. 12b as well, but an argument could be made that the ptc. here (ἀποστυγοῦντες) is an independent imperatival ptc.; see section 7.5.3 of Chapter 7. We list it here as a lexically negated term rather than with the negated ptc. constructions of Chapter 7.


297

But I say this for your own advantage, not in order to lay a restriction upon you, but for propriety and devotion to the Lord without distraction. (≈ “Do not be distracted in your devotion to the Lord.”) 1 Cor 10:32

ἀπρόσκοποι καὶ Ἰουδαίοις γίνεσθε καὶ Ἕλλησιν καὶ τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ, Be without offense to the Jews and the Greeks and the church of God (≈ “Do not offend the Jews, the Greeks, and the church of God.”)

1 Cor 15:58

Ὥστε, ἀδελφοί µου ἀγαπητοί, ἑδραῖοι γίνεσθε, ἀµετακίνητοι, περισσεύοντες ἐν τῷ ἔργῳ τοῦ κυρίου πάντοτε Therefore, my beloved brothers, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord (≈ “Do not move.”)

Eph 1:4

καθὼς ἐξελέξατο ἡµᾶς ἐν αὐτῷ πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσµου εἶναι ἡµᾶς ἁγίους καὶ ἀµώµους κατενώπιον αὐτοῦ ἐν ἀγάπῃ, Even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world to be holy and without fault before him in love. (≈ “We must not be blameworthy.”)

Eph 4:25

Διὸ ἀποθέµενοι τὸ ψεῦδος λαλεῖτε ἀλήθειαν ἕκαστος µετὰ τοῦ πλησίον αὐτοῦ Therefore, having put aside falsehood, each one of you speak the truth with his neighbor (≈ “Do not be given to falsehood, but speak the truth with one another.”)

Eph 6:9

Καὶ οἱ κύριοι, τὰ αὐτὰ ποιεῖτε πρὸς αὐτούς, ἀνιέντες τὴν ἀπειλήν And, masters, do the same to them, stopping the threats (≈ “Masters, do not be threatening your servants.”)

298 Phil 2:15a

PROHIBITIONS IN THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT ἵνα γένησθε ἄµεµπτοι καὶ... in order that you may be blameless and... (≈ “Do not be blameworthy.”)

Phil 2:15b

{ἵνα γένησθε...} ἀκέραιοι,... {in order that you may be...} untainted,... (≈ “Do not be tainted with evil.”)

Phil 2:15c

{ἵνα γένησθε...} τέκνα θεοῦ ἄµωµα µέσον γενεᾶς σκολιᾶς καὶ διεστραµµένης, ἐν οἷς φαίνεσθε ὡς φωστῆρες ἐν κόσµῳ, {in order that you may be...} children of God who are faultless in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom you are shining like stars in the world. (≈ “Do not have fault.”)

1 Thess 4:3

Τοῦτο γάρ ἐστιν θέληµα τοῦ θεοῦ, ὁ ἁγιασµὸς ὑµῶν, ἀπέχεσθαι ὑµᾶς ἀπὸ τῆς πορνείας, For this is the will of God, your sanctification, you are to abstain from sexual immorality; (≈ “Do not be involved in sexual immorality.”)

1 Thess 5:17

ἀδιαλείπτως προσεύχεσθε, Pray without ceasing (≈ “Do not stop praying.”)

1 Tim 3:2

δεῖ οὖν τὸν ἐπίσκοπον ἀνεπίληµπτον εἶναι, µιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα, νηφάλιον σώφρονα κόσµιον φιλόξενον διδακτικόν, Therefore it is necessary for an overseer to be without criticism, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, selfcontrolled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, (≈ “Do not let a man worthy of criticism serve as an overseer.”)23

——— 23 The commanded list of overseer attributes in 1 Tim 3:2–6 (including the lexically prohibitory ones here in vv. 2, 3c, and 3d and the negative expression prohibitions in vv. 3a, 3b, and 6a listed in section 13.3 of Chapter 13) are structured as complements with δεῖ...εἶναι (“it is necessary for him to be” or “he must be”) in 3:2.

CHAPTER 9—LEXICAL PROHIBITIONS 1 Tim 3:3c

299

{δεῖ...τὸν ἐπίσκοπον...εἶναι...} ἄµαχον..., {it is necessary for an overseer to be...}not quarrelsome,... (≈ “Do not have a quarrelsome man serve as an overseer.”)24

1 Tim 3:3d

{δεῖ...τὸν ἐπίσκοπον...εἶναι...}ἀφιλάργυρον, {it is necessary for an overseer to be...}not a lover of money, (≈ “Do not have a money-lover serve as an overseer.”)25

1 Tim 3:10

καὶ οὗτοι δὲ δοκιµαζέσθωσαν πρῶτον, εἶτα διακονείτωσαν ἀνέγκλητοι ὄντες. And let them also be tested first; then let them serve as deacons being without accusation. (≈ “Do not let men under accusation serve as deacons.”)

1 Tim 5:7

καὶ ταῦτα παράγγελλε, ἵνα ἀνεπίληµπτοι ὦσιν. Command these things also, in order that they may be without criticism. (≈ “By commanding these things, do not let anyone be open to criticism.”)26

1 Tim 6:20

Ὦ Τιµόθεε, τὴν παραθήκην φύλαξον ἐκτρεπόµενος τὰς βεβήλους κενοφωνίας καὶ ἀντιθέσεις τῆς ψευδωνύµου γνώσεως, O Timothy, guard the deposit, avoiding irreverent, foolish talk and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge. (≈ “Do not be involved in irreverent, foolish talk and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge.”)

Titus 1:6a

εἴ τίς ἐστιν ἀνέγκλητος, µιᾶς γυναικὸς ἀνήρ,.... if anyone is without accusation, the husband of one wife,.... (≈ “Do not have an elder who is under accusation.”)27

——— 24

On 1 Tim 3:3c, see the previous footnote.

25

On 1 Tim 3:3d, see the footnote for 1 Tim 3:2 above.

26 While constructed within a final clause with ἵνα (cf. section 8.2.1 of Chapter 8), the prohibitory force in 1 Tim 5:7 comes from the negative lexical value of the adj. ἀνεπίληµπτος. 27 The commanded list of elder attributes in Titus 1:6 (including the prohibition here and the one in 6b listed in section 13.3 of Chapter 13) are structured as complements with ἐστιν.

300


Titus 1:7a

δεῖ γὰρ τὸν ἐπίσκοπον ἀνέγκλητον εἶναι ὡς θεοῦ οἰκονόµον,... For it is necessary for an overseer, as God’s steward, to be without accusation,... (≈ “Do not have an overseer who is under accusation.”)28

Titus 1:11a

{Εἰσὶν γὰρ πολλοὶ [καὶ] ἀνυπότακτοι, µαταιολόγοι καὶ φρεναπάται, µάλιστα οἱ ἐκ τῆς περιτοµῆς,...} οὓς δεῖ ἐπιστοµίζειν,... {For many are also unruly, empty talkers, and deceivers, especially those from of the circumcision,...} whom it is necessary to silence,... (≈ “Do not allow the deceptive and unruly empty talkers to continue speaking.”)

Heb 10:23

κατέχωµεν τὴν ὁµολογίαν τῆς ἐλπίδος ἀκλινῆ, πιστὸς γὰρ ὁ ἐπαγγειλάµενος, Let us hold the confession of our hope without wavering, for the one who promised is faithful. (≈ “Do not waver in you confession of hope.”)

Heb 12:1

ὄγκον ἀποθέµενοι πάντα καὶ τὴν εὐπερίστατον ἁµαρτίαν, δι᾿ ὑποµονῆς τρέχωµεν τὸν προκείµενον ἡµῖν ἀγῶνα putting aside every hindrance and easily distracting sin, let us run with endurance the race set before us (≈ “Do not be encumbered by any hindrance or easily distracting sin.”)

Heb 13:4a

Τίµιος ὁ γάµος ἐν πᾶσιν καὶ ἡ κοίτη ἀµίαντος, Marriage [is to be] honored by all, and the marriage bed [is to be] undefiled, (≈ “Do not defile the marriage bed”)29

——— 28 The commanded list of overseer attributes in Titus 1:7–9 (including the prohibition here and those in vv. 7b–f listed in section 13.3 of Chapter 13) are structured as complements with δεῖ...εἶναι (“it is necessary for him to be” or “he must be”). 29

It is natural to presume an impv. verb of being (ἔστω) in Heb 13:4a for each adj. (τίµιος and ἀµίαντος) to serve as complement to its corresponding noun (ὁ γάµος and ἡ κοίτη).

301

CHAPTER 9—LEXICAL PROHIBITIONS Heb 13:5

Ἀφιλάργυρος ὁ τρόπος, ἀρκούµενοι τοῖς παροῦσιν. [Let] your life [be] free from love of money, being content with what you have. (≈ “Do not love money; be content with what you have.”)30

Jas 1:21

διὸ ἀποθέµενοι πᾶσαν ῥυπαρίαν καὶ περισσείαν κακίας ἐν πραΰτητι, δέξασθε τὸν ἔµφυτον λόγον τὸν δυνάµενον σῶσαι τὰς ψυχὰς ὑµῶν. Therefore, putting aside all moral filth and excess evil, in gentleness receive the implanted word, which is able to save your souls. (≈ “Do not be encumbered by moral filth and excess evil.”)

Jas 1:27

θρησκεία καθαρὰ καὶ ἀµίαντος παρὰ τῷ θεῷ καὶ πατρὶ αὕτη ἐστίν, ἐπισκέπτεσθαι ὀρφανοὺς καὶ χήρας ἐν τῇ θλίψει αὐτῶν, ἄσπιλον ἑαυτὸν τηρεῖν ἀπὸ τοῦ κόσµου. Pure and undefiled worship before our God and Father is this: to look after orphans and widows in their trouble and to keep oneself unstained by the world. (≈ “Do not be stained by the world.”)

Jas 3:17a

ἡ δὲ ἄνωθεν σοφία πρῶτον µὲν ἁγνή ἐστιν, ἔπειτα εἰρηνική, ἐπιεικής, εὐπειθής, µεστὴ ἐλέους καὶ καρπῶν ἀγαθῶν, ἀδιάκριτος,... But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality... (≈ “Do not be partial.”)

Jas 3:17b

{ἡ δὲ ἄνωθεν ἀνυπόκριτος.

σοφία

πρῶτον

µὲν

ἁγνή

ἐστιν,...}

{But the wisdom from above is first pure,...} without hypocricy. (≈ “Do not be hypocritical.”) ——— 30

It is natural to presume an impv. verb of being (ἔστω) in Heb 13:5 for the adj. (ἀφιλάργυρος) to serve as complement to the noun (ὁ τρόπος).

302 1 Pet 2:1

PROHIBITIONS IN THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT Ἀποθέµενοι οὖν πᾶσαν κακίαν καὶ πάντα δόλον καὶ ὑποκρίσεις καὶ φθόνους καὶ πάσας καταλαλιάς, {...τὸ λογικὸν ἄδολον γάλα ἐπιποθήσατε...} Therefore putting aside all evil and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander, {...yearn for pure spiritual milk...} (≈ “Do not be encumbered by any evil, deceit, hypocrisy, envy, and slander.”)

1 Pet 2:24

ὃς τὰς ἁµαρτίας ἡµῶν αὐτὸς ἀνήνεγκεν ἐν τῷ σώµατι αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τὸ ξύλον, ἵνα ταῖς ἁµαρτίαις ἀπογενόµενοι τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ ζήσωµεν, οὗ τῷ µώλωπι ἰάθητε. He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, in order that ceasing from sins we may live to righteousness, by whose wounds you have been healed. (≈ “Do not be sinning, but live to righteousness.”)31

1 Pet 4:1

Χριστοῦ οὖν παθόντος σαρκὶ καὶ ὑµεῖς τὴν αὐτὴν ἔννοιαν ὁπλίσασθε, ὅτι ὁ παθὼν σαρκὶ πέπαυται ἁµαρτίας Since therefore Christ suffered in the flesh, arm yourselves also with the same intention because the one who suffered in the flesh has finished with sin (≈ “Do not be sinning.”)

2 Pet 3:14a

Διό, ἀγαπητοί, ταῦτα προσδοκῶντες σπουδάσατε ἄσπιλοι καὶ ἀµώµητοι αὐτῷ εὑρεθῆναι ἐν εἰρήνῃ Therefore, beloved, while waiting for these things, strive to be found before him at peace unstained and blameless. (≈ “Do not have stains.”)

——— 31 While constructed within a final clause with ἵνα (cf. section 8.2.1 of Chapter 8), the prohibitory force in 1 Pet 2:24 comes from the negative lexical value of the ptc. ἀπογενόµενοι. Defining ἀπογίνοµαι as “to cease, with a complete and abrupt change – ‘to cease, to stop’,” Louw and Nida suggest the translation, “having stopped sinning” or “ceased sinning.” They remark further, “It is possible that in the translation of this phrase in 1 Pe 2.24 one might wish to preserve the figurative form and translate as ‘dying to sin’”; LN 1:660 (§68.40); cf. 679 (§74.27). Most English translations follow this second approach (so ESV, NASB, HCSB, NKJV, NIV, and NLT); NRSV has “free from sins.”

CHAPTER 9—LEXICAL PROHIBITIONS 2 Pet 3:14b

303

Διό, ἀγαπητοί, ταῦτα προσδοκῶντες σπουδάσατε ἄσπιλοι καὶ ἀµώµητοι αὐτῷ εὑρεθῆναι ἐν εἰρήνῃ Therefore, beloved, while waiting for these things, strive to be found before him at peace unstained and blameless. (≈ “Do not be blameworthy.”)

9.3 Lexical Prohibitions in Indirect Discourse Having separated out several subcategories of prohibitions in indirect discourse in Chapters 7 and 8 (see sections 7.4.1 and 8.1.2 above), it seems fitting to do so here for lexical prohibitions as well. We find a total of 22 such constructions that lexically reflect prohibitory indirect discourse. These can be sorted into several subcategories as portrayed in Table 9.3. NT LEXICAL PROHIBITIONS IN INDIRECT DISCOURSE Using Indirect Discourse Infinitives (Matt 16:12; Acts 8:38; 10:47a; 12:17b; 15:20; 21:25; Eph 4:22; 2 Thess 3:6; 1 Tim 4:3b; 1 Pet 2:11).............. 10 Using ἵνα Clauses (Matt 20:31b; Mark 10:48b; Luke 18:39b; Titus 2:12) ........ 4 Using Adjectives (1 Cor 7:11a; 1 Tim 6:14a, 14b; and Titus 3:2b) ................. 4 Using Adjectival Participles (1 Cor. 4:14; 1 Thess 2:16; 1 Tim 4:3a) ........... 3 Using a Noun (Acts 21:21a) ................................................................ 1 TOTAL: ........................................................................................... 22

Table 9.3 Table 8.1.2 (on p. 252 above) can be consulted for a tally of all NT indirect discourse prohibitions. In the listing of the lexical prohibitions in indirect discourse provided below, the prohibitory clause is in bold typeface and the controlling verb of discourse is underlined. Matt 16:12

τότε συνῆκαν ὅτι οὐκ εἶπεν προσέχειν ἀπὸ τῆς ζύµης τῶν ἄρτων ἀλλὰ ἀπὸ τῆς διδαχῆς τῶν Φαρισαίων καὶ Σαδδουκαίων. Then they understood that he did not say to pay attention against the yeast of bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees. (≈ “Do not be driven by the spreading of that which influences the Pharisees and Sadducees.”)

304


Matt 20:31b

ὁ δὲ ὄχλος ἐπετίµησεν αὐτοῖς ἵνα σιωπήσωσιν· οἱ δὲ µεῖζον ἔκραξαν λέγοντες· ἐλέησον ἡµᾶς, κύριε, υἱὸς Δαυίδ. And the crowd rebuked them that they would keep quiet, but they cried out all the more saying, ‘Have mercy on us, Lord, Son of David!’ (≈ “The crowd said, ‘Stop speaking!’”)

Mark 10:48b καὶ ἐπετίµων αὐτῷ πολλοὶ ἵνα σιωπήσῃ· ὁ δὲ πολλῷ µᾶλλον ἔκραζεν· υἱὲ Δαυίδ, ἐλέησόν µε. Many were rebuking him that he would keep quiet, but he was crying out all the more, ‘Son of David, have mercy on me!’ (≈ “Manying were saying, ‘Stop speaking!’”) Luke 18:39b

καὶ οἱ προάγοντες ἐπετίµων αὐτῷ ἵνα σιγήσῃ, αὐτὸς δὲ πολλῷ µᾶλλον ἔκραζεν· υἱὲ Δαυίδ, ἐλέησόν µε. And those in front were rebuking him that he would be quiet, but he cried out all the more, ‘Son of David, have mercy on me!’ (≈ “Those in the front were saying, ‘Stop speaking!’”)

Acts 8:38

καὶ ἐκέλευσεν στῆναι τὸ ἅρµα And he ordered the chariot to stop (≈ “He ordered, ‘Stop the chariot.’”)

Acts 10:47a

µήτι τὸ ὕδωρ δύναται κωλῦσαί τις τοῦ µὴ βαπτισθῆναι τούτους, οἵτινες τὸ πνεῦµα τὸ ἅγιον ἔλαβον ὡς καὶ ἡµεῖς; Is anyone able to forbid water so that these not be baptized, who received the Holy Spirit just as we did? (≈ “Can anyone say, ‘Do not provide water’?”)

Acts 12:17b

κατασείσας δὲ αὐτοῖς τῇ χειρὶ σιγᾶν διηγήσατο [αὐτοῖς] πῶς ὁ κύριος αὐτὸν ἐξήγαγεν ἐκ τῆς φυλακῆς... But motioning to them with his hand to be silent, he described to them how the Lord brought him out of the prison... (≈ “He gestured, ‘Please stop speaking.’”)32

——— 32

On this use of κατασείω, see the introductory remarks to section 9.4 below.

CHAPTER 9—LEXICAL PROHIBITIONS Acts 15:20

305

ἀλλὰ ἐπιστεῖλαι αὐτοῖς τοῦ ἀπέχεσθαι τῶν ἀλισγηµάτων τῶν εἰδώλων καὶ τῆς πορνείας καὶ τοῦ πνικτοῦ καὶ τοῦ αἵµατος. but to write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and sexual immorality, and things strangled, and blood. (≈ “Let us write to them, ‘Do not partake in things polluted by idols and sexual immorality, and strangled things, and blood.’”)

Acts 21:21a

κατηχήθησαν δὲ περὶ σοῦ ὅτι ἀποστασίαν διδάσκεις ἀπὸ Μωϋσέως τοὺς κατὰ τὰ ἔθνη πάντας Ἰουδαίους λέγων... And they have been told about you that you are teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles apostasy from Moses, telling them... (≈ “You are teaching all the Jews among the Gentiles, ‘Do not follow Moses.’”)33

Acts 21:25

περὶ δὲ τῶν πεπιστευκότων ἐθνῶν ἡµεῖς ἐπεστείλαµεν κρίναντες φυλάσσεσθαι αὐτοὺς τό τε εἰδωλόθυτον καὶ αἷµα καὶ πνικτὸν καὶ πορνείαν. But concerning the Gentiles who have believed, we wrote judging that they are to guard themselves against food offered to idols, and blood, and things strangled, and sexual immorality. (≈ “We wrote, ‘Do not partake in food offered to idols, blood, strangled things, and sexual immorality.’”)

1 Cor 4:14

Οὐκ ἐντρέπων ὑµᾶς γράφω ταῦτα ἀλλ᾿ ὡς τέκνα µου ἀγαπητὰ νουθετῶ[ν] I am not writing these things shaming you, but admonishing you as my beloved children. (≈ “I am writing these things to tell you as my beloved children, ‘Do not do certain things.’”)

——— 33

On Acts 21:21a, see Acts 21:21b and 21c in section 7.4.1 of Chapter 7, as they are constructed with negated indirect discourse infs.

306 1 Cor 7:11a

PROHIBITIONS IN THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT {παραγγέλλω...} ἐὰν δὲ καὶ χωρισθῇ, µενέτω ἄγαµος ἢ τῷ ἀνδρὶ καταλλαγήτω... {I command...} but if she is separated, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband... (≈ “I command, ‘The separated woman must not marry someone else.’”)34

Eph 4:22

{ἐδιδάχθητε...} ἀποθέσθαι ὑµᾶς κατὰ τὴν προτέραν ἀναστροφὴν τὸν παλαιὸν ἄνθρωπον τὸν φθειρόµενον κατὰ τὰς ἐπιθυµίας τῆς ἀπάτης, {you have been taught...}, in reference to your former way of life, you are to put aside the old man, which is being corrupted in accordance with the lusts of deceit, (≈ “You were taught, ‘Do not be living your former way of life, corrupted according to the lusts of deceit.’”)

1 Thess 2:16

κωλυόντων ἡµᾶς τοῖς ἔθνεσιν λαλῆσαι ἵνα σωθῶσιν,... forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved... (≈ “Those not pleasing God are saying, ‘Do not speak to the Gentiles.’”)

2 Thess 3:6

Παραγγέλλοµεν δὲ ὑµῖν, ἀδελφοί, ἐν ὀνόµατι τοῦ κυρίου [ἡµῶν] Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ στέλλεσθαι ὑµᾶς ἀπὸ παντὸς ἀδελφοῦ ἀτάκτως περιπατοῦντος καὶ µὴ κατὰ τὴν παράδοσιν ἣν παρελάβοσαν παρ᾿ ἡµῶν. Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, you are to keep away from every brother walking without discipline and not according to the tradition that they received from us.

——— 34 As an adj., the α-privative ἄγαµος seems to bear some pragmatic prohibitory weight, but it can be argued that the impv. form of µένω here in 1 Cor 7:11a renders this a positive command to “remain unmarried.” This differs slightly from 1 Cor 7:8, where Paul instructs, “I say to the unmarried and the widows, it is good for them if they remain as I am” (Λέγω δὲ τοῖς ἀγάµοις καὶ ταῖς χήραις, καλὸν αὐτοῖς ἐὰν µείνωσιν ὡς κἀγώ). Particularly with the articular “the unmarried” (τοῖς ἀγάµοις) identifying a group of persons and not a condition per se, we understand 1 Cor 7:8 to be a positive command (i.e., “remain as I am [single]”), rather than a prohibition (i.e., “do not get married”).


307

(≈ “We command you, ‘Do not associate with a brother living an undisciplined life and contrary to the tradition which they received from us.’”) 1 Tim 4:3a

κωλυόντων γαµεῖν,... who forbid to marry... (≈ “The hypocritical liars say, ‘Do not marry.’”)

1 Tim 4:3b

...ἀπέχεσθαι βρωµάτων, ἃ ὁ θεὸς ἔκτισεν εἰς µετάληµψιν µετὰ εὐχαριστίας τοῖς πιστοῖς καὶ ἐπεγνωκόσι τὴν ἀλήθειαν. ...to abstain from foods that God created for reception with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. (≈ “The hypocritical liars say, ‘Do not eat certain foods.’”)

1 Tim 6:14a

{παραγγέλλω...} τηρῆσαί σε τὴν ἐντολὴν ἄσπιλον... {I charge] you to keep the commandment unstained... (≈ “Do not have stains in your keeping the commandment.”)35

1 Tim 6:14b

{παραγγέλλω...τηρῆσαί σε τὴν ἐντολὴν...} ἀνεπίληµπτον µέχρι τῆς ἐπιφανείας τοῦ κυρίου ἡµῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, {I charge you to keep the commandment unstained...] and without criticism until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, (≈ “Do not be open to criticism in your keeping the commandment.”)36

Titus 2:12

παιδεύουσα ἡµᾶς, ἵνα ἀρνησάµενοι τὴν ἀσέβειαν καὶ τὰς κοσµικὰς ἐπιθυµίας σωφρόνως καὶ δικαίως καὶ εὐσεβῶς ζήσωµεν ἐν τῷ νῦν αἰῶνι, training us that, rejecting ungodliness and worldly lust, we should live soberly and rightly and godly lives in the present age, (≈ “Do not be involved in ungodliness and worldly lust.”)

——— 35

For 1 Tim 6:14a and 14b, the controlling verb of speech is in 1 Tim 6:13.

36

On 1 Tim 6:14b, see the previous footnote.

308


Titus 3:2b

{῾Υποµίµνῃσκε αὐτοὺς...} µηδένα βλασφηµεῖν, ἀµάχους εἶναι, ἐπιεικεῖς, πᾶσαν ἐνδεικνυµένους πραΰτητα πρὸς πάντας ἀνθρώπους. {Remind them...} not to blaspheme anyone, to be unquarrelsome, gentle, showing kindness to all people. (≈ “Do not be quarrelsome.”)

1 Pet 2:11

Ἀγαπητοί, παρακαλῶ ὡς παροίκους καὶ παρεπιδήµους ἀπέχεσθαι τῶν σαρκικῶν ἐπιθυµιῶν αἵτινες στρατεύονται κατὰ τῆς ψυχῆς· Beloved, I urge you as strangers and pilgrims to abstain from the lusts of the flesh, which wage war against the soul. (≈ “I am urging you, ‘Do not engage in fleshly lusts.’”)

9.4 Lexical Reports of Prohibitions For a greater sense of completeness, we have included in this separate section a simple list of NT prohibition reports that use some of the lexical terms to narrate the fact that a prohibition occurred. Unlike the prohibitions in lexically negated imperative constuctions (sections 9.1 and 9.2) and those in indirect discourse (section 9.3) listed above, the items in this section may give little detail in and of themselves on the content (or intensity) of the prohibition; each simply indicates that a prohibition of some kind occurred. These are primarily terms of rebuke (e.g., διαστέλλω,37 ἐλεγµός, ἔλεγξις, ἐλέγχω, ἐµβριµάοµαι, ἐπιτιµάω, νουθετέω38)39 and hindering (e.g., ἀρνέοµαι, ——— The NT use of the middle/passive forms of διαστέλλω seem to have a more narrow and prohibitory meaning than acknowledged by Louw and Nida. They offer the broad definition “to state with force and/or authority what others must do – ‘to order, to command’”; LN 1:425 (§33.323). But of the eight occurrences in the NT, seven introduce or comment on prohibitory instructions (Matt 16:20a; Mark 5:43a; 7:36a, 36c; 8:15a; 9:9a; Heb 12:20) and the last is arguably positive (albeit itself negated: οὐ διεστειλάµεθα in Acts 15:24). We include here in our list of lexical prohibition reports the seven occurrences with prohibitory instructions. 37

38 For the eight NT occurrences of νουθετέω, two involve prohibitory instruction: 1 Cor 4:14 (listed in section 9.3 above); 1 Thess 5:14 (listed in section 9.5 below); three involve positive warning: Acts 20:31; 1 Thess 5:12; 2 Thess 3:15; and three involve positive instruction: Rom 15:14; Col 1:28; 3:16.

Despite Louw and Nida listing ὀνειδίζω with other terms for “rebuke” (LN 1:437 [§33.422]), there is no clear NT occurrence where prohibitory instruction—rather than a general “criticize, revile” nuance—is contextually necessitated (the closest being the spurious Mark 16:14). 39

309


διακωλύω, κωλύω). While these terms are frequently used to introduce direct and indirect prohibitions (e.g., ἐπιτιµάω in Mark 4:39a introduces the explicit lexical prohibitions of 4:39b and c), they are sometimes used alone. This collection of reports—using terms (verbs and nouns) with lexically prohibitory implications—could not be assembled by simple lexical searches, as the semantic range for a single term might make it possible to be nonprohibitory (albeit still negative) in some contexts (e.g., “hindered” in Rom 1:13 does not necessitate that Paul was issued a verbal command to not go to Rome) and yet prohibitory in other contexts (e.g., “hindered” in 2 Pet 2:16b clearly refers to a verbalized prohibition, even if from a donkey!). Likewise, of its 15 NT occurrences, διαµαρτύροµαι has frequent positive use as “solemnly testify” (Acts 2:40; 8:25; 10:42; 18:5; 20:21, 23, 24; 23:11; 28:23; Heb 2:6) or even a sense of positive “solemnly charge” (e.g. 1 Tim 5:21; 2 Tim 4:1), but three times it is used with the sense of “solemnly rebuke” (1 Thess 4:6, listed here; and Luke 16:28a and 2 Tim 2:14a, which are listed under section 9.5 below). Perhaps the most unusual term included here is κατασείω (“to motion, gesture”), which is used four times in Acts as a prohibition for people to stop talking (Acts 12:17a; 13:16; 19:33; 21:40), the first being the most explicit about the prohibitory intention of the gesture. We list all the narrative items with lexical prohibition implications here (51 items) putting each lexically negated term in bold typeface but without offering any equivalent prohibitory glosses. As for the passages where the context also offers the content of the reported prohibition, those prohibitions are accounted for in their proper categories elsewhere in this volume.40 As noted in Table 9.4, another construction for simply narrating the occurrence of a prohibition is covered in section 10.4 of Chapter 10. NT REPORTS OF PROHIBITIONS Whether or not the context gives the actual prohibition, these primarily 3rd-person constructions* note that a prohibition occurred. Lexical Reports of Prohibitions (section 9.4): ............................................... 51 Prohibition Reports Using Negated Verbs of Permission (section 10.4): .... 15 TOTAL:

66

* Luke 11:52b and its parallel in Matt 23:13b are the only 2nd person constructions.

Table 9.4 ——— 40

Rather than noting here in this section the precise location of every such occurrence, we will leave the reader to consult the Scripture Index at the end of the volume.

310 Matt 3:14a

PROHIBITIONS IN THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT ὁ δὲ Ἰωάννης διεκώλυεν αὐτὸν λέγων· ἐγὼ χρείαν ἔχω ὑπὸ σοῦ βαπτισθῆναι, καὶ σὺ ἔρχῃ πρός µε; John was forbidding him, saying, “I have need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?”

Matt 8:26b

τότε ἐγερθεὶς ἐπετίµησεν τοῖς ἀνέµοις καὶ τῇ θαλάσσῃ, καὶ ἐγένετο γαλήνη µεγάλη. Then getting up, he rebuked the winds and the sea, and there was a great calm.

Matt 9:30a

καὶ ἐνεβριµήθη αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς λέγων· ὁρᾶτε µηδεὶς γινωσκέτω. And Jesus warned them saying, ‘See that no one comes to know this.’

Matt 12:16a

καὶ ἐπετίµησεν αὐτοῖς ἵνα µὴ φανερὸν αὐτὸν ποιήσωσιν, and he rebuked them that they must not make him known,

Matt 16:20a

τότε διεστείλατο τοῖς µαθηταῖς ἵνα µηδενὶ εἴπωσιν ὅτι αὐτός ἐστιν ὁ χριστός. Then he charged the disciples that they must not tell anyone that he is the Christ.

Matt 16:22a

καὶ προσλαβόµενος αὐτὸν ὁ Πέτρος ἤρξατο ἐπιτιµᾶν αὐτῷ λέγων· ἵλεώς σοι, κύριε· οὐ µὴ ἔσται σοι τοῦτο. Then taking him aside, Peter began to rebuke him, ‘Mercy to you, Lord! This will never happen to you!’

Matt 17:18

καὶ ἐπετίµησεν αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ἀπ᾿ αὐτοῦ τὸ δαιµόνιον καὶ ἐθεραπεύθη ὁ παῖς ἀπὸ τῆς ὥρας ἐκείνης. And Jesus rebuked him and the demon came out of him and the boy was healed from that hour.

Matt 19:13

Τότε προσηνέχθησαν αὐτῷ παιδία ἵνα τὰς χεῖρας ἐπιθῇ αὐτοῖς καὶ προσεύξηται· οἱ δὲ µαθηταὶ ἐπετίµησαν αὐτοῖς. Then little children were brought to him that he would lay his hands on them and pray. But the disciples rebuked them.

CHAPTER 9—LEXICAL PROHIBITIONS Matt 20:31a

311

ὁ δὲ ὄχλος ἐπετίµησεν αὐτοῖς ἵνα σιωπήσωσιν· οἱ δὲ µεῖζον ἔκραξαν λέγοντες· ἐλέησον ἡµᾶς, κύριε, υἱὸς Δαυίδ. And the crowd rebuked them that they would keep quiet, but they cried out all the more saying, ‘Have mercy on us, Lord, Son of David!’

Mark 1:25a

καὶ ἐπετίµησεν αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς λέγων· φιµώθητι καὶ ἔξελθε ἐξ αὐτοῦ. And Jesus rebuked him saying, ‘Be silent and come out of him!’

Mark 1:43

καὶ ἐµβριµησάµενος αὐτῷ εὐθὺς ἐξέβαλεν αὐτὸν Immediately warning him, he sent him away,41

Mark 3:12a

καὶ πολλὰ ἐπετίµα αὐτοῖς ἵνα µὴ αὐτὸν φανερὸν ποιήσωσιν and he was rebuking them much that they must not make him known,

Mark 4:39a

καὶ διεγερθεὶς ἐπετίµησεν τῷ ἀνέµῳ καὶ εἶπεν τῇ θαλάσσῃ· And getting up he rebuked the wind and said to the sea,...

Mark 5:43a

καὶ διεστείλατο αὐτοῖς πολλὰ ἵνα µηδεὶς γνοῖ τοῦτο, And he strictly charged them that no one should know this,

Mark 7:36a

καὶ διεστείλατο αὐτοῖς ἵνα µηδενὶ λέγωσιν·... And he charged them that they would tell no one....

Mark 7:36c

ὅσον δὲ αὐτοῖς διεστέλλετο, αὐτοὶ µᾶλλον περισσότερον ἐκήρυσσον. But the more he charged them, the more boldly they proclaimed.

——— 41

The warning of Mark 1:43 is spelled out as a more direct prohibition in Mark 1:44 (obj. of a vision verb; see in section 8.1.1 of Chapter 8). The Synoptic parallels, however, do not use a rebuking word to introduce Jesus’ prohibition: Matt 8:4 uses λέγει and Luke 5:14 uses παρήγγειλεν (and Luke renders the prohibition with an indirect discourse inf.; see in section 7.4.1 of Chapter 7).

312 Mark 8:15a

PROHIBITIONS IN THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT καὶ διεστέλλετο αὐτοῖς λέγων· ὁρᾶτε, βλέπετε ἀπὸ τῆς ζύµης τῶν Φαρισαίων καὶ τῆς ζύµης Ἡρῴδου. And he charged them saying, ‘Watch out; beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod.’

Mark 8:30a

καὶ ἐπετίµησεν αὐτοῖς ἵνα µηδενὶ λέγωσιν περὶ αὐτοῦ. And he rebuked them that they tell no one concerning him.

Mark 8:32

καὶ παρρησίᾳ τὸν λόγον ἐλάλει. καὶ προσλαβόµενος ὁ Πέτρος αὐτὸν ἤρξατο ἐπιτιµᾶν αὐτῷ. And he was speaking the word with certainty. And taking him aside, Peter began to rebuke him.

Mark 8:33a

ὁ δὲ ἐπιστραφεὶς καὶ ἰδὼν τοὺς µαθητὰς αὐτοῦ ἐπετίµησεν Πέτρῳ καὶ λέγει· ὕπαγε ὀπίσω µου, σατανᾶ, But turning and seeing his disciples, he rebuked Peter and said, ‘Get behind me, Satan,’

Mark 9:9a

διεστείλατο αὐτοῖς ἵνα µηδενὶ ἃ εἶδον διηγήσωνται, he charged them that they should explain to no one what they saw,

Mark 9:25a

ἰδὼν δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς ὅτι ἐπισυντρέχει ὄχλος, ἐπετίµησεν τῷ πνεύµατι τῷ ἀκαθάρτῳ λέγων αὐτῷ· And seeing that a crowd was quickly gathering, Jesus rebuked the unclean spirit, saying to it,

Mark 9:38

διδάσκαλε, εἴδοµέν τινα ἐν τῷ ὀνόµατί σου ἐκβάλλοντα δαιµόνια καὶ ἐκωλύοµεν αὐτόν, ὅτι οὐκ ἠκολούθει ἡµῖν. Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we were forbidding him, because he was not following us.

Mark 10:13

Καὶ προσέφερον αὐτῷ παιδία ἵνα αὐτῶν ἅψηται· οἱ δὲ µαθηταὶ ἐπετίµησαν αὐτοῖς. And they were bringing little children to him in order that he would touch them, but the disciples rebuked them.

CHAPTER 9—LEXICAL PROHIBITIONS Mark 10:48a

313

καὶ ἐπετίµων αὐτῷ πολλοὶ ἵνα σιωπήσῃ· ὁ δὲ πολλῷ µᾶλλον ἔκραζεν· υἱὲ Δαυίδ, ἐλέησόν µε. Many rebuked him that he would keep quiet, but he was crying out all the more, ‘Son of David, have mercy on me!’

Mark 14:5

ἠδύνατο γὰρ τοῦτο τὸ µύρον πραθῆναι ἐπάνω δηναρίων τριακοσίων καὶ δοθῆναι τοῖς πτωχοῖς· καὶ ἐνεβριµῶντο αὐτῇ. ‘For this ointment was able to be sold for more than three hundred denarii and to be given to the poor!’ And they rebuked her.

Luke 3:19

Ὁ δὲ Ἡρῴδης ὁ τετραάρχης, ἐλεγχόµενος ὑπ᾿ αὐτοῦ περὶ Ἡρῳδιάδος τῆς γυναικὸς τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ αὐτοῦ καὶ περὶ πάντων ὧν ἐποίησεν πονηρῶν ὁ Ἡρῴδης, But Herod the tetrarch, being reproved by him concerning Herodias, his brother’s wife, and for all the evil things that Herod did,42

Luke 4:35a

καὶ ἐπετίµησεν αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς λέγων· φιµώθητι καὶ ἔξελθε ἀπ᾿ αὐτοῦ And Jesus rebuked him saying, ‘Be silent and come out of him!’

Luke 4:39

καὶ ἐπιστὰς ἐπάνω αὐτῆς ἐπετίµησεν τῷ πυρετῷ καὶ ἀφῆκεν αὐτήν· And standing over her, he rebuked the fever and it left her.

Luke 4:41a

καὶ ἐπιτιµῶν οὐκ εἴα αὐτὰ λαλεῖν, ὅτι ᾔδεισαν τὸν χριστὸν αὐτὸν εἶναι. And rebuking them, he was not permitting them to speak, because they knew that he was the Christ.

——— 42

The Synoptic parallels to Luke 3:19 in Matt 14:4 and Mark 6:18 are constructed as negated statements of lawfulness or obligation; see in section 10.1 of Chapter 10.

314


Luke 8:24

ὁ δὲ διεγερθεὶς ἐπετίµησεν τῷ ἀνέµῳ καὶ τῷ κλύδωνι τοῦ ὕδατος· καὶ ἐπαύσαντο καὶ ἐγένετο γαλήνη. And awaking he rebuked the wind and the raging of the water, and they ceased and there was calmness.

Luke 9:21a

ὁ δὲ ἐπιτιµήσας αὐτοῖς παρήγγειλεν µηδενὶ λέγειν τοῦτο. And rebuking, he commanded them to tell no one this.

Luke 9:42

ἐπετίµησεν δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς τῷ πνεύµατι τῷ ἀκαθάρτῳ καὶ ἰάσατο τὸν παῖδα καὶ ἀπέδωκεν αὐτὸν τῷ πατρὶ αὐτοῦ. But Jesus rebuked the unclean spirit and healed the child, and gave him back to his father.

Luke 9:49

ἐπιστάτα, εἴδοµέν τινα ἐν τῷ ὀνόµατί σου ἐκβάλλοντα δαιµόνια καὶ ἐκωλύοµεν αὐτόν, ὅτι οὐκ ἀκολουθεῖ µεθ᾿ ἡµῶν. Master, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we were forbidding him, because he is not following with us.

Luke 9:55

στραφεὶς δὲ ἐπετίµησεν αὐτοῖς. But turning, he rebuked them.43

Luke 11:52b

αὐτοὶ οὐκ εἰσήλθατε καὶ τοὺς εἰσερχοµένους ἐκωλύσατε. You yourselves did not enter, and you hindered those who are entering.44

Luke 18:15

Προσέφερον δὲ αὐτῷ καὶ τὰ βρέφη ἵνα αὐτῶν ἅπτηται· ἰδόντες δὲ οἱ µαθηταὶ ἐπετίµων αὐτοῖς. And they were bringing even infants to him in order that he would touch them. But seeing it, the disciples rebuked them.

——— 43 In response to the disciples’ inquiry about calling fire down from heaven (Luke 9:54), Luke 9:55 is clear enough that a prohibition took place; nevertheless, some mss provide more dialog regarding Jesus’ opposition to the suggestion of violence. 44

Luke 11:52b and its parallel in Matt 23:13b (see in section 10.4 of Chapter 10) are the only 2nd pers. constructions of reports of prohibitions in the NT; the rest are in 3rd pers.

315

CHAPTER 9—LEXICAL PROHIBITIONS Luke 18:39a

καὶ οἱ προάγοντες ἐπετίµων αὐτῷ ἵνα σιγήσῃ, αὐτὸς δὲ πολλῷ µᾶλλον ἔκραζεν· υἱὲ Δαυίδ, ἐλέησόν µε. And those in front were rebuking him that he would be quiet, but he cried out all the more, ‘Son of David, have mercy on me!’

Luke 23:40a

ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ ὁ ἕτερος ἐπιτιµῶν αὐτῷ ἔφη· οὐδὲ φοβῇ σὺ τὸν θεόν, ὅτι ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ κρίµατι εἶ; But the other, answering and rebuking him, said, ‘Do you not fear God, since you are under the same judgment?’

Acts 12:17a

κατασείσας δὲ αὐτοῖς τῇ χειρὶ σιγᾶν διηγήσατο [αὐτοῖς] πῶς ὁ κύριος αὐτὸν ἐξήγαγεν ἐκ τῆς φυλακῆς But motioning to them with his hand to be silent, he described to them how the Lord brought him out of the prison.

Acts 13:16

Ἀναστὰς δὲ Παῦλος καὶ κατασείσας τῇ χειρὶ εἶπεν· ἄνδρες Ἰσραηλῖται καὶ οἱ φοβούµενοι τὸν θεόν, ἀκούσατε. Then standing and motioning with his hand, Paul said, ‘Israelite men and those who fear God, listen.’

Acts 16:6

Διῆλθον δὲ τὴν Φρυγίαν καὶ Γαλατικὴν χώραν κωλυθέντες ὑπὸ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύµατος λαλῆσαι τὸν λόγον ἐν τῇ Ἀσίᾳ· And they went through the region of Phrygia and Galatia, having been forbidden by the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia.

Acts 19:33

ὁ δὲ Ἀλέξανδρος κατασείσας ἀπολογεῖσθαι τῷ δήµῳ.

τὴν

χεῖρα

ἤθελεν

Then Alexander, motioning with his hand, was wanting to make a defense to the assembly. Acts 21:40

ἐπιτρέψαντος δὲ αὐτοῦ ὁ Παῦλος ἑστὼς ἐπὶ τῶν ἀναβαθµῶν κατέσεισεν τῇ χειρὶ τῷ λαῷ. πολλῆς δὲ σιγῆς γενοµένης... And when he had given him permission, Paul, standing on the steps, motioned with his hand to the people. And when there was a great hush,...

316 Acts 27:43

PROHIBITIONS IN THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT ὁ δὲ ἑκατοντάρχης βουλόµενος διασῶσαι τὸν Παῦλον ἐκώλυσεν αὐτοὺς τοῦ βουλήµατος, ἐκέλευσέν τε τοὺς δυναµένους κολυµβᾶν ἀπορίψαντας πρώτους ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν ἐξιέναι But the centurion, wishing to save Paul, hindered them from their plan, and he ordered those able to swim jumping first to go for the land,

1 Thess 4:6c

διότι ἔκδικος κύριος περὶ πάντων τούτων, καθὼς καὶ προείπαµεν ὑµῖν καὶ διεµαρτυράµεθα. because the Lord is an avenger concerning all these things, as we also told you beforehand and solemnly warned.

Heb 11:24

Πίστει Μωϋσῆς µέγας γενόµενος ἠρνήσατο λέγεσθαι υἱὸς θυγατρὸς Φαραώ, By faith, when he was grown, Moses refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter,45

Heb 12:20

οὐκ ἔφερον γὰρ τὸ διαστελλόµενον· κἂν θηρίον θίγῃ τοῦ ὄρους, λιθοβοληθήσεται· For they could not bear what was charged: ‘If even an animal touches the mountain, it shall be stoned.’

2 Pet 2:16a

ἔλεγξιν δὲ ἔσχεν ἰδίας παρανοµίας·... but received a rebuke for his own transgression;...

2 Pet 2:16b

...ὑποζύγιον ἄφωνον ἐν ἀνθρώπου φωνῇ φθεγξάµενον ἐκώλυσεν τὴν τοῦ προφήτου παραφρονίαν. ...a speechless donkey uttering in a human voice hindered the prophet’s madness.

——— 45 The term ἀρνέοµαι is usually used in the ind. mood to report a denial (e.g., as in “I do not know what you mean” in Matt 26:70; cf. 26:72 and parallels; Luke 8:45; Acts 4:16; 7:35) and not to report a prohibition. Nevertheless, we include the Heb 11:24 ind. use of ἀρνέοµαι as a report of a prohibition because it is hard to imagine how else Moses would carry out such a denial—i.e. of being called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter—except with a prohibition something like, “Do not call me that.” See also the impv. use of ἀπαρνέοµαι (Matt 16:24; Mark 8:34) and ἀρνέοµαι (Luke 9:23) in section 9.1.2 above.

CHAPTER 9—LEXICAL PROHIBITIONS 3 John 10

317

οὔτε αὐτὸς ἐπιδέχεται τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς καὶ τοὺς βουλοµένους κωλύει καὶ ἐκ τῆς ἐκκλησίας ἐκβάλλει. he himself does not welcome the brothers and he hinders those willing to do so, and he throws them out of the church.

9.5 Lexically Implied Indirect Discourse Prohibitions Section 9.4 above lists the indicative occurrences of negative actions like “reprove” (ἐλέγχω) as narrations of prohibitions. With some irony, this task required us to exclude from that previous list the positive commands (in the impv. mood) to do such things as “reprove” and “rebuke” as these do not actually give a prohibition or indicate that one has (yet) taken place.46 Nevertheless in a listing of NT prohibitions, it seems odd to neglect the imperative mood occurrences of lexically negative verbs. Thus, we include them here in this section so as to recognize that they are a kind of indirect discourse. That is, they do not issue a prohibition but instruct another to issue a prohibition. So, when an author instructs, “Reprove those people,” he can in effect be saying, “Tell those people to stop doing that.” Thus, speaking pragmatically, the indirect discourse is built into the lexical value of the imperative verb form (or construction). This same pragmatic effect seems to happen in some passive constructions regarding projected behavior so that, for example, “being reproved” is equivalent to “being told to not do that,” and so portrays a kind of prohibitory indirect discourse.47 For each of the 24 items listed here, we include a rough equivalent prohibitory gloss to make the pragmatic indirect discourse prohibition clear. We include the count of these as a separate line item in Table 8.1.2 (on p. 252 above), which tallies all NT indirect discourse prohibitions. Matt 18:15

Ἐὰν δὲ ἁµαρτήσῃ [εἰς σὲ] ὁ ἀδελφός σου, ὕπαγε ἔλεγξον αὐτὸν µεταξὺ σοῦ καὶ αὐτοῦ µόνου. But if your brother sins [against you], go reprove him between you and him alone. (≈ “Tell him to stop doing that.”)

——— 46 Thus, excluded from section 9.4 above—but included here in section 9.5—are all the NT impv. mood occurences of ἐλέγχω (Matt 18:15; Eph 5:11b; 1 Tim 5:20; 2 Tim 4:2a; Titus 1:13; 2:15; cf. John 8:46; Titus 1:9; Rev 3:19) and ἐπιτιµάω (Luke 17:3; 19:39; 2 Tim 4:2b).

Examples of this in the list here include the uses of ἐλέγχω in John 3:20; 16:8; 1 Cor 14:24; Eph 5:13; Heb 12:5c; Jas 2:9; cf. Jude 15. 47

318 Luke 16:28a

PROHIBITIONS IN THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT ὅπως διαµαρτύρηται αὐτοῖς, ἵνα µὴ καὶ αὐτοὶ ἔλθωσιν εἰς τὸν τόπον τοῦτον τῆς βασάνου. so that he may warn them, so that they do not also come into this place of torment. (≈ “so that he may tell them not to live in a way that results in eternal torment.”)

Luke 17:3

προσέχετε ἑαυτοῖς. Ἐὰν ἁµάρτῃ ὁ ἀδελφός σου ἐπιτίµησον αὐτῷ, καὶ ἐὰν µετανοήσῃ ἄφες αὐτῷ. Pay attention to yourselves! If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him, (≈ “Tell him to stop doing that.”)

Luke 19:39

διδάσκαλε, ἐπιτίµησον τοῖς µαθηταῖς σου. Teacher, rebuke your disciples. (≈ “Teacher, tell them to stop doing that.”)

Luke 23:2

τοῦτον εὕραµεν διαστρέφοντα τὸ ἔθνος ἡµῶν καὶ κωλύοντα φόρους Καίσαρι διδόναι καὶ λέγοντα ἑαυτὸν χριστὸν βασιλέα εἶναι. We found this man misleading our nation and forbidding us to give tribute to Caesar, and claiming himself to be Christ, a king. (≈ “This man is telling us not to give tribute to Caesar.”)

John 3:20

πᾶς γὰρ ὁ φαῦλα πράσσων µισεῖ τὸ φῶς καὶ οὐκ ἔρχεται πρὸς τὸ φῶς, ἵνα µὴ ἐλεγχθῇ τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ· For everyone doing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, in order that his works should not be reproved. (≈ “...in order that no one tell him to stop doing evil works.”)

John 8:46

τίς ἐξ ὑµῶν ἐλέγχει µε περὶ ἁµαρτίας;... Which one of you is reproving me concerning sin?... (≈ “Who is telling me to stop sinning?”)

319

CHAPTER 9—LEXICAL PROHIBITIONS John 16:8

καὶ ἐλθὼν ἐκεῖνος ἐλέγξει τὸν κόσµον περὶ ἁµαρτίας καὶ περὶ δικαιοσύνης καὶ περὶ κρίσεως· And when he comes, he will reprove the world concerning sin and concerning righteousness and concerning judgment. (≈ “He will tell the world to not be sinning....”)

1 Cor 14:24

ἐὰν δὲ πάντες προφητεύωσιν, εἰσέλθῃ δέ τις ἄπιστος ἢ ἰδιώτης, ἐλέγχεται ὑπὸ πάντων, ἀνακρίνεται ὑπὸ πάντων, But if all prophesy, and some unbeliever or outsider enters, he is reproved by all, he is judged by all, (≈ “He is told to stop his unbelief. ”)

Eph 5:11b

καὶ µὴ συγκοινωνεῖτε τοῖς ἔργοις τοῖς ἀκάρποις τοῦ σκότους, µᾶλλον δὲ καὶ ἐλέγχετε. And do not be participating in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead be reproving them. (≈ “Be telling people to stop their unfruitful works of darkness.”)48

1 Thess 5:14

Παρακαλοῦµεν ἀτάκτους,

δὲ

ὑµᾶς,

ἀδελφοί,

νουθετεῖτε

τοὺς

And we urge you, brothers, admonish the undisciplined, (≈ “Tell them to stop being undisciplined.”) 1 Tim 5:20

Τοὺς ἁµαρτάνοντας ἐνώπιον πάντων ἔλεγχε, ἵνα καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ φόβον ἔχωσιν. In front of all, reprove those [elders] sinning in order that the rest may have fear. (≈ “In front of all, tell the sinning elders to stop.”)

——— 48 “If the direct object of the verb ἐλέγχω in Eph 5.11 is understood as ‘those who have done the fruitless deeds of darkness,’ then the meaning is ‘rebuke.’ However, it is also possible to construe the direct object as being the ‘fruitless deeds of darkness,’ in which case the meaning of ἐλέγχω would presumably be ‘to expose by words’”; LN 1:436 (§33.417 n. 72). Nevertheless, whether the translation is “rebuke” or “expose,” we understand Eph 5:11b to contain an instruction to speak against something and/or someone’s behavior. On the other hand, the inanimate nature of the subject in Eph 5:13 and its continued “light” language (φῶς), would lead us to interpret the adj. use of the pass. ptc. ἐλεγχόµενα there as “exposed.”

320


2 Tim 2:14a

Ταῦτα ὑποµίµνῃσκε διαµαρτυρόµενος ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ µὴ λογοµαχεῖν, Remind them of these things, solemnly warning them before God not to quarrel about words, (≈ “Remind them of these things, telling them what not to do before God, not to quarrel about words.”)

2 Tim 3:16

πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος καὶ ὠφέλιµος πρὸς διδασκαλίαν, πρὸς ἐλεγµόν, πρὸς ἐπανόρθωσιν, πρὸς παιδείαν τὴν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ, Every scripture is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness, (≈ “Scripture is useful for teaching, for telling people not to do things, for correction, and for training in righteousness.”)

2 Tim 4:2a

κήρυξον τὸν λόγον, ἐπίστηθι εὐκαίρως ἀκαίρως, ἔλεγξον, ἐπιτίµησον, παρακάλεσον, ἐν πάσῃ µακροθυµίᾳ καὶ διδαχῇ. preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, in all patience and teaching. (≈ “Tell people to stop doing that.”)49

2 Tim 4:2b

κήρυξον τὸν λόγον, ἐπίστηθι εὐκαίρως ἀκαίρως, ἔλεγξον, ἐπιτίµησον, παρακάλεσον, ἐν πάσῃ µακροθυµίᾳ καὶ διδαχῇ. preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, in all patience and teaching. (≈ “Tell people to not do that.”)50

Titus 1:9

ἀντεχόµενον τοῦ κατὰ τὴν διδαχὴν πιστοῦ λόγου, ἵνα δυνατὸς ᾖ καὶ παρακαλεῖν ἐν τῇ διδασκαλίᾳ τῇ ὑγιαινούσῃ καὶ τοὺς ἀντιλέγοντας ἐλέγχειν.

——— 49

Notice that our glosses for 2 Tim 4:2a–b reflect a “stop vs. don’t start” distinction between ἐλέγχω (used eight times by Paul) and ἐπιτιµάω (used only here by Paul). While this is somewhat tentative, it is noteworthy that Paul’s “exposure” nuance of ἐλέγχω (see Eph 5:11– 13) lends to understanding that term as necessitating the existence of the behavior/condition prior to the command against it. Of course, even if valid for its Pauline usage here, the broader use of ἐπιτιµάω in the NT demonstrates that this distinction does not apply elsewhere. 50



321

holding firmly to the faithful message according to the teaching in order that he may be able also to give exhortation in the healthy teaching and to reprove those speaking against it. (≈ “...that he may be able to tell those speaking against sound doctrine to stop doing that.”) Titus 1:13

ἡ µαρτυρία αὕτη ἐστὶν ἀληθής. δι᾿ ἣν αἰτίαν ἔλεγχε αὐτοὺς ἀποτόµως, ἵνα ὑγιαίνωσιν ἐν τῇ πίστει, This testimony is true. For this reason reprove them severely in order that they may be healthy in the faith. (≈ “Tell them to stop teaching falsely.”)51

Titus 2:15a

Ταῦτα λάλει καὶ παρακάλει καὶ ἔλεγχε µετὰ πάσης ἐπιταγῆς· µηδείς σου περιφρονείτω. So speak these things and exhort and reprove with all authority. (≈ “With full authority, speak these things, exhort people, and tell them to stop sinning.”)

Heb 12:5c

µηδὲ ἐκλύου ὑπ᾿ αὐτοῦ ἐλεγχόµενος· and do not be growing weary when being reproved by him. (≈ “...when being told by him to stop doing something.”)

Jas 2:9

εἰ δὲ προσωποληµπτεῖτε, ἁµαρτίαν ἐργάζεσθε ἐλεγχόµενοι ὑπὸ τοῦ νόµου ὡς παραβάται. But if you are showing favoritism, you are doing sin, being reproved by the law as transgressors. (≈ “...being told by the law as transgressors to stop sinning.”)

Jude 9b

ἐπιτιµήσαι σοι κύριος. May the Lord rebuke you.52 (≈ “May the Lord tell you to stop.”)

——— 51

Cf. Titus 1:10–12 regarding the false teaching that is to stop.

52 The verb ἐπιτιµήσαι in Jude 9b is aor. act. opt. 3rd per. sing. of ἐπιτιµάω (“I rebuke”), but it is not included with the negated optatives in section 7.3 of Chapter 7 because its prohibitory force comes from its lexical meaning and not a negation of the verb form.

322 Jude 15

PROHIBITIONS IN THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT καὶ ἐλέγξαι πᾶσαν ψυχὴν περὶ πάντων τῶν ἔργων ἀσεβείας αὐτῶν ὧν ἠσέβησαν καὶ περὶ πάντων τῶν σκληρῶν ὧν ἐλάλησαν κατ᾿ αὐτοῦ ἁµαρτωλοὶ ἀσεβεῖς. and to reprove every soul concerning all their works of ungodliness that they have committed in an ungodly way, and concerning all the harsh things that ungodly sinners said against him. (≈ “...and to tell every person to stop their works of ungodliness...”)

Rev 3:19

ἐγὼ ὅσους ἐὰν φιλῶ ἐλέγχω καὶ παιδεύω· ζήλευε οὖν καὶ µετανόησον. Whomever I love, I reprove and discipline, therefore be zealous and repent. (≈ “Whomever I love, I tell them to stop sinning.”)

—CHAPTER 10— Prohibitory Emulation Statements: “We do not do that.” Several times in his epistles Paul explicitly invites his readers to emulate his behavior (1 Cor 4:16; 11:1; Gal 4:12; Phil 3:17; 4:9; 1 Thess 1:5–7; 2 Thess 3:7, 9). These are most often positive actions. But the New Testament has several ways to express desired emulations that pragmatically function to prohibit specified behaviors. Unsurprisingly, these often have negations (οὐ or µή), but the statements do not easily fit into any of the grammaticalsyntactical prohibition categories previously discussed in Chapters 5–8. Some are statements of the NT writer’s own behavior, which contextually are understood to be behavior the readers are to emulate.1 Some are statements of what is not lawful or permissible. NT PROHIBITORY EMULATION STATEMENTS: “W E DO NOT DO THAT .” Section #

10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4

Negated Statements of Lawfulness or Obligation: ...................... Negated Statements of Will or Desire: ........................................ Other Prohibitory Emulation Statements: .................................. Prohibition Reports Using Negated Verbs of Permission: ..........

TOTAL:

34 12 62 15

123

Table 10.0

——— 1

There are, of course, statements in the NT whereby the writer communicates a kind of self-limitation that need not be considered a prohibition regarding the behavior of others. E.g., after briefly commenting on some of the nuances of OT tabernacle worship, the author of Hebrews cuts himself off saying, “concerning which things it is not now time to speak in detail” (περὶ ὧν οὐκ ἔστιν νῦν λέγειν κατὰ µέρος; Heb 9:5). Similarly, Paul expresses a specific limit on his own boasting in Rom 15:18. We do not count these as NT prohibitions.

324


Prohibitory emulation communication like this is not uncommon in other languages, and such approaches to delivering negative commands may well be useful for portraying a milder force or for taking a more diplomatic tone in delivery.2 Rather than analyze the NT uses of these statements by their prohibitory force, however, we focus primarily on structure. Thus, the 123 prohibitions of this category are divided into four sections as outlined in Table 10.0. In our listing of these prohibitions, we offer equivalent glosses only in the first three subcategories. 10.1 Negated Statements of Lawfulness or Obligation Statements of what is (and what is not) lawful or obligatory are understood as expressions of what the reader/hearer is expected to do (and not to do). In NT Greek, these statements can use such terms as δεῖ, ἔξεστι, ἐπιτρέπω, καθήκω, ὀφείλω, and χρή with complementary infinitives or with subject infinitives. In the prohibitory versions of these statements, the verb of lawfulness or obligation is the negated term.3 These statements communicate the prohibition in an emulatory manner, where the statement “It is not lawful to do this” is understood to imply “and therefore you must not do it.”4 Included here are a few such statements that utilize nouns, adjectives, or adjectival participles with negated verbs of being (or presumed verbs of being) in order to express what is not “worthy” (ἄξιος), “lawful” (ἐξόν, ptc. of ἔξεστι), “worthy, fit” (ἱκανός), “right” (καλός), or “the custom” (ἔθος), etc. Also included here is the one negated use of the verb ἀνήκω (“I am fit”; Eph 5:4). What are not included here are the NT negated occurrences of the verb δύναµαι (“I am able”). It seems that the semantic range of δύναµαι is limited to the realm of “I am capable of, have capacity for something” and does not reach to “I am allowed to do something.”5 ——— 2

In correcting a disruptive child at meal time, a parent might first utilize an inclusive prohibitory emulation statement, “We don’t play with our food, honey,” and only resort to a more overt prohibition if the poor behavior continues, “Do not play with your food.” 3 There are places where a non-negated verb of lawfulness or obligation rules a negated construction; prohibitions of those types are slotted in the appropriate categories of the other chapters in this volume. E.g., δεῖ is modified by a negated inf. in Matt 23:23b; Luke 11:42b; and 18:1, so those prohibitions are listed in section 7.4.2 of Chapter 7. 4

When such terms are negated in interrogative constructions, however, a rhetorical rather than prohibitory force is evident (e.g., “Was it not necessary that...?” in Matt 18:33; Luke 13:16; 24:26; etc.). 5

BDAG 261–62; BAGD 207; cf. LN 1:676 (§74.5). E.g., “No one is able to serve two masters” (Matt 6:24; Luke 16:13) is a statement of inability and not a prohibition against something that is theoretically possible. So also the negated δύναµαι statements of Matt 5:14,

CHAPTER 10—PROHIBITORY EMULATION STATEMENTS

325

Similarly, while third person statements of unworthiness (using negated verbs of being with ἄξιος or ἱκανός) can be used with prohibitory force (e.g., Matt 10:37a–b), we nonetheless understand first person statements of unworthiness to be explanatory statements and not prohibitions. Thus, when the centurion of Capernaum makes his prohibitory statement, “Lord, do not be troubling yourself” (κύριε, µὴ σκύλλου in Luke 7:6),6 he follows it with the rationale, “for I am not worthy that you would enter under my roof” (οὐ γὰρ ἱκανός εἰµι ἵνα ὑπὸ τὴν στέγην µου εἰσέλθῃς; cf. Matt 8:8). This first person statement of personal unworthiness is not itself another prohibition (i.e., “Do not come under my roof”), but an explanation. This is made clear where other such first person statements of unworthiness are not at all prohibitory.7 Having said that, however, it is not at all uncommon for NT negated statements of lawfulness or obligation to be inclusive of the speaker (e.g., John 18:31, “It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death”). More rare is the case where the speaker expresses a prohibition against himself such that “I do not permit this” is understood to imply “and you must not permit it either” (e.g., 1 Tim 2:12a–b). Of course, prohibitions constructed with any of these verbs of lawfulness or permission or obligation in other negated categories are listed in the appropriate places in previous chapters (e.g., the negated pres. impv. of ὀφείλω in Rom 13:8 is listed in section 5.1.1 of Chapter 5 above).8 Altogether, we list 34 NT occurences of these prohibitory obligation constructions, putting in bold typeface the most relevant phrase. 36; 7:18; 9:15; 10:28; 16:3; 17:16, 19; 22:46; 26:42, 53; 27:42; Mark 1:45; 2:4, 19 (bis); 3:20, 24, 25, 26, 27; 5:3; 6:5, 19; 7:18, 24; 9:3, 28, 29; 15:31; Luke 1:22; 5:34; 6:39; 8:19; 9:40; 11:7; 12:26; 13:11; 14:20, 26, 27, 33; 16:2; 19:3; 20:36; 21:15; John 3:2, 3, 5, 27; 5:19, 30; 6:44, 65; 7:7, 34, 36; 8:21, 22, 43; 9:4, 33; 10:29, 35; 11:37; 12:39; 13:33, 36, 37; 14:17; 15:4, 5; 16:12; Acts 4:16, 20; 5:39; 13:38; 19:40; 21:34; 24:13; 25:11; 27:15, 31; Rom 8:7, 8, 38– 39; 1 Cor 2:14; 3:1, 2 (bis), 11; 10:21 (bis); 12:3, 21; 15:50; 2 Cor 3:7; 13:8; 1 Tim 5:25; 6:7, 16; 2 Tim 2:13; 3:7; Heb 3:19; 4:15; 9:9; 10:1, 11; Jas 3:8; 4:2; 1 John 3:9; 4:20; Rev 2:2; 3:8; 5:3; 7:9; 9:20; 14:3; and 15:8. Constructions with negated uses of δύναµαι that do have prohibitory force are in Luke 1:20b (see in section 7.5.2 of Chapter 7); Luke 16:26a (see in section 8.2.3 of Chapter 8); and Rev 13:17a (see in section 8.2.1 of Chapter 8). 6

See the negated pres. impv. prohibition of Luke 7:6 in section 5.1.1 of Chapter 5.

7 See the further statement by the Capernaum centurion (Luke 7:7 with the negated verb άξιόω) and also the statements of unworthiness by John the Baptist (Matt 3:11; Mark 1:7; Luke 3:16; John 1:27); by the prodigal son (Luke 15:19, 21); and by Paul (1 Cor 15:9). See also the explanatory use of the negated καθῆκω with γάρ (“for it is not proper”) in Acts 22:22.

Interestingly, John 19:7 has a non-negated use of ὀφείλω in a prohibitory context, so it has been categorized as something of a warning and is included in section 12.2 of Chapter 12. 8

326


Matt 10:37a

Ὁ φιλῶν πατέρα ἢ µητέρα ὑπὲρ ἐµὲ οὐκ ἔστιν µου ἄξιος,... The one loving father or mother over me is not worthy of me,... (≈ “Do not love father or mother over me.”)

Matt 10:37b

...καὶ ὁ φιλῶν υἱὸν ἢ θυγατέρα ὑπὲρ ἐµὲ οὐκ ἔστιν µου ἄξιος· ...and the one loving son or daughter over me is not worthy of me. (≈ “Do not love son or daughter over me.”)9

Matt 12:2

ἰδοὺ οἱ µαθηταί σου ποιοῦσιν ὃ οὐκ ἔξεστιν ποιεῖν ἐν σαββάτῳ. Look, your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath. (≈ “No one is to do what your disciples are doing on the Sabbath.”)10

Matt 12:4a

πῶς εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὸν οἶκον τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τοὺς ἄρτους τῆς προθέσεως ἔφαγον, ὃ οὐκ ἐξὸν ἦν αὐτῷ φαγεῖν οὐδὲ τοῖς µετ᾿ αὐτοῦ εἰ µὴ τοῖς ἱερεῦσιν µόνοις; how he entered into the house of God and ate the bread of the presence, which was not lawful for him to eat nor for those who were with him, except for the priests alone? (≈ “No one but priests are to eat of the bread of the presence.”)

Matt 14:4

οὐκ ἔξεστίν σοι ἔχειν αὐτήν. It is not lawful for you to have her. (≈ “You must not have her.”)

——— It is worth noting that Matt 10:38 also uses οὐκ ἔστιν µου ἄξιος (“...is not worthy of me”), but the first clause is itself negated (i.e., “He who does not take up his cross and follow me...”). Thus, the resulting pragmatic force is not that of a prohibition, but of a positive command: “Take up your cross and follow me.” So also the Synoptic parallels in Luke 14:26– 27, which are part of a larger Lukan unit (14:25–33) structured to support the concluding positive command to renounce all that one has (v. 33). 9

10

The Synoptic parallels to Matt 12:2 in Mark 2:24 and Luke 6:2 are both constructed as prohibitory questions and are thus listed in Chapter 11.

CHAPTER 10—PROHIBITORY EMULATION STATEMENTS Matt 15:26

327

οὐκ ἔστιν καλὸν λαβεῖν τὸν ἄρτον τῶν τέκνων καὶ βαλεῖν τοῖς κυναρίοις. It is not right to take the children’s bread and to throw it to the dogs. (≈ “Do not take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.”)

Matt 27:6

οὐκ ἔξεστιν βαλεῖν αὐτὰ εἰς τὸν κορβανᾶν, It is not lawful to put them into the treasury, (≈ “We must not put the silver pieces into the treasury.”)

Mark 2:26

πῶς εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὸν οἶκον τοῦ θεοῦ ἐπὶ Ἀβιαθὰρ ἀρχιερέως καὶ τοὺς ἄρτους τῆς προθέσεως ἔφαγεν, οὓς οὐκ ἔξεστιν φαγεῖν εἰ µὴ τοὺς ἱερεῖς, καὶ ἔδωκεν καὶ τοῖς σὺν αὐτῷ οὖσιν; how he entered into the house of God in the time of Abiathar the high priest and ate the bread of the presence, which it is not lawful to eat except for the priests, and also gave it to those who were with him? (≈ “No one but priests are to eat of the bread of the presence.”)

Mark 6:18

οὐκ ἔξεστίν σοι ἔχειν τὴν γυναῖκα τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ σου. It is not lawful for you to have your brother’s wife. (≈ “You must not have your brother’s wife.”)

Mark 7:3

οἱ γὰρ Φαρισαῖοι καὶ πάντες οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι ἐὰν µὴ πυγµῇ νίψωνται τὰς χεῖρας οὐκ ἐσθίουσιν, κρατοῦντες τὴν παράδοσιν τῶν πρεσβυτέρων, For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands with a fist, holding to the tradition of the elders, (≈ “Do not eat without properly washing according to the tradition of the elders.”)

Mark 7:4

καὶ ἀπ᾿ ἀγορᾶς ἐὰν µὴ βαπτίσωνται οὐκ ἐσθίουσιν and from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. (≈ “Do not eat without washing.”)

328


Mark 7:27

ἄφες πρῶτον χορτασθῆναι τὰ τέκνα, οὐ γάρ ἐστιν καλὸν λαβεῖν τὸν ἄρτον τῶν τέκνων καὶ τοῖς κυναρίοις βαλεῖν. Let the children be fed first, for it is not right to take the children’s bread and to throw it to the dogs.” (≈ “Do not take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.”)

Mark 10:43

οὐχ οὕτως δέ ἐστιν ἐν ὑµῖν But it is not like that among you. (≈“Do not have this behavior among you.”)11

Mark 13:14

Ὅταν δὲ ἴδητε τὸ βδέλυγµα τῆς ἐρηµώσεως ἑστηκότα ὅπου οὐ δεῖ, But when you see the abomination of desolation standing where it must not be (≈ “Do not let the abomination of desolation stand in a certain place.”)

Luke 6:4

[ὡς] εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὸν οἶκον τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τοὺς ἄρτους τῆς προθέσεως λαβὼν ἔφαγεν καὶ ἔδωκεν τοῖς µετ᾿ αὐτοῦ, οὓς οὐκ ἔξεστιν φαγεῖν εἰ µὴ µόνους τοὺς ἱερεῖς; [how] he entered into the house of God and taking the bread of the presence he ate it and gave it to those with him, which it is not lawful to eat except for the priests alone?” (≈ “No one but priests are to eat of the bread of the presence.”)

Luke 22:26

ὑµεῖς δὲ οὐχ οὕτως But you [are] not so. (≈ “Do not have this behavior among you.”)12

——— 11

The Synoptic parallels to Mark 10:43 are constructed differently: Luke 22:26 (listed below) lacks a verb, but Matt 20:26 uses a negated fut. ἔσται and is listed in section 7.1.2 of Chapter 7. 12

On Luke 22:26, see the previous footnote for Mark 10:43.

CHAPTER 10—PROHIBITORY EMULATION STATEMENTS John 5:10

329

σάββατόν ἐστιν, καὶ οὐκ ἔξεστίν σοι ἆραι τὸν κράβαττόν σου. It is the Sabbath, and it is not lawful for you to take up your bed. (≈ “Do not be carrying your bed on the Sabbath.”)

John 18:31

ἡµῖν οὐκ ἔξεστιν ἀποκτεῖναι οὐδένα· It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death. (≈ “We must not put anyone to death.”)

Acts 16:21a

καὶ καταγγέλλουσιν ἔθη ἃ οὐκ ἔξεστιν ἡµῖν παραδέχεσθαι οὐδὲ ποιεῖν Ῥωµαίοις οὖσιν. They are declaring customs that are not lawful for us as Romans to accept or to practice. (≈ “Do not accept the non-Roman customs.”)

Acts 16:21b

καὶ καταγγέλλουσιν ἔθη ἃ οὐκ ἔξεστιν ἡµῖν παραδέχεσθαι οὐδὲ ποιεῖν Ῥωµαίοις οὖσιν. They are declaring customs that are not lawful for us as Romans to accept or to practice. (≈ “Do not practice the non-Roman customs.”)

Acts 17:29

γένος οὖν ὑπάρχοντες τοῦ θεοῦ οὐκ ὀφείλοµεν νοµίζειν χρυσῷ ἢ ἀργύρῳ ἢ λίθῳ, χαράγµατι τέχνης καὶ ἐνθυµήσεως ἀνθρώπου, τὸ θεῖον εἶναι ὅµοιον. Therefore being God’s offspring, we ought not to think the divine to be like gold or silver or stone, an image of human skill and imagination. (≈ “Do not think the divine to be like a gold or silver or stone image made by human skill and imagination.”)

Acts 25:16

πρὸς οὓς ἀπεκρίθην ὅτι οὐκ ἔστιν ἔθος Ῥωµαίοις χαρίζεσθαί τινα ἄνθρωπον πρὶν ἢ ὁ κατηγορούµενος κατὰ πρόσωπον ἔχοι τοὺς κατηγόρους τόπον τε ἀπολογίας λάβοι περὶ τοῦ ἐγκλήµατος. I answered them that it is not the custom of the Romans to give up any man before the accused might have met the

330

PROHIBITIONS IN THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT accusers face-to-face and the opportunity to give a defense concerning the charge. (≈ “We must not give up any man before he has met his accusers and had the opportunity to give a defense.”)

Rom 14:20b

πάντα µὲν καθαρά, ἀλλὰ κακὸν τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ τῷ διὰ προσκόµµατος ἐσθίοντι. Indeed all things are clean, but it is wrong for the man who through eating causes stumbling. (≈ “Do not cause stumbling through what you eat.”)

1 Cor 5:6

Οὐ καλὸν τὸ καύχηµα ὑµῶν. Your boasting is not good. (≈ “Do not boast.”)

1 Cor 11:7

Ἀνὴρ µὲν γὰρ οὐκ ὀφείλει κατακαλύπτεσθαι τὴν κεφαλὴν εἰκὼν καὶ δόξα θεοῦ ὑπάρχων· For a man ought not to cover his head, being the image and glory of God. (≈ “A man must not cover his head.”)

1 Cor 14:34b

οὐ γὰρ ἐπιτρέπεται αὐταῖς λαλεῖν, ἀλλὰ ὑποτασσέσθωσαν, καθὼς καὶ ὁ νόµος λέγει. For it is not permitted for them to speak, but must be in submission, as the law also says. (≈ “Women must not speak.”)

2 Cor 12:4

καὶ ἤκουσεν ἄρρητα ῥήµατα ἃ οὐκ ἐξὸν ἀνθρώπῳ λαλῆσαι. and he heard unutterable things, which it is not permitted for man to speak. (≈ “He must not speak the unutterable things.”)

2 Cor 12:14

οὐ γὰρ ὀφείλει τὰ τέκνα τοῖς γονεῦσιν θησαυρίζειν ἀλλὰ οἱ γονεῖς τοῖς τέκνοις. For children are not obligated to save up for their parents, but parents for their children. (≈ “Children must not save up for their parents, but parents for their children.”)

CHAPTER 10—PROHIBITORY EMULATION STATEMENTS Eph 5:4

331

καὶ αἰσχρότης καὶ µωρολογία ἢ εὐτραπελία, ἃ οὐκ ἀνῆκεν, ἀλλὰ µᾶλλον εὐχαριστία. and filthiness and foolish talking or vulgar language, which are not fitting, but rather giving thanks. (≈ “Do not let filthiness and foolishness or vulgar language be found among you.”)13

1 Tim 2:12a

διδάσκειν δὲ γυναικὶ οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω ... I do not permit a woman to teach ... (≈ “Do not permit women to teach.”)

1 Tim 2:12b

{γυναικὶ οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω...} οὐδὲ αὐθεντεῖν ἀνδρός, ἀλλ᾿ εἶναι ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ. {I do not permit a woman...} to exercise authority over a man, but to be in silence. (≈ “Do not permit women to exercise authority over men.”)

2 Tim 2:24

δοῦλον δὲ κυρίου οὐ δεῖ µάχεσθαι And it is not necessary for the servant of the Lord to quarrel (≈ “The servant of the Lord must not quarrel.”)

Titus 1:11b

οἵτινες ὅλους οἴκους ἀνατρέπουσιν διδάσκοντες ἃ µὴ δεῖ αἰσχροῦ κέρδους χάριν. who are upsetting whole households by teaching what they ought not for the sake of shameful gain. (≈ “They must not be teaching these things.”)

Jas 3:10

ἐκ τοῦ αὐτοῦ στόµατος ἐξέρχεται εὐλογία καὶ κατάρα. οὐ χρή, ἀδελφοί µου, ταῦτα οὕτως γίνεσθαι. From the same mouth come blessing and cursing. My brothers, these things ought not to be this way. (≈ “Do not let cursing and blessing come from the same mouth.”)

——— 13 While it appears that the forbidden traits in Eph 5:4 can each be considered proper subjects of the prohibitory negated impv. verb in 5:3 (µηδὲ ὀνοµαζέσθω; see in section 5.1.2 of Chapter 5), these are also pragmatically prohibited by the description of them here as “not fitting” (οὐκ ἀνῆκεν; cf. the only other NT uses of ἀνήκω are positive: Col 3:18; Phlm 8).

332


10.2 Negated Verbs of Will or Desire: Naturally, negated second person expressions of will or desire can have prohibitory force in the imperative and/or in the aorist subjunctive mood, but there are no NT examples of such constructions.14 Conversely, the NT occurrences of the negated second person expressions of will or desire in the indicative mood do not appear to have prohibitory force (e.g., Matt 23:37; Luke 13:34; John 5:40; 21:18; 2 Cor 12:20; Heb 10:5, 8 [cf. Ps 40:7 LXX]). Negated third person expressions of will or desire typically do not have prohibitory force (e.g., Matt 2:18; 18:30; 22:3; 23:4; 27:34; Mark 6:26; 7:24; 9:30; Luke 15:28; 18:4, 13; John 7:1; Acts 7:32, 39; 2 Thess 3:10; Rev 2:21; cf. the negated ptc. constructions in Matt 1:19; Luke 19:27; Rom 9:16; 2 Pet 3:9). The one NT exception occurs when there is an expressed third-party verbal object (see Luke 19:27 in the listing below). Similarly, many negated first person expressions of will or desire lack prohibitory force. We can offer a short list of examples of non-prohibitory negated will statements (utilizing the verb θέλω unless otherwise noted): • • • • • • • •

In Matt 21:29 one son says, “I do not want to [work in the vineyard today].” In Acts 18:15 Gallio says, “I do not want [βούλοµαι] to be a judge of these things.” In Rom 7:16, 19, and 20 Paul comments on doing “what I do not want.” In 1 Cor 16:7 Paul says, “I do not want to see you now in passing.” In 2 Cor 5:4 Paul says (about resurrection bodies), “we do not want to be unclothed.” In Phlm 14 Paul says, “I want to do nothing without your consent.” In 2 John 12 the elder writes, “I do not want [βούλοµαι] to do so with paper and ink.” In 3 John 13 the elder writes, “I do not want to write to you with pen and ink.”

In some contexts, however, verbs of will or desire are used to express an imperative for the reader/listener to conform to some standard of behavior. This occurs twelve times with prohibitory force in the New Testament, all using the verb θέλω and mostly in first person constructions. Ten of the twelve are constructed with a complementary infinitive to complete the thought. When constructed this way to express a prohibition, the verb of will/desire is the negated term (and not the infinitive).15 The two occurrences not utilizing complementary infinitives are citations of Hos 6:6 that presume a repetition of the verb θέλω (see Matt 9:13 and 12:7 immediately below). In our listing here, we put in bold typeface the negated θέλω form and underline the complementary infinitive phrase (or its substitute). ——— 14

If there were examples, they would be listed above in Chapter 5 (negated pres. impv.) and/or Chapter 6 (negated aor. subj. and negated aor. impv.). 15

Prohibitory negated infs. are covered in section 7.4 of Chapter 7, e.g., the will statement with βούλοµαι and µηδεµίαν ἀφορµὴν διδόναι of 1 Tim 5:14 is listed in section 7.4.5.

CHAPTER 10—PROHIBITORY EMULATION STATEMENTS Matt 9:13

333

ἔλεος θέλω καὶ οὐ θυσίαν· Mercy I desire, and not sacrifice. (≈ “Be merciful and do not depend upon sacrifices.”)16

Matt 12:7

ἔλεος θέλω καὶ οὐ θυσίαν· Mercy I desire, and not sacrifice. (≈ “Be merciful and do not depend upon sacrifices.”)17

Matt 15:32a

καὶ ἀπολῦσαι αὐτοὺς νήστεις οὐ θέλω, And I am not willing to send them away hungry, (≈ “Do not send them away hungry.”)

Luke 19:14

οὐ θέλοµεν τοῦτον βασιλεῦσαι ἐφ᾿ ἡµᾶς. We do not want this one to reign over us. (≈ “Do not have him rule over us.”)

Luke 19:27

πλὴν τοὺς ἐχθρούς µου τούτους τοὺς µὴ θελήσαντάς µε βασιλεῦσαι ἐπ᾿ αὐτοὺς ἀγάγετε ὧδε καὶ κατασφάξατε αὐτοὺς ἔµπροσθέν µου. But bring here these enemies of mine who did not want me to reign over them and execute them before me. (≈ “Bring here these enemies of mine who said, ‘Do not have him rule over us.’”)

Rom 1:13

οὐ θέλω δὲ ὑµᾶς ἀγνοεῖν, ἀδελφοί, ὅτι πολλάκις προεθέµην ἐλθεῖν πρὸς ὑµᾶς, καὶ ἐκωλύθην ἄχρι τοῦ δεῦρο But I do not want you to be ignorant, brothers, that often I intended to come to you, and have been hindered until now (≈ “Do not be ignorant about my desire to visit.”)

——— 16

Both Matt 9:13 and 12:7 cite Hos 6:6 (LXX), which is not so much a prohibition of sacrifices as a prohibition of dependence upon religious behaviors like sacrifices without the change of heart demonstrated by merciful living. The similar quotations of Ps 40:7 (LXX) in Heb 10:5 and 8 are in the 2nd person ind. and do not read like prohibitions per se: “Sacrifices and offerings you did not desire...in burnt offerings and sin offerings you took no pleasure.” Thus, we have not included the Heb 10:5 and 8 citations of Ps 40:7 in our prohibition lists. 17

On Matt 12:7, see the footnote for Matt 9:13 immediately above.

334 Rom 11:25a

PROHIBITIONS IN THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT Οὐ γὰρ θέλω ὑµᾶς ἀγνοεῖν, ἀδελφοί, τὸ µυστήριον τοῦτο, For I do not want you to be ignorant, brothers, of this mystery, (≈ “Do not be ignorant of this mystery.”)

1 Cor 10:1

Οὐ θέλω γὰρ ὑµᾶς ἀγνοεῖν, ἀδελφοί, ὅτι οἱ πατέρες ἡµῶν πάντες ὑπὸ τὴν νεφέλην ἦσαν For I do not want you to be ignorant, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud (≈ “Do not be ignorant about our forefathers.”)

1 Cor 10:20

οὐ θέλω δὲ ὑµᾶς κοινωνοὺς τῶν δαιµονίων γίνεσθαι. But I do not want you to be participants with demons. (≈ “Do not be participants with demons.”)

1 Cor 12:1

Περὶ δὲ τῶν πνευµατικῶν, ἀδελφοί, οὐ θέλω ὑµᾶς ἀγνοεῖν. Now concerning the spiritual things, brothers, I do not want you to be ignorant. (≈ “Do not be ignorant about the spiritual things.”)

2 Cor 1:8

Οὐ γὰρ θέλοµεν ὑµᾶς ἀγνοεῖν, ἀδελφοί, ὑπὲρ τῆς θλίψεως ἡµῶν τῆς γενοµένης ἐν τῇ Ἀσίᾳ For we do not want you to be ignorant, brothers, of our trouble that happened in Asia (≈ “Do not be ignorant about our trouble in Asia.”)

1 Thess 4:13a Οὐ θέλοµεν κοιµωµένων,

δὲ

ὑµᾶς

ἀγνοεῖν,

ἀδελφοί,

περὶ

τῶν

But we do not want you to be ignorant, brothers, concerning those who are sleeping, (≈ “Do not be ignorant about believers who die.”) 10.3 Other Prohibitory Emulation Statements We collect here a variety of emulation statements that contextually bear some prohibitory force but nonetheless do not clearly fit into our other emulation statement subcategories. Many of these have the form of “No one does this,” but there are a few other structures. Perhaps the most difficult statements to adjudicate regarding emulatory value are those where Paul

CHAPTER 10—PROHIBITORY EMULATION STATEMENTS

335

describes his own ministry. We have tended to include such statements as prescriptively prohibitive for the reader only when there is something in the context that seems to expand the application of his comments beyond mere description of his own work. Conversely, when Paul gives potentially prohibitory descriptions of his own ministry (e.g., in 2 Cor 4:2, 5, 16, 18; and 6:3) over against his descriptions of the readers’ experience (e.g., 2 Cor 4:12; 6:4–13), we have not considered such statements as prohibitory. Altogether we have collected 62 items in this general subcategory of prohibitory emulation statements. Given their various formulations, it is difficult to identify any precisely parallel phrases to be emphasized. So, unlike most of our other listings, we offer the citations in this section with no phrases in bold typeface or underlining. Matt 5:15

οὐδὲ καίουσιν λύχνον καὶ τιθέασιν αὐτὸν ὑπὸ τὸν µόδιον ἀλλ᾿ ἐπὶ τὴν λυχνίαν, καὶ λάµπει πᾶσιν τοῖς ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ. Nor do they light a lamp and place it under a basket, but on the lampstand, and it gives light to all those in the house. (≈ “Do not hide the light.”)18

Matt 9:16

οὐδεὶς δὲ ἐπιβάλλει ἐπίβληµα ῥάκους ἀγνάφου ἐπὶ ἱµατίῳ παλαιῷ· αἴρει γὰρ τὸ πλήρωµα αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἱµατίου καὶ χεῖρον σχίσµα γίνεται. No one puts a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment, for its patch pulls away from the garment and makes a worse tear. (≈ “Do not put a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment and make the tear worse.”)

Matt 9:17

οὐδὲ βάλλουσιν οἶνον νέον εἰς ἀσκοὺς παλαιούς· εἰ δὲ µή γε, ῥήγνυνται οἱ ἀσκοὶ καὶ ὁ οἶνος ἐκχεῖται καὶ οἱ ἀσκοὶ ἀπόλλυνται· And they do not put new wine into old wineskins. Otherwise the skins are burst and the wine is spilled out and the skins are destroyed. (≈ “Do not put new wine into old wineskins and threaten the preservation of both the wine and the wineskins.”)

——— 18

The Synoptic parallels in Matt 5:15; Luke 8:16; and 11:33a are laid out as prohibitory emulation statements, but that in Mark 4:21 as a prohibitory question; see in Chapter 11.

336 Matt 14:16

PROHIBITIONS IN THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT οὐ χρείαν ἔχουσιν ἀπελθεῖν, δότε αὐτοῖς ὑµεῖς φαγεῖν. They have no need to depart; you give them something to eat. (≈ “Do not send them away; you give them something to eat.”)

Mark 2:21

Οὐδεὶς ἐπίβληµα ῥάκους ἀγνάφου ἐπιράπτει ἐπὶ ἱµάτιον παλαιόν· εἰ δὲ µή, αἴρει τὸ πλήρωµα ἀπ᾿ αὐτοῦ τὸ καινὸν τοῦ παλαιοῦ καὶ χεῖρον σχίσµα γίνεται. No one sews a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment. Otherwise the patch pulls away from it, the new from the old, and makes a worse tear. (≈ “Do not sew a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment and make the tear worse.”)

Mark 2:22

καὶ οὐδεὶς βάλλει οἶνον νέον εἰς ἀσκοὺς παλαιούς· εἰ δὲ µή, ῥήξει ὁ οἶνος τοὺς ἀσκοὺς καὶ ὁ οἶνος ἀπόλλυται καὶ οἱ ἀσκοί· And no one puts new wine into old wineskins. Otherwise the wine will burst the skins, and the wine is lost and the skins. (≈ “Do not put new wine into old wineskins and threaten the preservation of both the wine and the wineskins.”)

Luke 5:36

οὐδεὶς ἐπίβληµα ἀπὸ ἱµατίου καινοῦ σχίσας ἐπιβάλλει ἐπὶ ἱµάτιον παλαιόν· εἰ δὲ µή γε, καὶ τὸ καινὸν σχίσει καὶ τῷ παλαιῷ οὐ συµφωνήσει τὸ ἐπίβληµα τὸ ἀπὸ τοῦ καινοῦ. No one tearing a piece from a new garment puts it on an old garment. Otherwise he both tears the new and the piece from the new will not match the old. (≈ “Do not tear a piece from a new garment to put it on an old garment, harming both the new and the old garments.”)

Luke 5:37

καὶ οὐδεὶς βάλλει οἶνον νέον εἰς ἀσκοὺς παλαιούς· εἰ δὲ µή γε, ῥήξει ὁ οἶνος ὁ νέος τοὺς ἀσκοὺς καὶ αὐτὸς ἐκχυθήσεται καὶ οἱ ἀσκοὶ ἀπολοῦνται· And no one puts new wine into old wineskins. Otherwise the new wine will burst the skins, and it will be spilled out and the skins will be destroyed. (≈ “Do not put new wine into old wineskins and threaten the preservation of both the wine and the wineskins.”)

CHAPTER 10—PROHIBITORY EMULATION STATEMENTS Luke 8:16

337

Οὐδεὶς δὲ λύχνον ἅψας καλύπτει αὐτὸν σκεύει ἢ ὑποκάτω κλίνης τίθησιν, ἀλλ᾿ ἐπὶ λυχνίας τίθησιν, ἵνα οἱ εἰσπορευόµενοι βλέπωσιν τὸ φῶς. No one after lighting a lamp covers it with a vessel, or places it under a bed, but places it on a lampstand, so that those who enter may see the light. (≈ “Do not hide the light.”)19

Luke 9:62

οὐδεὶς ἐπιβαλὼν τὴν χεῖρα ἐπ᾿ ἄροτρον καὶ βλέπων εἰς τὰ ὀπίσω εὔθετός ἐστιν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ. No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God. (≈ “Do not put your hand to the plow and look back.”)

Luke 11:33a

Οὐδεὶς λύχνον ἅψας εἰς κρύπτην τίθησιν [οὐδὲ ὑπὸ τὸν µόδιον] ἀλλ᾿ ἐπὶ τὴν λυχνίαν, ἵνα οἱ εἰσπορευόµενοι τὸ φῶς βλέπωσιν. No one after lighting a lamp places it in a cellar [nor under a basket], but on a lampstand, so that those who enter may see the light. (≈ “Do not hide the light.”)20

John 7:4

οὐδεὶς γάρ τι ἐν κρυπτῷ ποιεῖ καὶ ζητεῖ αὐτὸς ἐν παρρησίᾳ εἶναι. For no one does anything in secret while he himself is seeking to be in public recognition. (≈ “Do not act in secret while seeking public recognition.”)

John 11:10

ἐὰν δέ τις περιπατῇ ἐν τῇ νυκτί, προσκόπτει, ὅτι τὸ φῶς οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν αὐτῷ. But if anyone walks in the night, he stumbles, because the light is not in him. (≈ “Do not walk in the night.”)

——— 19 20


On Luke 11:33a, see the footnote for Matt 5:15 above. The bracketed variant reading in Luke 11:33b—which is a prohibitory comment—is discussed in section 13.1 of Chapter 13.

338 John 13:10

PROHIBITIONS IN THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT ὁ λελουµένος οὐκ ἔχει χρείαν εἰ µὴ τοὺς πόδας νίψασθαι, ἀλλ᾿ ἔστιν καθαρὸς ὅλος· One who has been bathed, does not have need to wash anything except his feet, but he is completely clean. (≈ “The one who has been bathed must not insist on completely re-bathing.”)

Acts 1:7

οὐχ ὑµῶν ἐστιν γνῶναι χρόνους ἢ καιροὺς οὓς ὁ πατὴρ ἔθετο ἐν τῇ ἰδίᾳ ἐξουσίᾳ, It is not yours to know the times and seasons which the Father appointed by his own authority. (≈ “Do not try to know the precise timing of the eschatological events.”)

Rom 2:29a

ἀλλ᾿ ὁ ἐν τῷ κρυπτῷ Ἰουδαῖος, καὶ περιτοµὴ καρδίας ἐν πνεύµατι οὐ γράµµατι,... But one is a Jew on the inside and circumcision is of the heart by the Spirit, not by the letter,... (≈ “Do not depend upon a circumcision according to the letter of the law.”)

Rom 2:29b

...οὗ ὁ ἔπαινος οὐκ ἐξ ἀνθρώπων ἀλλ᾿ ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ. ...whose praise is not from men but from God. (≈ “Do not live for the praise of men.”)

Rom 8:15

οὐ γὰρ ἐλάβετε πνεῦµα δουλείας πάλιν εἰς φόβον ἀλλὰ ἐλάβετε πνεῦµα υἱοθεσίας ἐν ᾧ κράζοµεν· αββα ὁ πατήρ. For you did not receive a spirit of slavery again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption, by whom we cry out, ‘Abba, Father!’ (≈ “Do not slip back into fear as if a slave.”)21

——— 21 The occurrence of the 1st per. pl. tense-form κράζοµεν (“we are crying out”) in the second half of Rom 8:15 leads us to categorize the prohibitory idea in this passage as an emulation statement.

CHAPTER 10—PROHIBITORY EMULATION STATEMENTS Rom 13:10

339

ἡ ἀγάπη τῷ πλησίον κακὸν οὐκ ἐργάζεται· πλήρωµα οὖν νόµου ἡ ἀγάπη. Love does no wrong to the neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. (≈ “Do not do wrong to a neighbor.”)

Rom 14:15a

εἰ γὰρ διὰ βρῶµα ὁ ἀδελφός σου λυπεῖται, οὐκέτι κατὰ ἀγάπην περιπατεῖς· For if your brother is injured because of food, you are no longer walking according to love. (≈ “Do not eat food that unlovingly injures your brother.”)

Rom 15:2–3

ἕκαστος ἡµῶν τῷ πλησίον ἀρεσκέτω εἰς τὸ ἀγαθὸν πρὸς οἰκοδοµήν· καὶ γὰρ ὁ Χριστὸς οὐχ ἑαυτῷ ἤρεσεν, Let each of us please his neighbor for what is good for edification. For even Christ did not please himself, (≈ “Do not live to please yourself.”)

1 Cor 3:18b

εἴ τις δοκεῖ σοφὸς εἶναι ἐν ὑµῖν ἐν τῷ αἰῶνι τούτῳ, µωρὸς γενέσθω, ἵνα γένηται σοφός. If anyone among you supposes himself to be wise in this age, let him become a fool in order that he may become wise. (≈ “Do not think yourself to be wise in this age.”)

1 Cor 4:3

ἐµοὶ δὲ εἰς ἐλάχιστόν ἐστιν, ἵνα ὑφ᾿ ὑµῶν ἀνακριθῶ ἢ ὑπὸ ἀνθρωπίνης ἡµέρας· ἀλλ᾿ οὐδὲ ἐµαυτὸν ἀνακρίνω. But to me it is a small thing that I be judged by you or by a human day; but I do not even judge myself. (≈ “Do not over estimate the significance of human judgment.”)

1 Cor 5:1

Ὅλως ἀκούεται ἐν ὑµῖν πορνεία, καὶ τοιαύτη πορνεία ἥτις οὐδὲ ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, ὥστε γυναῖκά τινα τοῦ πατρὸς ἔχειν. It is actually reported that there is a sexual immorality among you and a kind of sexual immorality which is not even among the Gentiles: that someone has the wife of his father. (≈ “Do not tolerate this sexual immorality.”)

340 1 Cor 6:7

PROHIBITIONS IN THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT Ἤδη µὲν [οὖν] ὅλως ἥττηµα ὑµῖν ἐστιν ὅτι κρίµατα ἔχετε µεθ᾿ ἑαυτῶν. [Therefore] the fact that you are having legal disputes with yourselves at all is already a defeat for you. (≈ “Do not have legal disputes among yourselves.”)

1 Cor 6:12

Πάντα µοι ἔξεστιν ἀλλ᾿ οὐ πάντα συµφέρει· πάντα µοι ἔξεστιν ἀλλ᾿ οὐκ ἐγὼ ἐξουσιασθήσοµαι ὑπό τινος. ‘All things are lawful for me,’ but not all things are helpful. ‘All things are lawful for me,’ but I will not be dominated by anything. (≈ “Do not be dominated by anything.”)

1 Cor 6:13

τὸ δὲ σῶµα οὐ τῇ πορνείᾳ ἀλλὰ τῷ κυρίῳ, καὶ ὁ κύριος τῷ σώµατι· And the body is not for sexual immorality but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. (≈ “Do not be involved in sexual immorality.”)

1 Cor 8:2

εἴ τις δοκεῖ ἐγνωκέναι τι, οὔπω ἔγνω καθὼς δεῖ γνῶναι· If anyone supposes himself to know something, he does not yet know as it is necessary to know. (≈ “Do not suppose yourself to know something.”)

1 Cor 8:13

διόπερ εἰ βρῶµα σκανδαλίζει τὸν ἀδελφόν µου, οὐ µὴ φάγω κρέα εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, ἵνα µὴ τὸν ἀδελφόν µου σκανδαλίσω. Therefore, if food causes my brother to sin, I will not ever eat meat, so that I may not cause my brother to sin. (≈ “Do not do something that may cause your brother to sin.”)22

1 Cor 9:26a

ἐγὼ τοίνυν οὕτως τρέχω ὡς οὐκ ἀδήλως,... Therefore I run in a manner that is not aimlessly... (≈ “Do not run aimlessly.”)

——— 22 In 1 Cor 8:13, although constructed with a negated ἵνα clause, that clause here is 1st person and is not attached to an impv. verb (cf. section 8.2.1 of Chapter 8 above), so the prohibitory force of the passage comes from its status as an emulation statement.

CHAPTER 10—PROHIBITORY EMULATION STATEMENTS 1 Cor 9:26b

341

...οὕτως πυκτεύω ὡς οὐκ ἀέρα δέρων· ... I box in a manner that is not as one beating the air. (≈ “Do not box as one beating the air.”)

1 Cor 11:16

Εἰ δέ τις δοκεῖ φιλόνεικος εἶναι, ἡµεῖς τοιαύτην συνήθειαν οὐκ ἔχοµεν οὐδὲ αἱ ἐκκλησίαι τοῦ θεοῦ. But if anyone seems to be argumentative on this, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God. (≈ “Do not be argued into a practice that is not customary for the churches of God.”)

1 Cor 13:4a

Ἡ ἀγάπη µακροθυµεῖ, χρηστεύεται ἡ ἀγάπη, οὐ ζηλοῖ,... Love is patient, love is kind; it does not envy,... (≈ “Do not envy.”)

1 Cor 13:4b

... [ἡ ἀγάπη] οὐ περπερεύεται,... ... [love] is not boastful;... (≈ “Do not be boastful.”)

1 Cor 13:4c

...οὐ φυσιοῦται, ...it is not conceited; (≈ “Do not be conceited.”)

1 Cor 13:5a

οὐκ ἀσχηµονεῖ,... it does not act improperly;... (≈ “Do not act improperly.”)

1 Cor 13:5b

...οὐ ζητεῖ τὰ ἑαυτῆς,... ...it does not seek its own ways;... (≈ “Do not insist on your own ways.”)

1 Cor 13:5c

...οὐ παροξύνεται,... ...it is not irritable;... (≈ “Do not be irritable.”)

342


1 Cor 13:5d

...οὐ λογίζεται τὸ κακόν, ...it does not keep record of wrong; (≈ “Do not keep record of wrong.”)

1 Cor 13:6

οὐ χαίρει ἐπὶ τῇ ἀδικίᾳ, it does not rejoice at unrighteousness, (≈ “Do not rejoice at unrighteousness.”)

2 Cor 5:16

Ὥστε ἡµεῖς ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν οὐδένα οἴδαµεν κατὰ σάρκα· εἰ καὶ ἐγνώκαµεν κατὰ σάρκα Χριστόν, ἀλλὰ νῦν οὐκέτι γινώσκοµεν. Thus, from now on we regard no one according to the flesh. Even if we have regarded Christ according to the flesh, we now no longer regard him thus. (≈ “Do not regard anyone according to the flesh.”)23

Gal 3:15a

Ἀδελφοί, κατὰ ἄνθρωπον λέγω· ὅµως κεκυρωµένην διαθήκην οὐδεὶς ἀθετεῖ ἢ...

ἀνθρώπου

Brothers, I speak according to man: even a humanly confirmed covenant no one rejects or... (≈ “Do not reject God’s covenant.”)24 Gal 3:15b

{ὅµως ἀνθρώπου ἐπιδιατάσσεται.

κεκυρωµένην

διαθήκην

οὐδεὶς...}

{even a humanly confirmed covenant no one...} adds to. (≈ “Do not add to God’s covenant.”)25 Gal 5:10a

ἐγὼ πέποιθα εἰς ὑµᾶς ἐν κυρίῳ ὅτι οὐδὲν ἄλλο φρονήσετε· I have confidence in the Lord about you that you will think nothing otherwise. (≈ “Do not think otherwise.”)

——— 23

The manner in which 2 Cor 5:17 spells out its implications confirms the prohibitory intent of 2 Cor 5:16. 24

In Gal 3:15a–b Paul speaks “according to man” (i.e., he uses examples from everyday human life) in order that his readers would draw the inferences we state more plainly here. 25

On Gal 3:15b, see the previous footnote.

CHAPTER 10—PROHIBITORY EMULATION STATEMENTS Eph 4:20

343

ὑµεῖς δὲ οὐχ οὕτως ἐµάθετε τὸν Χριστόν, But you did not learn Christ in such a way. (≈ “Do not live in a way contrary to how you learned Christ.”)

Phil 3:3

ἡµεῖς γάρ ἐσµεν ἡ περιτοµή, οἱ πνεύµατι θεοῦ λατρεύοντες καὶ καυχώµενοι ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ καὶ οὐκ ἐν σαρκὶ πεποιθότες, For we are the circumcision, who are serving by the Spirit of God and boasting in Christ Jesus and have not placed confidence in the flesh, (≈ “We must serve by the Spirit of God, boast in Christ Jesus, and not place confidence in the flesh.”)

Phil 3:13

ἀδελφοί, ἐγὼ ἐµαυτὸν οὐ λογίζοµαι κατειληφέναι· Brothers, I do not consider myself to have taken hold of it. (≈ “Do not consider yourself to have taken hold of it.”)26

1 Thess 4:7

οὐ γὰρ ἐκάλεσεν ἡµᾶς ὁ θεὸς ἐπὶ ἀκαθαρσίᾳ ἀλλ᾿ ἐν ἁγιασµῷ. For God did not call us for impurity but in holiness. (≈ “Do not be involved in impurity. ”)

2 Thess 3:7

Αὐτοὶ γὰρ οἴδατε πῶς δεῖ µιµεῖσθαι ἡµᾶς, ὅτι οὐκ ἠτακτήσαµεν ἐν ὑµῖν For you yourselves know how it is necessary to imitate us, because we were not lazy among you, (≈ “Do not be lazy.”)

2 Tim 2:4

οὐδεὶς στρατευόµενος ἐµπλέκεται ταῖς πραγµατείαις, ἵνα τῷ στρατολογήσαντι ἀρέσῃ.

τοῦ

βίου

No one serving in the military gets entangled in the affairs of life, in order that he may please the one who enlisted him. (≈ “Do not get entangled in the affairs of everyday living.”)

——— 26

In Phil 3:15 Paul makes clear his emulatory intent for 3:13.

344


Heb 4:10

ὁ γὰρ εἰσελθὼν εἰς τὴν κατάπαυσιν αὐτοῦ καὶ αὐτὸς κατέπαυσεν ἀπὸ τῶν ἔργων αὐτοῦ ὥσπερ ἀπὸ τῶν ἰδίων ὁ θεός. for the one who enters his rest also ceases from his works as God did from his. (≈ “Enter the rest and do not work, even as God does not.”)27

Jas 4:3

αἰτεῖτε καὶ οὐ λαµβάνετε διότι κακῶς αἰτεῖσθε, ἵνα ἐν ταῖς ἡδοναῖς ὑµῶν δαπανήσητε. You are asking and not receiving because you are asking wrongly, that you may spend it on your pleasures. (≈ “Do not ask with wrong motives, to spend it on your pleasures.”)

Jas 4:16

νῦν δὲ καυχᾶσθε ἐν ταῖς ἀλαζονείαις ὑµῶν· πᾶσα καύχησις τοιαύτη πονηρά ἐστιν. But now you are boasting in your arrogant ways; all such boasting is evil. (≈ “Do not behave in such arrogant ways.”)

1 Pet 2:22a

ὃς ἁµαρτίαν οὐκ ἐποίησεν... Who did no sin,... (≈ “Do not sin.”)28

1 Pet 2:22b

...οὐδὲ εὑρέθη δόλος ἐν τῷ στόµατι αὐτοῦ, ...nor was deceit found in his mouth, (≈ “Do not let deceit be found in your mouth.”)29

——— 27 The imperatival force of Heb 4:10 is supported by that of Heb 4:11; see in section 8.2.1 of Chapter 8. 28 The description of Jesus’ behavior in 1 Pet 2:22–23 is introduced in v. 21 as having prohibitory emulation force: “Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps.” (ESV). The wording of v. 22 comes from Isa 53:9 LXX, but substitutes ἁµαρτίαν for ἀνοµίαν; the wording of v. 23 is perhaps influenced by Isa 53:7. 29

On 1 Pet 2:22b, see the previous footnote.

CHAPTER 10—PROHIBITORY EMULATION STATEMENTS 1 Pet 2:23a

345

ὃς λοιδορούµενος οὐκ ἀντελοιδόρει,... who when reviled did not revile in return,... (≈ “Do not revile in return when reviled.”)30

1 Pet 2:23b

...πάσχων οὐκ ἠπείλει, παρεδίδου δὲ τῷ κρίνοντι δικαίως· ...when suffering, he did not threaten, but was entrusting himself to the one who judges justly; (≈ “Do not threaten when suffering.”)31

1 Pet 4:3

ἀρκετὸς γὰρ ὁ παρεληλυθὼς χρόνος τὸ βούληµα τῶν ἐθνῶν κατειργάσθαι πεπορευµένους ἐν ἀσελγείαις, ἐπιθυµίαις, οἰνοφλυγίαις, κώµοις, πότοις καὶ ἀθεµίτοις εἰδωλολατρίαις. For the time gone by [is] sufficient to have practiced the will of the Gentiles, having gone after sensuality, lusts, drunkenness, carousing, drinking parties, and lawless idolatries. (≈ “Do not live like Gentiles, as you did in times past, chasing sensuality, lusts, carousing, drinking parties, and lawless idolatries.”)

2 Pet 2:10–11 τολµηταὶ αὐθάδεις, δόξας οὐ τρέµουσιν βλασφηµοῦντες, ὅπου ἄγγελοι ἰσχύϊ καὶ δυνάµει µείζονες ὄντες οὐ φέρουσιν κατ᾿ αὐτῶν παρὰ κυρίου βλάσφηµον κρίσιν. Bold, willful, they do not tremble as they blaspheme the glorious ones; whereas angels, although having greater might and power, do not bear a blasphemous judgment against them before the Lord. (≈ “Do not presumptuously declare any blasphemous judgments upon the glorious ones, something even angels are hesitant to do.”)32

——— 30

On 1 Pet 2:23a, see the footnote for 1 Pet 2:22a above.

31

On 1 Pet 2:23b, see the footnote for 1 Pet 2:22a above.

32

The prohibitory thought of 2 Pet 2:10–11 is immediately echoed by the prohibitory warning statement in 2 Pet 2:12–13; see in section 12.2 of Chapter 12.

346


1 John 2:16

ὅτι πᾶν τὸ ἐν τῷ κόσµῳ, ἡ ἐπιθυµία τῆς σαρκὸς καὶ ἡ ἐπιθυµία τῶν ὀφθαλµῶν καὶ ἡ ἀλαζονεία τοῦ βίου, οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς ἀλλ᾿ ἐκ τοῦ κόσµου ἐστίν. Because everything in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the pride of life’s possessions, is not from the Father, but is from the world. (≈ “Do not have the world’s passions: the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life’s possessions.”)

Jude 8

Ὁµοίως µέντοι καὶ οὗτοι ἐνυπνιαζόµενοι σάρκα µὲν µιαίνουσιν κυριότητα δὲ ἀθετοῦσιν δόξας δὲ βλασφηµοῦσιν. Yet in like manner these people also, dreaming, defile the flesh, reject authority, and blaspheme the glorious ones. (≈ “Do not follow after dreamers who lead you to defile the flesh, reject authority, and speak insultingly about that which you do not understand.”)33

Jude 9a

Ὁ δὲ Μιχαὴλ ὁ ἀρχάγγελος, ὅτε τῷ διαβόλῳ διακρινόµενος διελέγετο περὶ τοῦ Μωϋσέως σώµατος, οὐκ ἐτόλµησεν κρίσιν ἐπενεγκεῖν βλασφηµίας ἀλλὰ εἶπεν·... But when Michael the archangel, while contending with the devil, was disputing about the body of Moses, he did not dare to bring a blasphemous judgment, but said,.... (≈ “Do not presume to declare a blasphemous judgment.”)

10.4 Prohibition Reports Using Negated Verbs of Permission This section provides a simple list of NT prohibition reports, i.e., narrations that prohibitions occurred whether or not the content of the prohibitions are made explicit. These are constructed with the negated (primarily 3rd person) verbs of permission, ἀφίηµι and ἐάω (cf. also the similar lexical reports in section 9.4 of Chapter 9). Thus, these are places that report someone “did not permit” some action. We list these 15 narrative items here with the negated verbs in bold typeface, with their complementary infinitives (or equivalents) underlined, and without comparable prohibitory glosses. See Table 9.4 on page 309 for a tally of the NT reports of prohibitions. ——— 33

The context of Jude 8 (esp. the prohibitory warnings of Jude 4–7; see in section 12.2 of Chapter 12) is clear that “these people” (i.e., the false teachers of v. 4) are not to be imitated.

CHAPTER 10—PROHIBITORY EMULATION STATEMENTS Matt 23:13b

347

ὑµεῖς γὰρ οὐκ εἰσέρχεσθε οὐδὲ τοὺς εἰσερχοµένους ἀφίετε εἰσελθεῖν. For you are not entering and you do not allow those entering to go in.34

Matt 24:43

εἰ ᾔδει ὁ οἰκοδεσπότης ποίᾳ φυλακῇ ὁ κλέπτης ἔρχεται, ἐγρηγόρησεν ἂν καὶ οὐκ ἂν εἴασεν διορυχθῆναι τὴν οἰκίαν αὐτοῦ. if the householder had known in what watch of the night the thief was coming, he would have stayed awake and he would not have permitted his house to be broken into.

Mark 1:34

καὶ οὐκ ἤφιεν λαλεῖν τὰ δαιµόνια, ὅτι ᾔδεισαν αὐτόν. And he was not permitting the demons to speak, because they knew him.

Mark 5:19

καὶ οὐκ ἀφῆκεν αὐτόν, ἀλλὰ λέγει αὐτῷ·... And he did not permit him but said to him,...

Mark 5:37

καὶ οὐκ ἀφῆκεν οὐδένα µετ᾿ αὐτοῦ συνακολουθῆσαι εἰ µὴ... And he did not permit anyone to follow him except...

Mark 7:12

οὐκέτι ἀφίετε αὐτὸν οὐδὲν ποιῆσαι τῷ πατρὶ ἢ τῇ µητρί, you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother,

Mark 11:16

καὶ οὐκ ἤφιεν ἵνα τις διενέγκῃ σκεῦος διὰ τοῦ ἱεροῦ. And he was not permitting that anyone would carry an object through the temple.

Luke 4:41b

καὶ ἐπιτιµῶν οὐκ εἴα αὐτὰ λαλεῖν, ὅτι ᾔδεισαν τὸν χριστὸν αὐτὸν εἶναι. And rebuking them, he was not permitting them to speak, because they knew that he was the Christ.

——— 34

Matt 23:13b and its parallel in Luke 11:52b (see in section 9.4 of Chapter 9) are the only 2nd pers. constructions of reports of prohibitions in the NT; the rest are in 3rd pers.

348 Luke 8:51

PROHIBITIONS IN THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT ἐλθὼν δὲ εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν οὐκ ἀφῆκεν εἰσελθεῖν τινα σὺν αὐτῷ εἰ µὴ Πέτρον καὶ Ἰωάννην καὶ Ἰάκωβον καὶ... And when he came to the house, he did not permit anyone to enter with him, except Peter and John and James, and...

Luke 12:39

εἰ ᾔδει ὁ οἰκοδεσπότης ποίᾳ ὥρᾳ ὁ κλέπτης ἔρχεται, οὐκ ἂν ἀφῆκεν διορυχθῆναι τὸν οἶκον αὐτοῦ. if the householder had known at what hour the thief was coming, he would not have permitted his house to be broken into.

Acts 16:7

ἐλθόντες δὲ κατὰ τὴν Μυσίαν ἐπείραζον εἰς τὴν Βιθυνίαν πορευθῆναι, καὶ οὐκ εἴασεν αὐτοὺς τὸ πνεῦµα Ἰησοῦ· And coming up to Mysia, they attempted to go into Bithynia, but the Spirit of Jesus did not permit them.

Acts 19:30

Παύλου δὲ βουλοµένου εἰσελθεῖν εἰς τὸν δῆµον οὐκ εἴων αὐτὸν οἱ µαθηταί· But when Paul wished to go into the assembly, the disciples were not permitting him.

Acts 28:4

πάντως φονεύς ἐστιν ὁ ἄνθρωπος οὗτος ὃν διασωθέντα ἐκ τῆς θαλάσσης ἡ δίκη ζῆν οὐκ εἴασεν. Certainly this man is a murderer whom, although he has escaped from the sea, Justice has not permitted to live.

1 Cor 10:13

πιστὸς δὲ ὁ θεός, ὃς οὐκ ἐάσει ὑµᾶς πειρασθῆναι ὑπὲρ ὃ δύνασθε God is faithful, and he will not permit you to be tempted beyond what you are able

Rev 11:9

καὶ τὰ πτώµατα αὐτῶν οὐκ ἀφίουσιν τεθῆναι εἰς µνῆµα. and they are not permitting their corpses to be placed in a tomb.

—CHAPTER 11— Prohibitory Questions: “Why are you doing that?” As in other languages, Greek utilizes questions for a variety of purposes: interrogative questions are used to request information (e.g., what? or who?), deliberative questions inquire about behavioral direction (e.g., how? or where?), and rhetorical questions are used to make statements and do not expect any informative or directive answer.1 Among the rhetorical questions are those that bear a prohibitory force that is made clear in the context. Of the 156 prohibitory questions in the New Testament, many occur in the context of other clear and confirming prohibition constructions on the same topic. The writers of some prohibitory questions actually follow with a negative response to the question, which reinforces the prohibition (e.g., Rom 3:3–9).2 NT PROHIBITORY QUESTIONS: “W HY ARE YOU DOING THAT?” NT Corpus

Matthew: .................................................................................................... 23 Mark: .......................................................................................................... 19 Luke–Acts (Luke: 25 + Acts: 24): ..................................................................... 49 John & Johannine Epistles (John: 14 + 1 John: 1): ......................................... 15 Pauline Epistles (Rom: 21 + 1 Cor: 16 + 2 Cor: 1 + Gal: 6 + Col: 1): ...................... 45 General Epistles (only James): ........................................................................ 5 Revelation: .................................................................................................. 0 TOTAL:

156

Table 11.0 ——— 1

See GGBB 449, 465–68.

2 Of course, an interrogative question (i.e., a question about information and not about behavior) can also receive a negative response without implying that the question itself is a prohibition (e.g., Rom 7:13; 11:1, 11; Gal 2:17; 3:21).

350


When preceded by related prohibitory information, the question itself delivers a provocative or reductio absurdum inference that bears prohibitory force (e.g., 1 John 3:17). Sometimes prohibitory questions seem to serve as polite prohibitions, even if that politeness is feigned for the appearance of respect. Conversely, sometimes questions appear to add a sarcastic tone to the prohibitory communication. When such a question is asked directly in second person, the prohibition is heard directly. But there are a few NT examples the where the narrator informs the reader that, rather than given to the intended hearer, the prohibitory question is asked within a person or within a group of persons, and so the prohibition is heard as it would be in third person (e.g., Mark 2:7). With the questions clear enough, we list the citations of this chapter with no bold typeface. But for clarity, we offer equivalent prohibitory glosses. Matt 3:14b

ἐγὼ χρείαν ἔχω ὑπὸ σοῦ βαπτισθῆναι, καὶ σὺ ἔρχῃ πρός µε; I have need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me? (≈ “Do not come to me to be baptized, for I need to be baptized by you.”)

Matt 5:13a

Ὑµεῖς ἐστε τὸ ἅλας τῆς γῆς· ἐὰν δὲ τὸ ἅλας µωρανθῇ, ἐν τίνι ἁλισθήσεται; You are the salt of the earth. But if salt would lose its taste, how will it be made salty? (≈ “Do not lose your saltiness.”)3

Matt 5:46

ἐὰν γὰρ ἀγαπήσητε τοὺς ἀγαπῶντας ὑµᾶς, τίνα µισθὸν ἔχετε; If you love those who love you, what reward have you? (≈ “Do not love only those who love you.”)

Matt 5:47

καὶ ἐὰν ἀσπάσησθε τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς ὑµῶν µόνον, τί περισσὸν ποιεῖτε; If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? (≈ “Do not greet only your brothers.”)

——— 3 The Synoptic parallels of Matt 5:13a–b and Luke 14:34–35 have both a prohibitory question and a prohibitory warning statement (see in section 12.2 of Chapter 12); the Mark 9:50 parallel, however, has the prohibitory question but lacks the prohibitory warning statement.

CHAPTER 11—PROHIBITORY QUESTIONS Matt 6:27

351

τίς δὲ ἐξ ὑµῶν µεριµνῶν δύναται προσθεῖναι ἐπὶ τὴν ἡλικίαν αὐτοῦ πῆχυν ἕνα; And who of you by worrying is able to add to his life span one cubit? (≈ “Do not worry.”)

Matt 6:28

καὶ περὶ ἐνδύµατος τί µεριµνᾶτε; And why worry about clothing? (≈ “Do not worry about clothing.”)

Matt 7:3

τί δὲ βλέπεις τὸ κάρφος τὸ ἐν τῷ ὀφθαλµῷ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ σου, τὴν δὲ ἐν τῷ σῷ ὀφθαλµῷ δοκὸν οὐ κατανοεῖς; And why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but not notice the log that is in your eye? (≈ “Do not see the speck in your brother’s eye without noticing the log in your eye.”)

Matt 7:4

ἢ πῶς ἐρεῖς τῷ ἀδελφῷ σου· ἄφες ἐκβάλω τὸ κάρφος ἐκ τοῦ ὀφθαλµοῦ σου, καὶ ἰδοὺ ἡ δοκὸς ἐν τῷ ὀφθαλµῷ σου; Or how will you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove the speck from your eye,’ and behold a log is in your eye? (≈ “Do not offer to remove a speck from your brother’s eye while a log is in your eye.”)

Matt 8:26a

τί δειλοί ἐστε, ὀλιγόπιστοι; Why are you afraid, you of little faith? (≈ “Do not be afraid.”)

Matt 9:4

ἱνατί ἐνθυµεῖσθε πονηρὰ ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ὑµῶν; Why are you thinking evil in your hearts? (≈ “Stop thinking evil in your hearts.”)

Matt 9:11

διὰ τί µετὰ τῶν τελωνῶν καὶ ἁµαρτωλῶν ἐσθίει ὁ διδάσκαλος ὑµῶν; Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners? (≈ “Your teacher should not eat with sinful people.”)4

——— 4

On Matt 9:11, see the footnote for its Synoptic parallel in Luke 5:30 below.

352


Matt 14:31

ὀλιγόπιστε, εἰς τί ἐδίστασας; O man of little faith, why did you doubt? (≈ “Do not doubt.”)

Matt 15:2

διὰ τί οἱ µαθηταί σου παραβαίνουσιν τὴν παράδοσιν τῶν πρεσβυτέρων; οὐ γὰρ νίπτονται τὰς χεῖρας [αὐτῶν] ὅταν ἄρτον ἐσθίωσιν. Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands before they eat. (≈ “Your disciples must stop breaking the tradition of the elders by not washing their hands before they eat.”)

Matt 15:3

διὰ τί καὶ ὑµεῖς παραβαίνετε τὴν ἐντολὴν τοῦ θεοῦ διὰ τὴν παράδοσιν ὑµῶν; And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? (≈ “Do not break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition.”) 5

Matt 16:8

τί διαλογίζεσθε ἐν ἑαυτοῖς, ὀλιγόπιστοι, ὅτι ἄρτους οὐκ ἔχετε; O you of little faith, why are you discussing among yourselves that you have no bread? (≈ “Do not be discussing the fact that you have no bread.”)

Matt 16:26a

τί γὰρ ὠφεληθήσεται ἄνθρωπος ἐὰν τὸν κόσµον ὅλον κερδήσῃ τὴν δὲ ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ ζηµιωθῇ; For how will a man be benefited if he gains the whole world but forfeits his soul? (≈ “Do not gain the whole world but forfeit your soul.”)

Matt 16:26b

ἢ τί δώσει ἄνθρωπος ἀντάλλαγµα τῆς ψυχῆς αὐτοῦ; Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul? (≈ “Do not give anything in exchange for your soul.”)

——— 5

The Synoptic parallel to the Matt 15:3 prohibitory question in Mark 7:8–9 is formatted as an ironic observation; see in section 13.4 of Chapter 13.

CHAPTER 11—PROHIBITORY QUESTIONS Matt 20:15

353

ἢ ὁ ὀφθαλµός σου πονηρός ἐστιν ὅτι ἐγὼ ἀγαθός εἰµι; Or is your eye [toward me] bad because I am good? (≈ “Do not think ill of me because I am generous.”)

Matt 22:18

τί µε πειράζετε, ὑποκριταί; Why are you testing me, hypocrites? (≈ “Stop testing me, hypocrites!”)

Matt 26:8

εἰς τί ἡ ἀπώλεια αὕτη; Why this waste? (≈ “Do not be so wasteful.”)

Matt 26:10

τί κόπους παρέχετε τῇ γυναικί; ἔργον γὰρ καλὸν ἠργάσατο εἰς ἐµέ· Why are you giving trouble to the woman? For a good work she has done for me. (≈ “Do not trouble the woman, for she has done a good work for me.”)

Matt 26:45

καθεύδετε [τὸ] λοιπὸν καὶ ἀναπαύεσθε· ἰδοὺ ἤγγικεν ἡ ὥρα καὶ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου παραδίδοται εἰς χεῖρας ἁµαρτωλῶν. Are you to continue sleeping and resting? Look, the hour is approaching, and the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. (≈ “Do not be sleeping and resting anymore. Look, the time is near for me to be betrayed into the hands of sinners.”)6

——— 6 The uncertain use of the adj. λοιπός (“remaining” or “henceforth”) and of the parsing for καθεύδετε and ἀναπαύεσθε (as either impv. or ind.) results in some debate regarding the best rendering of Matt 26:45. Three options seem possible: a) a permissive command, “Keep sleeping then” (so ATR 948); b) an ironic commentary, “So you are still sleeping” (so BDF 235 [§451.6] and EDNT 2:360); or c) an indignant question (so MHT 3:336). A command to keep sleeping (option a) seems unlikely with the subsequent ἰδού (“behold”) and the command in 26:46 for the disciples to get up and get going. Both the ironic commentary (b) and indignant question (c) options can be understood to carry some prohibitory force (BDAG 602). Our rendering of Matt 26:45 as a question conforms to NASB, NKJV, NRSV, HCSB, NIV, and NLT (ESV has the command rendering with the question rendering in the margin; NASB, HCSB, NIV, and NLT have marginal readings of the command option). See also the parallel in Mark 14:41a below. For more discussion, see the critical commentaries.

354


Matt 26:53

ἢ δοκεῖς ὅτι οὐ δύναµαι παρακαλέσαι τὸν πατέρα µου, καὶ παραστήσει µοι ἄρτι πλείω δώδεκα λεγιῶνας ἀγγέλων; Or do you think that I am not able to ask my Father, and he would send to me right now at my disposal twelve legions of angels? (≈ “Do not think that I cannot ask my Father for help.”)7

Mark 2:7

τί οὗτος οὕτως λαλεῖ; βλασφηµεῖ· Why does this fellow talk like that? He is blaspheming! (≈ “He should stop talking like that!”)8

Mark 2:8

τί ταῦτα διαλογίζεσθε ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ὑµῶν; Why are you dialoguing these things in your hearts? (≈ “Stop thinking these things in your hearts.”)

Mark 2:16

ὅτι µετὰ τῶν τελωνῶν καὶ ἁµαρτωλῶν ἐσθίει; Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners? (≈ “He should stop eating with tax collectors and sinners.”)9

Mark 2:24

ἴδε τί ποιοῦσιν τοῖς σάββασιν ὃ οὐκ ἔξεστιν; Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath? (≈ “No one is to do what your disciples are doing on the Sabbath.”)10

——— 7 Despite the double negative in our English rendering, we are numbering Matt 26:53 as a prohibition because it follows the pattern of other “Do you think...?” prohibitory questions (e.g., Luke 12:51a; 13:2, 4; Jas 4:5). See the deliberative questions with δοκέω at Matt 17:25; 18:12; 21:28; 22:42; 26:66; Luke 10:36; John 11:56; the rhetorical question with δοκεῖτε at Heb 10:29; and the prohibitions with µὴ δοκεῖτε at John 5:45 (see in section 5.1.1 of Chapter 5); µὴ δόξητε at Matt 3:9; and µὴ δόξῃ at 2 Cor 11:16 (see in section 6.1.1 of Chapter 6); cf. the prohibitions with µὴ νοµίσητε at Matt 5:17 and 10:34 (see in section 6.1.1 of Chapter 6). 8 The Synoptic parallel to Mark 2:7 in Matt 9:4 is constructed as a simple observation (οὗτος βλασφηµεῖ; “This man is blaspheming”). And rather than a prohibition, the parallel in Luke 5:21 is constructed more as an inquiry about Jesus’ identity (τίς ἐστιν οὗτος ὃς λαλεῖ βλασφηµίας; “Who is this who speaks blasphemy?”). 9

On Mark 2:16, see the footnote for its Synoptic parallel in Luke 5:30 below.

10

The Synoptic parallel to Mark 2:24 and Luke 6:2 found in Matt 12:2 is constructed as a prohibitory emulation statement and not a question; see in section 10.1 of Chapter 10.

CHAPTER 11—PROHIBITORY QUESTIONS Mark 4:21

355

µήτι ἔρχεται ὁ λύχνος ἵνα ὑπὸ τὸν µόδιον τεθῇ ἢ ὑπὸ τὴν κλίνην; οὐχ ἵνα ἐπὶ τὴν λυχνίαν τεθῇ; A lamp is not brought in order to be placed under a basket or under a bed, is it? Is it not in order to be placed on the lampstand? (≈ “Do not hide the light.”)11

Mark 4:40

τί δειλοί ἐστε; οὔπω ἔχετε πίστιν; Why are you afraid? Have you no faith? (≈ “Do not be afraid. Have faith.”)12

Mark 5:35

τί ἔτι σκύλλεις τὸν διδάσκαλον; Why bother the teacher any more? (≈ “Do not bother the teacher any more.”)13

Mark 5:39

τί θορυβεῖσθε καὶ κλαίετε; Why are you making commotion and wailing? (≈ “Stop the commotion and wailing.”)14

Mark 7:5

διὰ τί οὐ περιπατοῦσιν οἱ µαθηταί σου κατὰ τὴν παράδοσιν τῶν πρεσβυτέρων, άλλὰ κοιναὶς χερσὶν ἐσθίουσιν τὸν ἄρτον; Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but are eating bread with unclean hands? (≈ “Your disciples must stop breaking the tradition of the elders by eating with unclean hands.”)

——— 11 The Synoptic parallels to Mark 4:21 found in Matt 5:15; Luke 8:16 and 11:33 are all structured as prohibitory emulation statements; see in section 10.3 of Chapter 10. 12 The Synoptic parallel to Mark 4:40 found in Matt 8:26a has a similar question (see above), but the parallel in Luke 8:25 has only the inquiry about faith (ποῦ ἡ πίστις ὑµῶν; “Where is your faith?”), which is roughly equivalent to a positive command to “have faith,” if understood as a rhetorical question and not an interrogative question. 13

The Synoptic parallel to Mark 5:35 in Luke 8:49 is constructed with a negated pres. impv.; see in section 5.1.1 of Chapter 5. 14

The Synoptic parallel to Mark 5:35 in Luke 8:52 is constructed with a negated pres. impv.; see in section 5.1.1 of Chapter 5.

356 Mark 8:12

PROHIBITIONS IN THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT τί ἡ γενεὰ αὕτη ζητεῖ σηµεῖον; ἀµὴν λέγω ὑµῖν, εἰ δοθήσεται τῇ γενεᾷ ταύτῃ σηµεῖον. Why does this generation seek a sign? Truly I say to you, no sign will be given to this generation. (≈ “Do not seek a sign. No sign will be given.”)15

Mark 8:17

τί διαλογίζεσθε ὅτι ἄρτους οὐκ ἔχετε; Why are you discussing that you have no bread? (≈ “Do not be discussing the fact that you have no bread.”)

Mark 8:36

τί γὰρ ὠφελεῖ ἄνθρωπον κερδῆσαι τὸν κόσµον ὅλον καὶ ζηµιωθῆναι τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ; How does it benefit a man to gain the whole world and to lose his soul? (≈ “Do not gain the whole world and lose your soul.”)

Mark 8:37

τί γὰρ δοῖ ἄνθρωπος ἀντάλλαγµα τῆς ψυχῆς αὐτοῦ; For what should a man give in exchange for his soul? (≈ “Do not give anything in exchange for your soul.”)

Mark 9:50

καλὸν τὸ ἅλας· ἐὰν δὲ τὸ ἅλας ἄναλον γένηται, ἐν τίνι αὐτὸ ἀρτύσετε; ἔχετε ἐν ἑαυτοῖς ἅλα καὶ εἰρηνεύετε ἐν ἀλλήλοις. Salt is good. But if salt would become non-salty, how will you season it? Have salt in yourselves and be at peace with one another. (≈ “Do not lose your saltiness.”)16

Mark 12:15

τί µε πειράζετε; Why are you testing me? (≈ “Do not test me.”)

——— 15 The Synoptic parallels to Mark 8:12 in Matt 12:39–42; 16:4; and Luke 11:29–32 are all constructed as prohibitory warning statements; see in section 12.2 of Chapter 12. 16 The Synoptic parallels to Mark 9:50 in Matt 5:13a–b and Luke 14:34–35 have both a prohibitory question (as here) and then add a prohibitory warning (see in section 12.2 of Chapter 12).

CHAPTER 11—PROHIBITORY QUESTIONS Mark 14:4

357

εἰς τί ἡ ἀπώλεια αὕτη τοῦ µύρου γέγονεν; Why has this waste of ointment occurred ? (≈ “Do not be so wasteful.”)

Mark 14:6

ἄφετε αὐτήν· τί αὐτῇ κόπους παρέχετε; Leave her alone. Why are you bothering her? (≈ “Stop bothering her.”)

Mark 14:37

Σίµων, καθεύδεις; οὐκ ἴσχυσας µίαν ὥραν γρηγορῆσαι; Simon, are you sleeping? Could you not watch one hour? (≈ “Do not be sleeping.”)

Mark 14:41a

καθεύδετε τὸ λοιπὸν καὶ ἀναπαύεσθε· ἀπέχει· Are you to continue sleeping and resting? It is enough! (≈ “Do not be sleeping and resting anymore. It is time to stop that.”)17

Luke 2:48

τέκνον, τί ἐποίησας ἡµῖν οὕτως; Son, why have you treated us like this? (≈ “Do not treat us like this.”)18

Luke 2:49

τί ὅτι ἐζητεῖτέ µε; Why were you searching for me? (≈ “Do not search for me.”)

——— On the three basic options for rendering Mark 14:41a, see the footnote discussion on the Matt 26:45 parallel above. A command to keep sleeping (option a) seems unlikely with the command in Mark 14:42 for the disciples to get up and get going. Both the ironic commentary (b) and indignant question (c) options seem to carry a prohibitory force (BDAG 602), which is confirmed in Mark 14:41b by ἀπέχει, if this term is understood as a call for the sleeping to cease (in section 13.4 of Chapter 13 on negative exclamations we recognize a pragmatic prohibitory force for ἀπέχω in Mark 14:41b; see the discussion in the footnote there). Our rendering of Mark 14:41a as a question conforms to NASB, NKJV, ESV, NRSV, HCSB, NIV, and NLT (NASB and NLT have marginal readings of the command option). 17

18 While it is possible to understand Luke 2:48 as either a basic interrogative inquiry (i.e., seeking an informative response) or as a reprimand merely for past behavior, we are treating it here as a question also intended to bear prohibitory force regarding future behavior.

358


Luke 5:22

τί διαλογίζεσθε ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ὑµῶν; Why are you thinking these things in your hearts? (≈ “Stop thinking these things in your hearts.”)

Luke 5:30

καὶ ἐγόγγυζον οἱ Φαρισαῖοι καὶ οἱ γραµµατεῖς αὐτῶν πρὸς τοὺς µαθητὰς αὐτοῦ λέγοντες· διὰ τί µετὰ τῶν τελωνῶν καὶ ἁµαρτωλῶν ἐσθίετε καὶ πίνετε; And the Pharisees and their scribes murmured against his disciples saying, ‘Why are you eating and drinking with tax collectors and sinners?’ (≈ “Do not eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners.”)19

Luke 6:2

τί ποιεῖτε ὃ οὐκ ἔξεστιν τοῖς σάββασιν; Why are you doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath? (≈ “Do not do what is not lawful on the Sabbath.”)20

Luke 6:32

καὶ εἰ ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἀγαπῶντας ὑµᾶς, ποία ὑµῖν χάρις ἐστίν; And if you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? (≈ “Do not love only those who love you.”)

Luke 6:33

καὶ [γὰρ] ἐὰν ἀγαθοποιῆτε τοὺς ἀγαθοποιοῦντας ὑµᾶς, ποία ὑµῖν χάρις ἐστίν; And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? (≈ “Do not do good only to those who do good to you.”)

Luke 6:34

καὶ ἐὰν δανίσητε παρ᾽ ὧν ἐλπίζετε λαβεῖν, ποία ὑµῖν χάρις [ἐστίν]; And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit [is] that to you? (≈ “Do not lend only to those from whom you expect repayment.”)

——— Introduced with ἐγόγγυζον πρὸς (“murmered against”), Luke 5:30 is the clearest of the Synoptics that the question here has prohibitory force (cf. Matt 9:11 and Mark 2:16 above). 19

20

The Synoptic parallel to Mark 2:24 and Luke 6:2 found in Matt 12:2 is constructed as a prohibitory emulation statement and not a question; see in section 10.1 of Chapter 10.

CHAPTER 11—PROHIBITORY QUESTIONS Luke 6:41

359

Τί δὲ βλέπεις τὸ κάρφος τὸ ἐν τῷ ὀφθαλµῷ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ σου, τὴν δὲ δοκὸν τὴν ἐν τῷ ἰδίῳ ὀφθαλµῷ οὐ κατανοεῖς; And why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but not notice the log that is in your own eye? (≈ “Do not see the speck in your brother’s eye without noticing the log in your own eye.”)

Luke 6:42

πῶς δύνασαι λέγειν τῷ ἀδελφῷ σου· ἀδελφέ, ἄφες ἐκβάλω τὸ κάρφος τὸ ἐν τῷ ὀφθαλµῷ σου, αὐτὸς τὴν ἐν τῷ ὀφθαλµῷ σου δοκὸν οὐ βλέπων; How are you able to say to your brother, ‘Brother, let me remove the speck that is in your eye,’ while not yourself seeing the log in your own eye? (≈ “Do not offer to remove a speck from your brother’s eye without noticing the log in your own eye.”)

Luke 6:46

Τί δέ µε καλεῖτε· κύριε κύριε, καὶ οὐ ποιεῖτε ἃ λέγω; And why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and not do what I say? (≈ “Do not call me ‘Lord, Lord’ without doing what I say.”)21

Luke 9:25

τί γὰρ ὠφελεῖται ἄνθρωπος κερδήσας τὸν κόσµον ὅλον ἑαυτὸν δὲ ἀπολέσας ἢ ζηµιωθείς; For how is man benefited gaining the whole world and losing or forfeiting himself? (≈ “Do not gain the whole world and lose or forfeit yourself.”)

Luke 12:14

ἄνθρωπε, τίς µε κατέστησεν κριτὴν ἢ µεριστὴν ἐφ᾽ ὑµᾶς; Man, who appointed me as judge or arbiter over you? (≈ “Do not ask me to serve as judge or arbiter over you.”)

——— 21

The Synoptic parallel to Luke 6:46 found in Matt 7:21 is constructed as a prohibitory warning statement and not a question; see in section 12.2 of Chapter 12.

360 Luke 12:25

PROHIBITIONS IN THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT τίς δὲ ἐξ ὑµῶν µεριµνῶν δύναται ἐπὶ τὴν ἡλικίαν αὐτοῦ προσθεῖναι πῆχυν; And who of you by worrying is able to add a cubit to his life span ? (≈ “Do not worry.”)

Luke 12:26

εἰ οὖν οὐδὲ ἐλάχιστον δύνασθε, τί περὶ τῶν λοιπῶν µεριµνᾶτε; If therefore you are not able to do this little thing, why worry about the rest? (≈ “Do not worry about the rest.”)

Luke 12:51a

δοκεῖτε ὅτι εἰρήνην παρεγενόµην δοῦναι ἐν τῇ γῇ; οὐχί, λέγω ὑµῖν, ἀλλ᾽ ἢ διαµερισµόν. Do you think that I came to bring peace on earth? (≈ “Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth.”)22

Luke 13:2

δοκεῖτε ὅτι οἱ Γαλιλαῖοι οὗτοι ἁµαρτωλοὶ παρὰ πάντας τοὺς Γαλιλαίους ἐγένοντο, ὅτι ταῦτα πεπόνθασιν; Do you think these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered these things? (≈ “Do not think that these Galileans were worse sinners.”)

Luke 13:4

ἢ ἐκεῖνοι οἱ δεκαοκτὼ ἐφ᾽ οὓς ἔπεσεν ὁ πύργος ἐν τῷ Σιλωὰµ καὶ ἀπέκτεινεν αὐτούς, δοκεῖτε ὅτι αὐτοὶ ὀφειλέται ἐγένοντο παρὰ πάντας τοὺς ἀνθρώπους τοὺς κατοικοῦντας Ἰερουσαλήµ; Or those eighteen upon whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed, do you think that they were more guilty than all the men living in Jerusalem? (≈ “Do not think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem.”)

——— 22 The prohibitory force of Jesus’ question in Luke 12:51a is confirmed by his negative answer in the immediately following phrase (see Luke 12:51b in section 13.4 of Chapter 13) and by the Synoptic parallel in Matt 10:34, which is constructed with the negated aor. subj. (using νοµίζω instead of δοκέω; see in section 6.1.1 of Chapter 6).

CHAPTER 11—PROHIBITORY QUESTIONS Luke 13:7

361

ἔκκοψον [οὖν] αὐτήν, ἱνατί καὶ τὴν γῆν καταργεῖ; [Therefore] cut it down. Why should it even waste the soil? (≈ “Do not let this fig tree waste the soil.”)

Luke 14:34

Καλὸν οὖν τὸ ἅλας· ἐὰν δὲ καὶ τὸ ἅλας µωρανθῇ, ἐν τίνι ἀρτυθήσεται; Now, salt is good. But if salt would lose its taste, how will it be seasoned? (≈ “Do not lose your saltiness.”)23

Luke 22:46a

τί καθεύδετε; Why are you sleeping? (≈ “Do not be sleeping.”)

Luke 22:48

Ἰούδα, φιλήµατι τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου παραδίδως; Judas, are you betraying the Son of Man with a kiss? (≈ “Do not betray the Son of Man with a kiss.”)

Luke 23:40b

οὐδὲ φοβῇ σὺ τὸν θεόν, ὅτι ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ κρίµατι εἶ; Do you not fear God, since you are under the same judgment? (≈ “Do not ridicule this man, whose judgment you deserve.”)24

Luke 24:5

τί ζητεῖτε τὸν ζῶντα µετὰ τῶν νεκρῶν· Why are you looking for the living among the dead? (≈ “Do not be looking for the living among the dead.”)25

——— 23

The Synoptic parallels of Luke 14:34–35 and Matt 5:13a–b have both a prohibitory question and a prohibitory warning statement (see in section 12.2 of Chapter 12); the Mark 9:50 parallel, however, has the question but lacks the warning statement (see above). 24 The question the one thief puts to the other in Luke 23:40b may itself be rendered into a command something like, “You should fear God because you are under the same curse.” But the context reveals this remark to be a rebuke (introduced with ἐπιτιµῶν in v. 40a) of the first thief’s ridicule of Jesus. 25

The Synoptic parallels to Luke 24:5 in Matt 28:5 and Mark 16:6 are both constructed with negated pres. impv. verbs; see in section 5.1.1 of Chapter 5.

362 Luke 24:38

PROHIBITIONS IN THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT τί τεταραγµένοι ἐστὲ καὶ διὰ τί διαλογισµοὶ ἀναβαίνουσιν ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ ὑµῶν; Why are you troubled and for what reason are doubts rising in your hearts? (≈ “Do not be troubled and doubting.”)

John 6:61

τοῦτο ὑµᾶς σκανδαλίζει; Does this offend you? (≈ “Do not be offended by this.”)

John 7:23

εἰ περιτοµὴν λαµβάνει ἄνθρωπος ἐν σαββάτῳ ἵνα µὴ λυθῇ ὁ νόµος Μωϋσέως, ἐµοὶ χολᾶτε ὅτι ὅλον ἄνθρωπον ὑγιῆ ἐποίησα ἐν σαββάτῳ; If a man receives circumcision on the Sabbath so that the law of Moses may not be broken, are you angry with me because I made a whole man well on the Sabbath? (≈ “Do not be angry with me for healing a man on the Sabbath.”)

John 7:51

µὴ ὁ νόµος ἡµῶν κρίνει τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἐὰν µὴ ἀκούσῃ πρῶτον παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ καὶ γνῷ τί ποιεῖ; Our law does not judge a man without hearing from him first and knowing what he is doing, does it? (≈ “Do not judge this man prematurely.”)

John 7:52a

µὴ καὶ σὺ ἐκ τῆς Γαλιλαίας εἶ; You are not also from Galilee, are you? (≈ “Do not defend this Galilean.”)

John 9:34

ἐν ἁµαρτίαις σὺ ἐγεννήθης ὅλος καὶ σὺ διδάσκεις ἡµᾶς; You were born completely in sin and you are teaching us? (≈ “You, a complete sinner, do not presume to be teaching us!”)

John 10:20

δαιµόνιον ἔχει καὶ µαίνεται· τί αὐτοῦ ἀκούετε; He has a demon and is mad. Why listen to him? (≈ “Do not listen to him for he has a demon and is mad.”)

CHAPTER 11—PROHIBITORY QUESTIONS John 10:24

363

ἕως πότε τὴν ψυχὴν ἡµῶν αἴρεις; εἰ σὺ εἶ ὁ χριστός, εἰπὲ ἡµῖν παρρησίᾳ. Until when will you be keeping our souls [in suspense]? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly. (≈ “Do not keep us in suspense any longer. Tell us plainly if you are the Christ.”)

John 12:5

διὰ τί τοῦτο τὸ µύρον οὐκ ἐπράθη τριακοσίων δηναρίων καὶ ἐδόθη πτωχοῖς; Why wasn’t this ointment sold for 300 denarii and given to the poor? (≈ “Do not waste expensive things like this ointment.”)

John 12:27

Νῦν ἡ ψυχή µου τετάρακται, καὶ τί εἴπω; πάτερ, σῶσόν µε ἐκ τῆς ὥρας ταύτης; Now my soul is troubled and what will I say, ‘Father, save me out of this hour’? (≈ “I must not say, ‘Father, save me from this hour’.”)

John 13:6

κύριε, σύ µου νίπτεις τοὺς πόδας; Lord, are you going to wash my feet? (≈ “Do not wash my feet.”)

John 18:21

τί µε ἐρωτᾷς; ἐρώτησον τοὺς ἀκηκοότας τί ἐλάλησα αὐτοῖς· ἴδε οὗτοι οἴδασιν ἃ εἶπον ἐγώ. Why are you questioning me? Ask those who have heard what I said to them. Behold, they know what I said. (≈ “Do not question me.”)

John 18:22

οὕτως ἀποκρίνῃ τῷ ἀρχιερεῖ; Do you answer this way to the high priest? (≈ “Do not answer the high priest this way.”)

John 18:23

εἰ κακῶς ἐλάλησα, µαρτύρησον περὶ τοῦ κακοῦ· εἰ δὲ καλῶς, τί µε δέρεις; If I spoke wrongly, bear witness concerning the wrong; but if I spoke truly, why did you strike me? (≈ “If I speak truly, do not strike me.”)

364


John 20:15

γύναι, τί κλαίεις; τίνα ζητεῖς; Woman, why are you weeping? Whom are you seeking? (≈ “Stop crying and tell me whom you are looking for.”)26

Acts 1:11

ἄνδρες Γαλιλαῖοι, τί ἑστήκατε [ἐµ]βλέποντες εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν; Men of Galilee, why are you standing looking into the sky? (≈ “Do not just stand there looking into the sky.”)

Acts 3:12

ἄνδρες Ἰσραηλῖται, τί θαυµάζετε ἐπὶ τούτῳ ἢ ἡµῖν τί ἀτενίζετε ὡς ἰδίᾳ δυνάµει ἢ εὐσεβείᾳ πεποιηκόσιν τοῦ περιπατεῖν αὐτόν; Men of Israel, why are you marveling at this or why are you staring at us as if by our own power or godliness we have made him to walk? (≈ “Do not marvel at this or stare at us as if we have made him walk by our own power or godliness.”)

Acts 5:3

Ἁνανία, διὰ τί ἐπλήρωσεν ὁ σατανᾶς τὴν καρδίαν σου, ψεύσασθαί σε τὸ πνεῦµα τὸ ἅγιον καὶ νοσφίσασθαι ἀπὸ τῆς τιµῆς τοῦ χωρίου; Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to hold back from the price of the land? (≈ “Do not let Satan fill your heart so as to lie to the Holy Spirit and to hold back from the price of the land.”)

Acts 5:9

τί ὅτι συνεφωνήθη ὑµῖν πειράσαι τὸ πνεῦµα κυρίου; Why was it agreeable to you to test the Spirit of the Lord? (≈ “Do not agree to test the Spirit of the Lord.”)

——— 26

Rather than our rendering, it is possible to understand the two questions Jesus poses to Mary Magdalene in John 20:15 as both requests for information: “Tell me why you are crying and whom you are looking for.” But the second question (as well as the context of the empty tomb) implies that the inquirer knows the technical answer to the first question: “I know you are crying because there is someone you cannot find, so stop crying and tell me who you are seeking.” Of course, Jesus knows the answer to the second question as well.

CHAPTER 11—PROHIBITORY QUESTIONS Acts 7:26

365

ἄνδρες, ἀδελφοί ἐστε· ἱνατί ἀδικεῖτε ἀλλήλους; Men, you are brothers, why are you hurting one another? (≈ “Do not be hurting one another.”)27

Acts 7:27

τίς σε κατέστησεν ἄρχοντα καὶ δικαστὴν ἐφ᾽ ἡµῶν; Who made you ruler and judge over us? (≈ “Do not make yourself ruler and judge over us.”)28

Acts 7:35

τίς σε κατέστησεν ἄρχοντα καὶ δικαστήν; Who made you ruler and judge? (≈ “Do not make yourself ruler and judge.”)29

Acts 7:49

ποῖον οἶκον οἰκοδοµήσετέ µοι, λέγει κύριος, ἢ τίς τόπος τῆς καταπαύσεώς µου; ‘What kind of house will you construct for me,’ says the Lord, ‘or what place for my resting?’ (≈ “Do not think that you can build a place that can be a house for me.”)30

Acts 9:4

Σαοὺλ Σαούλ, τί µε διώκεις; Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? (≈ “Saul, Saul, stop persecuting me.”)31

——— For Acts 7:26, cf. Exod 2:13 LXX: Διὰ τί σὺ τύπτεις τὸν πλησίον; (“Why are you striking your companion?”). 27

28

Acts 7:27 cites from Exod 2:14 LXX. See the next footnote below on Acts 7:35.

29 The context of Acts 7:35 brings out the prohibitory force of this question, repeated here from 7:27 but without the final prepositional phrase ἐφ᾽ ἡµῶν (cited from Exod 2:14 LXX). Stephen here remarks that, with this question, the Israelites rejected Moses (Τοῦτον τὸν Μωϋσῆν ὃν ἠρνήσαντο εἰπόντες). They told Moses not to be ruler and judge (ἄρχοντα καὶ δικαστήν) over them, but ironically God had made Moses ruler and deliverer (ἄρχοντα καὶ λυτρωτὴν). 30 Acts 7:49 cites Isa 66:1 LXX with only the minor changes of inserting λέγει κύριος between the parallel lines of the compound question and replacing ποῖος with τίς as the interrogative of the second line. 31

That the question of Acts 9:4 (repeated in Acts 22:7 and 26:14) has prohibitory force is made clearer in the longer report of Acts 26; see the footnote for Acts 26:14 below.

366


Acts 10:47c

µήτι τὸ ὕδωρ δύναται κωλῦσαί τις τοῦ µὴ βαπτισθῆναι τούτους, οἵτινες τὸ πνεῦµα τὸ ἅγιον ἔλαβον ὡς καὶ ἡµεῖς; Is anyone able to forbid water so that these not be baptized, who received the Holy Spirit just as we did? (≈ “Do not prevent these people from being baptized.”)32

Acts 11:17

εἰ οὖν τὴν ἴσην δωρεὰν ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς ὁ θεὸς ὡς καὶ ἡµῖν πιστεύσασιν ἐπὶ τὸν κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, ἐγὼ τίς ἤµην δυνατὸς κωλῦσαι τὸν θεόν; If then God gave the same gift to them as he gave to us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could hinder God? (≈ “I could not hinder God from bringing the Gentiles into the church, and no one else should try to either.”)33

Acts 13:10

οὐ παύσῃ διαστρέφων τὰς ὁδοὺς [τοῦ] κυρίου τὰς εὐθείας; Will you not stop perverting the straight paths of the Lord? (≈ “Stop perverting the straight paths of the Lord.”)

Acts 14:15

ἄνδρες, τί ταῦτα ποιεῖτε; Men, why are you doing this? (≈ “Do not be doing this.”)

Acts 15:10

νῦν οὖν τί πειράζετε τὸν θεὸν ἐπιθεῖναι ζυγὸν ἐπὶ τὸν τράχηλον τῶν µαθητῶν ὃν οὔτε οἱ πατέρες ἡµῶν οὔτε ἡµεῖς ἰσχύσαµεν βαστάσαι; Now therefore, why are you testing God by placing on the neck of the disciples a yoke that neither our fathers nor we have been strong enough to bear? (≈ “Stop testing God by placing this demand on fellow believers.”)

——— 32 While the whole of the question of Acts 10:47c represents a prohibitory remark, within that question are references to two other prohibitory ideas: the lexically implied command “to forbid” water (see Acts 10:47a in section 9.3 of Chapter 9) and the (related) intent for some “not to be baptized” (see Acts 10:47b in section 7.4.4 of Chapter 7). 33

In Peter’s Acts 11:4–17 report, the question of v. 17 is a summary of the prohibitory question in Acts 10:47c. Acts 11:18 shows that the prohibition was clear to his listeners.

CHAPTER 11—PROHIBITORY QUESTIONS Acts 16:37a

367

Δείραντες ἡµᾶς δηµοσίᾳ ἀκατακρίτους, ἀνθρώπους Ῥωµαίους ὑπάρχοντας, ἔβαλαν εἰς φυλακήν, καὶ νῦν λάθρᾳ ἡµᾶς ἐκβάλλουσιν; Beating us publicly without trial, although we are Roman citizens, they threw us in jail, and now they are sending us out secretly? (≈ “After mistreating us as they have, they must not send us out secretly.”)34

Acts 21:13

τί ποιεῖτε κλαίοντες καὶ συνθρύπτοντές µου τὴν καρδίαν; What are you doing, weeping and breaking my heart? (≈ “Stop weeping and breaking my heart.”)

Acts 22:7

Σαοὺλ Σαούλ, τί µε διώκεις; Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? (≈ “Saul, Saul, stop persecuting me.”)35

Acts 22:16

καὶ νῦν τί µέλλεις; ἀναστὰς βάπτισαι καὶ ἀπόλουσαι τὰς ἁµαρτίας σου ἐπικαλεσάµενος τὸ ὄνοµα αὐτοῦ. And now why are you waiting? Getting up, be baptized and have your sins washed away, calling on his name. (≈ “Do not wait. Get up and be baptized....”)

Acts 22:25

εἰ ἄνθρωπον Ῥωµαῖον καὶ ἀκατάκριτον ἔξεστιν ὑµῖν µαστίζειν; Is it legal for you to flog an uncondemned Roman citizen? (≈ “Do not flog me, an uncondemned Roman citizen.”)

Acts 22:26

τί µέλλεις ποιεῖν; ὁ γὰρ ἄνθρωπος οὗτος Ῥωµαῖός ἐστιν. What are you about to do? For this man is a Roman. (≈ “Do not flog him, an uncondemned Roman citizen.”)

——— 34

Paul’s question in Acts 16:37a is confirmed as a prohibition with his own negative exclamation: “No indeed!” (οὐ γάρ); see Acts 16:37b in section 13.4 of Chapter 13. 35

That the question of Acts 22:7 (repeated again in 26:14 from Acts 9:4) has prohibitory force is made clearer in the longer report of Acts 26; see the footnote for Acts 26:14 below.

368


Acts 23:4

τὸν ἀρχιερέα τοῦ θεοῦ λοιδορεῖς; Do you speak evil of God’s high priest? (≈ “Do not speak evil of God’s high priest.”)36

Acts 26:8

τί ἄπιστον κρίνεται παρ᾽ ὑµῖν εἰ ὁ θεὸς νεκροὺς ἐγείρει; Why should it be considered unbelievable by you, that God raises the dead? (≈ “Do not consider it unbelievable that God can raise the dead.”)

Acts 26:14

Σαοὺλ Σαούλ, τί µε διώκεις; σκληρόν σοι πρὸς κέντρα λακτίζειν. Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads. (≈ “Saul, Saul, stop persecuting me.”)37

Acts 26:28

ἐν ὀλίγῳ µε πείθεις Χριστιανὸν ποιῆσαι. In such a short while will you persuade me to become a Christian? (≈ “Do not think that you can persuade me to become a Christian in such a short while.”)38

Rom 2:3

λογίζῃ δὲ τοῦτο, ὦ ἄνθρωπε ὁ κρίνων τοὺς τὰ τοιαῦτα πράσσοντας καὶ ποιῶν αὐτά, ὅτι σὺ ἐκφεύξῃ τὸ κρίµα τοῦ θεοῦ;

——— 36 Paul’s reply in Acts 23:5 confirms that he understands the question in Acts 23:4 as a prohibition, for he quotes Exod 22:28 LXX, which gives the prohibition constructed with a negated fut. ind. (see in section 7.1 of Chapter 7). 37

That the question of Acts 26:14 (repeated from Acts 9:4 and 22:7) has prohibitory force is made clearer here with the added observation that Paul’s persecuting behavior goes against what God wants him to be doing (“It is hard for you to kick against the goads”). 38

Acts 26:28 is rendered as a question in NRSV, ESV, HCSB, NIV, and NLT. Following the punctuation of the UBS4, NA27 and 28, and SBLGNT texts, NASB, NKJV, ESV (margin), and NLT (margin) render it as a statement, which can be understood as having the prohibitory force of sarcasm; cf. ESV (margin): “In a short time you would persuade me to act like a Christian!”

CHAPTER 11—PROHIBITORY QUESTIONS

369

But do you think this, O man who judges those practicing certain things and yet is doing the same things, that you will escape the judgment of God? (≈ “Do not condemn others for doing what you are doing.”)39 Rom 2:4

ἢ τοῦ πλούτου τῆς χρηστότητος αὐτοῦ καὶ τῆς ἀνοχῆς καὶ τῆς µακροθυµίας καταφρονεῖς, ἀγνοῶν ὅτι τὸ χρηστὸν τοῦ θεοῦ εἰς µετάνοιάν σε ἄγει; Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, and tolerance, and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance? (≈ “Do not show contempt for the riches of God’s kindness, and tolerance, and patience, meant to lead you to repent.”)

Rom 2:21a

ὁ οὖν διδάσκων ἕτερον σεαυτὸν οὐ διδάσκεις; The one teaching others, are you not teaching yourself? (≈ “Do not be teaching and neglect to teach yourself.”)40

Rom 2:21c

ὁ κηρύσσων µὴ κλέπτειν κλέπτεις; The one preaching not to steal, are you stealing? (≈ “Do not be preaching against stealing and be stealing.”)41

Rom 2:22b

ὁ λέγων µὴ µοιχεύειν µοιχεύεις; The one saying not to commit adultery, are you committing adultery? (≈ “Do not be speaking against committing adultery and be committing adultery.”)42

——— 39

The prohibitory question in Rom 2:3 is an echo of the same content formatted as a prohibitory warning statement in Rom 2:1; see in section 12.2 of Chapter 12. Rom 2:21–23 has a series of five parallel prohibitory questions for the reader (2:21a, 21c, 22b, 22c, and 23), each with two parts: a) someone is addressed who is presumably teaching others about right living (the negated infs. in v. 21b and in v. 22a each represents a prohibition in indirect discourse that is part of the teaching material; see in section 7.4.1 of Chapter 7), and b) the question itself asks if the person is behaving contrary to his own speech. 40

On the indirect discourse with a negated infin. in Rom 2:21b (κηρύσσων + µὴ κλέπτειν), see the footnote for Rom 2:21a above and its citation in section 7.4.1 of Chapter 7. 41

On the indirect discourse with a negated infin. in Rom 2:22a (λέγων + µὴ µοιχεύειν), see the footnote for Rom 2:21a above and its citation in section 7.4.1 of Chapter 7. 42

370


Rom 2:22c

ὁ βδελυσσόµενος τὰ εἴδωλα ἱεροσυλεῖς; The one detesting idols, are you robbing temples? (≈ “Do not be speaking against idols and be stealing them from temples.”)43

Rom 2:23

ὃς ἐν νόµῳ καυχᾶσαι, διὰ τῆς παραβάσεως τοῦ νόµου τὸν θεὸν ἀτιµάζεις· The one bragging about the law, are you dishonoring God through breaking the law? (≈ “Do not be bragging about the law and yet be dishonoring God by breaking the law.”)44

Rom 3:3

τί γάρ; εἰ ἠπίστησάν τινες, µὴ ἡ ἀπιστία αὐτῶν τὴν πίστιν τοῦ θεοῦ καταργήσει; What then? If some did not believe, their unbelief will not nullify the faithfulness of God, will it? (≈ “Do not assume God’s faithfulness is nullified by the unbelief of some.”)45

Rom 3:5

εἰ δὲ ἡ ἀδικία ἡµῶν θεοῦ δικαιοσύνην συνίστησιν, τί ἐροῦµεν; µὴ ἄδικος ὁ θεὸς ὁ ἐπιφέρων τὴν ὀργήν; κατὰ ἄνθρωπον λέγω. But if our unrightousness confirms the righteousness of God, what will we say? A God inflicting wrath [is] not unrighteous, is he? (I am speaking in a human way.)

——— 43

On Rom 2:22c, see the footnote for Rom 2:21a above.

44

With the text of the SBLGNT we render Rom 2:23 as a question, as do NASB, NKJV, NRSV, HCSB, and NIV. Following the NA27 and 28 punctuation, ESV and NLT render Rom 2:23 as a statement, which nevertheless has prohibitory force via irony. See the footnote for Rom 2:21a above. 45 In Romans, Paul sometimes uses a pair of questions that function together as one prohibitory expression, the first asking what should be thought/said about a topic and the second giving the prohibitory content. In each case, as if Paul can’t trust the reader to recognize the prohibitory intent of his query, he blurts out a negative expression in the very next line, usually µὴ γένοιτο (“May it never be!”; see in section 7.3 of Chapter 7), but one time οὐ πάντως (“Not at all!”; Rom 3:9b; see in section 13.4 of Chapter 13). He does this in Rom 3:3, 5, 9a; 6:1, 15a; 7:7a; and 9:14a (cf. differently, 1 Cor 5:12; 10:22).


371

(≈ “Do not assume God is unrighteous for inflicting us sinners with his wrath.”)46 Rom 3:8a

καὶ µὴ καθὼς βλασφηµούµεθα καὶ καθώς φασίν τινες ἡµᾶς λέγειν ὅτι ποιήσωµεν τὰ κακά, ἵνα ἔλθῃ τὰ ἀγαθά; And why not [say]—just as we are blasphemed and as some claim us to say—‘Let us do evil in order that good may come’? (≈ “Do not be saying that we should do evil in order that good may come.”)47

Rom 3:9a

Τί οὖν; προεχόµεθα; What therefore? Are we better? (≈ “Do not conclude that we are better.”)48

Rom 6:1

Τί οὖν ἐροῦµεν; ἐπιµένωµεν τῇ ἁµαρτίᾳ, ἵνα ἡ χάρις πλεονάσῃ; What therefore will we say? Shall we continue in sin so that grace may increase? (≈ “Do not continue in sin, thinking that will increase grace.”)49

Rom 6:2b

οἵτινες ἀπεθάνοµεν τῇ ἁµαρτίᾳ, πῶς ἔτι ζήσοµεν ἐν αὐτῇ; We died to sin, how will we live in it still? (≈ “Do not try to continue living in sin.”)

——— 46

On Rom 3:5, see the footnote above for Rom 3:3. The irony of the query in Rom 3:5 is immediately noted in the text in at least three ways: a question negated by µὴ expects a negative answer, Paul’s parenthetical remark here that he is using human reasoning to even ask such a question, and the use of µὴ γένοιτο in the next verse (3:6). 47 The prohibitory nature of the statement in Rom 3:8a is confirmed by Paul’s next statement: “Their condemnation is deserved” (v. 8b), which is categorized as a prohibitory warning in section 12.2 of Chapter 12. 48

On Rom 3:9a, see the footnote above for Rom 3:3. Unlike the other prohibitory pairs of questions where he uses µὴ γένοιτο, Paul follows Rom 3:9a with the exclamation οὐ πάντως (“Not at all!” in Rom 3:9b; see in section 13.4 of Chapter 13). 49

On Rom 6:1, see the footnote above for Rom 3:3.

372


Rom 6:15a

Τί οὖν; ἁµαρτήσωµεν, ὅτι οὐκ ἐσµὲν ὑπὸ νόµον ἀλλὰ ὑπὸ χάριν; What therefore? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? (≈ “Do not sin, reasoning that we are not under the law but under grace.”)50

Rom 7:7a

Τί οὖν ἐροῦµεν; ὁ νόµος ἁµαρτία; What therefore will we say? [Is] the law sin? (≈ “Do not call the law sin.”)51

Rom 9:14a

Τί οὖν ἐροῦµεν; µὴ ἀδικία παρὰ τῷ θεῷ; What therefore will we say? [There is] no injustice by God, is there? (≈ “Do not call God unjust.”)52

Rom 9:20a

ὦ ἄνθρωπε, µενοῦνγε σὺ τίς εἶ ὁ ἀνταποκρινόµενος τῷ θεῷ; On the contrary, O man, who are you that you are talking back to God? (≈ “Do not talk back to God.”)

Rom 9:20b

µὴ ἐρεῖ τὸ πλάσµα τῷ πλάσαντι· τί µε ἐποίησας οὕτως; The formed will not say to the former, ‘Why did you make me this way?’, will it? (≈ “Do not question how God made you.”)53

Rom 14:4

σὺ τίς εἶ ὁ κρίνων ἀλλότριον οἰκέτην; Who are you judging another’s servant? (≈ “Do not judge another’s servant.”)

——— 50

On Rom 6:15a, see the footnote above for Rom 3:3.

51

On Rom 7:7a, see the footnote above for Rom 3:3.

52

On Rom 9:14b, see the footnote above for Rom 3:3.

53 Paul’s wording in Rom 9:20b is largely a condensation of the double question in Isa 29:16 LXX, µὴ ἐρεῖ τὸ πλάσµα τῷ πλάσαντι Οὐ σύ µε ἔπλασας; ἢ τὸ ποίηµα τῷ ποιήσαντι Οὐ συνετῶς µε ἐποίησας; cf. Isa 45:9.

CHAPTER 11—PROHIBITORY QUESTIONS Rom 14:10a

373

Σὺ δὲ τί κρίνεις τὸν ἀδελφόν σου; And you, why are you judging your brother? (≈ “Do not be judging your brother.”)

Rom 14:10b

ἢ καὶ σὺ τί ἐξουθενεῖς τὸν ἀδελφόν σου; Or you, why are you despising your brother? (≈ “Do not be despising your brother.”)

1 Cor 3:3

ὅπου γὰρ ἐν ὑµῖν ζῆλος καὶ ἔρις, οὐχὶ σαρκικοί ἐστε καὶ κατὰ ἄνθρωπον περιπατεῖτε; For where there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not worldly and behaving in a human way? (≈ “Do have jealousy and strife among you.”)

1 Cor 4:7

εἰ δὲ καὶ ἔλαβες, τί καυχᾶσαι ὡς µὴ λαβών; If then you received it, why do you boast as if you did not receive it? (≈ “Stop boasting about what you received as if you did not receive it.”)

1 Cor 5:2

καὶ ὑµεῖς πεφυσιωµένοι ἐστὲ καὶ οὐχὶ µᾶλλον ἐπενθήσατε, ἵνα ἀρθῇ ἐκ µέσου ὑµῶν ὁ τὸ ἔργον τοῦτο πράξας; And you have been proud about it and not rather mourned so that the one who did this act would be removed from your midst? (≈ “Do not be proud about this sexual immorality, but remove the one practicing it from your midst.”)

1 Cor 5:12

τί γάρ µοι τοὺς ἔξω κρίνειν; οὐχὶ τοὺς ἔσω ὑµεῖς κρίνετε; For what is it to me to judge those on the outside? Is it not those on the inside you are to judge? (≈ “Do not judge those outside the church.”)54

——— 54

Paul’s use of the first person pronoun in 1 Cor 5:12 could lead us to categorize it with prohibitory emulation statements (in section 10.3 of Chapter 10); nevertheless, we view its question status as the more fundamental category. Note also that Paul switches to the 2nd pers. pronoun in the follow-up question, which amounts to a positive command (≈ “Judge those inside the church”). On Paul’s pairing of questions, see the footnote above for Rom 3:3.

374


1 Cor 6:1

Τολµᾷ τις ὑµῶν πρᾶγµα ἔχων πρὸς τὸν ἕτερον κρίνεσθαι ἐπὶ τῶν ἀδίκων καὶ οὐχὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἁγίων; When one of you has a grievance against another, does he dare to be judged before the unrighteous and not before the saints? (≈ “Do not try to settle your grievances between each other before the secular court system instead of before believers.”)

1 Cor 6:4

βιωτικὰ µὲν οὖν κριτήρια ἐὰν ἔχητε, τοὺς ἐξουθενηµένους ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ, τούτους καθίζετε; So if you have cases pertaining to this life, why do you lay them before those who are despised in the church? (≈ “Do not place your disputes before those who have no standing in the church.”)55

1 Cor 6:6

ἀλλὰ ἀδελφὸς µετὰ ἀδελφοῦ κρίνεται καὶ τοῦτο ἐπὶ ἀπίστων; But brother is judged with brother and this before unbelievers? (≈ “Do not take a believer to court before unbelievers.”)56

1 Cor 6:9a

Ἢ οὐκ οἴδατε κληρονοµήσουσιν;

ὅτι

ἄδικοι

θεοῦ

βασιλείαν

οὐ

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? (≈ “Do not be unrighteous.”)57 1 Cor 6:15a

ἄρας οὖν τὰ µέλη τοῦ Χριστοῦ ποιήσω πόρνης µέλη; Therefore taking the members of Christ should I make them members of a prostitute? (≈ “Do not unite the members of Christ with those of a prostitute.”)58

——— 55

Paul’s displeasure with the use of the secular courts for disputes among the believers is made clear in 1 Cor 6:5, “I say this to your shame!”; see in section 13.4 of Chapter 13. 56

The context of 1 Cor 6:1-8 makes clear that the question in 6:6 is prohibitory.

57

The prohibition of 1 Cor 6:9a might be slotted under prohibitory warnings (in section 12.2 of Chapter 12), but we are giving first priority to its structure as a question. 58

The prohibitory nature of the question in 1 Cor 6:15a is made clear by Paul’s immediate exclamation in v. 15b, “May it never be!” (µὴ γένοιτο; see in section 7.3 of Chapter 7).

375

CHAPTER 11—PROHIBITORY QUESTIONS 1 Cor 8:10

ἐὰν γάρ τις ἴδῃ σὲ τὸν ἔχοντα γνῶσιν ἐν εἰδωλείῳ κατακείµενον, οὐχὶ ἡ συνείδησις αὐτοῦ ἀσθενοῦς ὄντος οἰκοδοµηθήσεται εἰς τὸ τὰ εἰδωλόθυτα ἐσθίειν; For if anyone sees you, the one who has knowledge, dining in an idol’s temple, will he not—his conscience being weak—be encouraged to eat food offered to idols? (≈ “Do not let your knowledge improperly embolden a brother with a weak conscious.”)59

1 Cor 10:22

ἢ παραζηλοῦµεν τὸν κύριον; µὴ ἰσχυρότεροι αὐτοῦ ἐσµεν; Or are we provoking the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than him? (≈ “Do not provoke the Lord to jealousy. We are not stronger than him”)60

1 Cor 11:13

Ἐν ὑµῖν αὐτοῖς κρίνατε· πρέπον ἀκατακάλυπτον τῷ θεῷ προσεύχεσθαι;

ἐστὶν

γυναῖκα

Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? (≈ “A woman should not pray with her head uncovered.”) 1 Cor 11:14–15 οὐδὲ ἡ φύσις αὐτὴ διδάσκει ὑµᾶς ὅτι ἀνὴρ µὲν ἐὰν κοµᾷ ἀτιµία αὐτῷ ἐστιν, γυνὴ δὲ ἐὰν κοµᾷ δόξα αὐτῇ ἐστιν; Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace to him, but if a woman wears long hair it is her glory? (≈ “A man should not wear long hair.”) 1 Cor 11:22b

ἢ τῆς ἐκκλησίας τοῦ θεοῦ καταφρονεῖτε, καὶ καταισχύνετε τοὺς µὴ ἔχοντας; Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those having nothing? (≈ “Do not despise the church of God and humiliate those having nothing.”)

——— 59

The prohibitory intent of 1 Cor 8:10 is clarified by warnings in 8:11–12 (see in section 12.2 of Chapter 12) and the emulation statement in 8:13 (see in section 10.3 of Chapter 10). 60

On 1 Cor 10:22 and Paul’s pairing of questions, see the footnote above for Rom 3:3.

376 1 Cor 14:23

PROHIBITIONS IN THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT Ἐὰν οὖν συνέλθῃ ἡ ἐκκλησία ὅλη ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ καὶ πάντες λαλῶσιν γλώσσαις, εἰσέλθωσιν δὲ ἰδιῶται ἢ ἄπιστοι, οὐκ ἐροῦσιν ὅτι µαίνεσθε; If, therefore, the whole church comes together and all are speaking in tongues and outsiders or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are insane? (≈ “Do not behave such that outsiders and unbelievers say you are insane.”)

1 Cor 15:12

Εἰ δὲ Χριστὸς κηρύσσεται ὅτι ἐκ νεκρῶν ἐγήγερται, πῶς λέγουσιν ἐν ὑµῖν τινες ὅτι ἀνάστασις νεκρῶν οὐκ ἔστιν; Now if Christ is proclaimed that he has been raised from the dead, how can some among you be saying that there is no resurrection of the dead? (≈ “Since Christ has been raised from the dead, do not be saying that there is no resurrection of the dead.”)

2 Cor 12:19

Πάλαι δοκεῖτε ὅτι ὑµῖν ἀπολογούµεθα; κατέναντι θεοῦ ἐν Χριστῷ λαλοῦµεν· τὰ δὲ πάντα, ἀγαπητοί, ὑπὲρ τῆς ὑµῶν οἰκοδοµῆς. Are you supposing all this time that we are defending ourselves to you? Before God we are speaking in Christ, and all for your upbuilding, beloved. (≈ “Do not think that we have been defending ourselves to you.”)61

Gal 2:14

εἰ σὺ Ἰουδαῖος ὑπάρχων ἐθνικῶς καὶ οὐχὶ Ἰουδαϊκῶς ζῇς, πῶς τὰ ἔθνη ἀναγκάζεις ἰουδαΐζειν; If you, though being a Jew, are living like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews? (≈ “Do not force the Gentiles to live like Jews.”)

——— 61 We follow here the SBLGNT punctuation of the Greek text, which renders the first sentence in 2 Cor 12:19 as a question; so also the English translations of ESV, NKJV, NRSV, NIV, HCSB (margin), and NASB (margin), among others. Without treating the opening line as a question, English translations following here the punctuation of UBS4 and NA27 and 28 often must render the first statement with some concessive (e.g., NLT has “Perhaps...”) and/or the second sentence with a more blatant adversative (e.g., NLT and HCSB have “No...”; NASB has “Actually...”).

CHAPTER 11—PROHIBITORY QUESTIONS Gal 3:1

377

Ὦ ἀνόητοι Γαλάται, τίς ὑµᾶς ἐβάσκανεν, οἷς κατ᾿ ὀφθαλµοὺς Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς προεγράφη ἐσταυρωµένος; O foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified? (≈ “Do not be fooled into thinking that Jesus’ crucifixion was not enough.”)

Gal 3:3a

οὕτως ἀνόητοί ἐστε; Are you so foolish? (≈ “Do not be so foolish.”)62

Gal 3:3b

ἐναρξάµενοι πνεύµατι νῦν σαρκὶ ἐπιτελεῖσθε; Having begun with the Spirit, are you now ending with the flesh? (≈ “Do not try to finish your Spirit-given faith by human effort.”)

Gal 3:4

τοσαῦτα ἐπάθετε εἰκῇ; εἴ γε καὶ εἰκῇ. Did you suffer so much in vain? If indeed it was in vain. (≈ “Do not let your suffering be rendered for nothing.”)

Gal 4:9

νῦν δὲ γνόντες θεόν, µᾶλλον δὲ γνωσθέντες ὑπὸ θεοῦ, πῶς ἐπιστρέφετε πάλιν ἐπὶ τὰ ἀσθενῆ καὶ πτωχὰ στοιχεῖα οἷς πάλιν ἄνωθεν δουλεύειν θέλετε; But now knowing God, or rather being known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and worthless elemental principles, to whom you want to be enslaved all over again? (≈ “After coming into relationship with God, do not turn back to enslavement to weak and worthless forces.”)

——— 62 We follow here the SBLGNT punctuation of the Greek text, which renders the first three words in Gal 3:3 as a question; so also the English translations of NASB, ESV, NKJV, NRSV, HCSB, NIV, and NLT, among others. The texts of UBS4 and NA27 and 28 have a comma after these three words.

378 Col 2:20

PROHIBITIONS IN THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT Εἰ ἀπεθάνετε σὺν Χριστῷ ἀπὸ τῶν στοιχείων τοῦ κόσµου, τί ὡς ζῶντες ἐν κόσµῳ δογµατίζεσθε; If with Christ you died to the elemental principles of the world, why, as if living in the world, do you submit to its regulations? (≈ “Since in Christ you died to the world, do not live in submission to its regulations.”)

Jas 2:4

...οὐ διεκρίθητε ἐν ἑαυτοῖς καὶ ἐγένεσθε κριταὶ διαλογισµῶν πονηρῶν; ...have you not made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts? (≈ “Do not make such distinctions among yourselves and so act as judges with evil thoughts.”)

Jas 2:15–16

ἐὰν ἀδελφὸς ἢ ἀδελφὴ γυµνοὶ ὑπάρχωσιν καὶ λειπόµενοι τῆς ἐφηµέρου τροφῆς εἴπῃ δέ τις αὐτοῖς ἐξ ὑµῶν· ὑπάγετε ἐν εἰρήνῃ, θερµαίνεσθε καὶ χορτάζεσθε, µὴ δῶτε δὲ αὐτοῖς τὰ ἐπιτήδεια τοῦ σώµατος, τί τὸ ὄφελος; If a brother or sister is naked and lacking in daily food and one of you says to them, ‘Go in peace, keep warm and eat well,’ and yet you do not give to them the bodily necessities, what use is that? (≈ “Do not cheerfully ignore the physical essentials of brothers and sisters in need.”)

Jas 4:4a

µοιχαλίδες, οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι ἡ φιλία τοῦ κόσµου ἔχθρα τοῦ θεοῦ ἐστιν; Adulteresses! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? (≈ “Do not be friends with the world and thus enemies of God.”)

Jas 4:5

ἢ δοκεῖτε ὅτι κενῶς ἡ γραφὴ λέγει· πρὸς φθόνον ἐπιποθεῖ τὸ πνεῦµα ὃ κατῴκισεν ἐν ἡµῖν; Or do you think that in vain the Scripture says that he jealously desires the spirit that he made to dwell in us?


379

(≈ “Do not think the Scriptures vain in their indication that God is jealous over us.”)63 Jas 4:12

εἷς ἐστιν [ὁ] νοµοθέτης καὶ κριτὴς ὁ δυνάµενος σῶσαι καὶ ἀπολέσαι· σὺ δὲ τίς εἶ ὁ κρίνων τὸν πλησίον; There is one lawgiver and judge, the one able to save and to destroy; but you, who are you to be judging your neighbor? (≈ “Do not be judging your neighbor as if you are God.”)

1 John 3:17

ὃς δ᾿ ἂν ἔχῃ τὸν βίον τοῦ κόσµου καὶ θεωρῇ τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ χρείαν ἔχοντα καὶ κλείσῃ τὰ σπλάγχνα αὐτοῦ ἀπ᾿ αὐτοῦ, πῶς ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ θεοῦ µένει ἐν αὐτῷ; But if anyone has the means of life in the world and sees his brother having need and closes his affections against him, how does the love of God abide in him? (≈ “If you have the means to help, do not close your affections against a brother in need.”)

——— 63

The UBS4 and NA27 and 28 texts for Jas 4:5 have a comma at the end of v. 5 and extend the question to include the first few words of v. 6 (µείζονα δὲ δίδωσιν χάριν;). We follow here the SBLGNT punctuation of the Greek text, which ends Jas 4:5 with a question mark; so also the English translations of NASB, ESV, NKJV, NRSV, HCSB, NIV, and NLT, among others. The translation of Jas 4:5 is difficult, particularly whether τὸ πνεῦµα is to be understood as the Holy Spirit or the human spirit and whether it is acc. or nom. Our translation is like ESV, NRSV, and NIV; alternative renderings include “He jealously desires the Spirit...” (NASB); “the Spirit who lives in us yearns jealously” (HCSB; cf. NKJV); and “the spirit God has placed within us is filled with envy” (NLT).

—CHAPTER 12— Warnings & Promises as Prohibitions: “Those who do that will be punished.” In this chapter we collect the prohibitory woes, prohibitory warnings, and prohibitory promises of the New Testament. These naturally fit together in that the prohibitory force of these statements come in their description of the consequences of the behavior being prohibited. Prohibitory woes and warnings name a bad behavior that the listeners/readers are expected to avoid and describe undesirable consequences resulting from that behavior (e.g., punishment, affiliation with evil, disregard for God, etc.). Negative particles are not used in constructing these prohibitory woes and warnings; after all, describing the undesirable consequences should make the prohibition clear enough. Prohibitory promises, on the other hand, attach the word “not” to bad behavior and promise good results (or the avoidance of bad results) in return for avoiding that bad behavior. To be sure, some of the other prohibitory constructions could be labeled “warnings” in some sense of that term. For example, many of the items classified as direct objects of vision verbs (in section 8.1.1 of Chapter 8) read as warnings. Our classification here, however, is meant to cover items that do not fit into the grammatical-syntactical prohibition categories. Thus, we have not included in this chapter clear prohibitory construction that include a warning-like explanation for that prohibition (e.g., Jas 3:1, “Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness” ESV). Rather, we include in this section only those warning passages that can stand alone with prohibitory force.1 The tallies of NT statements in this group can be quickly surveyed in Table 12.0. ——— 1 Notice also that, by itself, the explanatory clause in Jas 3:1 reads more like a simple statement of fact than a prohibitory warning: “We who teach will be judged with greater strictness.” Similarly, some of the warning-like explanations attached to clear prohibitory constructions are really double-edged statements of warning and promise without any explicit prohibitory value; e.g., Gal 6:7, “Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap” (ESV). On the other hand, explanatory clauses that can stand alone as warnings are numbered here as separate prohibitions (e.g., 2 John 11 below).

382


NT WARNINGS & PROMISES AS PROHIBITIONS: “T HOSE WHO DO THAT WILL BE PUNISHED .” Section #

12.1 Prohibitory Woes: ............................................................................ 35 12.2 Prohibitory Warnings: .................................................................... 172 12.3 Prohibitory Promises: ..................................................................... 7 TOTAL:

214

Table 12.0 12.1 Prohibitory Woes When a statement begins with the exclamation “Woe!” (οὐαί), the reader naturally expects a warning or some expression of bad news. Many of these are kinds of prohibitory expressions: they communicate about things not to be doing. In the New Testament, some of these prohibitory expressions are ethical in nature (e.g., the woes of Matthew 23 and Luke 11 teaching against hypocritical behaviors), and some of the prohibitory expressions are nonethical in nature (e.g., the woe about being a pregnant or nursing mother in the eschaton in Matt 24:19; Mark 13:17; Luke 21:23; and the tripled woe in Rev 8:13 for those living on the earth at the time when the final three trumpet announced judgments are to occur; Rev 12:12; and perhaps the sorrow expressed at the fall of Babylon in Rev 18:10, 16–17, and 19).2 While the New Testament has 46 occurrences of οὐαί, we find only 35 statements of prohibitory force, as some of the uses of οὐαί are doubled (e.g., Matt 11:21– 22; Luke 10:13–14; Rev 18:10, 16, 19), or tripled (Rev 8:13), and some uses are substantival references to judgements rather than warnings per se (i.e., references to the sixth, seventh, and eighth trumpet blasts of Revelation 8– 11, specifically Rev 9:12 [bis]; 11:14 [bis]; cf. Rev 8:13). We list each of the NT prohibitory woes here with an English translation and an equivalent prohibitory gloss. ——— 2 Some English translations render non-ethical woes with other expressions of distress like “alas” (cf. Matt 24:19; Mark 13:17; Luke 21:23 in ESV; Rev 18:10, 16–17, 19 in ESV, NKJV, and NRSV), or “how dreadful” (cf. Matt 24:19; Mark 13:17; Luke 21:23 in NIV), or “how terrible” (cf. Matt 24:19; Mark 13:17; Luke 21:23; Rev 18:10, 16–17, 19 in NLT), or “terror” (cf. Rev 8:13; 12:12 in NLT). On the spectrum of prohibitions, the non-ethical woe is somewhat the converse of the prohibitory curse. That is, while the curse issues a negative command meant to be “obeyed” as a punishment, the non-ethical woe expresses a sorrow that, if it could be “obeyed,” would help one avoid the difficult circumstances of a punishment.

CHAPTER 12—WARNINGS & PROMISES AS PROHIBITIONS Matt 11:21–22

383

οὐαί σοι, Χοραζίν, οὐαί σοι, Βηθσαϊδά· ὅτι εἰ ἐν Τύρῳ καὶ Σιδῶνι ἐγένοντο αἱ δυνάµεις αἱ γενόµεναι ἐν ὑµῖν, πάλαι ἂν ἐν σάκκῳ καὶ σποδῷ µετενόησαν. πλὴν λέγω ὑµῖν, Τύρῳ καὶ Σιδῶνι ἀνεκτότερον ἔσται ἐν ἡµέρᾳ κρίσεως ἢ ὑµῖν. Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works which happened in you happened in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I tell you, it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you. (≈ “Stop resisting the miracles you have seen, and repent.”)3

Matt 18:7a

Οὐαὶ τῷ κόσµῳ ἀπὸ τῶν σκανδάλων· Woe to the world for its temptations to sin! (≈ “The world should not be tempting people to sin.”)

Matt 18:7b

ἀνάγκη γὰρ ἐλθεῖν τὰ σκάνδαλα, πλὴν οὐαὶ τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ δι᾿ οὗ τὸ σκάνδαλον ἔρχεται. For it is necessary for temptations to sin to come, but woe to the person through whom the temptation to sin comes! (≈ “Temptations to sin will always come, but do not be the one providing them.”)

Matt 23:13a

Οὐαὶ δὲ ὑµῖν, γραµµατεῖς καὶ Φαρισαῖοι ὑποκριταί, ὅτι κλείετε τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν ἔµπροσθεν τῶν ἀνθρώπων· But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. (≈ “Do not be hypocrites, shutting the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces.”)4

——— 3

Matt 11:20 makes clear that Jesus’ harsh words toward Chorazin and Bethsaida (and Capernaum; cf. vv. 23–24 in section 12.2 below) were due to their refusal to repent (ὅτι οὐ µετενόησαν). In Matt 11:20–24 and Luke 10:13–15, the use of “woe” with explicit negative consequences for the negative behavior of refusing to repent upon witnessing Jesus’ miracles leads us to treat these as prohibitory as well as positive calls to repentance. Other NT statements about refusals to listen found in Matt 10:14–15; Mark 6:11; Luke 9:5; 10:10–12 are not listed as prohibitions because they are judged to be only positive commands (≈ “Listen”). 4

Some mss add Matt 23:14, “Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you devour widows’ houses and for a pretense you make long prayers; therefore you will receive the greater condemnation”; cf. Mark 12:40 and Luke 20:47 in section 12.2 below.

384


Matt 23:15

Οὐαὶ ὑµῖν, γραµµατεῖς καὶ Φαρισαῖοι ὑποκριταί, ὅτι περιάγετε τὴν θάλασσαν καὶ τὴν ξηρὰν ποιῆσαι ἕνα προσήλυτον, καὶ ὅταν γένηται ποιεῖτε αὐτὸν υἱὸν γεέννης διπλότερον ὑµῶν. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel across sea and dry land to make one proselyte, and when he becomes one, you make him twice the son of hell as yourselves. (≈ “Do not be hypocrites by corrupting the converts.”)

Matt 23:16–17

Οὐαὶ ὑµῖν, ὁδηγοὶ τυφλοὶ οἱ λέγοντες· ὃς ἂν ὀµόσῃ ἐν τῷ ναῷ, οὐδέν ἐστιν· ὃς δ᾿ ἂν ὀµόσῃ ἐν τῷ χρυσῷ τοῦ ναοῦ, ὀφείλει. µωροὶ καὶ τυφλοί, τίς γὰρ µείζων ἐστίν, ὁ χρυσὸς ἢ ὁ ναὸς ὁ ἁγιάσας τὸν χρυσόν; Woe to you, blind guides, who say, ‘Whoever swears by the temple, it is nothing, but whoever swears by the gold of the temple is obligated.’ Fools and blind! For which is greater, the gold or the temple that sanctified the gold? (≈ “Do not be blind guides, giving improper directions based on wrong values.”)5

Matt 23:23a

Οὐαὶ ὑµῖν, γραµµατεῖς καὶ Φαρισαῖοι ὑποκριταί, ὅτι ἀποδεκατοῦτε τὸ ἡδύοσµον καὶ τὸ ἄνηθον καὶ τὸ κύµινον καὶ ἀφήκατε τὰ βαρύτερα τοῦ νόµου, τὴν κρίσιν καὶ τὸ ἔλεος καὶ τὴν πίστιν· Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. (≈ “Do not be hypocrites with attention to details and neglect of the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness.”)

——— 5 Following the prohibitory woe statement of Matt 23:16–17 (about the temple and its gold), Matt 23:18–19 gives a matching prohibitory warning (about the altar and the gift on it) without using the word woe; see in section 12.2 below.

CHAPTER 12—WARNINGS & PROMISES AS PROHIBITIONS Matt 23:25

385

Οὐαὶ ὑµῖν, γραµµατεῖς καὶ Φαρισαῖοι ὑποκριταί, ὅτι καθαρίζετε τὸ ἔξωθεν τοῦ ποτηρίου καὶ τῆς παροψίδος, ἔσωθεν δὲ γέµουσιν ἐξ ἁρπαγῆς καὶ ἀκρασίας. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and the plate, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. (≈ “Do not be hypocrites with insistence on clean exteriors while harboring greed and self-indulgence.”)6

Matt 23:27–28

Οὐαὶ ὑµῖν, γραµµατεῖς καὶ Φαρισαῖοι ὑποκριταί, ὅτι παροµοιάζετε τάφοις κεκονιαµένοις, οἵτινες ἔξωθεν µὲν φαίνονται ὡραῖοι, ἔσωθεν δὲ γέµουσιν ὀστέων νεκρῶν καὶ πάσης ἀκαθαρσίας. οὕτως καὶ ὑµεῖς ἔξωθεν µὲν φαίνεσθε τοῖς ἀνθρώποις δίκαιοι, ἔσωθεν δέ ἐστε µεστοὶ ὑποκρίσεως καὶ ἀνοµίας. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which appear beautiful on the outside, but inside are full of dead people’s bones and every impurity. In the same way you also outwardly appear righteous to people, but inwardly are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness. (≈ “Do not be hypocrites with your exterior lives appearing righteous but your inner lives being unclean.”)

Matt 23:29–31

Οὐαὶ ὑµῖν, γραµµατεῖς καὶ Φαρισαῖοι ὑποκριταί, ὅτι οἰκοδοµεῖτε τοὺς τάφους τῶν προφητῶν καὶ κοσµεῖτε τὰ µνηµεῖα τῶν δικαίων, καὶ λέγετε· εἰ ἤµεθα ἐν ταῖς ἡµέραις τῶν πατέρων ἡµῶν, οὐκ ἂν ἤµεθα αὐτῶν κοινωνοὶ ἐν τῷ αἵµατι τῶν προφητῶν. ὥστε µαρτυρεῖτε ἑαυτοῖς ὅτι υἱοί ἐστε τῶν φονευσάντων τοὺς προφήτας. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and decorate the monuments of the righteous, and are saying, ‘If we lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have been their partners in the bloodshed of the prophets.’ Thus, you testify against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets.

——— 6

The Synoptic parallel to Matt 23:25 in Luke 11:39–40 is structured as a prohibitory warning without using the word woe; see in section 12.2 below.

386

PROHIBITIONS IN THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT (≈ “Do not be hypocrites with claims to being different than your fathers even while you celebrate their traditions.”)

Matt 24:19

οὐαὶ δὲ ταῖς ἐν γαστρὶ ἐχούσαις καὶ ταῖς θηλαζούσαις ἐν ἐκείναις ταῖς ἡµέραις. And woe to the pregnant women and to those who are nursing in those days! (≈ “Do not be a pregnant or nursing mother in those days.”)

Matt 26:24

ὁ µὲν υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ὑπάγει καθὼς γέγραπται περὶ αὐτοῦ, οὐαὶ δὲ τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ ἐκείνῳ δι᾿ οὗ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου παραδίδοται· καλὸν ἦν αὐτῷ εἰ οὐκ ἐγεννήθη ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἐκεῖνος. The Son of Man goes as it has been written concerning him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would be better for him if that man had not been born. (≈ “Do not betray the Son of Man.”)

Mark 13:17

οὐαὶ δὲ ταῖς ἐν γαστρὶ ἐχούσαις καὶ ταῖς θηλαζούσαις ἐν ἐκείναις ταῖς ἡµέραις. And woe to the pregnant women and to those who are nursing in those days! (≈ “Do not be a pregnant or nursing mother in those days.”)

Mark 14:21

ὅτι ὁ µὲν υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ὑπάγει καθὼς γέγραπται περὶ αὐτοῦ, οὐαὶ δὲ τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ ἐκείνῳ δι᾿ οὗ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου παραδίδοται· καλὸν αὐτῷ εἰ οὐκ ἐγεννήθη ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἐκεῖνος. For the Son of Man goes as it has been written concerning him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It [would be] better for him if that man had not been born. (≈ “Do not betray the Son of Man.”)

Luke 6:24

Πλὴν οὐαὶ ὑµῖν τοῖς πλουσίοις, ὅτι ἀπέχετε τὴν παράκλησιν ὑµῶν. But woe to you rich, for you have received your comfort. (≈ “Do not try to be always rich now.”)

CHAPTER 12—WARNINGS & PROMISES AS PROHIBITIONS Luke 6:25a

387

οὐαὶ ὑµῖν, οἱ ἐµπεπλησµένοι νῦν, ὅτι πεινάσετε. Woe to you who are full now, for you will be hungry. (≈ “Do not try to be always full now.”)

Luke 6:25b

οὐαί, οἱ γελῶντες νῦν, ὅτι πενθήσετε καὶ κλαύσετε. Woe to you who are laughing now, for you will mourn and weep. (≈ “Do not try to be always laughing now.”)

Luke 6:26

οὐαὶ ὅταν ὑµᾶς καλῶς εἴπωσιν πάντες οἱ ἄνθρωποι· κατὰ τὰ αὐτὰ γὰρ ἐποίουν τοῖς ψευδοπροφήταις οἱ πατέρες αὐτῶν. Woe to you, when all people speak well of you, for according to the same way their fathers were treating the false prophets. (≈ “Do not try to be always spoken well of by all people.”)

Luke 10:13–14

Οὐαί σοι, Χοραζίν, οὐαί σοι, Βηθσαϊδά· ὅτι εἰ ἐν Τύρῳ καὶ Σιδῶνι ἐγενήθησαν αἱ δυνάµεις αἱ γενόµεναι ἐν ὑµῖν, πάλαι ἂν ἐν σάκκῳ καὶ σποδῷ καθήµενοι µετενόησαν. πλὴν Τύρῳ καὶ Σιδῶνι ἀνεκτότερον ἔσται ἐν τῇ κρίσει ἢ ὑµῖν. Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works which happened in you were done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago sitting in sackcloth and ashes. But it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the judgment than for you. (≈ “Stop resisting the miracles you have seen, and repent.”)7

Luke 11:42a

ἀλλὰ οὐαὶ ὑµῖν τοῖς Φαρισαίοις, ὅτι ἀποδεκατοῦτε τὸ ἡδύοσµον καὶ τὸ πήγανον καὶ πᾶν λάχανον καὶ παρέρχεσθε τὴν κρίσιν καὶ τὴν ἀγάπην τοῦ θεοῦ· But woe to you Pharisees! For you tithe mint and rue and every herb, and bypass justice and the love of God. (≈ “Do not bypass justice and the love of God.”)

——— 7

On Luke 10:13–14, see the footnote above for Matt 11:21–22, its Synoptic parallel.

388


Luke 11:43

Οὐαὶ ὑµῖν τοῖς Φαρισαίοις, ὅτι ἀγαπᾶτε τὴν πρωτοκαθεδρίαν ἐν ταῖς συναγωγαῖς καὶ τοὺς ἀσπασµοὺς ἐν ταῖς ἀγοραῖς. Woe to you Pharisees! For you love the seat of honor in the synagogues and greetings in the marketplaces. (≈ “Do not love the best seat in the synagogue and marketplace greetings.”)8

Luke 11:44

Οὐαὶ ὑµῖν, ὅτι ἐστὲ ὡς τὰ µνηµεῖα τὰ ἄδηλα, καὶ οἱ ἄνθρωποι [οἱ] περιπατοῦντες ἐπάνω οὐκ οἴδασιν. Woe to you! For you are like unmarked graves, and people walking over them do not know it.” (≈ “Do not have exterior lives appearing righteous while your inner lives are unclean.”)

Luke 11:46

καὶ ὑµῖν τοῖς νοµικοῖς οὐαί, ὅτι φορτίζετε τοὺς ἀνθρώπους φορτία δυσβάστακτα, καὶ αὐτοὶ ἑνὶ τῶν δακτύλων ὑµῶν οὐ προσψαύετε τοῖς φορτίοις. Woe to you lawyers also! For you load people with burdens hard to bear, and you yourselves do not touch the burdens with one of your fingers. (≈ “Do not place burdensome expectations on people that you are not willing to bear yourselves.”)9

Luke 11:47–48

Οὐαὶ ὑµῖν, ὅτι οἰκοδοµεῖτε τὰ µνηµεῖα τῶν προφητῶν, οἱ δὲ πατέρες ὑµῶν ἀπέκτειναν αὐτούς. ἄρα µάρτυρές ἐστε καὶ συνευδοκεῖτε τοῖς ἔργοις τῶν πατέρων ὑµῶν, ὅτι αὐτοὶ µὲν ἀπέκτειναν αὐτούς, ὑµεῖς δὲ οἰκοδοµεῖτε. Woe to you! For you build the tombs of the prophets, and your fathers killed them. Therefore, you are witnesses and you approve the deeds of your fathers, because they killed them and you build [the tombs]. (≈ “Do not approve of the evil deeds of your fathers by celebrating those acts.”)

——— 8

The Synoptic parallel to Luke 11:43–46 in Matt 23:4–7 has descriptions attached to the pres. impv. prohibition of Pharisaic behavior in Matt 23:3; see in section 5.1.1 of Chapter 5. 9

On Luke 11:46, see the previous footnote for Luke 11:43.

CHAPTER 12—WARNINGS & PROMISES AS PROHIBITIONS Luke 11:52a

389

Οὐαὶ ὑµῖν τοῖς νοµικοῖς, ὅτι ἤρατε τὴν κλεῖδα τῆς γνώσεως· Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge. (≈ “Do not take away the key of knowledge.”)

Luke 17:1

ἀνένδεκτόν ἐστιν τοῦ τὰ σκάνδαλα µὴ ἐλθεῖν, πλὴν οὐαὶ δι᾿ οὗ ἔρχεται· It is impossible for temptations to sin not to come, but woe to the one through whom they come! (≈ “Temptations to sin will always come, but do not be the one providing them.”)

Luke 21:23

οὐαὶ ταῖς ἐν γαστρὶ ἐχούσαις καὶ ταῖς θηλαζούσαις ἐν ἐκείναις ταῖς ἡµέραις· Woe to the pregnant women and to those who are nursing in those days! (≈ “Do not be a pregnant or nursing mother in those days.”)

Luke 22:22

ὅτι ὁ υἱὸς µὲν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου κατὰ τὸ ὡρισµένον πορεύεται, πλὴν οὐαὶ τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ ἐκείνῳ δι᾿ οὗ παραδίδοται. For the Son of Man goes as it has been determined, but woe to that man by whom he is betrayed! (≈ “Do not betray the Son of Man.”)

1 Cor 9:16

ἐὰν γὰρ εὐαγγελίζωµαι, οὐκ ἔστιν µοι καύχηµα· ἀνάγκη γάρ µοι ἐπίκειται· οὐαὶ γάρ µοί ἐστιν ἐὰν µὴ εὐαγγελίσωµαι. For if I preach the gospel, it is to me no ground for boasting. For an obligation is laid upon me. Woe be to me if I do not preach the gospel! (≈ “Self, do not neglect to preach the gospel.”)

Jude 11

οὐαὶ αὐτοῖς, ὅτι τῇ ὁδῷ τοῦ Κάϊν ἐπορεύθησαν καὶ τῇ πλάνῃ τοῦ Βαλαὰµ µισθοῦ ἐξεχύθησαν καὶ τῇ ἀντιλογίᾳ τοῦ Κόρε ἀπώλοντο. Woe to them! For they traveled in the way of Cain and for profit poured themselves into the error of Balaam and perished in the rebellion of Korah. (≈ “Do not live with profit as your ultimate value.”)

390 Rev 8:13

PROHIBITIONS IN THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT οὐαὶ οὐαὶ οὐαὶ τοὺς κατοικοῦντας ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἐκ τῶν λοιπῶν φωνῶν τῆς σάλπιγγος τῶν τριῶν ἀγγέλων τῶν µελλόντων σαλπίζειν. Woe, woe, woe to those dwelling on the earth, at the remaining trumpet blasts that the three angels are about to sound! (≈ “Do not be living on the earth when the final three trumpet blasts are sounded.”)

Rev 12:12

διὰ τοῦτο εὐφραίνεσθε, [οἱ] οὐρανοὶ καὶ οἱ ἐν αὐτοῖς σκηνοῦντες. οὐαὶ τὴν γῆν καὶ τὴν θάλασσαν, ὅτι κατέβη ὁ διάβολος πρὸς ὑµᾶς ἔχων θυµὸν µέγαν, εἰδὼς ὅτι ὀλίγον καιρὸν ἔχει. Therefore, rejoice, heavens and those who dwell in them. Woe to the earth and the sea, for the devil has come down to you having great wrath, knowing that he has little time. (≈ “Do not suffer the great wrath of the devil in his short time left among you.”)

Rev 18:10

οὐαὶ οὐαί, ἡ πόλις ἡ µεγάλη, Βαβυλὼν ἡ πόλις ἡ ἰσχυρά, ὅτι µιᾷ ὥρᾳ ἦλθεν ἡ κρίσις σου. Woe! Woe! The great city, Babylon, the mighty city! For in one hour your judgment has come.” (≈ “Do not put yourself in a position to suffer devastating judgment.”)

Rev 18:16–17 οὐαὶ οὐαί, ἡ πόλις ἡ µεγάλη, ἡ περιβεβληµένη βύσσινον καὶ πορφυροῦν καὶ κόκκινον καὶ κεχρυσωµένη [ἐν] χρυσίῳ καὶ λίθῳ τιµίῳ καὶ µαργαρίτῃ, ὅτι µιᾷ ὥρᾳ ἠρηµώθη ὁ τοσοῦτος πλοῦτος. Woe! Woe! The great city that was clothed in fine linen and purple and scarlet and adorned with gold and with precious stones and with pearls! For in one hour such great wealth was made desolate. (≈ “Do not put yourself in a position to suffer extreme judgment.”) Rev 18:19

οὐαὶ οὐαί, ἡ πόλις ἡ µεγάλη, ἐν ᾗ ἐπλούτησαν πάντες οἱ ἔχοντες τὰ πλοῖα ἐν τῇ θαλάσσῃ ἐκ τῆς τιµιότητος αὐτῆς, ὅτι µιᾷ ὥρᾳ ἠρηµώθη.

CHAPTER 12—WARNINGS & PROMISES AS PROHIBITIONS

391

Woe! Woe! The great city where all those having ships in the sea grew rich out of her abundance! For in one hour she was made desolate. (≈ “Do not put yourself in a position to suffer extreme judgment.”)

12.2 Prohibitory Warnings We make a distinction here between positive exhortative warnings and prohibitory warnings. Positive exhortative warnings describe the negative consequences for neglecting good behavior. For example, 2 Thess 1:8–9 describes Jesus coming “in flaming fire, inflicting vengance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might” (ESV). Note, however, that for all its description of punishment, this passage is not a prohibition against some behavior, but amounts to a positive exhortation to believe and obey (cf. esp. 2 Thess 1:10). Similarly, the harsh warning in 1 Cor 16:22 actually amounts to a positive exhortation to love the Lord: “If anyone has no love for the Lord, let him be accursed” (ESV). In the syntax of such positive warnings, the negative consequences come about when the positive behavior is negated. Thus, exhortative warnings do not behave as prohibitions. On the other hand, prohibitory warnings are structured so that negative consequences are described for un-negated bad behavior. That is, the bad behavior is described in a manner deemed sufficient for indicating that the behavior is to be avoided; no other more direct grammatically constructed command needs to be issued against the behavior. So, for example, the prohibitory force of “whoever murders will be liable to judgment” (Matt 5:21a) seems transparent. The NT occurrences of these types of prohibitory warning statements are the subjects of this section. While the word “not” is absent from most of these warnings, the description of the undesirable consequences (e.g., punishment, shame, or other negative affiliation) for the behavior is enough to communicate that the behavior is not to be done. Because items in this section sometimes function at a larger discourse level, our citations here can be somewhat lengthy. Furthermore, given their various formulations and the difficulty in identifying any precisely parallel phrases to be emphasized, we list the citations of this subcategory with no phrases in bold typeface. We continue to offer equivalent prohibitory glosses.

392 Matt 5:13b

PROHIBITIONS IN THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT {ἐὰν δὲ τὸ ἅλας µωρανθῇ,...} εἰς οὐδὲν ἰσχύει ἔτι εἰ µὴ βληθὲν ἔξω καταπατεῖσθαι ὑπὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων. {But if salt would lose its taste,...} It is no longer good for anything except that it be thrown out to be trampled by people. (≈ “Do not lose your saltiness.”)

Matt 5:19

ὃς ἐὰν οὖν λύσῃ µίαν τῶν ἐντολῶν τούτων τῶν ἐλαχίστων καὶ διδάξῃ οὕτως τοὺς ἀνθρώπους, ἐλάχιστος κληθήσεται ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τῶν οὐρανῶν· Therefore, whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches people to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. (≈ “Do not relax even the least of these commandments and teach others to do so.”)

Matt 5:21b

ὃς δ᾿ ἂν φονεύσῃ, ἔνοχος ἔσται τῇ κρίσει. And whoever murders will be liable to judgment. (≈ “Do not murder.”)

Matt 5:22a

ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑµῖν ὅτι πᾶς ὁ ὀργιζόµενος τῷ ἀδελφῷ αὐτοῦ ἔνοχος ἔσται τῇ κρίσει· But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; (≈ “Do not be angry with your brother.”)

Matt 5:22b

ὃς δ᾿ ἂν εἴπῃ τῷ ἀδελφῷ αὐτοῦ· ῥακά, ἔνοχος ἔσται τῷ συνεδρίῳ· and whoever says ‘Raca’ to his brother will be liable to the council; (≈ “Do not be verbally abusive of your brother.”)

Matt 5:22c

ὃς δ᾿ ἂν εἴπῃ· µωρέ, ἔνοχος ἔσται εἰς τὴν γέενναν τοῦ πυρός. and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the Gehenna of fire. (≈ “Do not insult your brother.”)


393

ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑµῖν ὅτι πᾶς ὁ βλέπων γυναῖκα πρὸς τὸ ἐπιθυµῆσαι αὐτὴν ἤδη ἐµοίχευσεν αὐτὴν ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ αὐτοῦ. But I say to you that everyone looking at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery against her in his heart. (≈ “Do not look at a woman to lust after her.”)

Matt 5:32a

ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑµῖν ὅτι πᾶς ὁ ἀπολύων τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ παρεκτὸς λόγου πορνείας ποιεῖ αὐτὴν µοιχευθῆναι,... But I say to you that everyone divorcing his wife, except for the cause of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery,... (≈ “Do not divorce.”)

Matt 5:32b

...καὶ ὃς ἐὰν ἀπολελυµένην γαµήσῃ, µοιχᾶται. ...and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. (≈ “Do not marry a divorced woman.”)

Matt 6:5b

…ὅτι φιλοῦσιν ἐν ταῖς συναγωγαῖς καὶ ἐν ταῖς γωνίαις τῶν πλατειῶν ἑστῶτες προσεύχεσθαι, ὅπως φανῶσιν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις· ἀµὴν λέγω ὑµῖν, ἀπέχουσιν τὸν µισθὸν αὐτῶν. because they love to pray in the synagogues and standing on the street corners so that they may be seen by people. Truly I tell you they are obtaining their reward. (≈ “Do not pray so as to be seen in public, for that would be your only reward.”)

Matt 7:26–27 καὶ πᾶς ὁ ἀκούων µου τοὺς λόγους τούτους καὶ µὴ ποιῶν αὐτοὺς ὁµοιωθήσεται ἀνδρὶ µωρῷ, ὅστις ᾠκοδόµησεν αὐτοῦ τὴν οἰκίαν ἐπὶ τὴν ἄµµον· καὶ κατέβη ἡ βροχὴ καὶ ἦλθον οἱ ποταµοὶ καὶ ἔπνευσαν οἱ ἄνεµοι καὶ προσέκοψαν τῇ οἰκίᾳ ἐκείνῃ, καὶ ἔπεσεν καὶ ἦν ἡ πτῶσις αὐτῆς µεγάλη. And every one who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house upon the sand. And the rain fell and the rivers came and the winds blew and they struck against that house, and it fell, and its fall was great. (≈ “Do not live like a person building a house on the sand.”)

394


Matt 10:33

ὅστις δ᾿ ἂν ἀρνήσηταί µε ἔµπροσθεν τῶν ἀνθρώπων, ἀρνήσοµαι κἀγὼ αὐτὸν ἔµπροσθεν τοῦ πατρός µου τοῦ ἐν [τοῖς] οὐρανοῖς. But whoever denies me before people, I also will deny him before my Father who is in heaven. (≈ “Do not deny the Son of Man.”)

Matt 10:39

ὁ εὑρὼν τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ ἀπολέσει αὐτήν, καὶ ὁ ἀπολέσας τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ ἕνεκεν ἐµοῦ εὑρήσει αὐτήν. The one finding his life will lose it, and the one losing his life for my sake will find it. (≈ “Do not seek to find your own life.”)10

Matt 11:23–24 καὶ σύ, Καφαρναούµ, µὴ ἕως οὐρανοῦ ὑψωθήσῃ; ἕως ᾅδου καταβήσῃ· ὅτι εἰ ἐν Σοδόµοις ἐγενήθησαν αἱ δυνάµεις αἱ γενόµεναι ἐν σοί, ἔµεινεν ἂν µέχρι τῆς σήµερον. πλὴν λέγω ὑµῖν ὅτι γῇ Σοδόµων ἀνεκτότερον ἔσται ἐν ἡµέρᾳ κρίσεως ἢ σοί. And you, Capernaum, you will not be exalted to heaven, will you? You will go down to Hades. For if the miracles that were done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until today. But I tell you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom on the day of judgment than for you. (≈ “Stop resisting the miracles you have seen and repent.”)11 Matt 12:31

Διὰ τοῦτο λέγω ὑµῖν, πᾶσα ἁµαρτία καὶ βλασφηµία ἀφεθήσεται τοῖς ἀνθρώποις, ἡ δὲ τοῦ πνεύµατος βλασφηµία οὐκ ἀφεθήσεται. Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but blasphemy of the Spirit will not be forgiven. (≈ “Do not blaspheme the Spirit.”)

——— 10 The Synoptic parallels of Matt 10:39 and Luke 17:33 have secondary Gospel parallels that are also structured as prohibitory warnings; see Matt 16:25; Mark 8:35; Luke 9:24 (which all speak of “the desire to save” vs. “losing” one’s life) and John 12:25 (which speaks of the one who “loves” vs. “hates” his life). 11

On Matt 11:23–24, see the footnote for Matt 11:21–22 in section 12.1 above.


395

καὶ ὃς ἐὰν εἴπῃ λόγον κατὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, ἀφεθήσεται αὐτῷ· ὃς δ᾿ ἂν εἴπῃ κατὰ τοῦ πνεύµατος τοῦ ἁγίου, οὐκ ἀφεθήσεται αὐτῷ οὔτε ἐν τούτῳ τῷ αἰῶνι οὔτε ἐν τῷ µέλλοντι. And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him either in this age or in the one to come. (≈ “Do not speak against the Holy Spirit.”)

Matt 12:39–42 γενεὰ πονηρὰ καὶ µοιχαλὶς σηµεῖον ἐπιζητεῖ, καὶ σηµεῖον οὐ δοθήσεται αὐτῇ εἰ µὴ τὸ σηµεῖον Ἰωνᾶ τοῦ προφήτου. ὥσπερ γὰρ ἦν Ἰωνᾶς ἐν τῇ κοιλίᾳ τοῦ κήτους τρεῖς ἡµέρας καὶ τρεῖς νύκτας, οὕτως ἔσται ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ τῆς γῆς τρεῖς ἡµέρας καὶ τρεῖς νύκτας. ἄνδρες Νινευῖται ἀναστήσονται ἐν τῇ κρίσει µετὰ τῆς γενεᾶς ταύτης καὶ κατακρινοῦσιν αὐτήν, ὅτι µετενόησαν εἰς τὸ κήρυγµα Ἰωνᾶ, καὶ ἰδοὺ πλεῖον Ἰωνᾶ ὧδε. βασίλισσα νότου ἐγερθήσεται ἐν τῇ κρίσει µετὰ τῆς γενεᾶς ταύτης καὶ κατακρινεῖ αὐτήν, ὅτι ἦλθεν ἐκ τῶν περάτων τῆς γῆς ἀκοῦσαι τὴν σοφίαν Σολοµῶνος, καὶ ἰδοὺ πλεῖον Σολοµῶνος ὧδε. An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign and a sign will not be given to it except the sign of Jonah the prophet. For just as Jonah was in the belly of the great fish for three days and three nights, so will the Son of Man be in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights. The men of Nineveh will rise up at the judgment with this generation and will condemn it, because they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and behold, something greater than Jonah is here. The queen of the South will rise up at the judgment with this generation and will condemn it, because she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon, and behold, something greater than Solomon is here. (≈ “Do not seek a sign, but repent at the sign you already have.”)12 ——— 12 The Synoptic parallels of Matt 12:39–42; 16:4; and Luke 11:29–32 are all constructed as prohibitory warning statements (here in section 12.2), but the parallel in Mark 8:12 is constructed as a prohibitory question (see in Chapter 11).

396


Matt 15:4

ὁ κακολογῶν πατέρα ἢ µητέρα θανάτῳ τελευτάτω. The one speaking evil of his father or mother, let him be put to death. (≈ “Do not speak evil of your father or mother.”)13

Matt 16:4

γενεὰ πονηρὰ καὶ µοιχαλὶς σηµεῖον ἐπιζητεῖ, καὶ σηµεῖον οὐ δοθήσεται αὐτῇ εἰ µὴ τὸ σηµεῖον Ἰωνᾶ. An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign and a sign will not be given to it except the sign of Jonah. (≈ “Do not seek a sign, but repent at the sign you already have.”)14

Matt 16:25

ὃς γὰρ ἐὰν θέλῃ τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ σῶσαι ἀπολέσει αὐτήν· ὃς δ᾿ ἂν ἀπολέσῃ τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ ἕνεκεν ἐµοῦ εὑρήσει αὐτήν. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. (≈ “Do not try to save your own life.”)15

Matt 18:6

Ὃς δ᾿ ἂν σκανδαλίσῃ ἕνα τῶν µικρῶν τούτων τῶν πιστευόντων εἰς ἐµέ, συµφέρει αὐτῷ ἵνα κρεµασθῇ µύλος ὀνικὸς περὶ τὸν τράχηλον αὐτοῦ καὶ καταποντισθῇ ἐν τῷ πελάγει τῆς θαλάσσης. But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him that a donkey-turned millstone were hung around his neck and he were drowned in the depth of the sea. (≈ “Do not cause one of these little ones who believe to sin.”)

——— 13 Matt 15:4 (and Mark 7:10 below) is a citation of Exod 21:16 LXX with only slight differences: the LXX includes possessive pronouns and uses the fut. tense-form (ὁ κακολογῶν πατέρα αὐτοῦ ἢ µητέρα αὐτοῦ τελευτήσει θανάτῳ); cf. Lev 20:9. 14

On Matt 16:4, see the footnote for Matt 12:39–42 above.

15 All four Gospels have this similar prohibitory warning statement: the Synoptics (Matt 16:25; Mark 8:35; Luke 9:24) all speak of “the desire to save” vs. “losing” one’s life, and John 12:25 speaks of the one who “loves” vs. “hates” his life. Cf. the prohibitory warnings in the secondary Synoptic parallels on this theme in Matt 10:39 and Luke 17:33.


397

λέγω δὲ ὑµῖν ὅτι ὃς ἂν ἀπολύσῃ τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ µὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ καὶ γαµήσῃ ἄλλην µοιχᾶται. But I say to you that anyone who divorces his wife apart from sexual immorality, and marries another commits adultery. (≈ “Do not divorce and marry another.”)

Matt 21:44

καὶ ὁ πεσὼν ἐπὶ τὸν λίθον τοῦτον συνθλασθήσεται· ἐφ᾿ ὃν δ᾿ ἂν πέσῃ λικµήσει αὐτόν. And the one who falls on this stone will be broken, but upon whomever it falls it will crush him. (≈ “Do not be crushed by the stone, be broken upon it instead.”)16

Matt 23:12

ὅστις δὲ ὑψώσει ἑαυτὸν ταπεινωθήσεται ταπεινώσει ἑαυτὸν ὑψωθήσεται.

καὶ

ὅστις

But whoever will exalt himself will be humbled, and whoever will humble himself will be exalted. (≈ “Do not exalt yourself.”) Matt 23:18–19

καί· ὃς ἂν ὀµόσῃ ἐν τῷ θυσιαστηρίῳ, οὐδέν ἐστιν· ὃς δ᾿ ἂν ὀµόσῃ ἐν τῷ δώρῳ τῷ ἐπάνω αὐτοῦ, ὀφείλει. τυφλοί, τί γὰρ µεῖζον, τὸ δῶρον ἢ τὸ θυσιαστήριον τὸ ἁγιάζον τὸ δῶρον; Also, ‘Whoever swears by the altar, it means nothing. But whoever swears by the gift that is on it is obligated.’ Blind people! For which is greater, the gift or the altar that sanctifies the gift? (≈ “Do not be blind guides, giving improper directions based on wrong values.”)17

——— 16

Matt 21:44 is excluded from some mss. The texts of NA27 and 28 and UBS4 include it in brackets with the UBS text giving it a “C” rating. SBLGNT includes it without brackets. In the end we have included Matt 21:44 in our count of NT prohibitions. Cf. the parallel in Luke 20:18 below. 17 Without using the word woe, here Matt 23:18–19 (about the altar and the gift on it) gives a matching prohibition to the prohibitory woe in Matt 23:16–17 (about the temple and its gold); see in section 12.1 above.

398


Matt 24:48–51

ἐὰν δὲ εἴπῃ ὁ κακὸς δοῦλος ἐκεῖνος ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ αὐτοῦ· χρονίζει µου ὁ κύριος, καὶ ἄρξηται τύπτειν τοὺς συνδούλους αὐτοῦ, ἐσθίῃ δὲ καὶ πίνῃ µετὰ τῶν µεθυόντων, ἥξει ὁ κύριος τοῦ δούλου ἐκείνου ἐν ἡµέρᾳ ᾗ οὐ προσδοκᾷ καὶ ἐν ὥρᾳ ᾗ οὐ γινώσκει, καὶ διχοτοµήσει αὐτὸν καὶ τὸ µέρος αὐτοῦ µετὰ τῶν ὑποκριτῶν θήσει· ἐκεῖ ἔσται ὁ κλαυθµὸς καὶ ὁ βρυγµὸς τῶν ὀδόντων. But if that evil slave says in his heart, ‘My lord delays,’ and begins to beat his fellow slaves, and eats and drinks with drunkards, the lord of that slave will come on a day he does not expect and at an hour he does not know. And he will cut him to pieces and assign his place with the hypocrites. And there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth there. (≈ “Do not live cruelly and irresponsibly while the master is away.”)

Matt 26:52

ἀπόστρεψον τὴν µάχαιράν σου εἰς τὸν τόπον αὐτῆς· πάντες γὰρ οἱ λαβόντες µάχαιραν ἐν µαχαίρῃ ἀπολοῦνται. Return your sword back into its place. For all those taking the sword will be destroyed by the sword. (≈ “Do not live by taking up the sword.”)18

Mark 3:29

ὃς δ᾿ ἂν βλασφηµήσῃ εἰς τὸ πνεῦµα τὸ ἅγιον, οὐκ ἔχει ἄφεσιν εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, ἀλλὰ ἔνοχός ἐστιν αἰωνίου ἁµαρτήµατος. But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit has no forgiveness forever, but is guilty of an eternal sin. (≈ “Do not blaspheme against the Holy Spirit.”)

Mark 7:10

ὁ κακολογῶν πατέρα ἢ µητέρα θανάτῳ τελευτάτω. The one speaking evil of his father or mother, let him be put to death. (≈ “Do not speak evil of your father or mother.”)19

——— 18 While John 18:11 has Jesus’ instruction (to Peter) to put the sword away, only Matt 26:52 has the prohibitory warning clause. 19 Mark 7:10 (and Matt 15:4 above) is a citation of Exod 21:16 LXX with only slight differences: the LXX includes possessive pronouns and uses the fut. tense-form (ὁ κακολογῶν πατέρα αὐτοῦ ἢ µητέρα αὐτοῦ τελευτήσει θανάτῳ); cf. Lev 20:9.

CHAPTER 12—WARNINGS & PROMISES AS PROHIBITIONS Mark 8:35

399

ὃς γὰρ ἐὰν θέλῃ τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ σῶσαι ἀπολέσει αὐτήν· ὃς δ᾿ ἂν ἀπολέσει τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ ἕνεκεν ἐµοῦ καὶ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου σώσει αὐτήν. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever will lose his life for my sake and the gospel’s will save it. (≈ “Do not try to save your own life.”)20

Mark 8:38

ὃς γὰρ ἐὰν ἐπαισχυνθῇ µε καὶ τοὺς ἐµοὺς λόγους ἐν τῇ γενεᾷ ταύτῃ τῇ µοιχαλίδι καὶ ἁµαρτωλῷ, καὶ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐπαισχυνθήσεται αὐτόν, ὅταν ἔλθῃ ἐν τῇ δόξῃ τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ µετὰ τῶν ἀγγέλων τῶν ἁγίων. For whoever is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will also be ashamed of him when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels. (≈ “Do not be ashamed of the Son of Man and his words.”)

Mark 9:42

Καὶ ὃς ἂν σκανδαλίσῃ ἕνα τῶν µικρῶν τούτων τῶν πιστευόντων [εἰς ἐµέ], καλόν ἐστιν αὐτῷ µᾶλλον εἰ περίκειται µύλος ὀνικὸς περὶ τὸν τράχηλον αὐτοῦ καὶ βέβληται εἰς τὴν θάλασσαν. And whoever causes one of these little ones who believe [in me] to sin, it is better for him if a donkey-turned millstone were bound around his neck and he were thrown into the sea. (≈ “Do not cause one of these little ones who believe to sin.”)

Mark 10:11

ὃς ἂν ἀπολύσῃ τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ καὶ γαµήσῃ ἄλλην µοιχᾶται ἐπ᾿ αὐτήν· Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her. (≈ “Do not divorce and marry another.”)

——— 20


400


Mark 10:12

καὶ ἐὰν αὐτὴ ἀπολύσασα τὸν ἄνδρα αὐτῆς γαµήσῃ ἄλλον µοιχᾶται. And if divorcing her husband she marries another, she commits adultery. (≈ “Do not divorce and marry another.”)

Mark 12:40

...οἱ κατεσθίοντες τὰς οἰκίας τῶν χηρῶν καὶ προφάσει µακρὰ προσευχόµενοι· οὗτοι λήµψονται περισσότερον κρίµα. ...who are devouring widows’ houses and are praying long for pretense. These will receive the greater judgment. (≈ “Do not be like the scribes who live pretentiously.”)21

Luke 6:49

ὁ δὲ ἀκούσας καὶ µὴ ποιήσας ὅµοιός ἐστιν ἀνθρώπῳ οἰκοδοµήσαντι οἰκίαν ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν χωρὶς θεµελίου, ᾗ προσέρηξεν ὁ ποταµός, καὶ εὐθὺς συνέπεσεν καὶ ἐγένετο τὸ ῥῆγµα τῆς οἰκίας ἐκείνης µέγα. But the one who hears and does not act is like a man who built a house on the ground without a foundation, upon which the river burst and immediately it collapsed, and the destruction of that house was great. (≈ “Do not live like a person building a house without a foundation.”)

Luke 9:24

ὃς γὰρ ἐὰν θέλῃ τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ σῶσαι ἀπολέσει αὐτήν· ὃς δ᾿ ἂν ἀπολέσῃ τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ ἕνεκεν ἐµοῦ οὗτος σώσει αὐτήν. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake this one will save it. (≈ “Do not try to save your own life.”)22

Luke 9:26

ὃς γὰρ ἂν ἐπαισχυνθῇ µε καὶ τοὺς ἐµοὺς λόγους, τοῦτον ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐπαισχυνθήσεται, ὅταν ἔλθῃ ἐν τῇ δόξῃ αὐτοῦ καὶ τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τῶν ἁγίων ἀγγέλων.

——— 21

The statement of punishment in Mark 12:40 comes after a longer description of scribal activity beginning in Mark 12:38, which itself begins with a lexically structured prohibition (βλέπετε + ἀπό; see in section 9.1.1 of Chapter 9); cf. the parallel in Luke 20:47 below. 22



401

For whoever is ashamed of me and my words, of this one the Son of Man will be ashamed when he comes in the glory of himself and of the Father and of the holy angels. (≈ “Do not be ashamed of the Son of Man and his words.”) Luke 10:15

καὶ σύ, Καφαρναούµ, µὴ ἕως οὐρανοῦ ὑψωθήσῃ; ἕως τοῦ ᾅδου καταβήσῃ. And you, Capernaum, you will not be exalted to heaven, will you? You will go down to Hades. (≈ “Stop resisting the miracles you have seen and repent.”)23

Luke 10:16

Ὁ ἀκούων ὑµῶν ἐµοῦ ἀκούει, καὶ ὁ ἀθετῶν ὑµᾶς ἐµὲ ἀθετεῖ· ὁ δὲ ἐµὲ ἀθετῶν ἀθετεῖ τὸν ἀποστείλαντά µε. The one listening to you listens to me, and the one rejecting you rejects me. And the one rejecting me rejects the one who sent me. (≈ “Do not reject the messengers of Christ, which is the same as rejecting Christ and the one who sent him.”)24

Luke 11:29–32

ἡ γενεὰ αὕτη γενεὰ πονηρά ἐστιν· σηµεῖον ζητεῖ, καὶ σηµεῖον οὐ δοθήσεται αὐτῇ εἰ µὴ τὸ σηµεῖον Ἰωνᾶ. καθὼς γὰρ ἐγένετο Ἰωνᾶς τοῖς Νινευίταις σηµεῖον, οὕτως ἔσται καὶ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου τῇ γενεᾷ ταύτῃ. βασίλισσα νότου ἐγερθήσεται ἐν τῇ κρίσει µετὰ τῶν ἀνδρῶν τῆς γενεᾶς ταύτης καὶ κατακρινεῖ αὐτούς, ὅτι ἦλθεν ἐκ τῶν περάτων τῆς γῆς ἀκοῦσαι τὴν σοφίαν Σολοµῶνος, καὶ ἰδοὺ πλεῖον Σολοµῶνος ὧδε. ἄνδρες Νινευῖται ἀναστήσονται ἐν τῇ κρίσει µετὰ τῆς γενεᾶς ταύτης καὶ κατακρινοῦσιν αὐτήν· ὅτι µετενόησαν εἰς τὸ κήρυγµα Ἰωνᾶ, καὶ ἰδοὺ πλεῖον Ἰωνᾶ ὧδε. This generation is an evil generation; it seeks a sign and a sign will not be given to it except the sign of Jonah. For just as Jonah became a sign to the Ninevites, so also the Son of Man will be to this generation. The queen of the South will

——— 23 The warning against Capernaum in Luke 10:15 is tied to the prohibitory woes of Luke 10:13–14; see the comments in the footnote to Matt 11:21–22 in section 12.1 above. 24 The Gospel parallels to Luke 10:16 in Matt 10:40 and John 13:20 do not include the prohibitory warning about rejecting the messengers and have only the positive statements about one receiving the messengers.

402

PROHIBITIONS IN THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT rise up at the judgment with the men of this generation and will condemn them, because she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon, and behold, something greater than Solomon is here. The men of Nineveh will rise up at the judgment with this generation and will condemn it, because they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and behold, something greater than Jonah is here. (≈ “Do not seek a sign, but repent at the sign you already have.”)25

Luke 11:39–40

νῦν ὑµεῖς οἱ Φαρισαῖοι τὸ ἔξωθεν τοῦ ποτηρίου καὶ τοῦ πίνακος καθαρίζετε, τὸ δὲ ἔσωθεν ὑµῶν γέµει ἁρπαγῆς καὶ πονηρίας. ἄφρονες, οὐχ ὁ ποιήσας τὸ ἔξωθεν καὶ τὸ ἔσωθεν ἐποίησεν; Now you Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and the plate, but your inside is full of greed and wickedness. Did not the one who made the outside also make the inside? (≈ “Do not be foolish insisting on clean exteriors while harboring greed and wickedness.”)26

Luke 12:9

ὁ δὲ ἀρνησάµενός µε ἐνώπιον τῶν ἀπαρνηθήσεται ἐνώπιον τῶν ἀγγέλων τοῦ θεοῦ.

ἀνθρώπων

But the one denying me before people will be denied before the angels of God. (≈ “Do not deny the Son of Man.”) Luke 12:10

Καὶ πᾶς ὃς ἐρεῖ λόγον εἰς τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, ἀφεθήσεται αὐτῷ· τῷ δὲ εἰς τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦµα βλασφηµήσαντι οὐκ ἀφεθήσεται. And everyone who will speak a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but the one blaspheming against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him. (≈ “Do not blaspheme against the Holy Spirit.”)

——— 25 26

On Luke 11:29–32, see the footnote for Matt 12:39–42 above.

The Synoptic parallel to Luke 11:39–40 in Matt 23:25 is structured as a prohibitory woe statement; see in section 12.1 above.

CHAPTER 12—WARNINGS & PROMISES AS PROHIBITIONS Luke 12:20–21

403

εἶπεν δὲ αὐτῷ ὁ θεός· ἄφρων, ταύτῃ τῇ νυκτὶ τὴν ψυχήν σου ἀπαιτοῦσιν ἀπὸ σοῦ· ἃ δὲ ἡτοίµασας, τίνι ἔσται; οὕτως ὁ θησαυρίζων ἑαυτῷ καὶ µὴ εἰς θεὸν πλουτῶν. But God said to him, ‘Fool! This night your soul is required of you. And to whom will be what you have prepared?’ Thus is the one who stores up treasure for himself and is not rich toward God. (≈ “Do not be a fool who relies on physical treasures and is not rich toward God.”)

Luke 12:45–46

ἐὰν δὲ εἴπῃ ὁ δοῦλος ἐκεῖνος ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ αὐτοῦ· χρονίζει ὁ κύριός µου ἔρχεσθαι, καὶ ἄρξηται τύπτειν τοὺς παῖδας καὶ τὰς παιδίσκας, ἐσθίειν τε καὶ πίνειν καὶ µεθύσκεσθαι, ἥξει ὁ κύριος τοῦ δούλου ἐκείνου ἐν ἡµέρᾳ ᾗ οὐ προσδοκᾷ καὶ ἐν ὥρᾳ ᾗ οὐ γινώσκει, καὶ διχοτοµήσει αὐτὸν καὶ τὸ µέρος αὐτοῦ µετὰ τῶν ἀπίστων θήσει. But if that slave says in his heart, ‘My lord is delaying to come,’ and begins to beat the male and female servants, and to eat and to drink and to get drunk, the lord of that slave will come on a day he does not expect and at an hour he does not know. And he will cut him to pieces and assign his place with the unbelievers. (≈ “Do not live cruelly and irresponsibly while the master is away.”)

Luke 14:11

ὅτι πᾶς ὁ ὑψῶν ἑαυτὸν ταπεινωθήσεται, καὶ ὁ ταπεινῶν ἑαυτὸν ὑψωθήσεται. Because everyone exalting himself will be humbled, and the one humbling himself will be exalted. (≈ “Do not exalt yourself.”)

Luke 14:35

{ἐὰν δὲ καὶ τὸ ἅλας µωρανθῇ,...} οὔτε εἰς γῆν οὔτε εἰς κοπρίαν εὔθετόν ἐστιν, ἔξω βάλλουσιν αὐτό. ὁ ἔχων ὦτα ἀκούειν ἀκουέτω. {But if salt would lose its taste,...} It is fit for neither the soil nor for the manure pile; they throw it out. The one having ears to hear let him hear. (≈ “Do not lose your saltiness.”)

404


Luke 16:18a

Πᾶς ὁ ἀπολύων τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ καὶ γαµῶν ἑτέραν µοιχεύει,... Everyone divorcing his wife and marrying another commits adultery,... (≈ “Do not divorce.”)

Luke 16:18b

...καὶ ὁ ἀπολελυµένην ἀπὸ ἀνδρὸς γαµῶν µοιχεύει. ...and the one marrying a woman divorced from a husband commits adultery. (≈ “Do not marry a divorced woman.”)

Luke 17:2

λυσιτελεῖ αὐτῷ εἰ λίθος µυλικὸς περίκειται περὶ τὸν τράχηλον αὐτοῦ καὶ ἔρριπται εἰς τὴν θάλασσαν ἢ ἵνα σκανδαλίσῃ τῶν µικρῶν τούτων ἕνα. It would be better for him if a millstone were bound around his neck and he were thrown into the sea than that he should cause one of these little ones to sin. (≈ “Do not cause one of these little ones to sin.”)

Luke 17:33

ὃς ἐὰν ζητήσῃ τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ περιποιήσασθαι ἀπολέσει αὐτήν, ὃς δ᾿ ἂν ἀπολέσῃ ζῳογονήσει αὐτήν. Whoever seeks to make his life secure will lose it, but whoever loses it will preserve it. (≈ “Do not seek to make your own life secure.”)27

Luke 18:14

ὅτι πᾶς ὁ ὑψῶν ἑαυτὸν ταπεινωθήσεται, ὁ δὲ ταπεινῶν ἑαυτὸν ὑψωθήσεται. Because everyone exalting himself will be humbled, but the one humbling himself will be exalted. (≈ “Do not exalt yourself.”)

Luke 20:18

πᾶς ὁ πεσὼν ἐπ᾿ ἐκεῖνον τὸν λίθον συνθλασθήσεται· ἐφ᾿ ὃν δ᾿ ἂν πέσῃ, λικµήσει αὐτόν. Everyone who falls on that stone will be broken, but upon whomever it falls it will crush him. (≈ “Do not be crushed by the stone; instead be broken on it.”)

——— 27


CHAPTER 12—WARNINGS & PROMISES AS PROHIBITIONS Luke 20:47

405

...οἳ κατεσθίουσιν τὰς οἰκίας τῶν χηρῶν καὶ προφάσει µακρὰ προσεύχονται· οὗτοι λήµψονται περισσότερον κρίµα. ...they devour widows’ houses and for pretense pray long. These will receive the greater judgment. (≈ “Do not be like the scribes who live pretentiously.”)28

John 11:48

ἐὰν ἀφῶµεν αὐτὸν οὕτως, πάντες πιστεύσουσιν εἰς αὐτόν, καὶ ἐλεύσονται οἱ Ῥωµαῖοι καὶ ἀροῦσιν ἡµῶν καὶ τὸν τόπον καὶ τὸ ἔθνος. If we let him continue in this way, all will believe in him and the Romans will come and remove both our place and nation. (≈ “Do not let him continue in this way.”)

John 12:25

ὁ φιλῶν τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ ἀπολλύει αὐτήν, καὶ ὁ µισῶν τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ ἐν τῷ κόσµῳ τούτῳ εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον φυλάξει αὐτήν. The one loving his life will lose it, and the one hating his life in this world will keep it for eternal life. (≈ “Do not love your life in this world.”)29

John 19:7

ἡµεῖς νόµον ἔχοµεν καὶ κατὰ τὸν νόµον ὀφείλει ἀποθανεῖν, ὅτι υἱὸν θεοῦ ἑαυτὸν ἐποίησεν. We have a law, and according to the law he ought to die because he made himself the Son of God. (≈ “Do not make yourself out to be the Son of God.”)

Acts 8:20

τὸ ἀργύριόν σου σὺν σοὶ εἴη εἰς ἀπώλειαν ὅτι τὴν δωρεὰν τοῦ θεοῦ ἐνόµισας διὰ χρηµάτων κτᾶσθαι· May your silver be with you in destruction because you thought you could obtain the gift of God with money. (≈ “Do not try to obtain the gift of God with money.”)30

——— 28

The statement of punishment in Luke 20:47 comes after a longer description of scribal activity beginning in Luke 20:46, which itself begins with a lexically structured prohibition (προσέχετε + ἀπό; see in section 9.1.1 of Chapter 9); cf. the parallel in Mark 12:40 above. 29

On John 12:25, see the footnote for Matt 16:25 above.

The verb εἴη in Acts 8:20 is pres. opt. 3rd per. sing. of εἰµί (“I am”). Because it is not negated here, we have not included Acts 8:20 with the other prohibitory optatives in section 7.3 of Chapter 7; its prohibitory force here comes from the pragmatics of the warning context. 30

406 Acts 13:41

PROHIBITIONS IN THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT ἴδετε, οἱ καταφρονηταί, καὶ θαυµάσατε καὶ ἀφανίσθητε, ὅτι ἔργον ἐργάζοµαι ἐγὼ ἐν ταῖς ἡµέραις ὑµῶν, ἔργον ὃ οὐ µὴ πιστεύσητε ἐάν τις ἐκδιηγῆται ὑµῖν. Look, you scoffers, and marvel and be destroyed, because I am working a work in your days, a work that you would never believe, even if someone explained it to you. (≈ “Do not be a scoffer against the Lord’s work and be destroyed.”)31

Acts 20:30–31 καὶ ἐξ ὑµῶν αὐτῶν ἀναστήσονται ἄνδρες λαλοῦντες διεστραµµένα τοῦ ἀποσπᾶν τοὺς µαθητὰς ὀπίσω αὐτῶν. διὸ γρηγορεῖτε µνηµονεύοντες ὅτι τριετίαν νύκτα καὶ ἡµέραν οὐκ ἐπαυσάµην µετὰ δακρύων νουθετῶν ἕνα ἕκαστον. And men will arise from among your own selves speaking perverted things to draw away the disciples after them. Therefore be alert, remembering that night and day for three years I did not stop warning each one with tears. (≈ “As I warned you before, do not be led astray by those who will arise from among you.”) Acts 27:10

ἄνδρες, θεωρῶ ὅτι µετὰ ὕβρεως καὶ πολλῆς ζηµίας οὐ µόνον τοῦ φορτίου καὶ τοῦ πλοίου ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν ψυχῶν ἡµῶν µέλλειν ἔσεσθαι τὸν πλοῦν. Men, I see that the voyage will be with injury and much loss, not only of the cargo and the ship but also of our lives. (≈ “Do not continue this journey at this time.”)

Acts 27:31

ἐὰν µὴ οὗτοι µείνωσιν ἐν τῷ πλοίῳ, ὑµεῖς σωθῆναι οὐ δύνασθε. If these do not remain on the ship, you are not able to be saved. (≈ “Do not let these men leave the ship.”)

Rom 1:18–19 Ἀποκαλύπτεται γὰρ ὀργὴ θεοῦ ἀπ᾿ οὐρανοῦ ἐπὶ πᾶσαν ἀσέβειαν καὶ ἀδικίαν ἀνθρώπων τῶν τὴν ἀλήθειαν ἐν ἀδικίᾳ ——— 31 With only slight variation, the citation in Acts 13:41 follows the LXX of Hab 1:5— ἴδετε, οἱ καταφρονηταί, καὶ ἐπιβλέψατε καὶ θαυµάσατε θαυµάσια καὶ ἀφανίσθητε, διότι ἔργον ἐγὼ ἐργάζοµαι ἐν ταῖς ἡµέραις ὑµῶν, ὃ οὐ µὴ πιστεύσητε ἐάν τις ἐκδιηγῆται.


407

κατεχόντων, διότι τὸ γνωστὸν τοῦ θεοῦ φανερόν ἐστιν ἐν αὐτοῖς· ὁ θεὸς γὰρ αὐτοῖς ἐφανέρωσεν. For the wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of people who are suppressing the truth by their unrighteousness because what can be known about God is plain to them, for God has shown it to them. (≈ “Do not live in ungodliness, suppressing with your unrighteousness what you know about God.”) Rom 1:26–27 Διὰ τοῦτο παρέδωκεν αὐτοὺς ὁ θεὸς εἰς πάθη ἀτιµίας, αἵ τε γὰρ θήλειαι αὐτῶν µετήλλαξαν τὴν φυσικὴν χρῆσιν εἰς τὴν παρὰ φύσιν, ὁµοίως τε καὶ οἱ ἄρσενες ἀφέντες τὴν φυσικὴν χρῆσιν τῆς θηλείας ἐξεκαύθησαν ἐν τῇ ὀρέξει αὐτῶν εἰς ἀλλήλους, ἄρσενες ἐν ἄρσεσιν τὴν ἀσχηµοσύνην κατεργαζόµενοι καὶ τὴν ἀντιµισθίαν ἣν ἔδει τῆς πλάνης αὐτῶν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς ἀπολαµβάνοντες. On account of this God gave them over to dishonorable passions, for their females exchanged the natural function for that which is against to nature, and likewise the males abandoning the natural function of the female were consumed with their passion for one another, males committing the shameless act with males and receiving in themselves the recompense which is necessary for their error. (≈ “Do not exchange natural sexual relations for same-sex relations.”) Rom 1:29–32 πεπληρωµένους πάσῃ ἀδικίᾳ πονηρίᾳ πλεονεξίᾳ κακίᾳ, µεστοὺς φθόνου φόνου ἔριδος δόλου κακοηθείας, ψιθυριστὰς καταλάλους θεοστυγεῖς ὑβριστὰς ὑπερηφάνους ἀλαζόνας, ἐφευρετὰς κακῶν, γονεῦσιν ἀπειθεῖς, ἀσυνέτους ἀσυνθέτους ἀστόργους ἀνελεήµονας· οἵτινες τὸ δικαίωµα τοῦ θεοῦ ἐπιγνόντες ὅτι οἱ τὰ τοιαῦτα πράσσοντες ἄξιοι θανάτου εἰσίν, οὐ µόνον αὐτὰ ποιοῦσιν ἀλλὰ καὶ συνευδοκοῦσιν τοῖς πράσσουσιν. having been filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greediness, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness; they are gossipers, slanderers, God-haters, arrogant, proud, boasters, inventors of evil, disobedient to

408

PROHIBITIONS IN THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT parents, without understanding, promise-breakers, unloving, unmerciful; who, although knowing the ordinance of God, that those practicing such things are worthy of death, not only do them, but also give approval to those practicing them. (≈ “Do not do such things as these.”)32

Rom 2:1

Διὸ ἀναπολόγητος εἶ, ὦ ἄνθρωπε πᾶς ὁ κρίνων· ἐν ᾧ γὰρ κρίνεις τὸν ἕτερον, σεαυτὸν κατακρίνεις, τὰ γὰρ αὐτὰ πράσσεις ὁ κρίνων. Therefore you are without excuse, O man, everyone who judges. For when you judge another, you are condemning yourself, for you, the judge, are doing the same things. (≈ “Do not condemn yourself by judging others for doing what you do.”)

Rom 2:5

κατὰ δὲ τὴν σκληρότητά σου καὶ ἀµετανόητον καρδίαν θησαυρίζεις σεαυτῷ ὀργὴν ἐν ἡµέρᾳ ὀργῆς καὶ ἀποκαλύψεως δικαιοκρισίας τοῦ θεοῦ . But according to your hardness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of God’s righteous judgment. (≈ “Do not be hard hearted and unrepentant.”)

Rom 2:8

τοῖς δὲ ἐξ ἐριθείας καὶ ἀπειθοῦσι τῇ ἀληθείᾳ πειθοµένοις δὲ τῇ ἀδικίᾳ ὀργὴ καὶ θυµός. but wrath and indignation for those who, out of selfish ambition and disobedience to the truth, are instead obeying unrighteousness. (≈ “Do not obey unrighteousness and suffer God’s wrath.”)

Rom 2:9

θλῖψις καὶ στενοχωρία ἐπὶ πᾶσαν ψυχὴν ἀνθρώπου τοῦ κατεργαζοµένου τὸ κακόν, Ἰουδαίου τε πρῶτον καὶ Ἕλληνος· Trouble and distress [is] for every human being doing evil, the Jew first and also the Greek (≈ “Do not do evil and so suffer trouble and distress.”)

——— 32

The prohibitory warning of Rom 1:29–32 follows immediately after a prohibition in Rom 1:28 constructed with a negated attributive ptc.; see in section 7.5.2 of Chapter 7.

CHAPTER 12—WARNINGS & PROMISES AS PROHIBITIONS Rom 2:25

409

Περιτοµὴ µὲν γὰρ ὠφελεῖ ἐὰν νόµον πράσσῃς· ἐὰν δὲ παραβάτης νόµου ᾖς, ἡ περιτοµή σου ἀκροβυστία γέγονεν. For circumcision is indeed of benefit if you observe the law, but if you are a transgressor of the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. (≈ “Do not be a transgressor of the law.”)

Rom 2:27

καὶ κρινεῖ ἡ ἐκ φύσεως ἀκροβυστία τὸν νόµον τελοῦσα σὲ τὸν διὰ γράµµατος καὶ περιτοµῆς παραβάτην νόµου. And the one uncircumcised by nature but keeping the law will judge you, the transgressor of the law although having the written code and circumcision. (≈ “Do not be a transgressor of the law.”)33

Rom 3:8b

ὧν τὸ κρίµα ἔνδικόν ἐστιν. Their condemnation is deserved. (≈ “Do not be saying that we should do evil in order that good may come.”)34

Rom 7:3

ἄρα οὖν ζῶντος τοῦ ἀνδρὸς µοιχαλὶς χρηµατίσει ἐὰν γένηται ἀνδρὶ ἑτέρῳ· ἐὰν δὲ ἀποθάνῃ ὁ ἀνήρ, ἐλευθέρα ἐστὶν ἀπὸ τοῦ νόµου, τοῦ µὴ εἶναι αὐτὴν µοιχαλίδα γενοµένην ἀνδρὶ ἑτέρῳ. So then, while her husband is living, she will be called an adulteress if she becomes another man’s; but if the husband dies, she is free from the law, so as not to be an adulteress when becoming another man’s. (≈ “Do not be joined to another man while your husband is living.”)

Rom 8:6

τὸ γὰρ φρόνηµα τῆς σαρκὸς θάνατος, τὸ δὲ φρόνηµα τοῦ πνεύµατος ζωὴ καὶ εἰρήνη· For the mindset of the flesh [is] death, but the mindset of the Spirit [is] life and peace. (≈ “Do not have a fleshly mindset.”)

——— 33

NASB and NKJV follow the Textus Receptus in punctuating Rom 2:27 as a question.

34

Rom 3:8b is Paul’s answer to the prohibitory question in Rom 3:8a; see in Chapter 11.

410 Rom 8:13

PROHIBITIONS IN THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT εἰ γὰρ κατὰ σάρκα ζῆτε, µέλλετε ἀποθνῄσκειν· εἰ δὲ πνεύµατι τὰς πράξεις τοῦ σώµατος θανατοῦτε, ζήσεσθε. For if you live according to the flesh, you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body you will live. (≈ “Do not live according to the flesh.”)

Rom 11:22

ἴδε οὖν χρηστότητα καὶ ἀποτοµίαν θεοῦ· ἐπὶ µὲν τοὺς πεσόντας ἀποτοµία, ἐπὶ δὲ σὲ χρηστότης θεοῦ, ἐὰν ἐπιµένῃς τῇ χρηστότητι, ἐπεὶ καὶ σὺ ἐκκοπήσῃ. Therefore, notice God’s kindness and severity: severity on those who have fallen but God’s kindness on you—if you remain in his kindness, otherwise you also will be cut off. (≈ “Do not be among the fallen and receive God’s severity.”)

Rom 13:2

ὥστε ὁ ἀντιτασσόµενος τῇ ἐξουσίᾳ τῇ τοῦ θεοῦ διαταγῇ ἀνθέστηκεν, οἱ δὲ ἀνθεστηκότες ἑαυτοῖς κρίµα λήµψονται. So the one resisting authority opposes the decree of God, and those opposing will receive judgment. (≈ “Do not resist authority.”)

Rom 13:4

θεοῦ γὰρ διάκονός ἐστιν σοὶ εἰς τὸ ἀγαθόν. ἐὰν δὲ τὸ κακὸν ποιῇς, φοβοῦ· οὐ γὰρ εἰκῇ τὴν µάχαιραν φορεῖ· θεοῦ γὰρ διάκονός ἐστιν ἔκδικος εἰς ὀργὴν τῷ τὸ κακὸν πράσσοντι. For he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do evil, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger for wrath on the one doing evil. (≈ “Do not do wrong and so incur punishment from the authorities God has put in place.”)

Rom 14:23a

ὁ δὲ διακρινόµενος ἐὰν φάγῃ κατακέκριται, ὅτι οὐκ ἐκ πίστεως·... But the one doubting is condemned if he eats, because it is not from faith;... (≈ “Do not eat if in doubt about it.”)

Rom 14:23b

...πᾶν δὲ ὃ οὐκ ἐκ πίστεως ἁµαρτία ἐστίν. ...and everything that is not from faith is sin. (≈ “Do nothing that is not from faith.”)

CHAPTER 12—WARNINGS & PROMISES AS PROHIBITIONS 1 Cor 3:17

411

εἴ τις τὸν ναὸν τοῦ θεοῦ φθείρει, φθερεῖ τοῦτον ὁ θεός· ὁ γὰρ ναὸς τοῦ θεοῦ ἅγιός ἐστιν, οἵτινές ἐστε ὑµεῖς. If anyone destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him; for the temple of God is holy, which is what you are. (≈ “Do not destroy the temple of God.”)

1 Cor 4:18–21 Ὡς µὴ ἐρχοµένου δέ µου πρὸς ὑµᾶς ἐφυσιώθησάν τινες· ἐλεύσοµαι δὲ ταχέως πρὸς ὑµᾶς ἐὰν ὁ κύριος θελήσῃ, καὶ γνώσοµαι οὐ τὸν λόγον τῶν πεφυσιωµένων ἀλλὰ τὴν δύναµιν· οὐ γὰρ ἐν λόγῳ ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ ἀλλ᾿ ἐν δυνάµει. τί θέλετε; ἐν ῥάβδῳ ἔλθω πρὸς ὑµᾶς ἢ ἐν ἀγάπῃ πνεύµατί τε πραΰτητος; Now some have become arrogant, as if I were not coming to you. But I will come to you soon, if the Lord wills, and I will know not the talk of the arrogant ones, but their power. For the kingdom of God [is] not in talk but in power. What do you want? Should I come to you with a rod or with love and a spirit of gentleness? (≈ “Do not be arrogant talkers.”) 1 Cor 6:9c–10 οὔτε πόρνοι οὔτε εἰδωλολάτραι οὔτε µοιχοὶ οὔτε µαλακοὶ οὔτε ἀρσενοκοῖται οὔτε κλέπται οὔτε πλεονέκται, οὐ µέθυσοι, οὐ λοίδοροι, οὐχ ἅρπαγες βασιλείαν θεοῦ κληρονοµήσουσιν. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor greedy, nor drunkards, nor slanderers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. (≈ “Do not live in any of these sinful lifestyles.”) 1 Cor 6:16

[ἢ] οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι ὁ κολλώµενος τῇ πόρνῃ ἓν σῶµά ἐστιν; ἔσονται γάρ, φησίν, οἱ δύο εἰς σάρκα µίαν. [Or] do you not know that the one joining himself to the prostitute is one body? For it says, ‘The two will be one flesh.’ (≈ “Do not join yourself to a prostitute.”)35

——— 35 The prohibitory force of 1 Cor 6:16 comes not from its question structure (equivalent to the positive command, “Know this...”) but from its threat of undesirable affiliation. The OT citation is from Gen 2:24 and follows the LXX.

412 1 Cor 8:11

PROHIBITIONS IN THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT ἀπόλλυται γὰρ ὁ ἀσθενῶν ἐν τῇ σῇ γνώσει, ὁ ἀδελφὸς δι᾿ ὃν Χριστὸς ἀπέθανεν. For the weak person is destroyed by your knowledge, the brother for whom Christ died. (≈ “Do not let your knowledge destroy a weaker brother in the faith.”)

1 Cor 8:12

οὕτως δὲ ἁµαρτάνοντες εἰς τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς καὶ τύπτοντες αὐτῶν τὴν συνείδησιν ἀσθενοῦσαν εἰς Χριστὸν ἁµαρτάνετε. And when sinning in this way against the brothers and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you are sinning against Christ. (≈ “Do not sin against brothers with weak consciences and so sin against Christ.”)

1 Cor 10:10b

...καθάπερ τινὲς αὐτῶν ἐγόγγυσαν καὶ ἀπώλοντο ὑπὸ τοῦ ὀλοθρευτοῦ. ...as some of them grumbled and were destroyed by the destroyer. (≈ “Do not grumble and get destroyed.”)36

1 Cor 11:4

πᾶς ἀνὴρ προσευχόµενος ἢ προφητεύων κατὰ κεφαλῆς ἔχων καταισχύνει τὴν κεφαλὴν αὐτοῦ. Every man praying or prophesying having something on his head dishonors his head. (≈ “Men, do not pray or prophesy with your head covered.”)

1 Cor 11:5

πᾶσα δὲ γυνὴ προσευχοµένη ἢ προφητεύουσα ἀκατακαλύπτῳ τῇ κεφαλῇ καταισχύνει τὴν κεφαλὴν αὐτῆς· ἓν γάρ ἐστιν καὶ τὸ αὐτὸ τῇ ἐξυρηµένῃ. But every wife praying or prophesying with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for it is one and the same as her head having been shaved. (≈ “Women, do not pray or prophesy with uncovered heads.”)

——— 36 The prohibitory warning in 1 Cor 10:10b is offered as an example after a pres. impv. prohibition in v. 10a, “And do not be grumbling” (µηδὲ γογγύζετε); see in section 5.1.1 of Chapter 5.


413

1 Cor 11:20–21 Συνερχοµένων οὖν ὑµῶν ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ οὐκ ἔστιν κυριακὸν δεῖπνον φαγεῖν· ἕκαστος γὰρ τὸ ἴδιον δεῖπνον προλαµβάνει ἐν τῷ φαγεῖν, καὶ ὃς µὲν πεινᾷ ὃς δὲ µεθύει. Therefore when you come together in the same place, it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper; for when eating each one goes ahead with his own supper and one is hungry and another is drunk. (≈ “Do not dishonor the Lord’s Supper with unruly eating.”) 1 Cor 11:27

Ὥστε ὃς ἂν ἐσθίῃ τὸν ἄρτον ἢ πίνῃ τὸ ποτήριον τοῦ κυρίου ἀναξίως, ἔνοχος ἔσται τοῦ σώµατος καὶ τοῦ αἵµατος τοῦ κυρίου. Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. (≈ “Do not eat the Lord’s Supper in an unworthy manner.”)

1 Cor 11:29

ὁ γὰρ ἐσθίων καὶ πίνων κρίµα ἑαυτῷ ἐσθίει καὶ πίνει µὴ διακρίνων τὸ σῶµα. For the one eating and drinking without recognizing the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself. (≈ “Do not participate in the Lord’s Supper without recognizing the body.”)

1 Cor 13:1

Ἐὰν ταῖς γλώσσαις τῶν ἀνθρώπων λαλῶ καὶ τῶν ἀγγέλων, ἀγάπην δὲ µὴ ἔχω, γέγονα χαλκὸς ἠχῶν ἢ κύµβαλον ἀλαλάζον. If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. (≈ “Do not carry out speaking ministry without love.”)

1 Cor 13:2

καὶ ἐὰν ἔχω προφητείαν καὶ εἰδῶ τὰ µυστήρια πάντα καὶ πᾶσαν τὴν γνῶσιν καὶ ἐὰν ἔχω πᾶσαν τὴν πίστιν ὥστε ὄρη µεθιστάναι, ἀγάπην δὲ µὴ ἔχω, οὐθέν εἰµι. And if I have prophecy and I know all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I [am] nothing. (≈ “Do not carry out supernatural ministry without love.”)

414


1 Cor 13:3

κἂν ψωµίσω πάντα τὰ ὑπάρχοντά µου καὶ ἐὰν παραδῶ τὸ σῶµά µου ἵνα καυχήσωµαι, ἀγάπην δὲ µὴ ἔχω, οὐδὲν ὠφελοῦµαι. And if I give away all my possessions, and if I deliver up my body in order to boast, but have not love, I gain nothing. (≈ “Do not carry out sacrificial ministry without love.”)

1 Cor 14:35

εἰ δέ τι µαθεῖν θέλουσιν, ἐν οἴκῳ τοὺς ἰδίους ἄνδρας ἐπερωτάτωσαν· αἰσχρὸν γάρ ἐστιν γυναικὶ λαλεῖν ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ. But if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. (≈ “Women, do not speak in church.”)

1 Cor 14:38

εἰ δέ τις ἀγνοεῖ, ἀγνοεῖται. If someone ignores this, he is ignored. (≈ “Do not ignore this.”)

2 Cor 5:10

τοὺς γὰρ πάντας ἡµᾶς φανερωθῆναι δεῖ ἔµπροσθεν τοῦ βήµατος τοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἵνα κοµίσηται ἕκαστος τὰ διὰ τοῦ σώµατος πρὸς ἃ ἔπραξεν, εἴτε ἀγαθὸν εἴτε φαῦλον. For it is necessary for us all to appear before the judgment seat of Christ, in order that each may be repaid for what he has done in the body, whether good or bad. (≈ “Do not live in such a way as to be repaid for bad deeds at Christ’s judgement seat.”)37

2 Cor 10:6

καὶ ἐν ἑτοίµῳ ἔχοντες ἐκδικῆσαι πᾶσαν παρακοήν, ὅταν πληρωθῇ ὑµῶν ἡ ὑπακοή. and we are ready to punish every disobedience, whenever your obedience is complete. (≈ “Do not be disobedient.”)

——— 37

In addition to the warning, there is, of course, an inherent positive command in 2 Cor 5:10, i.e., “Live in such a way as to be repaid for good deeds at Christ’s judgment seat.”

CHAPTER 12—WARNINGS & PROMISES AS PROHIBITIONS 2 Cor 13:2

415

προείρηκα καὶ προλέγω, ὡς παρὼν τὸ δεύτερον καὶ ἀπὼν νῦν, τοῖς προηµαρτηκόσιν καὶ τοῖς λοιποῖς πᾶσιν, ὅτι ἐὰν ἔλθω εἰς τὸ πάλιν οὐ φείσοµαι, I have given advance warning and am giving advance warning, while present the second time and while absent now, to those who have sinned previously and to all the rest, that if I come I will not spare anyone. (≈ “Do not be living sinfully.”)

2 Cor 13:10

Διὰ τοῦτο ταῦτα ἀπὼν γράφω, ἵνα παρὼν µὴ ἀποτόµως χρήσωµαι κατὰ τὴν ἐξουσίαν ἣν ὁ κύριος ἔδωκέν µοι εἰς οἰκοδοµὴν καὶ οὐκ εἰς καθαίρεσιν. On account of this I am writing these things while being away, in order that when being present I may not act severely according to the authority which the Lord has given to me for building up and not for tearing down. (≈ “Do not give me reason to use severity when I get there.”)

Gal 1:8

ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐὰν ἡµεῖς ἢ ἄγγελος ἐξ οὐρανοῦ εὐαγγελίζηται [ὑµῖν] παρ᾿ ὃ εὐηγγελισάµεθα ὑµῖν, ἀνάθεµα ἔστω. But even if we or an angel from heaven would preach to you a gospel contrary to what we preached to you, let him be accursed! (≈ “Do not preach a different gospel.”)

Gal 1:9

ὡς προειρήκαµεν καὶ ἄρτι πάλιν λέγω· εἴ τις ὑµᾶς εὐαγγελίζεται παρ᾿ ὃ παρελάβετε, ἀνάθεµα ἔστω. As we have said before, and now I say again, if anyone preaches to you a gospel contrary to what you received, let him be accursed! (≈ “Do not preach a different gospel.”)

Gal 3:10

Ὅσοι γὰρ ἐξ ἔργων νόµου εἰσίν, ὑπὸ κατάραν εἰσίν· γέγραπται γὰρ ὅτι ἐπικατάρατος πᾶς ὃς οὐκ ἐµµένει πᾶσιν τοῖς γεγραµµένοις ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τοῦ νόµου τοῦ ποιῆσαι αὐτά. For as many as are of the works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, ‘Cursed be everyone who does not

416

PROHIBITIONS IN THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT continue in all that has been written in the book of the law to do them.’ (≈ “Do not rely on the works of the law, which puts you under a curse.”)38

Gal 5:2

Ἴδε ἐγὼ Παῦλος λέγω ὑµῖν ὅτι ἐὰν περιτέµνησθε, Χριστὸς ὑµᾶς οὐδὲν ὠφελήσει. Look: I, Paul, am saying to you that, if you accept circumcision, Christ will benefit you nothing. (≈ “Do not accept circumcision.”)

Gal 5:3

µαρτύροµαι δὲ πάλιν παντὶ ἀνθρώπῳ περιτεµνοµένῳ ὅτι ὀφειλέτης ἐστὶν ὅλον τὸν νόµον ποιῆσαι. And again I testify to every man getting himself circumcised that he is obligated to keep the whole law. (≈ “Do not get circumcised and so obligate yourself to keep the whole law.”)

Gal 5:4

κατηργήθητε ἀπὸ Χριστοῦ, οἵτινες ἐν νόµῳ δικαιοῦσθε, τῆς χάριτος ἐξεπέσατε. You who are trying to be justified by the law are severed from Christ; you have fallen from grace. (≈ “Do not try to justify yourself by keeping the law, and so be severed from Christ.”)

Gal 5:10b

ὁ δὲ ταράσσων ὑµᾶς βαστάσει τὸ κρίµα, ὅστις ἐὰν ᾖ. And the one troubling you will bear the penalty, whoever he may be. (≈ “Do not be troubling the Galatians.”)

Gal 5:12

Οφελον καὶ ἀποκόψονται οἱ ἀναστατοῦντες ὑµᾶς. I wish those agitating you will even castrate themselves! (≈ “Do not be an agitator.”)

——— 38 The prohibition in Gal 3:10 is Paul’s introduction to his OT citation, which is itself a curse that functions as a positive command to do the law. Paul’s citation loosely follows the LXX of Deut 27:26—Ἐπικατάρατος πᾶς ἄνθρωπος, ὃς οὐκ ἐµµενεῖ ἐν πᾶσιν τοῖς λόγοις τοῦ νόµου τούτου τοῦ ποιῆσαι αὐτούς.

CHAPTER 12—WARNINGS & PROMISES AS PROHIBITIONS Gal 5:19–21

417

φανερὰ δέ ἐστιν τὰ ἔργα τῆς σαρκός, ἅτινά ἐστιν πορνεία, ἀκαθαρσία, ἀσέλγεια, εἰδωλολατρία, φαρµακεία, ἔχθραι, ἔρις, ζῆλος, θυµοί, ἐριθεῖαι, διχοστασίαι, αἱρέσεις, φθόνοι, µέθαι, κῶµοι καὶ τὰ ὅµοια τούτοις, ἃ προλέγω ὑµῖν, καθὼς προεῖπον ὅτι οἱ τὰ τοιαῦτα πράσσοντες βασιλείαν θεοῦ οὐ κληρονοµήσουσιν. Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, angry outbursts, rivalries, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things similar to these, about which I am forewarning you, just as I had forewarned, that those practicing such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. (≈ “Do not practice any of these works of the flesh.”)

Gal 6:3

εἰ γὰρ δοκεῖ τις εἶναί τι µηδὲν ὤν, φρεναπατᾷ ἑαυτόν. For if someone supposes himself to be something when he is nothing, he deceives himself. (≈ “Do not suppose yourself to be something you are not.”)

Gal 6:8

ὅτι ὁ σπείρων εἰς τὴν σάρκα ἑαυτοῦ ἐκ τῆς σαρκὸς θερίσει φθοράν, For the one sowing to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, (≈ “Do not sow to your own flesh.”)

Eph 5:5

τοῦτο γὰρ ἴστε γινώσκοντες, ὅτι πᾶς πόρνος ἢ ἀκάθαρτος ἢ πλεονέκτης, ὅ ἐστιν εἰδωλολάτρης, οὐκ ἔχει κληρονοµίαν ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ θεοῦ. For you must be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure or covetous (which is idolatrous) has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. (≈ “Do not be sexually immoral, impure, or covetous.”)39

——— 39 The only four perfect impv. verbs in the NT include Mark 4:39c (a lexical prohibition, πεφίµωσο; see in section 9.1.3 of Chapter 9); Acts 15:29 (a positive farewell greeting, Ἔρρωσθε); Eph 5:5 (ἴστε in a prohibitory warning;); and Jas 1:19 (ἴστε in a positive command). See Appendix D for all the perfect impvs. in biblical Greek.

418


Eph 5:6b

διὰ ταῦτα γὰρ ἔρχεται ἡ ὀργὴ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐπὶ τοὺς υἱοὺς τῆς ἀπειθείας. For on account of these things the wrath of God comes on the sons of disobedience. (≈ “Do not be sons of disobedience.”)

Eph 5:12

τὰ γὰρ κρυφῇ γινόµενα ὑπ᾿ αὐτῶν αἰσχρόν ἐστιν καὶ λέγειν, For it is shameful even to mention the things done by them in secret. (≈ “Do not even mention the things they do in secret.”)

Phil 3:18–19

πολλοὶ γὰρ περιπατοῦσιν οὓς πολλάκις ἔλεγον ὑµῖν, νῦν δὲ καὶ κλαίων λέγω, τοὺς ἐχθροὺς τοῦ σταυροῦ τοῦ Χριστοῦ, ὧν τὸ τέλος ἀπώλεια, ὧν ὁ θεὸς ἡ κοιλία καὶ ἡ δόξα ἐν τῇ αἰσχύνῃ αὐτῶν, οἱ τὰ ἐπίγεια φρονοῦντες. For many, of whom I was often telling you and am now telling you even weeping, are walking as enemies of the cross of Christ, whose end [is] destruction, whose god [is] their belly, and whose glory [is] in their shame, who are thinking on earthly things. (≈ “Do not walk as an enemy of the cross of Christ, serving your appetites, glorying in what is shameful, and focused on earthly things.”)

Col 3:6

δι᾿ ἃ ἔρχεται ἡ ὀργὴ τοῦ θεοῦ [ἐπὶ τοὺς υἱοὺς τῆς ἀπειθείας]. on account of these things the wrath of God is coming [on the sons of disobedience]. (≈ “Do not live according to these earthly parts of you.”)40

Col 3:25

ὁ γὰρ ἀδικῶν κοµίσεται ὃ ἠδίκησεν, καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν προσωποληµψία. For the one doing wrong will receive back for what wrong he has done, and there is no favoritism. (≈ “Do not do wrong.”)

——— 40

The prohibitory warning of Col 3:6 is paired with a lexical prohibition in Col 3:5 (see in section 9.1.1 of Chapter 9) where “these things” are spelled out.

CHAPTER 12—WARNINGS & PROMISES AS PROHIBITIONS 1 Thess 4:8

419

τοιγαροῦν ὁ ἀθετῶν οὐκ ἄνθρωπον ἀθετεῖ ἀλλὰ τὸν θεὸν τὸν [καὶ] διδόντα τὸ πνεῦµα αὐτοῦ τὸ ἅγιον εἰς ὑµᾶς. Therefore, the one rejecting this does not reject man, but God, who [also] gives His Holy Spirit to you. (≈ “Do not reject this.”)

2 Thess 2:12

ἵνα κριθῶσιν πάντες οἱ µὴ πιστεύσαντες τῇ ἀληθείᾳ ἀλλὰ εὐδοκήσαντες τῇ ἀδικίᾳ. in order that all those who have not believed the truth but have delighted in unrighteousness may be condemned. (≈ “Do not delight in unrighteousness; rather, believe the truth.”)

1 Tim 5:6

ἡ δὲ σπαταλῶσα ζῶσα τέθνηκεν. But the one living for pleasure, while she is living, is dead. (≈ “Do not live for pleasure.”)

1 Tim 6:3–4

εἴ τις ἑτεροδιδασκαλεῖ καὶ µὴ προσέρχεται ὑγιαίνουσιν λόγοις τοῖς τοῦ κυρίου ἡµῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ τῇ κατ᾿ εὐσέβειαν διδασκαλίᾳ, τετύφωται, µηδὲν ἐπιστάµενος, ἀλλὰ νοσῶν περὶ ζητήσεις καὶ λογοµαχίας, If someone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words (those of our Lord Jesus Christ) and the teaching that accords with godliness, he has become proud, understanding nothing, but has unhealthy desire for controversy and for disputes about words, (≈ “Do not teach a different doctrine.”)

1 Tim 6:9

οἱ δὲ βουλόµενοι πλουτεῖν ἐµπίπτουσιν εἰς πειρασµὸν καὶ παγίδα καὶ ἐπιθυµίας πολλὰς ἀνοήτους καὶ βλαβεράς, αἵτινες βυθίζουσιν τοὺς ἀνθρώπους εἰς ὄλεθρον καὶ ἀπώλειαν. But those wanting to be rich fall into temptation, a trap, and many foolish and harmful desires, which sink people into ruin and destruction. (≈ “Do not live to be rich.”)

420


1 Tim 6:10

ῥίζα γὰρ πάντων τῶν κακῶν ἐστιν ἡ φιλαργυρία, ἧς τινες ὀρεγόµενοι ἀπεπλανήθησαν ἀπὸ τῆς πίστεως καὶ ἑαυτοὺς περιέπειραν ὀδύναις πολλαῖς. For the love of money is a root of all evils, and by craving it, some have been led away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pains. (≈ “Do not be led astray by the love of money.”)

2 Tim 2:12

εἰ ἀρνησόµεθα, κἀκεῖνος ἀρνήσεται ἡµᾶς· If we will deny him, than that one will deny us. (≈ “Do not deny Christ.”)

2 Tim 2:17–18

καὶ ὁ λόγος αὐτῶν ὡς γάγγραινα νοµὴν ἕξει. ὧν ἐστιν Ὑµέναιος καὶ Φίλητος, οἵτινες περὶ τὴν ἀλήθειαν ἠστόχησαν, λέγοντες [τὴν] ἀνάστασιν ἤδη γεγονέναι, καὶ ἀνατρέπουσιν τήν τινων πίστιν. And their word will have pasture like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, who have deviated concerning the truth, saying the resurrection has already happened, and they are overturning the faith of some. (≈ “Do not deviate from the preaching the truth.”)

2 Tim 4:3

Ἔσται γὰρ καιρὸς ὅτε τῆς ὑγιαινούσης διδασκαλίας οὐκ ἀνέξονται ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὰς ἰδίας ἐπιθυµίας ἑαυτοῖς ἐπισωρεύσουσιν διδασκάλους κνηθόµενοι τὴν ἀκοὴν... For there will be a time when they will not endure sound teaching, but having itching in their hearing they will collect for themselves teachers according to their own desires... (≈ “Do not collect for yourselves teachers according to your own desires.”)

2 Tim 4:4a

καὶ ἀπὸ µὲν τῆς ἀληθείας τὴν ἀκοὴν ἀποστρέψουσιν,... and they will turn their hearing away from the truth,... (≈ “Do not turn your hearing away from the truth.”)

2 Tim 4:4b

...ἐπὶ δὲ τοὺς µύθους ἐκτραπήσονται. ...and they will be turned aside to myths. (≈ “Do not be turned aside to myths.”)


421

Heb 10:26–27 Ἑκουσίως γὰρ ἁµαρτανόντων ἡµῶν µετὰ τὸ λαβεῖν τὴν ἐπίγνωσιν τῆς ἀληθείας, οὐκέτι περὶ ἁµαρτιῶν ἀπολείπεται θυσία, φοβερὰ δέ τις ἐκδοχὴ κρίσεως καὶ πυρὸς ζῆλος ἐσθίειν µέλλοντος τοὺς ὑπεναντίους. For if we are sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a kind of fearful expectation of judgment and a fury of fire about to consume the opposition. (≈ “Do not continue deliberately sinning after receiving knowledge of the truth.”) Heb 10:28

ἀθετήσας τις νόµον Μωϋσέως χωρὶς οἰκτιρµῶν ἐπὶ δυσὶν ἢ τρισὶν µάρτυσιν ἀποθνῄσκει· Someone who has rejected the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. (≈ “Do not reject the law of Moses.”)41

Heb 10:29

πόσῳ δοκεῖτε χείρονος ἀξιωθήσεται τιµωρίας ὁ τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ καταπατήσας καὶ τὸ αἷµα τῆς διαθήκης κοινὸν ἡγησάµενος, ἐν ᾧ ἡγιάσθη, καὶ τὸ πνεῦµα τῆς χάριτος ἐνυβρίσας; How much worse punishment do you suppose will be deserved by the one who has trampled on the Son of God, and has regarded as common the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace? (≈ “Do not trample on the Son of God, regard the blood of the covenant as common, and insult the Spirit of grace.”)42

——— Heb 10:28 makes allusion to Deut 17:6—ἐπὶ δυσὶν µάρτυσιν ἢ ἐπὶ τρισὶν µάρτυσιν ἀποθανεῖται ὁ ἀποθνῄσκων (LXX)—as the rule or recognized standard by which people are to live, and so some might categorize it as a prohibitory emulation statement (cf. section 10.1 of Chapter 10). Its prohibitory force, however, comes through its threat of punishment, and it reads then as a prohibitory warning statement. 41

42 Although structured as a question, Heb 10:29 is not categorized with the prohibitory questions (in Chapter 11) because it gets its prohibitory force from its threat of punishment. We understand its three-fold description as one act of sinful rejection.

422


Heb 10:38

ὁ δὲ δίκαιός µου ἐκ πίστεως ζήσεται, καὶ ἐὰν ὑποστείληται, οὐκ εὐδοκεῖ ἡ ψυχή µου ἐν αὐτῷ. But my righteous one will live by faith, and if he shrinks back, my soul has no pleasure in him. (≈ “Do not shrink back from a life of faith.”)43

Heb 13:4b

πόρνους γὰρ καὶ µοιχοὺς κρινεῖ ὁ θεός. for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterers. (≈ “Do not be sexually immoral or adulterers.”)

Jas 1:26

Εἴ τις δοκεῖ θρησκὸς εἶναι µὴ χαλιναγωγῶν γλῶσσαν αὐτοῦ ἀλλὰ ἀπατῶν καρδίαν αὐτοῦ, τούτου µάταιος ἡ θρησκεία. If someone supposes himself to be religious, not bridling his tongue but deceiving his heart, this person’s religion [is] worthless. (≈ “Do not suppose yourself to be religious if you do not control your tongue.”)

Jas 4:4b

ὃς ἐὰν οὖν βουληθῇ φίλος εἶναι τοῦ κόσµου, ἐχθρὸς τοῦ θεοῦ καθίσταται. Therefore whoever wants to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God. (≈ “Do not be a friend of the world and thus an enemy of God.”)

Jas 4:6

ὁ θεὸς ὑπερηφάνοις ἀντιτάσσεται, ταπεινοῖς δὲ δίδωσιν χάριν. God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble. (≈ “Do not be proud.”)44

——— Reversing the lines and relocating one of the µου pronouns, Heb 10:38 cites both lines of Hab 2:4 LXX—ἐὰν ὑποστείληται, οὐκ εὐδοκεῖ ἡ ψυχή µου ἐν αὐτῷ· ὁ δὲ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεώς µου ζήσεται (note: “will live by my faith-[fulness]”). The first line of Hab 2:4 MT is different and difficult: ‫שׁ ָ ֥רה נַפ ְ֖שׁוֹ ֑בּוֹ‬ ְ ָ ‫ה ִֵנּ֣ה ֻע ְפּ ָ֔לה *א־י‬. Here are three English alternatives: 43

“Behold, his soul is puffed up; it is not upright within him” (ESV). “Look, his ego is inflated; he is without integrity” (HCSB). “Look at the proud! They trust in themselves, and their lives are crooked” (NLT). 44 The citation of Prov 3:34 in Jas 4:6 and in 1 Pet 5:5 both closely follow the LXX (vs. MT): κύριος ὑπερηφάνοις ἀντιτάσσεται, ταπεινοῖς δὲ δίδωσιν χάριν.

CHAPTER 12—WARNINGS & PROMISES AS PROHIBITIONS Jas 4:11b

423

ὁ καταλαλῶν ἀδελφοῦ ἢ κρίνων τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ καταλαλεῖ νόµου καὶ κρίνει νόµον· The one speaking evil against a brother or judging his brother, speaks evil against the law and judges the law. (≈ “Do not speak evil against or judge a brother.”)

Jas 4:11c

εἰ δὲ νόµον κρίνεις, οὐκ εἶ ποιητὴς νόµου ἀλλὰ κριτής. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge. (≈ “Do not judge the law.”)

1 Pet 3:12

ὅτι ὀφθαλµοὶ κυρίου ἐπὶ δικαίους καὶ ὦτα αὐτοῦ εἰς δέησιν αὐτῶν, πρόσωπον δὲ κυρίου ἐπὶ ποιοῦντας κακά. because the eyes of the Lord [are] on the righteous and His ears [are] toward their request. But the face of the Lord [is] against those doing evil. (≈ “Do not be doing evil.”)

1 Pet 5:5

[ὁ] θεὸς ὑπερηφάνοις ἀντιτάσσεται, ταπεινοῖς δὲ δίδωσιν χάριν. God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble. (≈ “Do not be proud.”)45

2 Pet 2:1

Ἐγένοντο δὲ καὶ ψευδοπροφῆται ἐν τῷ λαῷ, ὡς καὶ ἐν ὑµῖν ἔσονται ψευδοδιδάσκαλοι, οἵτινες παρεισάξουσιν αἱρέσεις ἀπωλείας καὶ τὸν ἀγοράσαντα αὐτοὺς δεσπότην ἀρνούµενοι ἐπάγοντες ἑαυτοῖς ταχινὴν ἀπώλειαν. But false prophets were also among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. (≈ “Do not be a false teacher, secretly bringing in destructive heresies, even denying the Master.”)

——— 45

On 1 Pet 5:5, see the footnote above for Jas 4:6.

424 2 Pet 2:2

PROHIBITIONS IN THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT καὶ πολλοὶ ἐξακολουθήσουσιν αὐτῶν ταῖς ἀσελγείαις δι᾿ οὓς ἡ ὁδὸς τῆς ἀληθείας βλασφηµηθήσεται, And many will follow their sensuality, because of whom the way of truth will be blasphemed, (≈ “Do not follow the sensuality of false teachers, bringing blasphemy on the way of truth.”)

2 Pet 2:3

καὶ ἐν πλεονεξίᾳ πλαστοῖς λόγοις ὑµᾶς ἐµπορεύσονται, οἷς τὸ κρίµα ἔκπαλαι οὐκ ἀργεῖ καὶ ἡ ἀπώλεια αὐτῶν οὐ νυστάζει. and in greediness they will exploit you with deceptive words, for whom the condemnation from long ago is not idle and their destruction is not asleep. (≈ “Do not be deceived by false teachers.”)

2 Pet 2:9–10

οἶδεν κύριος εὐσεβεῖς ἐκ πειρασµοῦ ῥύεσθαι, ἀδίκους δὲ εἰς ἡµέραν κρίσεως κολαζοµένους τηρεῖν, µάλιστα δὲ τοὺς ὀπίσω σαρκὸς ἐν ἐπιθυµίᾳ µιασµοῦ πορευοµένους καὶ κυριότητος καταφρονοῦντας. the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trial and to keep the unrighteous for punishment at the day of judgment, and especially those going after the flesh in its unclean desires and despising authority. (≈ “Do not be unrighteous, doing evil and hating authority.”)

2 Pet 2:12–13 Οὗτοι δὲ ὡς ἄλογα ζῷα γεγεννηµένα φυσικὰ εἰς ἅλωσιν καὶ φθορὰν ἐν οἷς ἀγνοοῦσιν βλασφηµοῦντες, ἐν τῇ φθορᾷ αὐτῶν καὶ φθαρήσονται ἀδικούµενοι µισθὸν ἀδικίας But these, like irrational animals, instinctive creatures born for capture and destruction, blaspheming about things of which they are ignorant, will also be destroyed in their destruction, suffering harm as the reward for their unrighteousness. (≈ “Do not speak insultingly about what you do not know.”)46 ——— 46 The prohibitory warning of 2 Pet 2:12–13 is immediately preceded by a prohibitory emulation statement in 2 Pet 2:10–11; see in section 10.3 of Chapter 10. Examples of the unrighteousness mentioned in v. 13 (ἀδικία) are outlined in vv. 13–19, in the midst of which (v. 17) and afterwards (vv. 20–21) are further prohibitory warnings about them; see below.

CHAPTER 12—WARNINGS & PROMISES AS PROHIBITIONS 2 Pet 2:17

425

οὗτοί εἰσιν πηγαὶ ἄνυδροι καὶ ὁµίχλαι ὑπὸ λαίλαπος ἐλαυνόµεναι, οἷς ὁ ζόφος τοῦ σκότους τετήρηται. These are waterless springs and mists driven by a storm, for whom the gloom of darkness has been reserved. (≈ “Do not be like waterless springs and mists driven by a storm.”)

2 Pet 2:20

εἰ γὰρ ἀποφυγόντες τὰ µιάσµατα τοῦ κόσµου ἐν ἐπιγνώσει τοῦ κυρίου [ἡµῶν] καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, τούτοις δὲ πάλιν ἐµπλακέντες ἡττῶνται, γέγονεν αὐτοῖς τὰ ἔσχατα χείρονα τῶν πρώτων. For if, having escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of [our] Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, getting entangled in them again they are overcome, the last things have become worse for them than the first. (≈ “Do not get entangled again in the defilements of the world.”)

2 Pet 2:21

κρεῖττον γὰρ ἦν αὐτοῖς µὴ ἐπεγνωκέναι τὴν ὁδὸν τῆς δικαιοσύνης ἢ ἐπιγνοῦσιν ὑποστρέψαι ἐκ τῆς παραδοθείσης αὐτοῖς ἁγίας ἐντολῆς. For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them. (≈ “Do not turn away from the way of righteousness.”)

2 Pet 3:7

οἱ δὲ νῦν οὐρανοὶ καὶ ἡ γῆ τῷ αὐτῷ λόγῳ τεθησαυρισµένοι εἰσὶν πυρὶ τηρούµενοι εἰς ἡµέραν κρίσεως καὶ ἀπωλείας τῶν ἀσεβῶν ἀνθρώπων. But by the same word the current heavens and earth have been reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly people. (≈ “Do not be distracted by the ungodly [scoffers].”)47

——— 47

The warning in 2 Pet 3:7 is focused upon scoffers who doubt impending judgment is coming (see 2 Pet 3:3–5).

426 2 Pet 3:16

PROHIBITIONS IN THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT ὡς καὶ ἐν πάσαις ἐπιστολαῖς λαλῶν ἐν αὐταῖς περὶ τούτων, ἐν αἷς ἐστιν δυσνόητά τινα, ἃ οἱ ἀµαθεῖς καὶ ἀστήρικτοι στρεβλοῦσιν ὡς καὶ τὰς λοιπὰς γραφὰς πρὸς τὴν ἰδίαν αὐτῶν ἀπώλειαν. as also in all his letters when speaking in them concerning these things, in which there are some things hard to understand, which the unlearned and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. (≈ “Do not twist the Scriptures.”)

1 John 1:6

Ἐὰν εἴπωµεν ὅτι κοινωνίαν ἔχοµεν µετ᾿ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐν τῷ σκότει περιπατῶµεν, ψευδόµεθα καὶ οὐ ποιοῦµεν τὴν ἀλήθειαν· If we say that we have fellowship with him and we are walking in darkness, we are lying and we are not doing the truth; (≈ “Do not claim to have fellowship with God while walking in darkness.”)

1 John 1:8

ἐὰν εἴπωµεν ὅτι ἁµαρτίαν οὐκ ἔχοµεν, ἑαυτοὺς πλανῶµεν καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν ἡµῖν. If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves, and the truth is not in us. (≈ “Do not claim to have no sin.”)

1 John 1:10

ἐὰν εἴπωµεν ὅτι οὐχ ἡµαρτήκαµεν, ψεύστην ποιοῦµεν αὐτὸν καὶ ὁ λόγος αὐτοῦ οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν ἡµῖν. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. (≈ “Do not claim that you have not sinned.”)

1 John 2:4

ὁ λέγων ὅτι ἔγνωκα αὐτόν καὶ τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ µὴ τηρῶν, ψεύστης ἐστὶν καὶ ἐν τούτῳ ἡ ἀλήθεια οὐκ ἔστιν· The one who is saying, ‘I have come to know him,’ and is not keeping his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in this one; (≈ “Do not claim to know God while not keeping his commandments.”)

CHAPTER 12—WARNINGS & PROMISES AS PROHIBITIONS 1 John 2:9

427

Ὁ λέγων ἐν τῷ φωτὶ εἶναι καὶ τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ µισῶν ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ ἐστὶν ἕως ἄρτι. The one claiming to be in the light and hating his brother is in the darkness still. (≈ “Do not claim to be in the light while you are hating your brother.”)

1 John 2:11

ὁ δὲ µισῶν τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ ἐστὶν καὶ ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ περιπατεῖ καὶ οὐκ οἶδεν ποῦ ὑπάγει, ὅτι ἡ σκοτία ἐτύφλωσεν τοὺς ὀφθαλµοὺς αὐτοῦ. But the one hating his brother is in the darkness and is walking in the darkness, and does not know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded his eyes. (≈ “Do not hate your brother.”)

1 John 2:23

πᾶς ὁ ἀρνούµενος τὸν υἱὸν οὐδὲ τὸν πατέρα ἔχει, ὁ ὁµολογῶν τὸν υἱὸν καὶ τὸν πατέρα ἔχει. Everyone who denies the Son does not have the Father either; the one confessing the Son also has the Father. (≈ “Do not deny the Son.”)

1 John 3:8

ὁ ποιῶν τὴν ἁµαρτίαν ἐκ τοῦ διαβόλου ἐστίν, ὅτι ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς ὁ διάβολος ἁµαρτάνει. εἰς τοῦτο ἐφανερώθη ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, ἵνα λύσῃ τὰ ἔργα τοῦ διαβόλου. The one practicing sin is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. For this the Son of God was revealed: in order that he may destroy the works of the devil. (≈ “Do not live a lifestyle of sin.”)

1 John 3:15

πᾶς ὁ µισῶν τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ ἀνθρωποκτόνος ἐστίν, καὶ οἴδατε ὅτι πᾶς ἀνθρωποκτόνος οὐκ ἔχει ζωὴν αἰώνιον ἐν αὐτῷ µένουσαν. Everyone hating his brother is a murderer, and you know that every murderer does not have eternal life abiding in him. (≈ “Do not hate your brother.”)

428


1 John 4:20

ἐάν τις εἴπῃ ὅτι ἀγαπῶ τὸν θεὸν καὶ τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ µισῇ, ψεύστης ἐστίν· ὁ γὰρ µὴ ἀγαπῶν τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ ὃν ἑώρακεν, τὸν θεὸν ὃν οὐχ ἑώρακεν οὐ δύναται ἀγαπᾶν. If anyone says, ‘I love God,’ and is hating his brother, he is a liar; for the one not loving his brother whom he has seen is not able to love God whom he has not seen. (≈ “Do not hate your brother.”)

2 John 9

Πᾶς ὁ προάγων καὶ µὴ µένων ἐν τῇ διδαχῇ τοῦ Χριστοῦ θεὸν οὐκ ἔχει· Everyone going on ahead and not abiding in the teaching of Christ does not have God. (≈ “Do not move ahead of the teaching of Christ.”)

2 John 11

ὁ λέγων γὰρ αὐτῷ χαίρειν κοινωνεῖ τοῖς ἔργοις αὐτοῦ τοῖς πονηροῖς. for the one saying a greeting to him takes part in his wicked works. (≈ “Do not greet false teachers.”)48

Jude 4

παρεισέδυσαν γάρ τινες ἄνθρωποι, οἱ πάλαι προγεγραµµένοι εἰς τοῦτο τὸ κρίµα, ἀσεβεῖς, τὴν τοῦ θεοῦ ἡµῶν χάριτα µετατιθέντες εἰς ἀσέλγειαν καὶ τὸν µόνον δεσπότην καὶ κύριον ἡµῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἀρνούµενοι. For certain people have secretly crept in who long ago were written about for this condemnation, ungodly people turning the grace of our God into sensuality and denying our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ. (≈ “Do not deny Jesus Christ as your only Master and Lord and turn God’s grace into sensual living.”)

Jude 5–7

Ὑποµνῆσαι δὲ ὑµᾶς βούλοµαι, εἰδότας ὑµᾶς ἅπαξ πάντα ὅτι Ἰησοῦς λαὸν ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου σώσας τὸ δεύτερον τοὺς µὴ πιστεύσαντας ἀπώλεσεν, ἀγγέλους τε τοὺς µὴ τηρήσαντας τὴν ἑαυτῶν ἀρχὴν ἀλλὰ ἀπολιπόντας τὸ ἴδιον οἰκητήριον εἰς κρίσιν µεγάλης ἡµέρας δεσµοῖς ἀϊδίοις ὑπὸ ζόφον

——— 48

While 2 John 11 gives an explanatory warning for the clear pres. impv. prohibition of 2 John 10b (see in section 5.1.1 of Chapter 5), it can stand alone with its own prohibitory force.


429

τετήρηκεν, ὡς Σόδοµα καὶ Γόµορρα καὶ αἱ περὶ αὐτὰς πόλεις τὸν ὅµοιον τρόπον τούτοις ἐκπορνεύσασαι καὶ ἀπελθοῦσαι ὀπίσω σαρκὸς ἑτέρας, πρόκεινται δεῖγµα πυρὸς αἰωνίου δίκην ὑπέχουσαι. But I want to remind you, although fully knowing it once for all, that Jesus, having saved a people out of the land of Egypt, secondly destroyed those who did not believe, and the angels who did not keep their own domain but left their particular dwelling he has kept in eternal chains under deepest darkness for the judgment of the great day, just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities surrounding them in the same way as these, indulging in sexual immorality and pursuing other flesh, serve as an example by suffering a punishment of eternal fire. (≈ “Do not indulge in sexual immorality.”)49 Jude 10

Οὗτοι δὲ ὅσα µὲν οὐκ οἴδασιν βλασφηµοῦσιν, ὅσα δὲ φυσικῶς ὡς τὰ ἄλογα ζῷα ἐπίστανται, ἐν τούτοις φθείρονται. But these people blaspheme whatever they do not understand; and whatever they know instinctively, like irrational animals, by these things they are destroyed. (≈ “Do not behave by mere instinct and blaspheme the things you do not understand.”)

Jude 12–13

Οὗτοί εἰσιν οἱ ἐν ταῖς ἀγάπαις ὑµῶν σπιλάδες συνευωχούµενοι ἀφόβως, ἑαυτοὺς ποιµαίνοντες, νεφέλαι ἄνυδροι ὑπὸ ἀνέµων παραφερόµεναι, δένδρα φθινοπωρινὰ ἄκαρπα δὶς ἀποθανόντα ἐκριζωθέντα, κύµατα ἄγρια θαλάσσης ἐπαφρίζοντα τὰς ἑαυτῶν αἰσχύνας, ἀστέρες πλανῆται οἷς ὁ ζόφος τοῦ σκότους εἰς αἰῶνα τετήρηται. These are those eating fearlessly at your love feats as dangerous reefs, shepherding themselves, waterless clouds carried along by winds, fruitless autumn trees, having died twice, uprooted, wild waves of the sea foaming up their own

——— 49 The text of NA27 and UBS4 at Jude 5 have ...εἰδότας [ὑµᾶς] πάντα ὅτι [ὁ] κύριος ἅπαξ λαὸν... (so HCSB, NRSV, NIV; cf. NLT), but we are following here the text of NA28 and SBLGNT (so ESV; cf. NASB, NKJV, NLT).

430

PROHIBITIONS IN THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT shame, wandering stars for whom the deepest depth of darkness has been reserved forever. (≈ “Do not be like these false teachers among you shamelessly caring only for themselves.”)

Jude 14–16

Προεφήτευσεν δὲ καὶ τούτοις ἕβδοµος ἀπὸ Ἀδὰµ Ἑνὼχ λέγων· ἰδοὺ ἦλθεν κύριος ἐν ἁγίαις µυριάσιν αὐτοῦ ποιῆσαι κρίσιν κατὰ πάντων καὶ ἐλέγξαι πᾶσαν ψυχὴν περὶ πάντων τῶν ἔργων ἀσεβείας αὐτῶν ὧν ἠσέβησαν καὶ περὶ πάντων τῶν σκληρῶν ὧν ἐλάλησαν κατ᾿ αὐτοῦ ἁµαρτωλοὶ ἀσεβεῖς. Οὗτοί εἰσιν γογγυσταὶ µεµψίµοιροι κατὰ τὰς ἐπιθυµίας ἑαυτῶν πορευόµενοι, καὶ τὸ στόµα αὐτῶν λαλεῖ ὑπέρογκα, θαυµάζοντες πρόσωπα ὠφελείας χάριν. Now about these Enoch, the seventh from Adam, also prophesied saying, ‘Behold, the Lord comes with myriads of his holy ones, to execute judgment on all and to reprove every soul concerning all their works of ungodliness that they have committed in an ungodly way, and concerning all the harsh things that ungodly sinners said against him.’ These are grumblers, complainers, going according to their own desires, and their mouth speaks boastful things marveling faces for the sake of gain. (≈ “Do not be ungodly like these [false teachers] who grumble, complain, follow their own desires, and boast to impress others for gain.”)50

Rev 21:8

τοῖς δὲ δειλοῖς καὶ ἀπίστοις καὶ ἐβδελυγµένοις καὶ φονεῦσιν καὶ πόρνοις καὶ φαρµάκοις καὶ εἰδωλολάτραις καὶ πᾶσιν τοῖς ψευδέσιν τὸ µέρος αὐτῶν ἐν τῇ λίµνῃ τῇ καιοµένῃ πυρὶ καὶ θείῳ, ὅ ἐστιν ὁ θάνατος ὁ δεύτερος. But as for the cowardly, the unbelieving, the detestable, murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion is in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death. (≈ “Do not live in any of these sinful lifestyles.”)

——— 50

Immediately following Jude 14–16, a positive command is issued to recall (µνήσθητε, aor. pass. impv.) previously given warnings about the false teachers (vv. 17–19).

CHAPTER 12—WARNINGS & PROMISES AS PROHIBITIONS Rev 22:18

431

Μαρτυρῶ ἐγὼ παντὶ τῷ ἀκούοντι τοὺς λόγους τῆς προφητείας τοῦ βιβλίου τούτου· ἐάν τις ἐπιθῇ ἐπ᾿ αὐτά, ἐπιθήσει ὁ θεὸς ἐπ᾿ αὐτὸν τὰς πληγὰς τὰς γεγραµµένας ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τούτῳ, I testify to everyone hearing the prophetic words of this book: If anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues that have been written in this book. (≈ “Do not add to the prophetic words of this book.”)

Rev 22:19

καὶ ἐάν τις ἀφέλῃ ἀπὸ τῶν λόγων τοῦ βιβλίου τῆς προφητείας ταύτης, ἀφελεῖ ὁ θεὸς τὸ µέρος αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τοῦ ξύλου τῆς ζωῆς καὶ ἐκ τῆς πόλεως τῆς ἁγίας τῶν γεγραµµένων ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τούτῳ. And if anyone takes away from the words of this prophetic book, God will take away his portion from the tree of life and out of the holy city, which are written in this book. (≈ “Do not take away from the words of this prophetic book.”)

12.3 Prohibitory Promises It might be helpful at this juncture to contrast the nature of prohibitory promises over against that of exhortative promises, prohibitory warnings, and exhortative warnings. These contrasts are laid out in Table 12.3. While prohibitory warnings alert a person to the undesired consequences of bad behavior, exhortative warnings alert a person to the undesired consequences of avoiding good behavior. Conversely, while exhortative promises give assurance of some reward for good behavior, prohibitory promises give assurance of some reward for avoiding bad behavior. Exhortative promises need little explanation, but “Honor your father and mother” is an oft-repeated example (Exod 20:12; Eph 6:2; et al.). An example of an exhortative warning WARNINGS & PROMISES: EXHORTATIVE VS. PROHIBITORY Prohibitory Warnings: Exhortative Warnings: Exhortative Promises: Prohibitory Promises:

Do Bad Avoid Good Do Good Avoid Bad

" " " "

Punishment Punishment Reward Reward

Table 12.3

≈ ≈ ≈ ≈

Prohibition of Bad Positive Command Positive Command Prohibition of Bad

432


is found in John 8:24, “For if you do not believe [µὴ πιστεύσητε] that I am he, you will die in your sins.” This is certainly a warning, yet rather than prohibitory, it is exhortative and amounts to a positive command to believe. Thus, exhortative promises and exhortative warnings both function as positive commands to do good behavior. But with regard to warnings and promises, our task of collecting the NT prohibitions has led us to focus only on prohibitory warnings and prohibitory promises as these function as commands to void some behavior. In the previous section we list 172 NT prohibitory warnings; in this section we list a contrastingly much smaller number of only seven NT prohibitory promises.51 As with the prior section, the citations of this subcategory are offered with no phrases in bold typeface, but with equivalent prohibitory glosses. Matt 7:21

Οὐ πᾶς ὁ λέγων µοι· κύριε κύριε, εἰσελεύσεται εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν, ἀλλ᾿ ὁ ποιῶν τὸ θέληµα τοῦ πατρός µου τοῦ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς. Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven; but the one doing the will of my Father who is in heaven. (≈ “Do not merely claim Jesus as Lord, for the one entering the kingdom of heaven is also obedient.”)52

Matt 11:6

καὶ µακάριός ἐστιν ὃς ἐὰν µὴ σκανδαλισθῇ ἐν ἐµοί. And blessed is anyone who is not offended by me. (≈ “Do not be offended by me.)

Matt 21:21

ἀµὴν λέγω ὑµῖν, ἐὰν ἔχητε πίστιν καὶ µὴ διακριθῆτε, οὐ µόνον τὸ τῆς συκῆς ποιήσετε, ἀλλὰ κἂν τῷ ὄρει τούτῳ εἴπητε· ἄρθητι καὶ βλήθητι εἰς τὴν θάλασσαν, γενήσεται· Truly I say to you, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only will you do what was done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, ‘Be taken up and thrown into the sea,’ it will be done. (≈ “Have faith and do not doubt.”)

——— 51

Two additional prohibitory promises are constructed with negated ptcs. and accounted for in Chapter 7: Rom 14:22 (see in section 7.5.2) and Jas 1:25 (see in section 7.5.1). 52

The Synoptic parallel of Matt 7:21 in Luke 6:46 is structured as a prohibitory question; see in Chapter 11.

CHAPTER 12—WARNINGS & PROMISES AS PROHIBITIONS Mark 11:23

433

ἀµὴν λέγω ὑµῖν ὅτι ὃς ἂν εἴπῃ τῷ ὄρει τούτῳ· ἄρθητι καὶ βλήθητι εἰς τὴν θάλασσαν, καὶ µὴ διακριθῇ ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ αὐτοῦ ἀλλὰ πιστεύῃ ὅτι ὃ λαλεῖ γίνεται, ἔσται αὐτῷ. Truly I say to you, that anyone who says to this mountain, ‘Be taken up and thrown into the sea,’ and does not doubt in his heart but believes that what he says happens, it will be so for him (≈ “Believe and do not doubt.”)

Luke 7:23

καὶ µακάριός ἐστιν ὃς ἐὰν µὴ σκανδαλισθῇ ἐν ἐµοί. And blessed is anyone who is not offended by me. (≈ “Do not be offended by me.”)

Rom 11:23

κἀκεῖνοι δέ, ἐὰν µὴ ἐπιµένωσιν τῇ ἀπιστίᾳ, ἐγκεντρισθήσονται· δυνατὸς γάρ ἐστιν ὁ θεὸς πάλιν ἐγκεντρίσαι αὐτούς. And even they, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. (≈ “Do not continue in unbelief.”)

2 Cor 10:18

οὐ γὰρ ὁ ἑαυτὸν συνιστάνων, ἐκεῖνός ἐστιν δόκιµος, ἀλλὰ ὃν ὁ κύριος συνίστησιν. For [it is] not the one commending himself, but the one whom the Lord commends, that one is approved. (≈ “Do not be one who commends himself.”)

—CHAPTER 13— Other Negative Expressions as Prohibitions: “No, don’t!” This final chapter in organizing the prohibitions of the New Testament functions as something of a “left overs” chapter. Here we group together the NT expressions that command something not be done, but they do so in one of four ways: a) with dependence upon a previous prohibitory construction, b) by negating an adverbial phrase, c) by negating the complement in a copulative construction, or d) by offering some prohibitory exclamation. Table 13.0 displays the NT tallies for these kinds of prohibitions. OTHER NEGATIVE EXPRESSIONS AS PROHIBITIONS IN THE NT: “N O , DON ’ T!” Section #

13.1 13.2 13.3 13.4

Negatives Dependent upon Earlier Prohibitions: ........................ Miscellaneous Negated Adverbial Phrases: .................................. Miscellaneous Negated Complements: ........................................ Miscellaneous Prohibitory Exclamations: ..................................

TOTAL:

35 38 21 36

130

Table 13.0 13.1 Negatives Dependent upon Earlier Prohibitions On the one hand, it is questionable that the following items should be counted as separate prohibitions: these are simply occurrences of a negative particle that presumes the repetition of a previous verb. For example, Matt 6:25 forbids worrying about two things: food and clothing, but the negated verb is used only once with the concern about food, and the mention of concern about clothing is preceded only by the negation µηδέ. Here too belong the extensions of the Synoptic lists of things the disciples were not to bring on their short-term mission trips (Matt 10:9-10; Mark 6:8; Luke 9:3; 10:4). Some might want to count only the negated verb as the prohibition and

436


not bother with the other items, but we note that the author did bother to include another negation trusting that we would rightly presume the same preceding verb.1 So, since we are trying to list all the prohibitions (i.e., commands about things not to do), we offer this list of 35 prohibitory negations dependent upon earlier prohibitory constructions. The negations are listed here in bold typeface. Rather than offering prohibitory glosses, for the sake of clarity in our listing, we include here in curved brackets ({...}) the ruling prohibitions, which have already been counted separately in their appropriate classifications. Matt 5:34b

{µὴ ὀµόσαι ὅλως·...} µήτε ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὅτι θρόνος ἐστὶν τοῦ θεοῦ, {not to make an oath at all,...} neither by heaven, for it is the throne of God,

Matt 5:35a

{µὴ ὀµόσαι...} µήτε ἐν τῇ γῇ, ὅτι ὑποπόδιόν ἐστιν τῶν ποδῶν αὐτοῦ,… {not to make an oath...} nor by the earth for it is the footstool for his feet, ...

Matt 5:35b

{µὴ ὀµόσαι...} µήτε εἰς ῾Ιεροσόλυµα, ὅτι πόλις ἐστὶν τοῦ µεγάλου βασιλέως, {not to make an oath...} nor by Jerusalem for it is the city of the great king,

Matt 6:25b

{µὴ µεριµνᾶτε τῇ ψυχῇ ὑµῶν...} µηδὲ τῷ σώµατι ὑµῶν τί ἐνδύσησθε. {Do not worry about your life...} nor about your body what you will wear.

Matt 10:9b

{Μὴ κτήσησθε χρυσὸν...} µηδὲ ἄργυρον… {Do not acquire gold...} nor silver,…

Matt 10:9c

{Μὴ κτήσησθε χρυσὸν...] µηδὲ χαλκὸν εἰς τὰς ζώνας ὑµῶν, {Do not acquire gold...} nor copper for your belts,

——— 1

See Appendix C for a detailed description of our guidelines for counting prohibitions.

CHAPTER 13—OTHER NEGATIVE EXPRESSIONS AS PROHIBITIONS 437 Matt 10:10a

{Μὴ κτήσησθε χρυσὸν...} µὴ πήραν εἰς ὁδὸν... {Do not acquire gold...} no bag for the journey,…

Matt 10:10b

{Μὴ κτήσησθε χρυσὸν...} µηδὲ δύο χιτῶνας… {Do not acquire gold...} nor two tunics,…

Matt 10:10c

{Μὴ κτήσησθε...} µηδὲ ὑποδήµατα… {Do not acquire gold...} nor sandals,…

Matt 10:10d

{Μὴ κτήσησθε χρυσὸν...} µηδὲ ῥάβδον· {Do not acquire gold...} nor staff.

Matt 12:4b

{ὃ οὐκ ἐξὸν ἦν αὐτῷ φαγεῖν...} οὐδὲ τοῖς µετ᾿ αὐτοῦ εἰ µὴ τοῖς ἱερεῦσιν µόνοις; {which was not lawful for him to eat...} nor for those who were with him, except for the priests alone?

Matt 24:20b

{προσεύχεσθε δὲ ἵνα µὴ γένηται ἡ φυγὴ ὑµῶν χειµῶνος...} µηδὲ σαββάτῳ. {But pray that your flight may not be in winter...} nor on a Sabbath.

Mark 6:8b

{ἵνα µηδὲν αἴρωσιν εἰς ὁδὸν...} µὴ ἄρτον,... {that they would take nothing for the journey...} no bread,...

Mark 6:8c

{ἵνα µηδὲν αἴρωσιν εἰς ὁδὸν...} µὴ πήραν,... {that they would take nothing for the journey...} no bag, ...

Mark 6:8d

{ἵνα µηδὲν αἴρωσιν εἰς ὁδὸν...} µὴ εἰς τὴν ζώνην χαλκόν, {that they would take nothing for the journey...} no copper for their belts,

Luke 9:3b

{µηδὲν αἴρετε εἰς τὴν ὁδόν,...} µήτε ῥάβδον … {Take nothing for your journey,...} no staff …

438 Luke 9:3c

PROHIBITIONS IN THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT {µηδὲν αἴρετε εἰς τὴν ὁδόν,...} µήτε πήραν … {Take nothing for your journey,...} nor bag …

Luke 9:3d

{µηδὲν αἴρετε εἰς τὴν ὁδόν,...} µήτε ἄρτον … {Take nothing for your journey,...} nor bread …

Luke 9:3e

{µηδὲν αἴρετε εἰς τὴν ὁδόν,...} µήτε ἀργύριον {Take nothing for your journey,...} nor silver …

Luke 10:4b

{µὴ βαστάζετε βαλλάντιον,...} µὴ πήραν, … {Do not be carrying a purse,...} no bag, …

Luke 10:4c

{µὴ βαστάζετε βαλλάντιον,...} µὴ ὑποδήµατα, … {Do not be carrying a purse,...} no sandals …

Luke 11:33b

{Οὐδεὶς λύχνον ἅψας εἰς κρύπτην τίθησιν...} [οὐδὲ ὑπὸ τὸν µόδιον] ἀλλ᾿ ἐπὶ τὴν λυχνίαν, ἵνα οἱ εἰσπορευόµενοι τὸ φῶς βλέπωσιν. {No one after lighting a lamp places it in a cellar...} [nor under a basket], but on a lampstand, so that those who enter may see the light.2

Luke 12:22b

{µὴ µεριµνᾶτε τῇ ψυχῇ...} µηδὲ τῷ σώµατι τί ἐνδύσησθε. {Do not worry about life...} nor about the body what you will wear.

Luke 14:12b

{µὴ φώνει τοὺς φίλους σου...} µηδὲ τοὺς ἀδελφούς σου… {do not be inviting your friends...} nor your brothers… 3

——— 2 The prohibitory phrase in Luke 11:33b is enclosed in brackets as a suspect reading in NA27 and 28 and UBS4 (which gives it a “C” rating), but the brackets are removed in SBLGNT. Luke 11:33a and the Synoptic parallels in Matt 5:15 and Luke 8:16 are constructed as prohibitory emulation statements (see in section 10.3 of Chapter 10), but the parallel in Mark 4:21 is constructed as a prohibitory question (see in Chapter 11). 3 Luke 14:12a has the ruling prohibition (negated pres. act. impv. µὴ φώνει in the phrase “Do not invite your friends”; see in section 5.1.1 of Chapter 5) and the chain of “nor” (µηδὲ) audiences in vv. 12b–d are built on that verb. The rationale for these prohibitions given in vv. 12e–f are constructed as prohibitions in final clauses; see in section 8.2.2 of Chapter 8.

CHAPTER 13—OTHER NEGATIVE EXPRESSIONS AS PROHIBITIONS 439 Luke 14:12c

{µὴ φώνει τοὺς φίλους σου...} µηδὲ τοὺς συγγενεῖς σου… {do not be inviting your friends...} nor your relatives…

Luke 14:12d

{µὴ φώνει τοὺς φίλους σου...} µηδὲ γείτονας πλουσίους,… {do not be inviting your friends...} nor your rich neighbors…

Rom 14:21c

{καλὸν τὸ µὴ φαγεῖν κρέα µηδὲ πιεῖν οἶνον...} µηδὲ ἐν ᾧ ὁ ἀδελφός σου προσκόπτει. {It is good not to eat meat nor to drink wine...} and nothing by which your brother stumbles. (≈ “...and do nothing by which your brother stumbles.”)4

2 Tim 1:8b

{µὴ οὖν ἐπαισχυνθῇς τὸ µαρτύριον...} µηδὲ ἐµὲ τὸν δέσµιον αὐτοῦ,… {So, do not be ashamed about the testimony...} nor of me his prisoner, …

Jas 5:12b

{µὴ ὀµνύετε...} µήτε τὸν οὐρανὸν... {do not be swearing...} neither by heaven... (≈ “Do not swear by heaven.”)

Jas 5:12c

{µὴ ὀµνύετε...} µήτε τὴν γῆν... {do not be swearing...} nor by the earth... (≈ “Do not swear by the earth.”)

Jas 5:12d

{µὴ ὀµνύετε...} µήτε ἄλλον τινὰ ὅρκον· {do not be swearing...} nor by any other oath. (≈ “Do not swear by any other oath.”)

1 John 2:15b

{Μὴ ἀγαπᾶτε τὸν κόσµον...} µηδὲ τὰ ἐν τῷ κόσµῳ. {Do not be loving the world...} nor the things in the world.

——— 4 Because Rom 14:21 uses καλὸν, its three prohibitory items (21a, 21b, and 21c) might have been listed with prohibitory emulation statements in section 10.1 of Chapter 10. But we have counted 21a and 21b with negated subject infs. (in section 7.4.2 of Chapter 7) and placed 21c here as a negative expression, perhaps best understood as presuming a verb of doing.

440


1 John 3:18b

{Τεκνία, µὴ ἀγαπῶµεν λόγῳ...} µηδὲ τῇ γλώσσῃ ἀλλὰ ἐν ἔργῳ καὶ ἀληθείᾳ. {Little children, let us not love in word...} nor in tongue but in work and in truth.

Rev 7:3b

{µὴ ἀδικήσητε τὴν γῆν...} µήτε τὴν θάλασσαν... {Do not harm the earth...} nor the sea...

Rev 7:3c

{µὴ ἀδικήσητε τὴν γῆν...} µήτε τὰ δένδρα, {Do not harm the earth...} nor the trees,

13.2 Miscellaneous Negated Adverbial Phrases Sometimes an imperative idea is modified by a negated expression that behaves separately in a prohibitory manner much like a negated adverbial participle (see in section 7.5.1 of Chapter 7 above). Several adverbial constructions show up in other kinds of prohibitory situations, and those have been categorized in those sections (e.g., Rom. 2:29a and 29b have negated adverbial phrases used in prohibitory emulation contexts; see in section 10.3 of Chapter 10). The list of 38 miscellaneous negated adverbial phrases here includes negated adverbs, negated prepositional phrases, and even negated nouns (in the oblique cases) that behave adverbially. We put the negated adverbial phrase in bold typeface, underline the controlling verb (or verbal idea), and offer an equivalent prohibitory gloss to clarify our understanding of the prohibition in view. Matt 26:5a

{κρατήσωσιν καὶ ἀποκτείνωσιν·...} µὴ ἐν τῇ ἑορτῇ,… {they might arrest and kill....} Not during the festival,... (≈ “Do not arrest and kill Jesus during the festival.”)5

Mark 14:2a

{κρατήσαντες ἀποκτείνωσιν·...} µὴ ἐν τῇ ἑορτῇ,... {arresting they might kill....} Not during the festival,... (≈ “Do not arrest and kill Jesus during the festival.”)6

——— 5

The negated prepositional phrases of Matt 26:5a and Mark 14:2a obviously describe the plans of the Jewish leaders to arrest and kill Jesus as reported in Matt 26:3–4 and Mark 14:1 respectively. 6

On Mark 14:2a, see the previous footnote.

CHAPTER 13—OTHER NEGATIVE EXPRESSIONS AS PROHIBITIONS 441 Luke 13:14

ἓξ ἡµέραι εἰσὶν ἐν αἷς δεῖ ἐργάζεσθαι· ἐν αὐταῖς οὖν ἐρχόµενοι θεραπεύεσθε καὶ µὴ τῇ ἡµέρᾳ τοῦ σαββάτου. There are six days in which it is necessary to work; therefore coming on those days, be healed and not on the day of the Sabbath. (≈ “Do not be healed on the Sabbath.”)

John 13:9

{ἐὰν µὴ νίψω σε,....} κύριε, µὴ τοὺς πόδας µου µόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰς χεῖρας καὶ τὴν κεφαλήν. {If I do not wash you....} Lord, not my feet only but also my hands and my head! (≈ “Do not wash my feet only but also my hands and my head.”)7

John 18:40

{βούλεσθε οὖν ἀπολύσω ὑµῖν τὸν βασιλέα τῶν ᾽Ιουδαίων; ...} µὴ τοῦτον ἀλλὰ τὸν Βαραββᾶν. {So do you desire that I release to you the King of the Jews? ...} Not this man, but Barabbas! (≈ “Do not release Jesus to us, but Barabbas instead!”)8

Rom 13:13a

ὡς ἐν ἡµέρᾳ εὐσχηµόνως περιπατήσωµεν, µὴ κώµοις καὶ µέθαις,... Let us walk decently, as in the day, not in carousing and drunkenness,... (≈ “Do not live in carousing and drunkenness.”)

Rom 13:13b

{περιπατήσωµεν...} µὴ κοίταις καὶ ἀσελγείαις,... {Let us walk...} not in sexual promiscuity and sensuality,... (≈ “Do not live in sexual promiscuity and sensuality.”)

Rom 13:13c

{περιπατήσωµεν...} µὴ ἔριδι καὶ ζήλῳ, {Let us walk...} not in strife and jealousy. (≈ “Do not live in strife and jealousy.”)

——— 7

The verb for wash (νίπτω) occurs twice in John 12:8 and remains the verbal idea in v. 9.

8 The verb for release (ἀπολύω) occurs twice in John 18:39 and remains the verbal idea in v. 40. The Synoptic Gospels all report the crowd’s preference for the release of Barabbas, but without narrating this prohibitory request.

442 Rom 14:1

PROHIBITIONS IN THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT Τὸν δὲ ἀσθενοῦντα τῇ πίστει προσλαµβάνεσθε, µὴ εἰς διακρίσεις διαλογισµῶν. And be welcoming the man who is weak in the faith, not for disputes over opinions. (≈ “Do not be disputing opinions with those who are weak.”)

1 Cor 1:17a

οὐ γὰρ ἀπέστειλέν µε Χριστὸς εὐαγγελίζεσθαι, οὐκ ἐν σοφίᾳ λόγου,...

βαπτίζειν

ἀλλὰ

For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, not in the wisdom of word,... (≈ “Do not preach the gospel with dependence upon the wisdom of words.”) 1 Cor 5:8a

ὥστε ἑορτάζωµεν µὴ ἐν ζύµῃ παλαιᾷ.... Therefore, let us celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven,.... (≈ “Do not celebrate the festival with the old leaven.”)

1 Cor 5:8b

{ὥστε ἑορτάζωµεν...} µηδὲ ἐν ζύµῃ κακίας καὶ πονηρίας ἀλλ᾿ ἐν ἀζύµοις εἰλικρινείας καὶ ἀληθείας. {Therefore, let us celebrate the festival...} nor with the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. (≈ “Do not celebrate the festival with the malice and evil.”)

2 Cor 8:12

{νυνὶ δὲ καὶ τὸ ποιῆσαι ἐπιτελέσατε,....} εἰ γὰρ ἡ προθυµία πρόκειται, καθὸ ἐὰν ἔχῃ εὐπρόσδεκτος, οὐ καθὸ οὐκ ἔχει. {And now also complete the doing....} For if the willingness is present, it is acceptable according to whatever one may have, not according to what he does not have. (≈ “Do not make people give according to what they do not have.”)9

——— 9 Paul’s delicate treatment of the collection of funds in 2 Corinthians 8–9 is portrayed by the paucity of verbs of giving and the need to presume their presence. Nevertheless, for 2 Cor 8:12, the verb complete (ἐπιτελέω) occurs twice in 8:11 and remains the verbal idea in v. 12, with the fund collection described generically as “the doing” (τὸ ποιῆσαι).

CHAPTER 13—OTHER NEGATIVE EXPRESSIONS AS PROHIBITIONS 443 2 Cor 9:5

ἀναγκαῖον οὖν ἡγησάµην παρακαλέσαι τοὺς ἀδελφούς, ἵνα προέλθωσιν εἰς ὑµᾶς καὶ προκαταρτίσωσιν τὴν προεπηγγελµένην εὐλογίαν ὑµῶν, ταύτην ἑτοίµην εἶναι οὕτως ὡς εὐλογίαν καὶ µὴ ὡς πλεονεξίαν. Therefore I considered it necessary to urge the brothers that they go on ahead to you and prepare ahead of time your long promised blessing, in this way for it to be ready as a blessing and not as an extortion. (≈ “Do not prepare your promised gift as a covetous matter of begrudging.”)

2 Cor 9:7

ἕκαστος καθὼς προῄρηται τῇ καρδίᾳ, µὴ ἐκ λύπης ἢ ἐξ ἀνάγκης· ἱλαρὸν γὰρ δότην ἀγαπᾷ ὁ θεός. Each one [is to give] as he has decided in his heart, not out of grief or out of necessity, for God loves a cheerful giver. (≈ “Do not give out of grief or out of necessity.”)10

Gal 4:18

καλὸν δὲ ζηλοῦσθαι ἐν καλῷ πάντοτε καὶ µὴ µόνον ἐν τῷ παρεῖναί µε πρὸς ὑµᾶς. Now it is always good to be zealous for good, and not only when I am present with you. (≈ “Do not zealous for good only when I am with you. ”)

Gal 5:13

Ὑµεῖς γὰρ ἐπ᾿ ἐλευθερίᾳ ἐκλήθητε, ἀδελφοί· µόνον µὴ τὴν ἐλευθερίαν εἰς ἀφορµὴν τῇ σαρκί, ἀλλὰ διὰ τῆς ἀγάπης δουλεύετε ἀλλήλοις. For you were called to freedom, brothers; only not freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but serve one another through love. (≈ “Do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but serve one another through love.”)

——— 10 On 2 Cor 9:7, see the footnote above on 2 Cor 8:12 discussing Paul’s apparent reluctance to use verbs of giving while addressing the matter of taking up a collection for Christians in need. The noun δότης (“giver”) occurs in 2 Cor 9:7 and reinforces the presumption of a verb of giving.

444


Eph 5:15

Βλέπετε οὖν ἀκριβῶς πῶς περιπατεῖτε µὴ ὡς ἄσοφοι ἀλλ᾿ ὡς σοφοί, Therefore, watch carefully how you are walking, not as unwise, but as wise. (≈ “Do not be walking as unwise.”)11

Eph 6:6

µὴ κατ᾿ ὀφθαλµοδουλίαν ὡς ἀνθρωπάρεσκοι ἀλλ᾿ ὡς δοῦλοι Χριστοῦ ποιοῦντες τὸ θέληµα τοῦ θεοῦ ἐκ ψυχῆς, Not according to eye-service as people-pleasers, but as servants of Christ doing the will of God from the soul. (≈ “Do not work only to be seen, like people-pleasers.”)

Eph 6:7

µετ᾿ εὐνοίας δουλεύοντες ὡς τῷ κυρίῳ καὶ οὐκ ἀνθρώποις, serving with a good will as to the Lord and not to men, (≈ “Do not serve as if to men.”)

Phil 2:3a

{ἵνα ... φρονῆτε...} µηδὲν κατ᾿ ἐριθείαν... {that you think ...} nothing according to rivalry and... (≈ “Do not be thinking as if in rivalry.”)12

Phil 2:3b

{ἵνα ... φρονῆτε ...} µηδὲ κατὰ κενοδοξίαν ἀλλὰ τῇ ταπεινοφροσύνῃ ἀλλήλους ἡγούµενοι ὑπερέχοντας ἑαυτῶν, {that you think ...} nothing according to conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. (≈ “Do not be thinking according to conceit.”)13

——— 11

Eph 5:15 does not present an example of a prohibitory object of a vision verb, because here βλέπετε has a positive object: “how you are walking.” But the walking idea in this object clause is further described with a contrast that has a prohibitory leg. Thus, this prohibition is categorized here with negative expressions and not with the vision verb object clauses; cf. section 8.1.1 of Chapter 8. 12

The imperatival force of Phil 2:3a–b comes in Phil 2:2 from the aor. impv. verb in the phrase πληρώσατέ µου τὴν χαρὰν (“Complete my joy”), which is epexegetically modified by ἵνα τὸ αὐτὸ φρονῆτε (“that you think the same way”). The remaining phrases in Phil 2:2–4 are descriptive of that “thinking,” and 2:5 continues this focus with the pres. impv. φρονεῖτε. Thus, our rendering portrays a dependence upon the thinking verb, which would spill over into one’s behavior; most English translations presume more simply a generic doing verb (but cf. NLT: “Don’t be selfish; don’t try to impress others.”) 13

On Phil 2:3b, see the previous footnote.

CHAPTER 13—OTHER NEGATIVE EXPRESSIONS AS PROHIBITIONS 445 Phil 2:12

Ὥστε, ἀγαπητοί µου, καθὼς πάντοτε ὑπηκούσατε, µὴ ὡς ἐν τῇ παρουσίᾳ µου µόνον ἀλλὰ νῦν πολλῷ µᾶλλον ἐν τῇ ἀπουσίᾳ µου, µετὰ φόβου καὶ τρόµου τὴν ἑαυτῶν σωτηρίαν κατεργάζεσθε· So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not only in my presence but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. (≈ “Do not live as saved people only in my presence.”)

Phil 2:14

Πάντα ποιεῖτε χωρὶς γογγυσµῶν καὶ διαλογισµῶν, Do all things without grumblings and arguments, (≈ “Do not grumble and argue.”)

Col 3:2

τὰ ἄνω φρονεῖτε, µὴ τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. Be thinking about the things above, not the things on the earth. (≈ “Do not be thinking about earthly things.”)

Col 3:22

Οἱ δοῦλοι, ὑπακούετε κατὰ πάντα τοῖς κατὰ σάρκα κυρίοις, µὴ ἐν ὀφθαλµοδουλίᾳ ὡς ἀνθρωπάρεσκοι, ἀλλ᾿ ἐν ἁπλότητι καρδίας φοβούµενοι τὸν κύριον. Slaves, obey your masters according to the flesh in all things, not in eye-service as people-pleasers, but with a sincere heart fearing the Lord. (≈ “Do not obey your earthly masters only while they are watching.”)

Col 3:23

ὃ ἐὰν ποιῆτε, ἐκ ψυχῆς ἐργάζεσθε ὡς τῷ κυρίῳ καὶ οὐκ ἀνθρώποις, Whatever you are doing, work at it from the soul as for the Lord and not for men (≈ “Do not work as for men, but with all your heart as for the Lord.”)

446


1 Thess 4:4–5 εἰδέναι ἕκαστον ὑµῶν τὸ ἑαυτοῦ σκεῦος κτᾶσθαι ἐν ἁγιασµῷ καὶ τιµῇ, µὴ ἐν πάθει ἐπιθυµίας καθάπερ καὶ τὰ ἔθνη τὰ µὴ εἰδότα τὸν θεόν, for each of you to know how to control his own vessel in holiness and honor, not in lustful desires like the Gentiles who do not know God. (≈ “Do not let your bodies be controlled by lustful desires.”)14 1 Tim 2:8

Βούλοµαι οὖν προσεύχεσθαι τοὺς ἄνδρας ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ ἐπαίροντας ὁσίους χεῖρας χωρὶς ὀργῆς καὶ διαλογισµοῦ. Therefore, I want the men in every place to pray, lifting up holy hands without anger and argument. (≈ “Do not have anger and argument affecting your prayer.”)

1 Tim 2:9

Ωσαύτως [καὶ] γυναῖκας ἐν καταστολῇ κοσµίῳ µετὰ αἰδοῦς καὶ σωφροσύνης κοσµεῖν ἑαυτάς, µὴ ἐν πλέγµασιν καὶ χρυσίῳ ἢ µαργαρίταις ἢ ἱµατισµῷ πολυτελεῖ, Likewise [also], the women are to adorn themselves in modest clothing with decency and good sense, not with elaborate hairstyles and gold or pearls or expensive clothing, (≈ “Do not adorn yourselves in elaborate gaudiness.”)15

1 Tim 5:21a

Διαµαρτύροµαι ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ καὶ τῶν ἐκλεκτῶν ἀγγέλων, ἵνα ταῦτα φυλάξῃς χωρὶς προκρίµατος, Before God and Christ Jesus and the elect angels I solemnly charge you that you may keep these things without prejudice, (≈ “Do not be prejudiced when you keep these things.”)

——— 14

The prohibition in 1 Thess 4:4–5 is driven by the introductory statement in 4:3, “For this is God’s will...,” and thus has some affiliation with prohibitory emulation statements. The commands of 1 Tim 2:9 draw upon the verb βούλοµαι (“I want”) in 2:8, and thus the prohibition in 2:9 has some affiliation with prohibitory emulation statements. 15

CHAPTER 13—OTHER NEGATIVE EXPRESSIONS AS PROHIBITIONS 447 Phlm 15–16

Τάχα γὰρ διὰ τοῦτο ἐχωρίσθη πρὸς ὥραν, ἵνα αἰώνιον αὐτὸν ἀπέχῃς, οὐκέτι ὡς δοῦλον ἀλλ᾿ ὑπὲρ δοῦλον, ἀδελφὸν ἀγαπητόν, For perhaps because of this he was separated for a while, in order that you may receive him back forever, no longer as a slave but as more than a slave: a beloved brother, (≈ “Do not receive him back as a slave, but as a beloved brother.”)

Heb 13:9b

καλὸν γὰρ χάριτι βεβαιοῦσθαι τὴν καρδίαν, οὐ βρώµασιν ἐν οἷς οὐκ ὠφελήθησαν οἱ περιπατοῦντες. For it is good for the heart to be strengthened by grace, not by foods, by which those living by them have not been benefited. (≈ “Do not strengthen you heart by unbenefical foods.”)

1 Pet 2:16

{Ὑποσάγητε...} ὡς ἐλεύθεροι καὶ µὴ ὡς ἐπικάλυµµα ἔχοντες τῆς κακίας τὴν ἐλευθερίαν ἀλλ᾿ ὡς θεοῦ δοῦλοι. {Submit...} as free people, not as those having freedom as a cover-up for evil, but as slaves of God. (≈ “Submit as free people; do not use freedom as a cover-up for evil, but submit as slaves of God.”)16

1 Pet 2:18

Οἱ οἰκέται ὑποτασσόµενοι ἐν παντὶ φόβῳ τοῖς δεσπόταις, οὐ µόνον τοῖς ἀγαθοῖς καὶ ἐπιεικέσιν ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῖς σκολιοῖς. Household slaves, submitting with all fear to your masters, not only to the good and gentle but also to the crooked. (≈ “Do not submit only to the good and gentle masters.”)17

1 Pet 4:2

εἰς τὸ µηκέτι ἀνθρώπων ἐπιθυµίαις ἀλλὰ θελήµατι θεοῦ τὸν ἐπίλοιπον ἐν σαρκὶ βιῶσαι χρόνον. in order to live the remaining time in the flesh no longer for human desires but for God’s will. (≈ “Do not live for human desires.”)

——— The imperatival force of 1 Pet 2:16 and 18 stems from the impv. verb ὑποσάγητε (“submit”) in 2:13. Cf. the “will of God” statement in 2:15. 16

17

On 1 Pet 2:18, see the previous footnote.

448

PROHIBITIONS IN THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT {σωφρονήσατε οὖν καὶ νήψατε εἰς προσευχάς...} φιλόξενοι εἰς ἀλλήλους ἄνευ γογγυσµοῦ,

1 Pet 4:9

{be serious and be disciplined for prayers...} [Be] hospitable to one another without grumbling. (≈ “Do not grumble in your hospitality with one another.”)18 1 John 3:12

{ἵνα άγαπῶµεν ἀλλήλους...} οὐ καθὼς Κάϊν ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ ἦν καὶ ἔσφαξεν τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ· καὶ χάριν τίνος ἔσφαξεν αὐτόν; ὅτι τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ πονηρὰ ἦν τὰ δὲ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ αὐτοῦ δίκαια. {that we should love one another...} not like Cain who was of the evil one and slaughtered his brother. And why did he slaughter him? Because his works were evil, but those of his brother righteous. (≈ “Do not love like Cain, whose works were evil.”)19

13.3 Miscellaneous Negated Complements One of the subcategories of negated participle constructions in Chapter 7 above treats prohibitions using attributive participles, many of which serve as subjects or complements with verbs of being (see in section 7.5.2). Chapter 9 NT PROHIBITIONS INVOLVING (OR PRESUMING) VERBS OF BEING Negated Present Copulative Verbs (in sections 5.1 and 5.2): ....................... 12 (2nd pers.: Matt 6:16; John 20:27; Rom 12:16b; 1 Cor 7:23; 10:27; 14:20; 2 Cor 6:14; Eph 5:7, 17; Jas 3:1; 3rd pers.: Luke 22:42; Acts 1:20)

Negated Aorist Copulative Verbs (in section 6.1.2): ................................... 1 (3rd pers.: Matt 21:19)

Negated Future Copulative Verbs (in section 7.1): .................................... 2 (2nd pers.: Matt 6:5a; 3rd Person: Matt 20:26)

Negated Optative Copulative Verbs (in section 7.3): ................................ 15 (All µὴ γένοιτο: Luke 20:16; Rom 3:4, 6, 31; 6:2a; 15b; 7:7b, 13; 9:14b; 11:1, 11; 1 Cor 6:15b; Gal 2:17; 3:21; 6:14)

——— 18

The imperatival force in 1 Pet 4:9 comes from the impv. verbs in 4:7 (σωφρονήσατε and νήψατε), but the adj. φιλόξενοι (“hospitable”) seems to presume a verb of being as well. 19

The imperatival force in 1 John 3:12 comes from the positive purpose clause in 3:11.

CHAPTER 13—OTHER NEGATIVE EXPRESSIONS AS PROHIBITIONS 449

Negated Subject Infinitives (in section 7.4.2): ............................................. 4 (Acts 19:36; Rom 14:21a, 21b; 1 Cor 7:1)

Negated Purposive Infinitives (in section 7.4.4): ......................................... 1 (1 Cor 10:6)

Non-Complement Negated Participle Constructions (in section 7.5): ...... 3 (sec. 7.5.1: Jas 1:25; 1 Pet 3:6; sec. 7.5.2: 1 Tim 5:9)

Negated Object Clauses (in section 8.1): .................................................... 9 (Vision: Luke 11:35; 1 Cor 8:9; Col 2:8; Heb 3:12; 12:16; Speech: Matt 24:20a; Mark 13:18; 1 Cor 1:10; Fearing: 2 Cor 12:20c)

Negated Final Clauses (in section 8.2): ...................................................... 11 (ἵνα: Matt 26:5b; John 5:14b; Rom 11:25b; 2 Cor 1:9; Eph 4:14; Titus 3:14; Phlm 14; Heb 6:12; µήποτε: Mark 14:2b; Luke 14:12f; ὅπως: Acts 20:16)

Other Lexical Prohibitions Using Verbs of Being (in Chapter 9): ............. 6 (in sec. 9.2: Luke 1:20a; Phil 2:15a, 15b, 15c; 1 Tim 5:7; in sec. 9.3: Titus 3:2b)

Prohibitory Emulation Statments (in Chapter 10): ................................... 23 (in sec. 10.1: Matt 10:37a, 37b; 12:4a; 15:26; Mark 7:27; 10:43; Luke 22:26; Acts 25:16; 1 Cor 5:6; 2 Cor 12:4; Jas 3:10; in sec. 10.2: 1 Cor 10:20; in sec. 10.3: Acts 1:7; Rom 2:29a, 29b; 1 Cor 3:18b; 4:3; 6:7, 13; 11:16; Jas 4:16; 1 Pet 4:3; 1 John 2:16)

Prohibitory Questions (in Chapter 11): ..................................................... 20 (Matt 8:26a; 20:15; 26:8; Mark 4:40; 14:4; Luke 6:32, 33, 34; John 7:52a; Acts 11:17; Rom 3:5; 7:7a; 9:14a, 20a; 14:4; 1 Cor 3:3; 11:13, 14–15; Gal 3:3a; Jas 4:12)

Warnings & Promises as Prohibitions (in Chapter 12): ............................ 78 (in sec. 12.1: Matt 11:21–22; 18:7a; 23:27–28, 29–31; 24:19; Mark 13:17; Luke 10:13–14; 11:44, 47–48; 21:23; 1 Cor 9:16; Rev 8:13; in sec. 12.2: Matt 5:21b, 22a, 22b, 22c; 7:26–27; 11:23–24; 12:39–42; 23:18–19; 24:48–51; Mark 3:29; 9:42; Luke 6:49; 11:29–32; 12:20–21; 14:35; Acts 8:20; 27:10; Rom 1:18–19, 29–32; 2:1, 9, 25; 3:8b; 7:3; 8:6; 13:4; 14:23b; 1 Cor 6:16; 11:5, 20–21, 27; 13:1, 2; 14:35; Gal 3:10; 5:3, 19–21; 6:3; Eph 5:12; Phil 3:18–19; 1 Tim 6:10; 2 Tim 2:17–18; 4:3; Jas 1:26; 4:4b, 11c; 1 Pet 3:12; 2 Pet 2:1, 17, 20; 3:7; 1 John 1:8, 10; 2:4, 9, 11; 3:8, 15; 4:20; Jude 12–13, 14–16; Rev 21:8; in sec. 12.3: Matt 11:6; 21:21; Mark 11:23; 2 Cor 10:18)

Negatives Dependent upon Earlier Prohibitions (in section 13.1): ............ 2 (Matt 12:4b; 24:20b)

Miscellaneous Negated Adverbial Phrases (in section 13.2): ...................... 2 (2 Cor 9:5; 1 Pet 4:9)

Miscellaneous Prohibitory Exclamations (in section 13.4): ........................ 4 (Matt 16:22b; Luke 10:41–42; John 19:12; Jas 4:13–14)

Direct Complementary Constructions (see in Table 13.3.2 below): ............. 53 (using εἰµί = 36 ; γίνοµαι = 5; presumed = 12)

TOTAL (using εἰµί = 149; γίνοµαι = 57; presumed = 40):

Table 13.3.1

246

450


includes other prohibitory complement statements constructed with lexically negated terms (see in section 9.2). Naturally, still other NT prohibitions have analogous use of negated complements. These include negated nouns and adjectives with verbs of being, whether explicit or implied. So, in this section we bring together 21 miscellaneous prohibitory negated complement constructions not already covered in other categories. For completeness, Table 13.3.1 (above) portrays all the NT prohibitions involving verbs of being (εἰµί, or γίνοµαι, or presuming one) in their various construction categories. More narrowly, Table 13.3.2 (below) lists and tallies the NT prohibitions using various direct complementary constructions. NT PROHIBITIONS USING DIRECT COMPLEMENTARY CONSTRUCTIONS Negated Participles in Complement Constructions (in section 7.5.2): ..... 14 (Luke 1:20b; Acts 13:11; Rom 14:22; 1 Cor 7:29, 30a, 30b, 30c, 31; 1 Tim 3:8b; Titus 2:3b, 9, 10; 1 Pet 1:14; 3:9)

Lexical Prohibitions as Complementary Adjectives (in section 9.2): ........ 18 (Matt 10:16; Acts 10:28a; Rom 12:9a; 16:19; 1 Cor 7:32; 10:32; 15:58; Eph 1:4; 1 Tim 3:2, 3c, 3d, 10; Titus 1:6a, 7a; Heb 13:4a, 5; Jas 3:17a, 17b)

Miscellaneous Negated Complements (in section 13.3): ........................... 21 (Matt 26:39; 27:19; Mark 14:36; Rom 8:12; 12:11; 1 Tim 3:3a, 3b, 6a, 8a, 8c, 11; 4:4; Titus 1:6b, 7b, 7c, 7d, 7e, 7f; 2:3a; Jas 1:22; 1 Pet 3:3)

TOTAL (using εἰµί = 36 ; γίνοµαι = 5; presumed = 12):

53

Table 13.3.2 Matt 26:39

πάτερ µου, εἰ δυνατόν ἐστιν, παρελθάτω ἀπ᾿ ἐµοῦ τὸ ποτήριον τοῦτο· πλὴν οὐχ ὡς ἐγὼ θέλω ἀλλ᾿ ὡς σύ. My Father! If it is possible, let this cup pass from me; but [let it be] not as I will, but as you do. (≈ “But let it not happen as I want but as you do.”)20

Matt 27:19

µηδὲν σοὶ καὶ τῷ δικαίῳ ἐκείνῳ· πολλὰ γὰρ ἔπαθον σήµερον κατ᾿ ὄναρ δι᾿ αὐτόν. [There is] nothing to you and to that righteous person, for I have suffered much today because of him in a dream.

——— 20

The Synoptic parallels of Matt 26:39 and Mark 14:36 each presume an impv. verb of being which Luke 22:42 makes explicit with γινέσθω; see in section 5.1.2 of Chapter 5.

CHAPTER 13—OTHER NEGATIVE EXPRESSIONS AS PROHIBITIONS 451 (≈ “Do not have any dealings with that righteous person.”)21 Mark 14:36

αββα ὁ πατήρ, πάντα δυνατά σοι· παρένεγκε τὸ ποτήριον τοῦτο ἀπ᾿ ἐµοῦ· ἀλλ᾿ οὐ τί ἐγὼ θέλω ἀλλὰ τί σύ. Abba, Father, all things are possible for you. Remove this cup from me; but [let it be] not what I will, but what you do. (≈ “But let not happen what I want, but what you want.”)22

Rom 8:12

Ἄρα οὖν, ἀδελφοί, ὀφειλέται ἐσµὲν οὐ τῇ σαρκὶ τοῦ κατὰ σάρκα ζῆν, So then, brothers, we are not debtors to the flesh to live according to the flesh. (≈ “Do not live according to the flesh.”)

Rom 12:11

τῇ σπουδῇ µὴ ὀκνηροί, τῷ πνεύµατι ζέοντες, τῷ κυρίῳ δουλεύοντες, not lagging in diligence, being fervent in spirit, serving the Lord, (≈ “Do not be lagging in diligence.”)23

1 Tim 3:3a

{δεῖ...τὸν ἐπίσκοπον...εἶναι...} µὴ πάροινον... {it is necessary for an overseer to be...} not a drunkard,... (≈ “Do not have a drunkard serve as an overseer.”)24

——— The verbless clause in Matt 27:19 with the neu. sing. nom. µηδὲν presumes a verb a being, and the datives (σοὶ καὶ τῷ δικαίῳ ἐκείνῳ) are understood as datives of interest. But in the context, Pilate’s wife is clearly requesting something of her husband and not merely observing that the two men have little in common. 21

22


23

Although surrounded by ptc. constructions, the prohibition in Rom 12:11 is the negated masc. pl. nom. adj. ὀκνηροί drawing upon the same presumed verb of being in 12:9 (“[Let] love [be] without hypocricy”; see in section 9.2 of Chapter 9). See the discussion on the imperatival ptc. in section 7.5.3 of Chapter 7. 24 The commanded overseer attributes in 1 Tim 3:2–6 (including the prohibitory ones here in vv. 3a, 3b, and 6a) are listed as complements with δεῖ...εἶναι in 3:2. Included in the list are lexically prohibitory attributes in vv. 2, 3c, and 3d; see in section 9.2 of Chapter 9.

452


1 Tim 3:3b

{δεῖ...τὸν ἐπίσκοπον...εἶναι...} µὴ πλήκτην, {it is necessary for an overseer to be...} not violent, (≈ “Do not have a violent man serve as an overseer.”)25

1 Tim 3:6a

{δεῖ...τὸν ἐπίσκοπον...εἶναι...} µὴ νεόφυτον, τυφωθεὶς εἰς κρίµα ἐµπέσῃ τοῦ διαβόλου.

ἵνα

µὴ

{it is necessary for an overseer to be...} not newly converted (≈ “Do not have a new convert serve as an overseer.”)26 1 Tim 3:8a

{δεῖ...εἶναι...} Διακόνους ὡσαύτως σεµνούς, µὴ διλόγους,... Deacons likewise {must be...} reverent, not doublespeaking,... (≈ “Do not have a double-speaker serve as a deacon.”)27

1 Tim 3:8c

{δεῖ...εἶναι...Διακόνους...} µὴ αἰσχροκερδεῖς, {Deacons likewise must be...} not greedy, (≈ “Do not have a greedy person serve as a deacon.”)28

1 Tim 3:11

{δεῖ...εἶναι...} Γυναῖκας ὡσαύτως σεµνάς, µὴ διαβόλους, Wives likewise {must be...} reverent, not slanderous, (≈ “Do not have deacons with slanderous wives.”)29

1 Tim 4:4

ὅτι πᾶν κτίσµα θεοῦ καλὸν καὶ οὐδὲν ἀπόβλητον µετὰ εὐχαριστίας λαµβανόµενον· Because every creation of God is good, and nothing received with thanksgiving [is to be] rejected. (≈ “Do not reject any of God’s good creation, but receive it with thanksgiving.”)

——— 25


26

On 1 Tim 3:6a, see the footnote for 1 Tim 3:3a above.

The commanded deacon attributes in 1 Tim 3:8–9 and 11 borrow the verbal idea of δεῖ...εἶναι in 3:2. Cf. 1 Tim 3:8b in section 7.5.2 of Chapter 7, as it is constructed with a negated attributive ptc. 27

28

On 1 Tim 3:8c, see the previous footnote.

29

On 1 Tim 3:11, see the footnote for 1 Tim 3:8a above.

CHAPTER 13—OTHER NEGATIVE EXPRESSIONS AS PROHIBITIONS 453 Titus 1:6b

{πρεσβυτέρους...εἴ τίς ἐστιν...} µὴ ἐν κατηγορίᾳ ἀσωτίας ἢ ἀνυπότακτα. {elders...if anyone is...} not under incrimination of debauchery or unruliness. (≈ “Do not have an elder who is under incrimination for debauchery or unruliness.”)30

Titus 1:7b

{δεῖ γὰρ τὸν ἐπίσκοπον...εἶναι...} µὴ αὐθάδη,... {For it is necessary for an overseer to be...} not selfwilled,... (≈ “Do not have an overseer who is self-willed.”)31

Titus 1:7c

{δεῖ γὰρ τὸν ἐπίσκοπον...εἶναι...} µὴ ὀργίλον,... {For it is necessary for an overseer to be...} not quicktempered,... (≈ “Do not have an overseer who is quick-tempered.”)32

Titus 1:7d

{δεῖ γὰρ τὸν ἐπίσκοπον...εἶναι...} µὴ πάροινον,... {For it is necessary for an overseer to be...} not a drunkard,... (≈ “Do not have an overseer who is a drunkard.”)33

Titus 1:7e

{δεῖ γὰρ τὸν ἐπίσκοπον...εἶναι...} µὴ πλήκτην,... {For it is necessary for an overseer to be...} not violent,... (≈ “Do not have an overseer who is violent.”)34

Titus 1:7f

{δεῖ γὰρ τὸν ἐπίσκοπον...εἶναι...} µὴ αἰσχροκερδῆ, {For it is necessary for an overseer to be...} not greedy, (≈ “Do not have an overseer who is greedy.”)35

——— 30 The commanded elder attributes in Titus 1:6 are listed as complements with ἐστιν in v. 6a, which contains a lexical prohibition; see in section 9.2 of Chapter 9. 31 The commanded overseer attributes in Titus 1:7–9 (including the prohibitions of vv. 7b–f here) are listed as complements with δεῖ...εἶναι in v. 7a; see in section 9.2 of Chapter 9. 32

On Titus 1:7c, see the footnote for Titus 1:7b above.

33

On Titus 1:7d, see the footnote for Titus 1:7b above.

34

On Titus 1:7e, see the footnote for Titus 1:7b above.

454


Titus 2:3a

{εἶναι...} πρεσβύτιδας ὡσαύτως ἐν καταστήµατι ἱεροπρεπεῖς, µὴ διαβόλους µὴ οἴνῳ πολλῷ δεδουλωµένας, καλοδιδασκάλους, Older women likewise {are to be...} reverent in behavior, not slanderous, not enslaved to much wine, teachers of good, (≈ “Older women, do not be slanderous.”)36

Jas 1:22

Γίνεσθε δὲ ποιηταὶ λόγου καὶ µὴ µόνον ἀκροαταὶ παραλογιζόµενοι ἑαυτούς. But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves. (≈ “Do not be hearers of the word only.”)

1 Pet 3:3

ὧν ἔστω οὐχ ὁ ἔξωθεν ἐµπλοκῆς τριχῶν καὶ περιθέσεως χρυσίων ἢ ἐνδύσεως ἱµατίων κόσµος whose adornment must be not the external things of braiding hair and putting on gold jewelry or wearing clothes. (≈ “Do not let your adornment be focused on external things.”)37

13.4 Miscellaneous Prohibitory Exclamations This final section of negative expressions can be somewhat nebulous. Naturally, not all negative exclamations are prohibitions. For example, some negative exclamations are nothing more than negative responses to simple binary inquiries (i.e., questions with “yes” or “no” answers; e.g., οὐκ and οὐ in John 1:21 and οὐχί in John 9:8–9) or negative responses to requests or commands (e.g., µηδαµῶς in Acts 10:14 and 11:8). On the other hand, negative replies to deliberative questions—that is, questions about what to do—amount to prohibitions (e.g., οὔ in Matt 13:28– 35

On Titus 1:7f, see the footnote for Titus 1:7b above.

36 For Titus 2:2–10, the controlling verb is the inf. εἶναι (“to be,” in v. 2, serving as an indirect discourse inf. for λάλει in Titus 2:1), which is why πρεσβῦτις and its modifiers are here in the acc. case. For the other complementary prohibitions in this list (i.e., Titus 2:3b, 8, 9, 10), see section 7.5.2 of Chapter 7, as each of those is constructed with a negated ptc. 37

While ἔξωθεν is an adverb, it used as a substantive in 1 Pet 3:3 with the article ὁ.

CHAPTER 13—OTHER NEGATIVE EXPRESSIONS AS PROHIBITIONS 455 29a). A clear example occurs in Luke 1:60. When friends and relatives suggest that Elisabeth and Zechariah name their newborn son after the father, Elisabeth says, “No! He is to be called John.” Clearly the one-word verbless negative exclamation, “No!” (οὐχί) is understood as a negative command (≈ “Do not call him Zechariah”), especially when it is followed by a positive announcement of a completely different name. Many of the prohibitions included in this section might be identified with the label “objections.” These are instances when, in a dialog, the remark of one party receives a negative reply that entails a prohibitory instruction. A clear example occurs in Luke 16:30, where the tormented rich man says, “No” (οὐχί) to Abraham’s suggestion. But even without using the word “no,” objections can communicate prohibitory intentions. For example, in response to a satanic temptation, Jesus cites Deut 6:13 to declare, “You will worship the Lord your God and you will serve him alone” (Matt 4:10 and Luke 4:8). The use of the term µόνος (“alone”)—which is an insertion by Jesus into the citation and is not found in either the LXX or MT of Deut 6:13—clearly implies a prohibition against worshipping or serving any other god, and here it is especially clear because this is Jesus’ negative response to the invitation to worship Satan. A different kind of example occurs when Jesus instructs Simon Peter to let the nets down to catch some fish, and Peter responds with a somewhat respectful objection, “Master, after toiling all night we caught nothing. But at your word I will let down the nets” (Luke 5:5). Even without any negative particle or otherwise lexically negated term, it is possible to understand Peter’s remark as having a prohibitory intention something like, “Do not get your hopes up for catching anything.” What to include in this section gets more uncertain when considering other negative exclamations constructed without negative particles. For example, “It is enough” (ἀπέχει) in the context of Mark 14:41b clearly seems to serve as a prohibition (≈ “Do not be sleeping and resting anymore”). But is it to be categorized as a lexical prohibition (in Chapter 9) or here as a prohibitory exclamation? Because the lexical category focuses on terms that contain some built-in negation (e.g., semantically, α-privative, etc.), and in this example, ἀπέχω in the active voice does not contain a negative idea in itself (“receive in full, be distant”), we have categorized the Mark 14:41b statement here in this prohibitory exclamation section.38 Also included here ——— In the mid. voice ἀπέχω does have a negative semantic intent and means “avoid” (i.e., “keep oneself distant”). Thus, the six NT mid. voice uses of it are categorized with lexical prohibitions in Chapter 9—in section 9.1.1 (pres. impv.): 1 Thess 5:22; in section 9.2 (appositional inf.): Acts 15:29a; 1 Thess 4:3; in section 9.3 (indirect discourse inf.): Acts 15:20; 1 Tim 4:3b; 1 Pet 2:11. See also the footnote for Mark 14:41b below. 38

456


are a few statements of surprise or exasperation that have prohibitory implications (even if not structurally negated) and a few NT uses of irony where the speaker/writer sarcastically commends (or even commands) an action when he clearly means that one should not do that thing. Table 13.4 surveys the various groupings of this section. Altogether we have collected 36 prohibitory exclamations from the New Testament. We list them here with the most relevant prohibitory phrase in bold typeface, and offer an equivalent prohibitory gloss to make clear our understanding of the exclamation. MISCELLANEOUS PROHIBITORY EXCLAMATIONS IN THE NT Negative Replies to Deliberative Questions: .................................... 3 (Matt 13:28–29a; Luke 1:60; 1 Cor 11:22c)

Negative Replies to Prohibitory Questions: ..................................... 5 (Luke 12:51b; 13:3, 5; Acts 16:37b; Rom 3:9b; )

Prohibitory Statements of Objection: ........................................... 17 (Matt 4:10; 16:22b, 23; 21:13; Mark 8:33b; 11:17; Luke 4:8; 5:5; 10:41–42; 16:30; 19:25, 46; John 7:52b; 11:12, 39; 19:12; and Acts 11:3)

Prohibitory Statements of Surprise or Exasperation: ....................... 6 (1 Cor 6:5; 11:22a; 15:34b; Gal 6:1; Jas 4:13–14; 5:1)

Ironically Prohibitory Statements: .................................................... 3 (Matt 23:32; Mark 7:8–9; and 2 Cor 11:4)

Other Prohibitory Exclamations: ..................................................... 2 (Mark 14:41b; 1 Cor 4:6a)

TOTAL:

36

Table 13.4 Matt 4:10

κύριον τὸν θεόν σου προσκυνήσεις καὶ αὐτῷ µόνῳ λατρεύσεις. You shall worship the Lord your God and you shall serve him alone. (≈ “Do not worship and serve anyone other than the Lord your God.”)39

——— 39

In Matt 4:10 and Luke 4:8, as a response to the temptation to worship Satan, Jesus modifies Deut 6:13 LXX by replacing φοβηθήσῃ (“you shall fear”) with προσκυνήσεις (“you shall worship”) and by adding µόνῳ (“alone”), which is also not represented in the MT. This latter change, along with the discourse placement of this statement as an objection to Satan’s tempting Jesus to worship him, render it equivalent to a prohibition rather than simply a positive command.

CHAPTER 13—OTHER NEGATIVE EXPRESSIONS AS PROHIBITIONS 457 Matt 13:28–29a οἱ δὲ δοῦλοι λέγουσιν αὐτῷ· θέλεις οὖν ἀπελθόντες συλλέξωµεν αὐτά; ὁ δέ φησιν· οὔ,... And the slaves were saying to him, ‘So do you want us going and gathering them?’ And he says, ‘No,....’ (≈ “No, do not gather the weeds.”) Matt 16:22b

ἵλεώς σοι, κύριε· οὐ µὴ ἔσται σοι τοῦτο. Mercy [be] to you, Lord! This will never happen to you! (≈ “Do not say such a thing!”)40

Matt 16:23

ὕπαγε ὀπίσω µου, σατανᾶ· σκάνδαλον εἶ ἐµοῦ, ὅτι οὐ φρονεῖς τὰ τοῦ θεοῦ ἀλλὰ τὰ τῶν ἀνθρώπων. Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me because you are not thinking about the things of God, but the things of men. (≈ “Do not tempt me to sin against the plans of God.”)

Matt 21:13

γέγραπται· ὁ οἶκός µου οἶκος προσευχῆς κληθήσεται, ὑµεῖς δὲ αὐτὸν ποιεῖτε σπήλαιον λῃστῶν. It is written, ‘My house will be called a house of prayer,’ but you are making it ‘a den of thieves’! (≈ “Do not make my house of prayer a den of thieves.”)41

Matt 23:32

καὶ ὑµεῖς πληρώσατε τὸ µέτρον τῶν πατέρων ὑµῶν. Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers! (≈ “Do not keep sinning in the same ways your fathers did!”)42

——— 40 Louw and Nida refer to Peter’s exclamation in Matt 16:22b as a “highly elliptical expression equivalent in meaning to the statement ‘may God be merciful to you in sparing you from having to undergo some experience’ – ‘God forbid it, may it not happen’”; LN 1:751 (§88.78). 41

The prohibitory intention of citing Isa 56:7 (and Jer 7:11) in Matt 21:13 (following the LXX); Mark 11:17 (following the LXX a bit longer); and Luke 19:46 (replacing κληθήσεται with ἔσται) is clarified by Jesus’ act of clearing the temple in this context. Note that the temple cleansing account in John’s Gospel has no explicit OT citation; but it does have a more explicit prohibition rendered with a negated pres. impv.; see in section 5.1.1 of Chapter 5. 42

The ironic Matt 23:32 occurs at the end the prohibitory woe of Matt 23:29–31 (see in section 12.1 of Chapter 12) and so has a warning flavor to it.

458


Mark 7:8–9

ἀφέντες τὴν ἐντολὴν τοῦ θεοῦ κρατεῖτε τὴν παράδοσιν τῶν ἀνθρώπων....καλῶς ἀθετεῖτε τὴν ἐντολὴν τοῦ θεοῦ, ἵνα τὴν παράδοσιν ὑµῶν στήσητε. Having left the command of God, you hold onto the tradition of men. ... You reject well the command of God in order that you may set up your tradition! (≈ “Do not reject the command of God in order to set up your tradition.”)43

Mark 8:33b

ὕπαγε ὀπίσω µου, σατανᾶ, ὅτι οὐ φρονεῖς τὰ τοῦ θεοῦ ἀλλὰ τὰ τῶν ἀνθρώπων. Get behind me, Satan, because you are not thinking about the things of God, but the things of men. (≈ “Do not distract me against the plans of God.”)

Mark 11:17

οὐ γέγραπται ὅτι ὁ οἶκός µου οἶκος προσευχῆς κληθήσεται πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν; ὑµεῖς δὲ πεποιήκατε αὐτὸν σπήλαιον λῃστῶν. Is it not written, ‘My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations’? But you have made it ‘a den of thieves’! (≈ “Do not make my house of prayer a den of thieves.”)44

Mark 14:41b καθεύδετε τὸ λοιπὸν καὶ ἀναπαύεσθε· ἀπέχει· ἦλθεν ἡ ὥρα, Are you to continue sleeping and resting? It is enough. The hour has come. (≈ “Do not be sleeping and resting anymore.”)45 ——— 43 In Mark 7:8–9 Jesus ironically commends an activity that he obviously disapproves. The Synoptic parallel in Matt 15:3 uses a prohibitory question; see in Chapter 11. 44


Louw and Nida note of ἀπέχω in Mark 14:41b, “In a number of languages the equivalent of ‘enough!’ would be ‘that is the end’ or ‘you must stop sleeping now’”; LN 1:599 (§59.47). Definitions for ἀπέχω range widely: “to receive in full”; “to be distant”; mid: “to abstain” (BAGD 84–85); and also “to suffice” and “to hinder” (added in BDAG 102–103). Consequently, there is much debate on the intended referent here of this single-word sentence—sleep, (time for) prayer, or even Judas; see TDNT 2:828; BDF 72 (§129); EDNT 1:120; and the critical commentaries. We understand it as the clarification of the prohibitory question in Mark 14:41a; see in Chapter 11. The Synoptic parallel in Matt 26:45 does not contain the ἀπέχω remark. 45

CHAPTER 13—OTHER NEGATIVE EXPRESSIONS AS PROHIBITIONS 459 Luke 1:60

οὐχί, ἀλλὰ κληθήσεται Ἰωάννης. No, but he will be called John. (≈ “Do not call him Zechariah; call him John.”)

Luke 4:8

κύριον τὸν θεόν σου προσκυνήσεις καὶ αὐτῷ µόνῳ λατρεύσεις. You shall worship the Lord your God and you shall serve him alone. (≈ “Do not worship and serve anyone other than the Lord your God.”)46

Luke 5:5

ἐπιστάτα, δι᾿ ὅλης νυκτὸς κοπιάσαντες οὐδὲν ἐλάβοµεν· ἐπὶ δὲ τῷ ῥήµατί σου χαλάσω τὰ δίκτυα. Master, after toiling all night we caught nothing. But at your word I will let down the nets. (≈ “Do not get your hopes up for catching anything.”)

Luke 10:41–42

Μάρθα Μάρθα, µεριµνᾷς καὶ θορυβάζῃ περὶ πολλά, ἑνὸς δέ ἐστιν χρεία· Μαριὰµ γὰρ τὴν ἀγαθὴν µερίδα ἐξελέξατο ἥτις οὐκ ἀφαιρεθήσεται αὐτῆς. Martha, Martha, you are worried and troubled about many things, but one thing is needed; now Mary has selected the good portion, which will not be taken away from her. (≈ “Do not choose to be worried and troubled about many things, neglecting to choose the one good thing.”)

Luke 12:51b

δοκεῖτε ὅτι εἰρήνην παρεγενόµην δοῦναι ἐν τῇ γῇ; οὐχί, λέγω ὑµῖν, ἀλλ᾿ ἢ διαµερισµόν. Do you think that I have come to give peace on the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division. (≈ “Do not think that I have come to give peace on the earth.”)47

——— 46 47


To his own prohibitory question in Luke 12:51a (see in Chapter 11), Jesus provides a one word response in 12:51b. His “No” is not really an answer to the question, which for some listeners might have been, “Yes, that is what I think.” Rather, in this context, “No” (οὐχί) is a prohibition of the idea under discussion. The Synoptic parallel in Matt 10:34 is constructed with the negated aor. subj. µὴ νοµίσητε (“Do not think...”); see in section 6.1.1 of Chapter 6.

460


Luke 13:3

οὐχί, λέγω ὑµῖν, ἀλλ᾿ ἐὰν µὴ µετανοῆτε πάντες ὁµοίως ἀπολεῖσθε. No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you all will likewise perish. (≈ “Do not think that the Galileans killed by Pilate were worse sinners.”)48

Luke 13:5

οὐχί, λέγω ὑµῖν, ἀλλ᾿ ἐὰν µὴ µετανοῆτε πάντες ὡσαύτως ἀπολεῖσθε. No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you all will similarly perish. (≈ “Do not think that those on whom the tower fell in Siloam were worse offenders.”)49

Luke 16:30

οὐχί, πάτερ Ἀβραάµ, ἀλλ᾿ ἐάν τις ἀπὸ νεκρῶν πορευθῇ πρὸς αὐτοὺς µετανοήσουσιν. No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent. (≈ “Do not wait for my brothers to hear Moses and the prophets.”)

Luke 19:25

κύριε, ἔχει δέκα µνᾶς. Sir, he has ten minas! (≈ “Do not give that servant an extra mina.”)50

Luke 19:46

γέγραπται· καὶ ἔσται ὁ οἶκός µου οἶκος προσευχῆς, ὑµεῖς δὲ αὐτὸν ἐποιήσατε σπήλαιον λῃστῶν. It is written, ‘And my house will be a house of prayer,’ but you have made it ‘a den of thieves’! (≈ “Do not make my house of prayer a den of thieves.”)51

——— 48

In case the prohibitory questions in Luke 13:2 and 4 are not clear enough for some listeners (see in Chapter 11), Jesus provides a one word response in 13:3 and 5. See the footnote for Luke 12:51b immediately above. 49

On Luke 13:5, see the previous footnote.

50

The context of the parable in Luke 19:11–27 makes it clear that the exclamation in v. 25 is prohibitory. This objection is absent from the version of the parable in Matt 25:14–30. 51


CHAPTER 13—OTHER NEGATIVE EXPRESSIONS AS PROHIBITIONS 461 John 7:52b

ἐραύνησον καὶ ἴδε ὅτι ἐκ τῆς Γαλιλαίας προφήτης οὐκ ἐγείρεται. Investigate and see that no prophet arises out of Galilee. (≈ “Do not defend the Galilean.”)

John 11:12

κύριε, εἰ κεκοίµηται σωθήσεται. Lord, if he has fallen asleep, he will get well. (≈ “Do not wake him up.”)

John 11:39

κύριε, ἤδη ὄζει, τεταρταῖος γάρ ἐστιν. Lord, he is already stinking, for it is the fourth day. (≈ “Do not open the tomb.”)

John 19:12

ἐὰν τοῦτον ἀπολύσῃς, οὐκ εἶ φίλος τοῦ Καίσαρος· πᾶς ὁ βασιλέα ἑαυτὸν ποιῶν ἀντιλέγει τῷ Καίσαρι. If you release this man, you are not a friend of Caesar. Anyone making himself a king opposes Caesar! (≈ “Do not release this man.”)

Acts 11:3

εἰσῆλθες πρὸς ἄνδρας συνέφαγες αὐτοῖς.

ἀκροβυστίαν

ἔχοντας

καὶ

You visited uncircumcised men and ate with them. (≈ “You must not do this thing you have done: visiting uncircumcised men and eating with them.”) Acts 16:37b

δείραντες ἡµᾶς δηµοσίᾳ ἀκατακρίτους, ἀνθρώπους Ῥωµαίους ὑπάρχοντας, ἔβαλαν εἰς φυλακήν, καὶ νῦν λάθρᾳ ἡµᾶς ἐκβάλλουσιν; οὐ γάρ, ἀλλὰ ἐλθόντες αὐτοὶ ἡµᾶς ἐξαγαγέτωσαν. Having beaten us publicly, uncondemned, men who are Roman citizens, they threw us into prison; and now they are throwing us out secretly? No indeed! Coming, let them take us out themselves. (≈ “Do not attempt to throw us out secretly.”)52

——— 52 In case the prohibitory question in Acts 16:37a was not clear enough for some listeners (see in Chapter 11), Luke narrates Paul’s provision of an exclamatory response in v. 37b, “No indeed!” (οὐ γάρ). See the footnote for Luke 12:51b above.

462


Rom 3:9b

οὐ πάντως· Not at all! (≈ “Do not conclude that we are better.”)53

1 Cor 4:6a

Ταῦτα δέ, ἀδελφοί, µετεσχηµάτισα εἰς ἐµαυτὸν καὶ Ἀπολλῶν δι᾿ ὑµᾶς, ἵνα ἐν ἡµῖν µάθητε τὸ µὴ ὑπὲρ ἃ γέγραπται, Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos on account of you, so that you may learn through us ‘nothing beyond what is written,’ (≈ “Do not go beyond what is written.”)54

1 Cor 11:22a

µὴ γὰρ οἰκίας οὐκ ἔχετε εἰς τὸ ἐσθίειν καὶ πίνειν; No indeed! For do you not have houses in which to eat and to drink? (≈ “Do not be so disorganized at church Eucharist meals. Eat and drink at home.”)55

1 Cor 11:22c

τί εἴπω ὑµῖν; ἐπαινέσω ὑµᾶς; ἐν τούτῳ οὐκ ἐπαινῶ. What should I say to you? Should I praise you? For this I do not praise. (≈ “Do not behave in this non-praiseworthy manner.”)56

——— 53

The prohibitory exclamation of Rom 3:9b is in response to a prohibitory pair of questions in Rom 3:9a: “What therefore? Are we better?”; see in Chapter 11. 54

With the reference to both Apollos and Paul himself in 1 Cor 4:6a, some might want to categorize it with prohibitory emulation statements; cf. section 10.3 of Chapter 10. We recognize, however, that Paul is referencing a stand-alone proverbial idea, which some English translations place in quotation marks as we have here; e.g., HCSB, NRSV, and NIV. 55 Paul’s observation about the disorderly conduct at Corinthian communion services (1 Cor 11:21) leads to this expression of exasperation in 1 Cor 11:22a. It is not translated by NIV and HCSB, and is rendered as “What!” in NASB, ESV, NKJV, NRSV, and NLT. 56 The renderings of ESV, NKJV, and NIV place the question mark after ἐν τούτῳ (e.g., the ESV has, “Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not”). Following the Greek text (NA27 and 28 , UBS4, and SBLGNT), NASB, NRSV, HCSB, and NLT are similar to our rendering here.

CHAPTER 13—OTHER NEGATIVE EXPRESSIONS AS PROHIBITIONS 463 1 Cor 6:5

{βιωτικὰ µὲν οὖν κριτήρια ἐὰν ἔχητε, τοὺς ἐξουθενηµένους ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ, τούτους καθίζετε;...} πρὸς ἐντροπὴν ὑµῖν λέγω. {So if you have cases pertaining to this life, why do you lay them before those who are despised in the church?...} I am saying this to your shame. (≈ “Do not place your disputes before those who have no standing in the church.”)

1 Cor 15:34b

...ἀγνωσίαν γὰρ θεοῦ τινες ἔχουσιν, πρὸς ἐντροπὴν ὑµῖν λαλῶ. ...for some are having ignorance about God. I am saying this to your shame. (≈ “Do not be ignorant about God.”)

2 Cor 11:4

εἰ µὲν γὰρ ὁ ἐρχόµενος ἄλλον Ἰησοῦν κηρύσσει ὃν οὐκ ἐκηρύξαµεν, ἢ πνεῦµα ἕτερον λαµβάνετε ὃ οὐκ ἐλάβετε, ἢ εὐαγγέλιον ἕτερον ὃ οὐκ ἐδέξασθε, καλῶς ἀνέχεσθε. For if someone coming preaches another Jesus, whom we did not preach, or you receive a different spirit, which you had not received, or a different gospel, which you had not accepted, you put up with it well! (≈ “Do not tolerate so easily the preaching of a different gospel with a different Jesus and a different spirit. ”)57

Gal 1:6

Θαυµάζω ὅτι οὕτως ταχέως µετατίθεσθε ἀπὸ τοῦ καλέσαντος ὑµᾶς ἐν χάριτι [Χριστοῦ] εἰς ἕτερον εὐαγγέλιον, I am amazed that you are so quickly turning away from the one who called you in the grace of Christ and to another gospel, (≈ “Do not turn away from the one who called you and follow a different gospel.”)

——— 57

In 2 Cor 11:4 Paul ironically commends an activity he prohibits.

464


Jas 4:13–14

Ἄγε νῦν οἱ λέγοντες· σήµερον ἢ αὔριον πορευσόµεθα εἰς τήνδε τὴν πόλιν καὶ ποιήσοµεν ἐκεῖ ἐνιαυτὸν καὶ ἐµπορευσόµεθα καὶ κερδήσοµεν· οἵτινες οὐκ ἐπίστασθε τὸ τῆς αὔριον ποία ἡ ζωὴ ὑµῶν· ἀτµὶς γάρ ἐστε ἡ πρὸς ὀλίγον φαινοµένη, ἔπειτα καὶ ἀφανιζοµένη. Come now, you who say, ‘Today or tomorrow we will go to that city and we will work there for a year and we will do business and we will make a profit.’ You who do not know the things of tomorrow, what kind of life will be yours. For you are a vapor that appears for a little while, and then disappears. (≈ “Come now, do not speak so presumptuously.”)58

Jas 5:1

Ἄγε νῦν οἱ πλούσιοι, κλαύσατε ὀλολύζοντες ἐπὶ ταῖς ταλαιπωρίαις ὑµῶν ταῖς ἐπερχοµέναις. Come now, you rich people! Weep, crying aloud over your coming miseries. (≈ “Do not live as unrighteous rich people depending upon wealth and abusing others.”)59

——— 58 The interjection Ἄγε νῦν is used in the NT only in Jas 4:13 and 5:1; and for James it serves a similar purpose to οὐαὶ (“woe”). Thus, these statements could have been listed with prohibitory warnings; cf. section 12.2 of Chapter 12. The prohibitory force of these statements is clear enough from the greater contexts (i.e., Jas 4:13–17 and 5:1–6, respectively). 59

On Jas 5:1, see the previous footnote.

—CHAPTER 14— Conclusion: Summary & Prospects We have divided this volume into two parts. Part 1 investigates the functional distinction between the negated present imperative and the negated aortist subjunctive in NT Greek constructions. In particular, we have sought to demonstrate that verbal aspect theory has a better explanation than traditional Aktionsart theory for why the NT authors would choose one grammatical construction over the other to express a given prohibition. Part 2 offers a comprehensive listing of all the prohibitions in the Greek New Testament, treating them in their different grammatical-syntactical, lexical, and pragmatic constructions. Rather than apply verbal aspect theory to all of these various constructions—a task that goes beyond the scope of this volume—we have sought merely to list the prohibitions in an exercise that some might call descriptive functional linguistics. The result for the Greek New Testament is a complex taxonomy of fifteen different prohibitory constructions (with a total of more than twice that many subcategories).

14.1 Summary of Findings In addition to amassing a comprehensive listing of the prohibitions in the Greek New Testament, the main focus of this project has been to assess the traditional Aktionsart distinction between prohibitions expressed in the negated present imperative and those in the negated aorist subjunctive. The Aktionsart means of distinction has three differently nuanced versions that all suggest the historic action in view determines the author’s choice of tenseform for expressing the prohibition. The Cessative—Ingressive version (the harshest Aktionsart view) suggests the present imperative is used to command that an action already occurring must cease and the aorist subjunctive is used to command that an action not begin. The Durative—Punctiliar approach suggests the present imperative is used to forbid durative actions and the aorist subjunctive is used to forbid punctiliar (momentary, singular) actions. The General—Specific version (the softest Aktionsart view) suggests the present imperative is used to prohibit general precepts and the aorist

466


subjunctive is used to prohibit specific actions. The results of this complex investigation can be summarized here in four basic points. 14.1.1 Aktionsart is older in general but relatively young on prohibitions. We have been able to push back the founding of the general Aktionsart approach to the Greek verbal system by 100 years—from the undeniably influential work of Georg Curtius (with Zeitart) in 1852 to the lesser known work of John Milner (with “kind of action”) in 1740. With some irony, however, we have uncovered that the traditional Aktionsart approach to distinguishing between the two most recognized Greek constructions for prohibitions is really not very “traditional” at all. What might be passed off by some as an ancient distinction known to the Greek-speaking writers of ancient texts seems rather to have come on the scene more recently in the nineteenth-century work of Gottfried Hermann (1805). Of course, youthfulness does not necessitate inaccuracy or incorrectness. After all, with a prohibitory remark, Paul instructs Timothy, “Let no one despise your youth” (1 Tim. 4:12). Indeed, with further irony, we are in fact suggesting that the relatively youthful Aktionsart theory fails to properly handle prohibitions, but that the even more youthful verbal aspect theory does properly explain the ancient usage. 14.1.2 Traditional Aktionsart theory fails to explain NT prohibitions. The traditional Aktionsart theory—that an author’s choice of verb tenseform is mandated by the action as it occurred in history—is not very old and does not adequately explain the NT authors’ selection of verb tense-forms in prohibition constructions. This is the case for any of the various versions of the Aktionsart theory. There are many places where the traditional rule is counter to the clear intention of the context. These counter examples have sometimes been excused as exceptions to the traditional Aktionsart rule, but there are so many exceptions that the recently developed rule is clearly shown to be mistaken. 14.1.3 Verbal aspect theory more convincingly explains the NT prohibitions. Verbal aspect theory better distinguishes between present imperative and aorist subjunctive NT Greek prohibitions. Verbal aspect theory explains the tense-forms as selected on the basis of the author’s perspective or conceptualization of the action and not forced by the kind of action itself. The historic qualities of an action (i.e., how long it took to perform, its repeatability, its production of lasting effects, etc.) did not determine the tense-form used by

CONCLUSION: SUMMARY & PROSPECTS

467

the author. Rather, an author used the present tense-form when speaking about an action as a process and the aorist tense-form when speaking about an action as a whole. So, for example, a single historical event can be described as a process by one author (“He was dying on the cross”) and as a whole event by another (“He died on the cross”) with both authors being credited with telling the truth about this one historical event. 14.1.4 Translators seem to know better than grammarians. Interestingly, translators of the New Testament into English seem to understand better than Greek grammarians that the Aktionsart theory fails to adequately account for how the NT authors used the Greek language in the construction of prohibitions. The traditional Aktionsart theory is often ignored by English Bible translators in places where the context clearly is counter to the theory. Perhaps there is room for more specific and two-way communication to take place between Greek grammarians, New Testament exegetes, and New Testament translators.1 This brings us to reflect upon some possibilities for future investigations suggested by this study of prohibitions in the Greek New Testament.

14.2 Prospects for Future Research The organized collection of NT prohibition constructions in Part 2 of this study leads as much to caveats as it does to conclusions. Apart from the detailed analysis of present imperative vs. aorist subjunctive (and aorist imperative) constructions (Chapters 5 and 6), we have merely collected together and categorized the dozen or so other ways that prohibitions are communicated in NT Greek (Chapters 7–13). So we offer here an initial list ——— 1 This brings out both confirmation and some of the practical implications of Stanley Porter’s observation that the standard reference grammars for NT Greek (uncritically followed by many of the elementary Greek grammars) are largely built upon out-dated nineteenthcentury language assumptions; Porter, “Greek Grammar and Syntax,” 83 and n. 25. Porter remarks rather firmly (p. 102):

Many of the standard tools used in the study of the Greek of the NT are heavily dependent upon a conceptual framework that was developed in the nineteenth century and that is heavily dependent upon historical and comparative investigation. Despite other recent methodological developments in NT study, it is surprising to see that what can only be described as dated (if not archaic) tools are still invoked as if they have status reflective of the current state of discussion. Exegetes who use these tools must be aware that they are referring to work that is not current and therefore cannot necessarily be relied upon for the purposes for which they are intending it.

468


of what this study has not accomplished so as to encourage others into further investigations of Greek prohibitions. The following areas hold forth promise of reward for studious efforts. 14.2.1 Statistical Study of NT Prohibitory Constructions. While we offer here raw counts of the number of times each prohibitory construction occurs in the New Testament (see the various tables throughout the book, but esp. Table 5.0 on pp. 128–29), we do not offer any full-blown statistical analysis of these occurrences. It may be of some interest to perform comparative frequency calculations for these various constructions over the whole New Testament and also to investigate their usage by the individual NT authors.2 Such study may bring insight into understanding authorial writing styles and thereby authorial intentions. 14.2.2 In Depth Study of Individual NT Prohibitory Constructions. While attempting an exhaustive list of the prohibitions in the Greek New Testament, we have focused primarily on examining the two most often compared—but not necessarily most used—constructions. All of the other individual constructions and expressions of prohibitions identified in our survey here (Chapters 7–13) are worthy of their own separate and in depth investigations regarding how they are used. At the end of his chapter on commands and prohibitions, Fanning made some general comments in a section on the “use of the aspect in indirect commands,” concluding that the distinction between present and aorist tense-form usage remains the same for these other constructions.3 More work can be done in applying verbal aspect theory to these other constructions. 14.2.3 Comparative Study of NT Prohibitory Constructions. All of these prohibitory constructions can be studied with regard to their relationships to one another. It is worth noting that the imperative mood (in most languages) is not limited to serving for “stronger” volitional appeals in ——— 2

See Table 11.0 on p. 349 for NT authorial corpora comparisons regarding the use of prohibitory questions. Fanning does some work on authorial frequency comparisons for commands and prohibitions combined; see his chart in VANT 330. See also the work (and comparative charts) of John Thorley, “Subjunctive Aktionsart in New Testament Greek: A Reassessment,” NovT 30.3 (1988): 193–211, and idem, “Aktionsart in New Testament Greek: Infinitive and Imperative,” NovT 31.4 (1989): 290–315. 3

VANT 383.


469

expressing commands and prohibitions. That is, sometimes the imperative mood is used for “weaker” volitional appeals, for example, in expressions of permission (e.g., “Come on in”), requests (e.g., “Please, bring the books”), and prayer (e.g., “Help, Lord”).4 Fantin observes a sliding scale for the positive use of the Greek imperative mood (i.e., strong commands, mid-range requests, and weak permissions), but comments simply on a single negative prohibitions slot as a fourth usage of the mood.5 On analogy with the positive usage that Fantin observes, and given the complexity of various prohibitory expressions in use in the Greek New Testament as observed here, perhaps a sliding scale of prohibition usage could be formulated. Some constructions appear most useful for polite prohibitory requests, whereas others are apt for stronger negative commands. Some constructions seem useful across the whole spectrum of prohibitory communication, and others have a narrower field of operation. Correlations might be observed, for example, for both prohibitory hortatory subjunctives and prohibitory emulation statements to be on the weak end of the scale. Perhaps negated future indicatives fit formal situations (e.g., OT quotations), and prohibitory questions may well have the potential of serving across the range.6 While the ——— 4

Cf. Frank Robert Palmer, Mood and Modality (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), 108. 5

Fantin, The Greek Imperative Mood, 76; cf. his interaction with usage labels suggested by others, pp. 76–88. Fantin concludes on this matter, “Most imperatives are classified by New Testament grammarians as commands, requests, permissive, and prohibitions,” adding in a footnote, “Permission is rare and request is not common” (p. 87). Discussion includes the possible usages of conditional, pronouncement, greeting, concession, warning, and potential. 6

Research into such taxonomies of forcefulness with regard to the varying grammatical constructions can be found in the work of Robert Longacre, “Toward an Exegesis of 1 John Based on the Discourse Analysis of the Greek Text,” pages 271–86 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Discourse Analysis (ed. David Allen Black, Katharine Barnwell, and Stephen Levinsohn; Nashville: Broadman, 1992); Neva F. Miller, “The Imperativals of Romans 12” pages 169–70 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Discourse Analysis (ed. David Allen Black, Katharine Barnwell, and Stephen Levinsohn; Nashville: Broadman, 1992); Ernst R. Wendland, “‘Stand Fast in the True Grace of God!’: A Study of 1 Peter,” JOTT: Journal of Translation and Textlinguistics 13 (2000): 25–102; and Daniel A. Hoopert, “Verb Ranking in Koine Imperativals,” Journal of Translation 3.1 (2007):1–8. E.g., allowing for the affects of genre and verb type, Hoopert suggests the following taxonomy of imperatival constructions from least to most mitigated (see esp. p. 7): • • • • •

Second person imperatives First person plural hortatory subjunctives Imperative form of γίνοµαι + substantive (participle, adjective, noun) Third person imperatives Purpose clauses

470


individual tense-forms and particular grammatical-syntactial constructions in-and-of-themselves do not necessarily carry any of these particular nuances in their semantic meanings, it appears that the inherent meanings of some tense-forms (i.e., summary, process, or stative aspects) are such that they are effective tools for communicating in contexts where the author desires to communicate those more emotive concerns. This is where Fanning and his followers have begun to take the discussion. Some have proposed theories about the relative forcefulness of various commands and prohibitions based upon aspects and/or the contextual setting of prayer, but so far such proposals have not been met with wide acceptance among the scholarly readership.7 For his part, Fanning suggests that an author makes a command or prohibition more forceful by countering what he considers to be the usual General–Specific guideline (present tense is usual for general commands; aorist tense is usual for specific commands). In his words, “Thus, the forcefulness of the aspects is due in both cases to use of the ‘unexpected’ form: departure from the normal pattern of general vs. specific makes the command insistent and urgent.”8 But we found his theory wanting too, as Fanning admits this to be only something of a guideline (see Chapter 3 above). Again, it seems best to recognize all such distinctions as pragmatic usage categories and not tense-form or construction meanings. With this admission, Campbell has attempted perhaps the most rigourous systematic observations about the coordination of pragmatic and semantic categories for the Greek verb, maintaining a clear distinction between aspect and Aktionsart: “that the former is generally regarded as a semantic category, while the latter is a pragmatic category.”9 14.2.4 Text-linguistics and Register Studies. Apart from the spectrum of emotive concerns just noted, Porter suggests that the author’s choice between tense-forms is affected by a secondary role of aspect in showing degrees of narrative prominence. He sees the perfective aspect (aorist) as the default tense-form for “background” narrative, the imperfective aspect (present and imperfect) as more marked tense-forms for ——— 7 See, for example, the proposals of Francis Woodgate Mozley, “Notes on the Biblical Use of the Present and Aorist Imperative,” JTS 4 (1903): 279–82; Post, “Dramatic Uses of the Greek Imperative,” 31–59; and Bakker, The Greek Imperative; and Porter’s analysis, VAG 347–50; and Willmott, The Moods of Homeric Greek, 98. 8 9

VANT 381.

Campbell, Verbal Aspect, the Indicative Mood, and Narrative, the quote is from p. 12; cf. idem, Verbal Aspect and Non-Indicative Moods.


471

“foreground” elements of the story, and the stative aspect (perfect and pluperfect) as the most marked tense-forms for “frontground” elements.10 Fanning similarly observes that the aspects “serve in a secondary way to reflect the prominence of events recorded in a narrative.” There is a problem, however, in that Fanning seems to define the roles in a manner opposite to Porter: “As a means of showing prominence, the aorist can be used to narrate the main or ‘foreground’ events, while the imperfect or present is used to record subsidiary or ‘background’ ones.”11 So, given their disagreement over the issues of time in the indicative mood and the number of aspects (see Chapter 3 above), here we have a third facet of the Porter/Fanning debate.12 Such observations as these draw us into the realms of text-linguistics (a.k.a. discourse analysis, i.e. analyzing units of communication larger than the sentence) and register studies (i.e., levels of language variation by a single user in differing situational contexts, e.g., informal conventions in letters to friends vs. formal conventions in official correspondence). The pragmatic focus of Chapters 9 through 13 above entails text-linguistic concerns, but there is certainly room for further investigation of prohibitions in the Greek New Testament in terms of discourse analysis and register, especially with regard to particular NT authorial corpora.13 ——— 10

Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament, 23; cf. VAG 198–208.

11

VANT 191, cf. 75.

12

Here too scholars evaluate the views of the chief protagonists and choose sides—or propose alternatives—on this level of the Porter/Fanning debate. E.g., Reed and Reese, “Verbal Aspect, Discourse Prominence, and the Letter of Jude,” who argue that a Porter-like approach fits the NT book of Jude. On the other hand, see Jody A. Barnard, “Is Verbal Aspect a Prominence Indicator? An Evaluation of Stanley Porter’s Proposal with Special Reference to the Gospel of Luke,” Filología Neotestamentaria 19 (2006): 3–29, where Barnard’s study not only finds Porter’s proposal unconvincing, but calls into question views with more traditional leanings like Fanning’s as well. 13 Readers interested in linguistics as a tool for biblical studies can begin with the brief and narrow surveys of Joseph D. Fantin, “Modern Linguistics: Select History, Use in New Testament Studies and in this Work, Evaluation, and Proposals for Future Use,” Appendix 1: in his The Greek Imperative Mood, 315–39; Stanley E. Porter and Andrew W. Pitts, “New Testament Greek Language and Linguistics in Recent Research,” CBR 6.2 (2008): 214–55; and Porter, “Greek Grammar and Syntax,” 76–103. Older and broader treatments include David Allen Black, Linguistics for Students of New Testament Greek: A Survey of Basic Concepts and Applications (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995) and Peter Cotterell and Max Turner, Linguistics & Biblical Interpretation (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1989). For more specific essays on text-linguistics and register in NT Greek, interested readers can start with several edited volumes: David Allen Black, Katharine Barnwell, and Stephen Levinsohn, eds., Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Discourse Analysis (Nashville: Broadman, 1992); Stanley E. Porter and D. A. Carson, eds., Discourse Analysis

472


14.2.5 Examination of Complex Construction Classifications. As we have noted, the categories of our taxonomy of prohibitions are not always mutually exclusive. Future studies might focus on where these categories overlap. Furthermore, the categories suggested here may well overlap with other grammatical-syntactical and discourse/register categories in ways worth studying for potential exegetical fruitfulness. Indeed, the overall category of prohibition is itself a subcategory of imperatives and as such the prohibition category bears many of the same register classifications as the imperative category. Given this complexity, there is certainly room for future investigation of these kinds of complex classifications as they relate to prohibitions and other such communication forms. For example, one such and Other Topics in Biblical Greek (JSNTSup 113, SNTG 2; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995); Jeffrey T. Reed, “Discourse Analysis,” in Handbook to Exegesis of the New Testament (ed. Stanley E. Porter; NTTS 25; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 189–217; Stanley E. Porter and Jeffrey T. Reed, eds., Discourse Analysis and the New Testament: Approaches and Results (JSNTSup 170, SNTG 4; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999); Stanley E. Porter and D. A. Carson, eds., Linguistics and the New Testament: Critical Junctures (JSNTSup 168, SNTG 5; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999); Stanley E. Porter, ed., Diglossia and Other Topics in New Testament Linguistics (JSNTSup 193, SNTG 6; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000); Stanley E. Porter, “Dialect and Register in the Greek of the New Testament: Theory,” and “Register in the Greek of the New Testament: Application with Reference to Mark’s Gospel,” in Rethinking Contexts, Rereading Texts: Contributions from the Social Sciences to Biblical Interpretation (ed. M. Daniel Carroll R.; JSOTSup 299; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 190–208 and 209–229. See also Sicking, “Aspect Choice: Time Reference of Discourse Function?” 1–118, where Sicking argues specifically for a discourse function—not time or kind of action—as the explanation of authorial selection between the aorist stem and the present stem. Important textbooks include Stephen H. Levinsohn, Discourse Features of New Testament Greek: A Coursebook on the Information Structure of New Testament Greek (2nd ed. Dallas: SIL International, 2000) and Steven E. Runge, Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament: A Practical Introduction for Teaching and Exegesis (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2010). For recent specific book-length applications, see Jeffrey T. Reed, A Discourse Analysis of Philippians: Method and Rhetoric in the Debate over Literary Integrity (JSNTSup 136; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997); Jonathan M. Watt, Code-Switching in Luke and Acts (Berkeley Insights in Linguistics and Semiotics 31; New York: Lang, 1997); Gustavo Martin-Asensio, Transitivity-Based Foregrounding in the Acts of the Apostles: A FunctionalGrammatical Approach to the Lukan Perspective (JSNTSup 202, SNTG 8; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000); Cynthia Long Westfall, A Discourse Analysis of the Letter to the Hebrews: The Relationship between Form and Meaning (LNTS/JSNTSup 297; SNTG 11; New York: T&T Clark, 2005); and Mark Edward Taylor, A Text-Linguistic Investigation into the Discourse Structure of James (LNTS/JSNTSup 311; London: T&T Clark, 2006). On computer-assisted discourse analysis in NT studies see Matthew Brook O’Donnell, Corpus Linguistics and the Greek of the New Testament (NTM 6; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2005).


473

complex construction classification is treated in Fantin’s discussion of “conditional imperatives,” i.e., constructions that fit the formula imperative + καί + future indicative where the action (or non-action) expressed by the imperative statement serves as the condition for the promised result that is expressed by the future indicative statement.14 14.2.6 The Interaction of Affected and Unaffected Meanings in Verbs More broadly, some may be interested in examining the interaction of aspect, tense-forms, and kind-of-action or (as some have referred to it) the interaction of affected and unaffected meanings in verbs.15 Fanning’s work might be considered a distinctive contribution in this realm.16 There are some general works on this already,17 and some have begun to explore further such approaches to Greek.18 But, as noted in Chapter 3, there is a danger in such tasks that has been abundantly exemplified in some attempts to do this with prohibitions: many simply slide back to the traditional Aktionsart approach, which has been shown to be thoroughly inadequate. In order to avoid further confusion on the exegetical and applicational levels, any future attempts at coordinating aspectual and Aktionsart concerns into some kind of single theory needs to be more robust and properly inclusive of the factors that contribute to authorial communication.19

——— 14

Fantin, The Greek Imperative Mood, 290–307 and 357–73.

15 See Wallace’s discussion of affected vs. unaffected meaning his introduction to aspect in GGBB 499–504, and passim in his discussion of various tense-forms. 16 See the discussion of Fanning’s view in Chapter 3. John Thorley (working at the same time as Fanning) makes a related foray into Aktionsart and aspect coordination by taking into account various lexical and contextual factors; John Thorley, “Subjunctive Aktionsart in New Testament Greek: A Reassessment,” NovT 30.3 (1988): 193–211, and idem, “Aktionsart in New Testament Greek: Infinitive and Imperative,” NovT 31.4 (1989): 290–315. Unfortunately (and even evidenced in the article titles) Thorley’s analysis suffers from an (all too typical) unclear and inconsistent distinction between Aktionsart and aspect. 17 E.g., Talmy Givón, Syntax: An Introduction (2 vols.; 2nd ed.; Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2001); see esp. her Chapters 6 and 7 of vol. 1, pp. 285–368 on “tense, aspect, and modality.” 18

E.g., Mari Broman Olsen, A Semantic and Pragmatic Model of Lexical and Grammatical Aspect (Outstanding Dissertations in Linguistics; New York: Garland, 1997). 19

See the harmoninous encouragement of Picirilli, “The Meaning of the Tenses in New Testament Greek,” 552.

474


14.3 A Final Word We don’t imagine that our work here dramatically challenges the general direction of NT Greek studies or alters our understanding of the NT message. As was noted above, even without the clarity of definitive studies of Greek grammatical-syntactical constructions, English translators have quite often gotten it right. Our intention here has been to contribute to the discussion of verbal aspect theory as that conversation moves ahead in gaining a firmer grasp on the language used in the writing of the NT Scriptures. We want to encourage a greater clarity and consistency in the conversation. So we echo here the encouragement of one of the modern leaders of verbal aspect theory: The ancient Greek aspectual system has for long been at least partly misunderstood, and we need to set aside traditional misconceptions and re-examine the texts written by people who knew the language better than we do. At least the logic of the message contained in our texts has not been totally obscured by such misconceptions, and the effect or our re-examination will be more the removal of imagined problems and a fuller appreciation of the emphases intended by the writers than a complete 20 revision of our understanding of the message.

In the end, we trust that this study of negative commands in Greek proves to be more positive in its impact for encouraging a proper understanding of the message of the New Testament.

——— 20

McKay, “Aspect in Imperatival Constructions in New Testament Greek,” 226.

—APPENDIX A— Tracing Aktionsart Views of Prohibitions Chapter 1 offers a brief history of the traditional Aktionsart view of NT Greek prohibitions and summarizes the general position and various nuances of it. This appendix offers—in the redundant form of grammar citations—the raw data used in formulating that history and summary. We present here in chronological order a survey of statements on Greek prohibitions from nineteenth- and twentieth-century Greek grammars, including both classic reference grammars and popular classroom textbooks from the period (and a few scholarly journal articles). We begin with J. Gottfried J. Hermann as the declared founder of the traditional Aktionsart distinction in 1805, move to James H. Moulton who introduced the distinction to NT Greek studies in 1906, and then focus primarily on NT Greek grammars up to 2010. We might have halted our survey at 1985 as the date on which, according to some, the death nell rang for the typical Aktionsart distinction.1 But we have noticed that a number of Greek grammars produced in the last 25 years have continued with Aktionsart distinctions nonetheless. So, claiming neither exhaustive completeness or particular selectivity, our survey focuses primarily on the first editions of Greek grammar works between 1805 and 1985, and then at the most recent editions of works in the last 25 years. Grammar texts that intentionally take a verbal aspect approach are not included in the survey as their important place in grammar history is discussed in Chapter 3 above. Simply put, this survey of grammar statements from the last 200 years is meant to show the variety and prevalence of Aktionsart views regarding the distinction between the present imperative and the aorist subjunctive constructions of Greek prohibitions. ——— 1

According to Wallace (GGBB 715–16), with the works of Kenneth L. McKay and those following quickly in his wake (e.g., Boyer, Porter, Fanning), the traditional Aktionsart distinction was sufficiently undermined that few Greek grammatical works prior to 1985 can be reliably used in reference to commands and prohibitions. On this history, see Chapter 3 above.

476


We have noted that this distinction between prohibition constructions comes in generally three slightly different forms, always insisting that the kind of historic action in view determines the selection of verb tense-form used to describe it: 1) the standard Aktionsart distinction: the present imperative prohibits an already ongoing action and the aorist subjunctive prohibits an action not yet begun; 2) a generic Aktionsart distinction: the present imperative prohibits a durative or linear kind of action and the aorist subjunctive prohibits a momentary or punctiliar kind of action; and 3) a softer Aktionsart distinction: the present imperative indicates a general prohibition and the aorist subjunctive indicates a specific prohibition. These three views can be laid out on a continuum as illustrated in Table A.1.7 (reproduced below from Table 1.7 in Chapter 1). Such a diagram is helpful in reminding us that theories seldom have firm borders and that some statements are more difficult to categorize than others. In fact, some statements show a mixing together of selected parts of the three views. In keeping with this somewhat simplistic taxonomy—wanting neither to over-complicate the model with intersecting trajectories of other verbal theories nor to over-simplify it by labeling every statement as a mixed view of some kind—we have marked the citations with the following notations for quick reference to the several different types of Aktionsart view: CI = Present imperative for cessative and aorist subjuctive for ingressive. DP = Present imperative for durative and aorist subjuctive for punctiliar. GS = Present imperative for general and aorist subjuctive for specific. MX = A mixed Aktionsart view (e.g., one leg of GS and one leg of CI and/or some other). O = Offers no distinction between present imperative and aorist subjunctive constructions.

See Chapter 1 for a charting of the scholars surveyed (Table 1.8) and for the summary of concluding observations. THE VARIETY OF A KTIONSART PROHIBITION DISTINCTIONS (seen in the grammars of the 19th and 20th centuries)

-- -- -- -- -- Harsher -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Generic -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Softer -- -- -- -- -Pres. Impv.: CESSATIVE Pres. Impv.: DURATIVE Pres. Impv.: GENERAL “Stop doing that.” “Don’t do that progressive act.” “Don’t ever do that.” Aor. Subj.: INGRESSIVE “Don’t begin that.”

Aor. Subj.: PUNCTILIAR “Don’t do that single act.”

Table A.1.7

Aor. Subj.: SPECIFIC “Don’t do that this time.”

APPENDIX A: TRACING AKTIONSART VIEWS OF PROHIBITIONS CI

477

– Johann Gottfried Jakob Hermann (1805): Iam igitur sic erit de omni ista vetandi ratione statuendum: µή cum imperativo praesentis proprie de omittendo eo, quod quis iam faciat, intelligi, sed saepius tamen etiam ad ea trahi, quae quis nondum facere aggressus sit; aoristi autem imperativum tantummodo de non incipiendo usurpari, in quo quidem genere coniunctivum aoristi Graecos praetulisse; idque Atticis maxime, ut dubitantius loqui amantibus, ita 2 placuisse, ut apud hos rarissime imperativus aoristi inveniatur. Now, therefore, out of all this the prohibition rationale can be set out: µή, with the present imperative properly forbids the thing that one is already doing—it being understood, however, that often it is those things one is also drawn to and has attempted to do but has not yet accomplished. But the aorist imperative is not to be used when concerned only with the beginning [of an act], for which kind of act the Greeks utilize the aorist subjunctive; and this in Attic Greek especially, as they are those who love to speak in difficulties, so it was agreed, as in them very rarely the aorist imperative may be found.

DP

– Philipp Karl Buttmann (1810): In negative entreaties and commands, according as the required action is to be expressed as continued or as momentary, (which is often arbitrary,) it takes the Present or the Aorist; but with this limitation, viz. that it is followed in the Present only 3 by the Imperative, in the Aorist only by the Subjunctive.

——— 2 Gottfried Hermann, Opuscula 1 (Leipzig: Fleischer, 1827), 275. The argument runs on pp. 270–75; we have quoted here only the conclusion. Earlier in the article he mentions [Philipp] Buttmann’s recognition of the distinction between the present and aorist prohibitions in “the 4th or 5th edition” of his grammar (i.e., the 1808 or 1810 editions; see next footnote), but cites his own 1806 publication as the place where he first suggested the distinction. The obscure reference here to his earlier work—“Diar. litt. Lips. 1806. m. Mart. n. 39 p. 617”—is complicated further by noting a different year in his reference to it in an editorial note in Viger’s Greek Idioms (where we learn that the article includes a critique of the 1805 3rd ed. Buttmann’s grammar): “diar. litter. Lips. a. 1805. m. Mart. n. 39 p. 617”; François Viger, De Praecipuis Graecae Dictionis Idiotismis (ed. Hendrik Hoogeveen, Johann Carl Zeune, and Gottfried Hermann; 2nd ed.; Leipzig: Hahn, 1813), 748 (§165 [¶215]). Unable to locate the original, and since the year remains noted as “1805” in the 3rd and 4th eds. of Viger’s Greek Idioms (1822 and 1834), we have credited Hermann with originating the distinction in 1805. Hermann also seems to caution against overstating the case for this distinction between prohibition constructions (Opuscula 1:270). At the end of that article, he comments that the citation is available as a note to an item on p. 15 in Gisbert Koen, Gottfried Heinrich Schaefer, et al., eds., Gregorius Corinthius (Leipzig: Weigel, 1811). There the note itself is by editor Schaefer, who quotes Hermann at length on pp. 864–69, and credits as his source Hermann’s De praeceptis quibusdam Atticistarum (Leipzig: Klavbarthia, 1810). The quote above is from Hermann’s own Opuscula text and we provide our own wooden English rendering of it. For more on Hermann’s view, see Chapter 1. 3 Philipp Karl Buttmann, Greek Grammar: For the Use of High Schools and Universities [a.k.a. Intermediate or Larger Greek Grammar] (2nd ed.; trans. Edward Robinson; New York:

478 MX

PROHIBITIONS IN THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT – Valentin Christian Friedrich Rost (1821): Daher wird der Imperativ im Griechischen gebraucht, wie in andern Sprachen, bei Anreden, Bitten, Befehlen, Ermahnungen u.s.w. Uebrigens stehet der Imperat. des Präsens, wenn die Handlung als dauernd, der Imperat. des Aorists, wenn dies selbe als vorübergehend u. momentan gedacht wird; daher stehet der Imperat. des Präsens am häufigsten, wenn eine bereits begonnene Handlung fortgeseßt, der Imperat. des Aorists, wenn eine noch nicht begonnene unternommen werden soll. Soll die Anforderung negativ ausgedrückt werden, als ein Verbot, eine Abmahnung, so ist als Negazion stets µή, zu gebrauchen. Auch in diesem Falle stehet der Imperat. des Präsens, wenn die Handlung als dauernd gedacht wird, und also stets, wenn eine bereits begonnene Handlung wieder unterlassen werden soll. Statt des Imperat. des Aorists hingegen, welcher eintreten sollte, wo die Handlung als momentan gedacht wird, also hauptsächlich auch, wenn eine noch nicht begonnene Handlung unterbleiben soll, gebrauchen die Atticker wenigstens gewöhnlich den 4 Konjunkt. Des Aorists; …. Therefore, the imperative is used in Greek, as in other languages, with salutations, requests, commands, admonitions, etc. Moreover, the present tense imperative is written when the action is thought of as a duration, the aorist imperative if this same [action] is thought of as temporary and momentary; so the present imperative is written most often, when an already initiated action is to continue, the aorist imperative if it has not yet begun to be undertaken. Should the demand be expressed negatively, as a prohibition or a warning, then µή, is always to be used as the negation. Also in this case the present imperative is used when the action is thought of as a duration, and whenever an action has already begun but is to be refrained from repeating. Instead of the aorist imperative, however, which should occur when the action is thought of as momentary, that is primarily

Gould, Newman and Sazton, 1839 [1st ed., 1833, trans. of the 6th German ed., 1811; original, 1792]), 419. Cf. his earlier more general remark, “…the Greek language avails itself in such a manner, that it employs the Moods of the Present to mark a continued action, and the Moods of the Aorist to mark a momentary one” (p. 380). The 4th and 5th editions of Buttmann’s grammar—where Hermann reports Buttmann’s first mention of the distinction between prohibition constructions (see previous footnote and Chapter 1 above)—were published in 1808 and 1810, respectively. Robinson’s translation of the statement in Buttmann’s 6th ed. offered above fits with the German of Buttmann’s 1810 5th ed. (§135 on p. 536; cf. §124.5 on p. 488): Im verneinenden Bitten und Befehlen hat es, je nachdem die verlangte Handlung als etwas dauerndes oder als etwas momentanes ausgedrückt werden soll (was aber sehr häufig willkürlich ist) nach §.124,5 das Präsens oder den Aorist bei sich, aber mit der Regel (wovon sich nur äußerst wenig Ausnahmen finden) daß es vom Präsens nur den Imperativ, vom Aorist nur den Konjunktiv annimt. 4

Valentin Christian Friedrich Rost, Griechische Grammatik (2nd ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1821), 448 (§124.3). The wooden English translation is our own.

APPENDIX A: TRACING AKTIONSART VIEWS OF PROHIBITIONS

479

also when one has not yet begun the action that should not take place, Attic Greek usually at least makes use of the aorist subjunctive; .... DP

– Georg Benedict Winer (1822): In a negative entreaty, etc. it is construed as follows, viz. (1) With the imperative of the present, when the action is to be expressed as continued, permanent, etc. …. (2) With the subjunctive of the aorist, where the action is to be expressed as transient, or only once occurring; … So in prohibitions, Mark 10:19. Matt. 6:7; where it is not the repetition or continuance of the action, but the action itself as 5 occurring at all, that is forbidden.

MX

– Moses Stuart (1834): When an Imper. in a negative sense is required µή (not οὐ) is always employed. Very often the Subjunctive with µή is employed, in the like manner, for prohibitions. Note: Yet the use of the two modes does not seem to be precisely the same. The Subj. with µή, is employed usually in GENERAL prohibitions, … while the corresponding Imper. would seem to be a command to desist from an action already begun; …. More generally the Present Imper. has reference to a continued or often repeated action; while the Aorist is used in reference to a particular thing, which is done 6 once for all; but this nicety is not always observed.

DP

– Raphael Kühner (1835): The reason hereof may be, that by the Pres. Imper. (expressing continuance) it is signified that the thing forbidden must never take place, which is implied more or less in a prohibition, so that the Aorist would be generally out of place. The Conj. rather expresses a strong desire that it may not, accompanied by a belief that it will not, take place, wherein is no notion of continuance; and this difference of meaning 7 is found in those passages where both the Imper. and Conj. occur.

——— 5 Georg Benedict Winer, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament (trans. Moses Stuart and Edward Robinson; Anover: Flagg & Gould, 1825 [of the 1st German ed., 1822]), 160. Winer’s 1836 expression below seems to move toward a harsher Aktionsart view. 6

Moses Stuart, A Grammar of the New Testament Dialect (Andover: Gould & Newman, 1834), 208–209 (§137.4–5). Particularly noteworthy is that Stuart assigns general prohibitions to the aorist subj. and not (as is far more common) to the present indicative. 7

From William Edward Jelf, A Grammar of the Greek Language: Chiefly from the German of Raphael Kühner (2 vols.; 2nd ed.; London: John Henry Parker, 1851 [1st ed., 1842–45, trans. of 1st German ed., 1834–35]), 2:82 (§420, Obs. 4). See the slightly clearer expression of his view in Kühner (1842) below. Kühner’s DP distinction also has an emotional/emphatic sense for the aorist. This idea that the aorist is more likely to be used for urgent commands is supported by others as well; on this see Fantin, The Greek Imperative Mood, 96–97, who cites as examples, William Heidt,

480 DP


– August Heinrich Matthiæ (1835): Daß der Imper. Präs. von daurenden, der Aor. von augenblicklichen, vorüberge8 henden handlungen gilt, ist §. 501. S. 1128. That the present imperative forbids from continuous and the aorist from momentary and temporal actions is covered in §501 on page 1128.

CI

– Georg Benedict Winer (1836): The negative µὴ ne, with its compounds, stands in independent sentences, … when it expresses a warning (α) sometimes with the imperat. pres. (usually where something permanent or which some one is already doing, is to be indicated), …. (β) sometimes with the subjunctive aor. (when that is to be expressed which is transient 9 or which in general is not to be begun), ….

CI

– Thomas Kerchever Arnold (1841): Hence the present imperative is generally found when a man is ordered to go on with what he has already begun: the aor. imperative when what he is ordered to do, is not a thing already begun. This rule is not always observed, even by the best writers. There seems to have been a kind of preference for the present imperative, when the action ordered was not decidedly a single definite action; and when the completion of it was not the principal thing in the speaker’s view.

“Translating New Testament Imperatives,” CBQ (1951): 254; William Douglas Chamberlain, An Exegetical Grammar of the Greek New Testament (New York: Macmillan, 1941), 86–87; and MHT 1:173. See also MHT 3:74–75 and Mayser (1926) below. 8 August Heinrich Matthiæ, Ausführliche Griechische Grammatik (3rd ed.; Leipzig: Crusius, 1835), 1157 (§511). Already in the 1807 1st ed. Matthiæ distinguishes between the present and aorist tenses of the Greek verb using terms like “continuous or often repeated” vs. “transient or completeness” (see §501 on p. 698), but this distinction is not specifically applied to the prohibitions until the 1835 3rd ed. quoted here. The English translation is ours. 9

Georg Benedict Winer, A Grammar of the Idioms of the Greek Language of the New Testament (trans. J. H. Agnew and O. G. Ebbeke; New York: Robert Carter & Brothers, 1839 [of the 4th ed. in German, 1836]), 384 (§60.1); cf. pp. 248–49 (§44.5). Notice that Winer gives an important caveat: “This distinction is not always observed, and especially does the imperat. aor. seem to be used, where the imp. present would have been most natural. This may be accounted for, if we reflect that it often depends entirely on the writer, whether he will indicate the action as happening in a point of time, and momentary, or as only commencing, or as continuing” (p. 249 [§44.6]). See also Georg Benedict Winer, A Treatise on the Grammar of New Testament Greek, Regarded as a Sure Basis for New Testament Exegesis (trans. & ed. William Fiddian Moulton; 3rd ed.; Edinburgh: T. &. T. Clark, 1882 [1st ed., 1870; of the 6th German ed., 1855]), 395 (§43.4); cf. 628–29 (§56.1) where another caveat is made: “On the other hand, we often find the present imperative used in reference to what should not be begun at all ….” Cf. Winer’s earlier statement (1822) above.


481

… (1) To forbid a habit or course of action, use µή (not) with the imperative of the present. (2) To forbid a momentary (that is, single definite) action, use µή (not) with the subjunctive of the aorist. µὴ κλέπτε, ‘do not steal,’ forbids stealing generally. µὴ κλέψῃς, ‘do not steal,’ when stealing a particular thing at a particular time 10 is forbidden. DP

– Raphael Kühner (1842): The difference between the Pres. and Aor. Imper. is, that the Pres. generally denotes a continued oft-repeated action, while the Aor. denotes a single, instantaneous action….The Perf. Imper., which is of rare occurrence, is used to indicate that the consequences of the action are to remain or be permanent…. In negative or prohibitive expressions with µή (ne) prefixed, the Greek uses the 11 Pres. IMPER. or the Aor. SUBJ.—but not the Aor. IMPER.

O

– Peter Bullions (1843): In prohibitions with µή, the present imperative is most commonly used. If the 12 aorist is used, µή must be put with the subjunctive.

——— 10 Thomas Kerchever Arnold, Practical Introduction to Greek Accidence (4th ed.; London: Francis & John Rivington, 1847 [1st ed., 1841]), 76 and 78; see the American version based on the 3rd ed.: idem, First Greek Lessons (ed. J. A. Spencer; New York: D. Appleton, 1846), 100–101 (§208) and 103 (§212). In both sections quoted above, Arnold footnotes the work of Hermann in Viger’s Greek Idioms (the 1813 2nd ed. or later). See also Arnold’s fuller work, A Greek Grammar; Intended as a Sufficient Grammar of Reference for Schools and Colleges (London: Francis & John Rivington, 1848), 152 (§793) and his abbreviated text, An Elementary Greek Grammar (London: Francis & John Rivington, 1848), 158–59 (§§633–34). 11

Raphael Kühner, An Elementary Grammar of the Greek Language: Containing a Series of Greek and English Exercises for Translation, with the Requisite Vocabularies, and an Appendix on the Homeric Verse and Dialect (2nd ed.; trans. Samuel Harvey Taylor; ed. Charles W. Bateman; London: Simpkin & Marshall, 1863 [1st ed., 1846, trans. of the 3rd German ed., 1842]), 349 (§153, Obs 2 and Obs 3). Kühner’s initial German edition was published in 1837. Compare this clearer statement to Kühner’s earlier, partially mixed view above (1835). 12

Peter Bullions, The Principles of Greek Grammar; Comprising the Substance of the Most Approved Greek Grammars Extant, for the Use of Schools and Colleges (3rd ed.; New York: Robinson, Pratt & Co., 1843), 253 (§171.3). Bullions exhibits a time-and-action orientation to the Greek verb in general (p. 82 [§77]: he assigns present tense for “continuing,” perfect tense for “completed,” and aorist tense for “indefinite” actions), but we see here no specific application of this theory to prohibitions.

482 CI


– Alpheus Crosby (1844): The foundation of the distinction seems to have been this; that the present forbids an action more definitely than the aorist, and hence naturally adopts a more direct form of expression. Thus, prohibition in the present is often designed to arrest an action now doing, while prohibition in the aorist merely forbids, in general, that it should be done.13

DP

– Johan Nicolai Madvig (1847): The imperative expresses an entreaty, a command, an instruction, or exhortation, together with a concession and permission; in the present tense quite generally, or when the action is continued and recurring; in the aorist, when it is single and transient. Sometimes the distinction between the present and the aorist is small, and it falls away, where only the one or the other form is in use. … A prohibition is expressed by µή (µηδείς) with the imperative of the present, or where, agreeably with the distinction assigned in the preceding paragraphs, the ao14 rist is required, with the subjunctive of the aorist.

O

– Evangelinus Apostolides Sophocles (1847): In prohibitions, the present imperative, or the aorist subjunctive, is used after µή; as, Μὴ λέγε, Say not. Μὴ λεγέτω, Let him not say. 15 Μὴ λέξῃς, Say not. Μὴ λέξῃ, Let him not say.

GS

– John William Donaldson (1848): Thus, if we use the imperative aorist γράψον, we prescribe a single act of writing, and the Attic usage obliges us to employ the present imperative µή κλέπτε, to

——— 13

Alpheus Crosby, A Grammar of the Greek Language (Boston: James Munroe, 1844), 408 (§825); cf. p. 373 (§598) in the 1846 ed. and pp. 375–76 (§628) in the revised 1871 ed. Crosby has an approach to the Greek verb that approximates verbal aspect theory (see Chapter 3); nevertheless, his analysis of the main prohibition constructions is in line with Aktionsart. 14 Johan Nicolai Madvig, Syntax of the Greek Language: Especially of the Attic Dialect, for the Use of Schools (trans. Henry Browne and Thomas Kerchever Arnold; London: Francis & John Rivington, 1853 [trans. of 1847 German original), 126–27 (§§141–42). 15 Evangelinus Apostolides Sophocles, A Greek Grammar for the Use of Schools and Colleges (2nd ed.; Hartford: William J. Hamersley, 1847 [1st ed., 1838]), 275 (§219.3). Sophocles exhibits a kind-of-action orientation to the Greek verb in general (p. 264 [§211]: assigning present tense for “continued,” perfect tense for “completed,” and aorist tense for “finished” actions), but we see here no specific application of this theory to prohibitions. His explanation of the verb in the 1838 1st ed. is similar (pp. 232–35), but he uses “momentary” for the aorist (p. 235 [§213]).


483

prohibit stealing in general, and the aorist subjunctive µή κλέψῃς, to prohibit a 16 single act of theft. DP

– Georg Curtius (1852): A prohibition in the second person can be expressed only in two ways, viz., either with µή and the Present Imperative: µὴ πρᾶττε, of a continued action, or with 17 µή and the Aorist Subjunctive: µή πράξῃς, of a Momentary action, do not do: ….

GS

– William Duguid Geddes (1855): A prohibition is made by µή with the Imperative of the Present, but the Conjunctive of the Aorist. µὴ κλέπτε. Do not steal (a general prohibition = Be not a stealer). µή κλέψῃς. Do not steal (a particular prohibition, forbidding some special 18 instance of the act).

DP

– Joseph George Greenwood (1857): IMPERATIVE MOOD. Imperfect Tense, γρᾶφ-. Of a present, or continuous, or repeated action: γρᾶφε, Write! or, go on writing! γρᾶφετω, Let him write, etc. γρᾶφετε, Write! etc. γρᾶφοντων, Let them write, etc. ———— with µη: µη γρᾶφε, Don’t be writing. µη γρᾶφετω, Don’t let him go on writing. Aorist Tense, γραψα-. Of a single act: γραψον ταυτᾶ, Write this! γραψᾶτω ταυτα, Let him write, etc. γραψᾶτε ταυτα, Write this! γραψαντων ταυτα, Let them write this. For prohibitions in the Aorist, see §397…. … [§397 under Aorist Subjunctive] ———— as an imperative (only with µη) µη γραψῃς προς τον γεροντα, Do not write to the old man.

——— 16 John William Donaldson, A Complete Greek Grammar for the Use of Learners (London: John W. Parker, 1848), 178 (§433); cf. p. 413 (§427) in the 3rd ed. (Cambridge, [Eng.]: Deighton & Bell, 1862). 17

Georg Curtius, The Student’s Greek Grammar: A Grammar of the Greek Language (2nd ed.; trans. William Smith; London: John Murray, 1867 [German original, 1852]), 285 (§518). 18

William Duguid Geddes, A Greek Grammar for the Use of Schools and Colleges (17th ed.; London: Simpkin, Marshall & Co., 1883 [1st ed., 1855), 168.

484

PROHIBITIONS IN THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT µηδεις προς τον γεροντα γραψῃ, Let no one write to the old man. µη γραψητε προς τον γεροντα, Do not write to the old man. 19 µη γραψωσῖ προς τον γεροντα, Let them not write to the old man.

DP

– William Watson Goodwin (1860): In prohibitions, in the second and third persons, the Present Imperative or the Aorist Subjunctive is used after µή and its compounds. The former expresses a continued, the latter a momentary prohibition. … E. g. Μὴ ποίει τοῦτο, do not do this (habitually); µὴ ποιήσῃς τοῦτο, do not do this 20 (single act).

DP

– James Hadley (1860): For the second person, there are only two ways of expressing prohibition:—by µή with the present imperative, if the action is thought of as continued: µή χαλέπαινε do not be offended;—otherwise, by µή with the aorist subjunctive: µή χαλεπήνῃς do 21 not take offence ….

GS

– William Webster (1864): In prohibitions Attic usage compels us to use the subjunctive when we forbid a single act, µὴ κλέπτε, do not steal in general; µὴ κλέψῃς, do not steal this particular 22 thing.

——— 19

Joseph George Greenwood, The Elements of Greek Grammar: Including Accidence, Irregular Verbs, and Principles of Derivation and Composition; Adapted to the System of Crude Forms (London: Walton & Maberly, 1857), 112–13 and 111 (§§405–407 and 397). 20 William Watson Goodwin, Syntax of the Moods and Tenses of the Greek Verb (Cambridge: Sever & Francis, 1860), 232 (§86). Already in 1860 Goodwin exhibits an Aktionsart approach to the verb tense-forms (see pp. 5–73), but his application specifically to prohibitions begins as this generic DP expression and increases to a harsher CI position in successive editions (only slightly in the 1865 2nd ed., but more purely in the 1889 rev. enl. ed.). A mostly CI, but somewhat mixed, position is seen in his An Elementary Grammar (1870) below. 21 James Hadley, A Greek Grammar for Schools and Colleges (London: D. Appleton, 1860), 270–71 (§723). Hadley opens the Preface, “The grammar which is here submitted to the public, is founded on the Griechische Schulgrammatik of Georg Curtius, Professor in the University of Kiel” (p. iii). Thus, his commitment to Aktionsart is no surprise, “The tenses of the verb distinguish the action—1. in relation to its own progress:—2. in relation to the time of speaking…. 1. The tenses represent the ACTION as continued, completed, or indefinite…. 2. The tenses of the indicative also express TIME, present, past, and future” (p. 262 [§§695– 96]). Hadley progresses to a harsher CI position in the 1884 2nd ed. (see below). 22

William Webster, The Syntax and Synonyms of the Greek Testament (London: Rivingtons, 1864), 93. Webster oddly refers to the present impv. construction as a subjunctive.


485

– William Watson Goodwin (1870): In the subjunctive and imperative … the tenses chiefly used are the present and aorist. 1. These tenses here differ only in this, that the present denotes a continued or repeated action, while the aorist denotes a simple occurrence of the action, the time of both being precisely the same. … In prohibitions, in the second and third persons, the present imperative or the aorist subjunctive is used with mh, and its compounds. E. g. Μὴ ποίει τοῦτο, do not do this (habitually), or do not go on doing this; µὴ 23 ποιήσῃς τοῦτο, (simply) do not do this.

GS

– Thomas A. Stewart (1873): Prohibitions are made by mh, (L. ne), with Imperative of Present, Conjunctive of Aor., the Imperative expressing the more general prohibition; µὴ κλέπτε, don’t steal 24 (as a habit); µὴ κλέψῃς (on the present occasion).

MX

– Samuel G. Green (1876): Of the Imperative tenses, the Present expresses a command generally, or implies continuance or repetition. The Aorist implies that the action is instantaneous, or complete. The Perfect (very rare) refers to an action complete in itself, yet continuous in 25 its effect.

DP

– James Hamblin Smith (1878): µή with the present imperative forbids the doing a thing habitually, and with the aorist subjunctive it forbids the performance of a single act. µὴ ποίει τοῦτο, do not do this (habitually). 26 µὴ ποιήσῃς τοῦτο, do not do this (single act).

——— 23 William Watson Goodwin, An Elementary Greek Grammar (Boston: Ginn, 1870), 156 (§202) and 192 (§254). Goodwin’s 1860 DP distinction (see above) is modified here toward a CI position: note his additional gloss for the pres. impv. example, “or do not go on doing this,” and replacement of “single act” with “simply” in his gloss for the aor. subj. example. 24

Thomas A. Stewart, A New First Greek Course; Comprising Grammar, Syntax, and Exercises with Vocabularies Containing All the Words in the Text (London: Simpkin, Marshall & Co., 1873), 104. 25

Samuel G. Green, Handbook to the Grammar of the Greek New Testament (London: The Religious Tract Society, 1876), 338 (§373). 26

James H. Smith, An Elementary Greek Grammar (London: Rivingtons, 1878), 122.

486 GS


– Edward Dillon Mansfield (1880): In Negative Commands in the Second or Third Person the Present Imperative is used for a general Prohibition, and the Aorist Primary Conjunctive [i.e., subjunctive] for a special Prohibition, the Negative being always µή; µὴ κλέπτε. µὴ κλέψῃς. 27 Do not go on stealing (general). Do not steal (this), (special).

DP

– Francis Edward Thompson (1883): In Prohibitions we must use mh, either (1) with 2d Person Present Imperative (contin28 ued act), or (2) 2d Person Aorist Subjunctive (single act), …

CI

– James Hadley (1884): Prohibitions, that is, negative commands, are expressed by µή with the present imperative or the aorist subjunctive: µὴ λέγε τοῦτο οr µὴ λέξῃς τοῦτο do not say this. The present imperative is used if continuance is thought of, otherwise the aorist subjunctive. For instance, the present is used in telling any one not to go on with 29 what he is doing ….

CI

– William Watson Goodwin (1889): The distinction of tense here is solely the ordinary distinction between the present and aorist, and has no reference to the moods. E.g. Μὴ ποίει τοῦτο, or do not do this (habitually), or do not go on doing this (or 30 stop doing this); µὴ ποιήσῃς τοῦτο, (simply) do not do this.

——— 27 Edward Dillon Mansfield, A Primer of Greek Grammar: Syntax (London: Rivingtons, 1880), 36 (§146). 28 Francis Edward Thompson, A Syntax of Attic Greek (London: Rivingtons, 1883; rev. ed., London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1907), 136 (§134); cf. pp. 188–89 of the rev. ed. See also idem, An Elementary Greek Syntax (3rd ed.; London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1892 [1st ed., 1885]), 24 (§82). 29

James Hadley, A Greek Grammar for Schools and Colleges (2nd ed.; ed. Frederic DeForest Allen; London: D. Appleton, 1884), 277 (§874). The statement is a bit harsher than that in the 1860 1st ed. (see above). Hadley’s commitment to Aktionsart theory in the 1st ed. continues here with statements like, “The tenses in Greek do not merely distinguish time, as in English. Besides doing this, they have another office; that of distinguishing the action in relation to its own progress, as continued, completed, or simply brought to pass,” adding immediately, “This distinction of action pertains to all the modes, while the distinction of time is nearly confined to the indicative” (p. 264 [§821]). 30 William Watson Goodwin, Syntax of the Moods and Tenses of the Greek Verb (rev. enl. ed.; Boston: Ginn, 1889), 89 (§259); cf. idem, A Greek Grammar (rev. enl. ed.; Boston: Ginn, 1894), 287 (§1346). Goodwin’s additional gloss here “(or stop doing this)” shows his movement toward a harsher CI position: compare this statement to his earlier articulations in the 1st ed. of his Syntax (1860) and in his An Elementary Grammar (1870) above.

APPENDIX A: TRACING AKTIONSART VIEWS OF PROHIBITIONS GS

487

– Maurice Charles Hime (1891): Prohibitions in the Second Persons must be expressed either with µή and the Present Imperative, as µὴ κλέπτε, don’t steal (general prohibition), or with µή and 31 the Aorist Subjunctive, as µὴ κλέψῃς (τοῦτο), don’t steal (this particular thing).

DP

– John Williams White (1892): In negative commands, or prohibitions, µή is used with the present imperative if the act is continued, but with the aorist subjunctive if the simple occurrence of the 32 act is to be expressed.

CI – Ernest

de Witt Burton (1893):

Prohibitions are expressed either by the Aorist Subjunctive or by the Present Imperative, the only exceptions being a few instances of the third person Aorist Imperative with µή. The difference between an Aorist Subjunctive with µή and a Present Imperative with µή is in the conception of the action as respects its progress. Thus (a) The Aorist Subjunctive forbids the action as a simple event with reference to the action as a whole or to its inception, and is most frequently used when the action has not been begun …. (b) The Present Imperative forbids the continuance of the action, most frequently when it is already in progress; in this case, it is a demand to desist from the 33 action ….When the action is not yet begun, it enjoins continued abstinence from it. MX

– Edward Adolf Sonnenschein (1894): The Present Imperative or Subjunctive marks the action as going on or habitual, and is therefore used in general rules of life; the Aorist Imperative or Subjunctive marks the action as occurring, and is therefore used in commands applicable to a 34 single occasion: ….

——— 31

Maurice Charles Hime, An Introduction to the Greek Language: Comprising Accidence and Syntax; Exercises and Vocabularies (London: Simpkin, Marshall, Hamilton & Kent, 1891), 238. 32

John Williams White, The Beginner’s Greek Book (Boston: Ginn, 1892), 118 (§327).

33

Ernest de Witt Burton, Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in New Testament Greek (2nd rev. enl. ed.; Chicago: University Press of Chicago, 1893), 75–76 (§§163–165). The 1888 1st. ed. of Burton’s Syntax is only a 44-page pamphlet, so this 2nd ed. represents the larger work. Here Burton references the 1884 2nd ed. of James Hadley’s Greek grammar, which we have noted has a harsher CI statement on the prohibitions than does the Hadley’s 1860 1st ed. 34 Edward Adolf Sonnenschein, A Greek Grammar for Schools: Based on the Principles and Requirements of the Grammatical Society (2 vols. London: 1892–1894), 2:181 (§341a). Sonnenschein’s view is directly between the DP and GS views.

488 DP


– James Hope Moulton (1895): Imperative The Present brings out continuous or repeated action; the Aorist either affects a 35 single action, or leaves the kind of action undetermined.

DP

– Albert Thumb (1895): If modern Greek has suffered many losses compared with the parent language, it has not failed also to enrich its resources. It has not only preserved the distinction between present and aorist kind of action (continuative or repeated action and a simplex [point] act) in the difference between imperfect and aorist, and in that between present and aorist imperative and subjunctive, but it has also developed further along the same lines in the analogous new creation of two futures, one of 36 duration and one of simplex (point) act; ….

——— 35 James Hope Moulton, An Introduction to the Study of New Testament Greek (London: Charles H. Kelly, 1895), 193 (§244). The brevity and relative Aktionsart softness of this statement on prohibitions should not distract us from noting Moulton’s strong actionorientation regarding the Greek verb in general. Without yet using the term Aktionsart in this work, he clearly outlines three kinds of action (“continuous, momentary, and completed”) related to the tense-forms (pp. 186–92 [§§236–42]). See the advances toward a harsher CI expression in the editorial notes of Henry G. Meecham in the 5th ed. (1955) below. Chapter 1 above rehearses Moulton’s advocacy for Aktionsart theory in general and for the standard CI interpretation of prohibition in his influential reference grammar (1906); see also below. 36 Albert Thumb, Handbook of the Modern Greek Vernacular: Grammar, Texts, Glossary (trans. S. Angus; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1912 [of the 1910 2nd German ed.]), 116 (§180); cf. idem, Handbuch der Neugriechischen Volkssprache: Grammatik. Texte. Glossar. Strassbury: Karl J. Trübner, 1895; 2nd ed., 1910). The German text of §180 in the 1910 ed. (on p. 110) remains virtually the same as that of §144 in the original 1895 ed. (on p. 72):

Gegenüber manchen Verlusten der neugriechischen Sprache im Vergleich zum Altgriechischen hat auch eine Bereicherung stattgefunden, indem das Neugriechische den Unterschied zwischen präsentischer und aoristischer Aktionsart (dauernder oder wiederholter und einmaliger Handlung) in dem Gegensatz von Imperfekt und Aorist, von präsentischem und aoristischem Imperativ und Conjunctiv nicht nur bewahrt, sondern sogar noch weiter ausgeführt [1910: entwickelt] hat: das Neugriechische hat jenem Bedeutungsunterschied entsprechend zwei Futura, eines der Dauer und eines der einmaligen Handlung neu geschaffen; …. In the 2nd ed., Thumb offers a much longer discussion, with a few nuances and qualifications, of his Aktionsart approach and application; pp. 119–29 (§§186–96) of the English trans.; cf. pp. 113–22 (§§186–96) of the 1910 German ed. There he includes this remark: Im Konjunktiv bzw. Imperativ des Präsens und Aorist … kommt der Uterschied der Aktionsart in gleicher Weise zur Geltung; …. (§190 on p. 117) In the present and aorist subjunctive or imperative, … this distinction of kind of action (Aktionsart) is similarly maintained; …. (§190 on p. 123)

APPENDIX A: TRACING AKTIONSART VIEWS OF PROHIBITIONS MX

489

– Friedrich Wilhelm Blass (1896): The present imperative …, both positive and negatived by µή, is used in general precepts (even to individuals) on conduct and action; on the other hand the aorist imperative (or conjunctive) is used in (the much less common) injunctions about action in individual cases. (1) If the aorist is used in the first case, then it must either express the entering upon a state of conduct which is in contrast with the conduct hitherto shown, or it is used comprehensively to denote conduct up to a final point, or again the general rule is specialized so as to refer to an individual case. … (2) An injunction about an individual case is expressed by the present, if no definite aim or end for the action is in prospect, or if the manner or character of the action is taken into account, or again if the thing demanded (in the case of a prohibition, the 37 thing forbidden) is already in existence.

DP

– Ivory Franklin Frisbee (1898): The tenses commonly used in the imperative active are the present and aorist. The present denotes an action as continued or repeated, the aorist denotes a simple occurrence of the action; the time of both is the same. … In prohibitions µή is used with the present imperative if continuance is thought 38 of, otherwise with the aorist subjunctive.

MX

– Basil L. Gildersleeve & Charles William Emil Miller (1900): µή with the present imperative has to do with a course of action and means sometimes “keep from” (resist!), sometimes “cease to” (desist!). In the one case a negative course of action is prescribed, in the other the negative of a course of action…. 39 µή with the aorist imperative or subjunctive gives a total prohibition.

——— 37

Friedrich Wilhelm Blass, Grammar of New Testament Greek (2nd ed.; trans. Henry St. John Thackeray; London: MacMillan, 1905), 194–96 (§58.2), representing a fine translation of Blass’s 1st German ed., idem, Grammatik des Neutestamentlichen Griechisch (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1896), 190–91. Cf. Blass’s general Aktionsart theory beginning with §56 on p. 187 (p. 182 of 1896 German ed.). See also BDF 172–74, 183–84, and 195–96 (§§335–37, 364, and 387). 38

Ivory Franklin Frisbee, The Beginner’s Greek Book (New York: Hinds & Noble, 1898), 166–67 (§415) and 224 (§559). 39

Basil Lanneau Gildersleeve and Charles William Emil Miller, Syntax of Classical Greek from Homer to Demosthenes (2 vols.; New York: American Book Company, 1900 and 1911), 1:164 (§415). If “total prohibition” = general prohibition in their view of the aorist, Gildersleeve and Miller differ from most of the others maintaining a GS position. See below where Zerwick (1960) indicates a distinction between an “absolute prohibition” and a “prohibition in principle,” which may be what Gildersleeve and Miller intend here as well; cf. on the aorist for “categorical prohibitions” in Funk (1977) below. See Stuart (1834) above for a more thoroughgoing reassignment of “general prohibitions” from the present impv. to the aorist subj. construction.

490 DP


– Frank Cole Babbitt (1902): A negative command is expressed regularly by µή with the present imperative or the aorist subjunctive (the present, as usual, referring to a continued action, while the 40 aorist represents a single act …).

DP

– John Thompson (1902): The negative command corresponding to the Aorist Imperative is the Aorist Subjunctive, so that prohibitions are expressed when continuous or durative by µή with 41 the Present Imperative and when perfective by µή with the Aorist Subjunctive.

CI

– Walter G. Headlam (1903): In general instructions or commandments, as ‘thou shalt not steal’, you could say either µὴ κλέπτειν or µὴ κλέπτε or µὴ κλέψῃς—except that µὴ κλέπτειν was Ionic; the infinitive (as nicht rauchen, faire bouillir) was retained as traditionary in the writings of Ionic character as the medical works of Hippocrates and the Cynegetica of Xenophon. But in particular injunctions, when there is any reference to time, neither ‘frequency’ nor ‘vividness’ has anything whatever to do with the distinction. The aorist subjunctive (which is close to the future in form, and in Homer and the general mass of Greek which comes to the surface later was used like the future indicative) is in effect a future perfect; and always refers, more or less, to future time: just as ὅταν τοῦτο ποιήσῃς is hoc cum feceris, so µὴ τοῦτο ποιήσῃς is hoc ne feceris (like ὅπως µὴ ποιήσεις) ‘see that you do not do this’ at whatever future time, next moment or a hundred years hence. Whereas µὴ τοῦτο ποίει is ‘do not do as you 42 are doing’, ‘do not continue doing so’, ‘cease to do so’.

CI

– Henry Jackson (1904): Davidson told me that, when he was learning modern Greek, he had been puzzled about the distinction, until he heard a Greek friend use the present imperative to a dog which was barking. This gave him the clue. He turned to Plato’s apology [sic], and immediately stumble upon the excellent instances 20 E µὴ θορυβήσητε, before clamor begins, and 21 A µὴ θορυβεῖτε, when it has begun. Ever since Davidson explained the distinction to me, I have kept a watch upon instances of particular 43 prohibitions, and I am convinced that the rule holds.

——— 40

Frank Cole Babbitt, A Grammar of Attic and Ionic Greek (New York: American Book Company, 1902), 292 (§584). See his somewhat aspectual (vs. Aktionsart) view of tenses, p. 272 (§539), which does not appear in his treatment of prohibitions. 41

John Thompson, A Greek Grammar: Accidence and Syntax for Schools and Colleges (London: John Murray, 1902), 327–28 (§240). 42

Walter G. Headlam, “Some Passages of Aeschylus and Others,” The Classical Review 17.6 (1903): 294–95. Cf. idem, “Greek Prohibitions,” The Classical Review 19.1 (1905): 31. 43

Henry Jackson, “Prohibitions in Greek,” The Classical Review 18.4 (1904): 263.


491

– H. Darnley Naylor (1905): I chanced recently, for other purposes, to run through the Greek Tragedians, and I kept my eyes open for cases which might prove the truth or falsity of this distinction between µὴ ποίει and µὴ ποιήσῃς. It was an interesting investigation: very often I was convinced that the distinction was just; often again I was equally convinced that the verdict must be ‘non liquet’. I have ended by feeling that, while the alleged distinction exists, it is only one of many others possible. … To sum up then: the distinction drawn by Hermann undoubtedly occurs, but it is not the only distinction. The present tense may, of course, imply an action still continued, e.g. ποιεῖ may equal ‘he goes on doing it.’ Therefore, µὴ ποίει may, on occasion, signify, ‘do not go on doing it,’ i.e. ‘cease doing it.’ But we must not bind ourselves to one meaning of the present stem. I have shown that µὴ ποίει can also mean ‘don’t be for doing it’ and that, in this sense, it need not refer to an act already begun. Conversely there seem to be undoubted instances where µὴ ποιήσῃς does imply ‘cease doing.’ Lastly the conative meaning explains equally well (sometime better) passages 44 which are regarded by Mr. Headlam as conclusively in his favour.

CI

– James Hope Moulton (1906): … the present imperative often calls out the retort, “But I am not doing so,” which the aorist locution never does: it would require “No, I will not.” This is certainly the case in MGr, where µὴ γράφῃς is addressed to a person who is already writing, µὴ γράψῃς to one who has not begun. The facts for classical and for present-day Greek may be supplemented from the four volumes of OP: we need not labour the proof of a canon which could hardly be invalid for a period lying between periods in which it 45 is known to have been in force.

MX

– Robert C. Seaton (1906): In this discussion it seems to have been fairly shown that µή with aor. subj. forbids some act in the future, but in face of the numerous and striking examples produced by Mr. Naylor it is difficult to maintain that µή with the pres. imperat. 46 necessarily involves a reference to the past as well as to the future.

——— 44

H. Darnley Naylor, “Prohibitions in Greek,” The Classical Review 19.1 (1905): 26 and 30. Cf. idem, “More Prohibitions in Greek,” The Classical Review 20.7 (1906): 348. 45

MHT 1:122–23. Comparing this statement with Moulton’s earlier statement above (1895) shows his movement from a middle DP position to the harsher CI side of the Aktionsart continuum. 46

Robert Cooper Seaton, “Prohibition in Greek,” The Classical Review 20.9 (1906): 438.

492 CI


– Archibald Thomas Robertson (1914): … as a rule, it is the ingressive aorist subj. used in prohibitions to forbid a thing not 47 yet done or the durative present imper. to forbid the continuance of an act.

CI

– Herbert Weir Smyth (1920): a. µή γράφε, like don’t write, is ambiguous and may mean, according to the situation, either cease writing or abstain from writing. Commonly µή γράφε means do not go on writing, write no more, and is an order to stop an action already begun. In many cases, however, µή with the present imperative does not refer to the interruption of an action already begun, but to an action still in the more or less distant future against which the speaker urges resistance. Sometimes the reference to the future is directly or indirectly indicated by the context. b. µή γράψῃς usually has the force of (I beg that) you will not write, (take care that you) don’t write, and is commonly a complete prohibition against doing something not already begun. Sometimes, and especially in expressions of a colloquial character, µή with the aorist subjunctive marks the speaker’s interruption, by anticipation, of a mental (less often of a physical) action that is being done by the person he addresses; as µή θαυµάσῃς (P[lato,] L[eges] 804 b) in reply to an exclamation of surprise. Here the type µή γράψῃς often expresses impatience. c. If µή γράφε elicits a reply, it is (ἀλλ᾽) οὐ γράφω, while µή γράφῃς is 48 answered by (ἀλλ᾽) οὐ γράψω.

CI

– William Hersey Davis (1923): The difference in meaning between the present imperative and the aorist imperative is in the kind of action,—durative action in the present, and punctiliar action in the aorist. The pres. imperative, then, has to do with action in progress. The aorist imperative has to do with the simple act without regard to progress…. …µὴ with the pres. imperative forbids the continuance of the action; while… µὴ with the aor. subjunctive forbids the beginning (ingressive) of the action.…Thus Aktionsart must be considered. In prohibitions to forbid a thing not yet done the aor. 49 subj. (not the imperative) is used with µή….

——— 47 ATR 852. In his earlier Short Grammar (1908), Robertson has a verbal approach that is less Aktionsart, and he says little to distinquish between the prohibition constructions. In fact, he remarks, “In the imperative as with all the modes the meaning of the word itself and of the context has to be considered” (p. 132). The 9th ed. of his (now New) Short Grammar (1931) becomes much more Aktionsart oriented; see n. 19 on pp. 14–15 above. 48 Herbert Weir Smyth, A Greek Grammar for Colleges (New York: American Book, 1920), 410–11 (§1841). Smyth’s general Aktionsart approach to the verb tense-forms—using “kind of time” and “stage of action”—is seen on pp. 412–36 (§1850–1958). 49 William Hersey Davis, Beginner’s Grammar of the Greek New Testament (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1923), 168–69 (§408). Davis fully embraces Aktionsart theory, speaking throughout his text of durative, punctiliar, and perfective/completed “kinds of action.”

APPENDIX A: TRACING AKTIONSART VIEWS OF PROHIBITIONS O

493

– J. Gresham Machen (1923): Prohibition (the negative of a command) is expressed by the present imperative with µή or by the aorist subjunctive with µή. Examples: (1) µὴ λῦε or µὴ λύσῃς, do not loose (µὴ λύῃς or µὴ λῦσον would be wrong); (2) µὴ λυέτω or µὴ λύσῃ, let him not loose; (3) µὴ λύετε or µὴ λύσητε, 50 do not loose; (4) µὴ λυέτωσαν or µὴ λύσωσιν, let them not loose.

CI

– Georges Cuendet (1924): L’opposition de l’impératif présent et du subjonctif aoriste prohibitifs est bien nette. L’impératif présent s’applique à une action imperfective, c’est-à-dire sujette à durer ou à se répéter; il ordonne de s’abstenir d’une chose ou de cesser de la faire; on a remarqué qu’il provoquait les réponses « mais je ne le fais pas » ou « je cesserai de le faire »; il interdit ce qui a lieu ou ce qui pourrait avoir lieu au moment même … implique une idée de durée et considère l’action comme actuelle. Dans la majorité des cas, l’impératif présent prescrit d’interrompre quelque chose ou de renoncer à toute récidive …. Les défenses exprimées au subjonctif aoriste sont plus catégoriques que celles a l’impératif présent; elles mettent en garde contre un danger futur et attendent la 51 réponse « j’éviterai de le faire » …. The contrast of the present imperative and the aorist prohibitive subjunctive is clear. The present imperative applies to an imperfective action, i.e. one that continues or is repeated; it orders to refrain from something or to cease to do something; it was the remark that provoked the response, “But I am not doing that” or “I have ceased to do that”; it prohibits what is happening or what could be taking place at that time … it implies a sense of duration and considers the action as current. In most cases, the present imperative requires the need to stop something or to refrain from any recurrence …. The prohibitions expressed by the aorist subjunctive are more categorical than those in the present imperative; they warn against a future danger and elicit the response, “I would avoid to do so” ….

CI

– Edwin Mayser (1926): Die Natur des präsentischen Imperativ wird am besten erkannt durch Vergleichung mit dem Aorist. Die Aktionsart des Imperat. praesent. ist der Bedeutung des

——— 50 J. Gresham Machen, New Testament Greek for Beginners (New York: Macmillan, 1923), 180 (§422). Despite the 285-page length of his grammar text, this is all that Machen says about prohibitions; in so doing, he avoids all the Aktionsart views in vogue at the time. 51 Georges Cuendet, L’impératif dans le Texte Grec et dans les Versions Gotique, Arménienne et Vieux Slave des Evangiles (Paris: Paul Geuthner, 1924), 89–90. We provide the wooden English rendering.

494

PROHIBITIONS IN THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT Präsensstamms entsprechend durativ (unvollendet) oder iterativ (unterbrochene Dauer) und bezeichnet daher teils eine fortwirkende, zuständliche Erscheinung von unbegrenztem Zeitumfang, teils eine versuchte oder wiederholte Handlung. Demnach hat der Imp. praes. seine Stelle in allgemeinen Vorschriften und Gesetzen sowie in solchen Geboten, bei denen Dauer und längerer Verlauf oder Wiederholung und die Art der Ausführung im Vordergrund stehen. Ein Verbot mit µή und dem Imper. praes. bezeichnet die Unterbrechung einer schon begonnenen Handlung (= fahre nicht fort oder höre auf mit), manchmal auch den negativen Verlauf einer Handlung (= halte dich fern von). Demgegenüber bezieht sich der Imperativ und der prohibitive Konjunktiv des Aorist auf einen vorliegenden einmaligen Einzelfall mit einer abgeschlossenen, leicht übersehbaren Handlung (komplexive Aktion); daneben kann die ingressive Bedeutung bei Verben, die einen Zustand bezeichnen, in Kraft treten. Der Ton in Befehl und Verbot ist meist schärfer, dringender, knapper und rücksichtsloser als im Präsens. Daher erscheinen im Aorist besonders häufig amtliche Anweisungen und Erlasse vorgesetzter Behörden; aber auch entschiedene Wünsche und Aufforderungen Gleichgestellter, die nicht viel Worte machen. Gebete zu den Göttern sind regelmäßig im Aorist gehalten, weil sie Erhörung in dem bestimmten Einzelfall, 52 nicht dauernde Bindung der Gottheit bezwecken. The nature of the present imperative is best recognized by comparison with the aorist. The Aktionsart of the present imperative is the significance of the present stem corresponding to durative (unfinished) or iterative (interrupted duration) and therefore sometimes called continual action, appropriate for a phenomenon of unlimited time length, sometimes an attempted or repeated action. Accordingly, the present imperative has its place in general rules and laws and in those commands for which duration and prolonged course or repetition and the manner of performance are in the foreground. A prohibition with µή and the present imperative refers to the interruption of an already initiated action (= do not continue or cease with that), sometimes also the negative course of action (= keep away from). In contrast, the imperative and the prohibitive subjunctive of the aorist refer at one particular individual case to a complete, easily foreseen action (complexive action); in addition the ingressive significance of verbs that denote a state can enter into operation. The tone of command and prohibition is usually sharper, more urgent, more concise and more ruthless than in the present. Therefore official instructions and decrees of higher authorities appear most frequently in the aorist, but also strong desires and requests of peers who do not say much. Prayers to the gods are regularly made in the aorist because they aim at being heard in their specific individual cases and are not intended to be a lasting commitment of the deity.

——— 52 Edwin Mayser, Grammatik der Griechischen Papyri aus der Ptolemäerzeit: Mit Einschluss der gleichzeitigen Ostraka und der in Ägypten verfassten Inschriften, Vol. 2, Satzlehre, (3 parts; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1926, 1933, 1934), 1:145–46 (§36). We provide our own English translation.

APPENDIX A: TRACING AKTIONSART VIEWS OF PROHIBITIONS DP

495

– Henry Lamar Crosby & John Nevin Schaeffer (1928): (a) The imperative denotes a command. The present imperative does not differ from the aorist imperative in time, all imperatives necessarily referring to the future. The difference is that to be found with the subjunctive, the present denoting continuance or repetition (motion picture), the aorist mere occurrence (snapshot): πρᾶττε keep doing, πρᾶξον do. (b) µή and the present imperative or aorist subjunctive denote a prohibition: µή βάλλετε do not be continually throwing; 53 µή βάλητε do not throw.

CI

– William Edwy Vine (1930): The Present Imperative with µη most frequently denotes a command to cease to do something, or not to do what is already being done…. When a command is given not to do something at all, not to begin to do some54 thing, µη with the Aorist Subjunctive is used.

CI

– Henry Preston Vaughan Nunn (1938): The distinction in meaning between the Pres. Imperative and the Aor. Subjunctive is that same as that between the Pres. Imperative and Aor. Imperative in affirmative commands. The Pres. Imperative forbids the Continuance of an action already in progress, or sometimes the Habitual Doing of an action, or even the attempt to do it. The Aor. Subjunctive forbids the doing of an action without any regard to its progress or frequency, and it is most generally used with regard to an action not already begun. These distinctions of meaning are carefully observed by the writers of the N.T. and must not be neglected in translating because we have no corresponding niceties 55 of phrase in English.

——— 53

Henry Lamar Crosby and John Nevin Schaeffer, An Introduction to Greek (Chicago: Allyn & Bacon, 1928), 158 (§294). While clearly still Aktionsart, some might suggest that the words (and analogy) of Crosby and Schaeffer show a leaning toward verbal aspect theory. 54

William Edwy Vine, New Testament Greek Grammar: A Course of Self-Help (London: Pickering & Inglis, 1930), 95. 55

Henry Preston Vaughan Nunn, A Short Syntax of New Testament Greek (5th ed.; Cambridge [Eng.]: Cambridge University Press, 1938 [1st ed., 1912]), 84 (§126). See also Henry Preston Vaughan Nunn, The Elements of New Testament Greek: A Method of Studying the Greek New Testament with Exercises (8th ed.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1945 [1st ed., 1919]), 100: “The Present Imperative generally denotes a command to cease to do an action already begun, in accordance with the principle that the moods of the Present tense denote action in progress…. The Aorist Subjunctive generally denotes a command not to begin to do an action.” Cf. Henry Preston Vaughan Nunn, A Short Syntax of Attic Greek (Cambridge [Eng.]: W. Heffer, 1948), 92 (§144).

496 CI


– William Douglas Chamberlain (1941): The imperative mode has various uses…. It may issue a prohibition (a negative command): µή θησαυρίζετε (Mt. 6:19), ‘Quit laying up treasures.’ The difference between µή with the present imperative and with the aorist subjunctive can be illustrated here: µή θησαυρίσητε would mean ‘Don’t begin to lay up 56 treasures.’

CI

– William Heidt (1951): To summarize, then: the student when translating texts involving simple present imperatives will contribute his own phraseology to express iterative or repeated action; when me is present, his translation will reflect the action as in progress but to which a halt must be made; usually the words, stop, quit, cease, will precede the verb proper. For aorist imperatives he will ordinarily resort to some seeming circumlocution to express the sense of urgency, sincerity, earnestness or finality inherent in the tense form. A certain freedom must be allowed, a freedom which in reality is no freedom at all since it tends to give the closest possible English equivalent to 57 the Greek original.

MX

– Charles Francis Digby Moule (1953): In general the Present Imperative commands (or, with µή, prohibits) continued or habitual action, the Aorist a specific action…. But this is an extremely fluid rule, and often the tense appears to be determined more by the meaning of the verb or by some obscure habit than by the ‘rules’ of Aktionsart. … I suggest, as working rules, the following: i. Where there could be any ambiguity, writers tended (more or less, according to their degree of accuracy and feeling for style) to distinguish between the Present and Aorist Aktionsart. ii. Where there could be no ambiguity, the tense was determined by sheer chance, or euphony, or tradition, or availability of words. iii. The student will be well advised to observe the Aktionsart rules as precisely as possible when he is translating English into Greek, and to take special care, when 58 translating Greek into English, to see what the writers themselves do.

——— 56 William Douglas Chamberlain, An Exegetical Grammar of the Greek New Testament (New York: Macmillan, 1941), 86. 57

William Heidt, “Translating New Testament Imperatives,” CBQ (1951): 256.

58

Moule, An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek, 135–36. Earlier in the book, just after his favorable section on Aktionsart (pp. 5–16) he had expressed similar reservations (p. 20): Logically, one would expect the remarks already made about Aktionsart to hold good for the tenses of the Imperative; i.e. an Aorist Imperative ought, one would think, to represent a command to do something instantly, or once for all; or to indi-


497

– Harvey Eugene Dana & Julius R. Mantey (1955): The purpose of a prohibition, when expressed by the aorist subjunctive, is to forbid a thing before it has begun; i.e., it commands to never do a thing. But a prohibition in the present imperative means to forbid the continuance of an act; it commands to quit doing a thing. There should be nothing confusing about understanding 59 the force of these negative commands as they occur in these tenses.

CI

– Henry G. Meecham (1955): The Present Imperative with µή expresses a Prohibition with the meaning do not continue to. … µή with the Aorist Subjuctive as a Prohibition carries the meaning do not begin 60 to.

DP

– Eric George Jay (1958): The present imperative with µή prohibits an action which is thought of as already in process …. The present imperative with µή is also used in prohibitions when the verb used is such as to describe a state or a necessarily prolonged action …. Where the aorist imperative would be used in a positive command (i.e. where the action is thought of as instantaneous, or where no special emphasis is placed on

cate simply indifference to the time-factor; whereas a Present Imperative ought to refer to repeated, or to protracted, or to attempted action. Now, good illustrations can indeed be adduced for Aorists and Presents fitting perfectly into these respective categories; but it is far more difficult to demonstrate that this is not due to some chance, and there are exceptions which make one wonder whether the underlying rationale has yet been discovered. 59 Harvey Eugene Dana and Julius R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament (Toronto: Macmillan, 1955), 301, §290. Cf. p. 299, §288: “Prohibitions with the Aorist Subjunctive. The main idea of the aorist tense, as has been indicated, is to express punctiliar action. When a prohibition, which is a negative command, is expressed in the aorist it means to forbid in advance whatever may be contemplated”; and p. 301, §289: “The Present Imperative in Prohibitions. The present tense is properly used for expressing continued action. A prohibition in the present imperative demands that action then in progress be stopped.” They do offer a caveat: “The distinction between the present and aorist imperative sometimes seems to be ignored. But we are safest when we assume that the author had a reason in his mind for using one rather than the other” (p. 300, §288). 60 Editorial note in James Hope Moulton, An Introduction to the Study of New Testament Greek (5th ed.; ed. Henry G. Meecham; London, Epworth, 1955), 124 n. 3 and 125 n. 1. These notes by Meecham bring Moulton’s softer DP position in the 1st ed. of this text (1895) into line with his later harsher CI position on prohibitions reflected in his reference grammar (1906).

498

PROHIBITIONS IN THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT the continuance or repetition of the action), in a prohibition µή is used with the 61 aorist subjunctive (not the aorist imperative)….

MX

– Samuel A. Cartledge (1959): A positive command is expressed by the imperative mood. A negative command, though, is expressed by µή and the present imperative (for continued action, or the stopping of an action that had been continued) or by µή and the aorist sub62 junctive (for punctiliar action).

CI

– Donald Foster Hudson (1960): The distinction is the same as that in the Subjunctive, the Present referring to continual or repeated action and the Aorist to simple action, though the New Testament is not always very precise. But it is important to note that the difference is never of time; you can only order someone to do something in the future…. …When the prohibition is to stop doing something already begun the construction used is µη with the Present Imperative….When the prohibition is against doing 63 something not already begun the construction is µη with the Aorist Subjunctive.

MX

– Maximilian Zerwick (1960): Especially in prohibitions it commonly happens that µή with the present imperative is used to forbid the continuation of an act, and µή with the aorist subjunctive to forbid a future one (with an absolute prohibition, as distinct from the prohibition « in principle » conveyed by the present; but the aorist may be used simply because 64 it is more vivid and absolute, or regarding a general case as a particular one…).

——— 61

Eric George Jay, New Testament Greek: An Introductory Grammar (London: SPCK, 1958), 214–15. 62

Samuel A. Cartledge, A Basic Grammar of the Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1959), 114. 63

Donald Foster Hudson, New Testament Greek (Teach Yourself Books; Sevenoaks: Teach Yourself Books, 1960), 92–93. 64

Maximilian Zerwick, Biblical Greek: Illustrated by Examples (trans. Joseph Smith; Rome: Scripta Pontificii Insituti Biblici, 1963 [from Italian 4th ed., 1960; Latin 1st ed., 1944]), 79–80 (§246); he follows with commonly noted NT exceptions. Out of a sense of completeness we have included Zerwick here in our survey of Aktionsart approaches, but it should be noted that his “mixed” view is mixed precisely because he exhibits a verbal aspect approach; see his remarks pp. 77–78 (§§240–41) where he defines the term aspect as “the manner in which the action is regarded” by the author and “not so much by the objective reality.” Unfortunately, this important distinction is easily lost in his overlysubtle wording above: “it commonly happens that….” Zerwick’s contribution to the verbal aspect discussion is noted in Chapter 4 above.

APPENDIX A: TRACING AKTIONSART VIEWS OF PROHIBITIONS DP

499

– Alston Hurd Chase & Henry Phillips Jr. (1961): Prohibition is expressed by µή and the present imperative or by µή and the aorist subjunctive. Imperatives by their nature always look to the future. The present tense 65 expresses continuous or repeated action, the aorist a single act.

DP

– Stephen William Paine (1961): The imperative mood is used for the expression of commands or entreaties. The present tense signifies a continuing action, the aorist a simple action. The negative is µή…. For prohibitions using the aorist tense, the Greek regularly employs µή with 66 aorist subjunctive instead of µή with aorist imperative.

CI

– Alfred Marshall (1962): Negatived—always with µή, the hypothetical negative—a command becomes, of course, a prohibition. Here also the pres. and the aor. differ in their force; the former means ‘cease what you are now doing’, the latter ‘do not commit such-and-such an 67 action’.

CI

– Nigel Turner (1963): The same distinction holds in the imperative as in the indicative; the present is durative or incomplete or interative and the aorist is punctiliar or constative. It affects commands in this way, that the aorist imper. is more or less restricted to precepts concerning conduct in specific cases; and this applies also to prohibitions, which in the aorist are subjunctive. Somewhat preemptory and categorical, they tend to be ingressive, giving either a command to commence some action or a prohibition against commencing it. On the other hand, present imperatives give a command to do something constantly, to continue to do it; or else a prohibition against its continuance, an interruption of an action already begun.…These distinctions are broadly observed in all periods and even in MGr. On the other hand there are passages 68 which do not conform….

——— 65

Alston Hurd Chase and Henry Phillips Jr., A New Introduction to Greek (3rd ed.; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1961 [1st ed., 1941]), 126. 66

Stephen William Paine, Beginning Greek: A Functional Approach (New York: Oxford University Press, 1961), 281 (§571). 67

Alfred Marshall, New Testament Greek Primer (London, Samuel Bagster, 1962), 61 (§123e). 68

MHT 3:74–75; cf. Turner’s whole of the section on time and Aktionsart in 3:74–78. In his Grammatical Insights into the New Testament (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1965), Turner strongly commends Aktionsart, saying, “Tenses in Greek indicate the kind of action, rather than the time of the action. Hence grammarians in Germany coined this technical term, which has now become universally accepted” (p. 24, n.). This confidence in Aktionsart is seen in his approach to commands and prohibitions in this work as well (pp. 29–30):

500 CI


– Aubrey William Argyle (1965): Prohibition, expressed by µή and the AORIST subjunctive (usually meaning do not begin to do something),…. Prohibition can also be expressed by µή and the PRESENT (never aorist) impera69 tive (usually meaning do not continue to do something, stop doing it);….

CI

– Eugene Van Ness Goetchius (1965): Next it should be noticed that the difference in meaning between the present imperative and the aorist imperative is not one of time, but of aspect. The present imperative is progressive or durative, referring to an action already in progress, while the aorist is indefinite or “ingressive,” referring, usually, to an action which is to be commenced…. … The negatives used with the imperative mood are µή and its compounds; the translation of these negative commands or prohibitions parallels that of positive commands: the present imperative is thus used in a prohibition in which someone is commanded to stop doing what he is doing, whereas the aorist imperative is used in prohibitions in which someone is commanded not to start doing something …. As before, this distinction cannot be pressed in every instance. The aorist imperative occurs only quite rarely with negatives; its place is taken, in such construc70 tions, by the aorist subjunctive.

For Greeks of all periods, a present imperative was an order to do something constantly or to continue. Examining carefully the kind of action (linguists everywhere follow the Germans in calling it Aktionsart), grammarians have analysed it as either durative (lasting) or iterative (repeating) in all moods of the present tense. The Aktionsart of the present must be clearly distinguished from that of the aorist, which is not durative or iterative and expresses no more than one specific instance of the action of the verb, involving usually a single moment of time. One will readily appreciate that an aorist command does not envisage a general precept but is concerned with conduct in specific instances. Indeed, if often involves the initiation of action that has not yet begun,… The same principle holds in negative commands. If the tense is the present, prohibition will be against continuing an action which has already begun. If it is aorist, prohibition is against beginning it. Although there are some passages where a change of tense apparently has no significance other than a desire for variety in style, intentional distinctions in the Greek have proved too subtle for modern interpreters. 69

Aubrey William Argyle, An Introductory Grammar of New Testament Greek: With Exercises (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1965), 88; cf. Earlier he writes more simply, “µή with the second person present imperative expresses prohibition in the sense of saying ‘Do not continue to do something’, ‘stop doing it’” (p. 24). 70 Eugene Van Ness Goetchius, The Language of the New Testament (New York: Scribners, 1965), 263 (§332.3); cf. 268–69 (§344). Note that, contrary to our current practice,


501

– John William Wenham (1965): Negative commands can be stated in two ways. (a) … µη with the Present Imperative generally denotes a command to cease to do and action already begun, in accordance with the principle that the Present tense denotes action in progress. … (b) µη with the Aorist Subjunctive, however, generally denotes a command 71 not to begin an action.

CI

– Robert Walter Funk (1977): Prohibitions are expressed by the present imperative or the aorist subjunctive (2. person sing. and plur.). It is the general pattern in Indo-European languages that negative commands are expressed by the present imperative (not subjunctive) and the aorist subjunctive (not imperative). The negative is µή. There are a few examples of the 3. person aorist subjunctive with µή, and rare occurrences of the aorist imperative with µή. Categorical prohibitions take the aorist (complexive) subjunctive …. The present imperative is employed in negative injunctions to stop doing something ….72

CI

– James A. Brooks & Carlton L. Winbery (1979): The aorist subjunctive only with µή is used to forbid the initiation of an action. (Contrast the present imperative with µή which is used to stop an action already in progress.) The words “don’t ever” may be used in the translation.… … …The present imperative with µή is used to stop an action already in progress. (Contrast the aorist subjunctive with µή which forbids the beginning of an action.) The word “stop” may be used in the translation to bring out the full meaning.73

Goetchius clearly uses the term aspect to refer specifically to kind of action (Aktionsart): “… Greek has only one set of forms for both kinds or aspects of action in this tense”; p. 69 (§87). 71

John William Wenham, The Elements of New Testament Greek (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965), 165–66. In a footnote on p. 166, Wenham notes the use of the negated future indicative for prohibitions as well. Thus, in his brief syntax review (pp. 244– 49), he makes the following simplistic summary for NT prohibitions (p. 247): µη + Present Imperative: do not continue an action. µη + Aorist Subjunctive: do not begin an action. οὐ + Future (Hebrew idiom): ‘you shall not’. There are, of course, many other ways prohibitions are expressed in the NT; see Part 2 above. 72 Robert Walter Funk, A Beginning–Intermediate Grammar of Hellenistic Greek (3 vols.; 2nd ed.; SBL Sources for Biblical Study 2; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1977), 641–42 (§810). Funk discusses several difficulties with the Aktionsart view of commands and prohibitions; pp. 642–43 (§812).

502 CI


– Curtis Vaughan & Virtus E. Gideon (1979): A present imperative with µή forbids the continuance of an act already in progress. The aorist subjunctive with µή differs from the present imperative in that it forbids an act before it has begun; i.e., it commands never to do a thing.74

CI

– Huber L. Drumwright Jr. (1980): The subjunctive of prohibition. This use is always confined to the second person of the aorist subjunctive. It expresses a negative command that forbids the initiation of an action. The prohibition of an action already in progress is accomplished by the present imperative. … In a negative command µή with a present imperative means either not to make a habit of doing something or to stop doing something that has been going on. Examples: µὴ κρίνετε (don’t always be judging); µὴ µεριµνᾶτε (stop worrying). If the negative forbids the beginning (initiation) of an action, µή with the aorist subjunc75 tive is used.

CI

– Molly Whittaker (1980): Prohibitions in the 2nd person: (a) µὴ is used with the present imperative for prohibition of an action already begun: µὴ φοβεῖσθε. Do not fear (i.e. Stop being afraid). (b) µὴ is used with the aorist subjunctive to prohibit embarking on a course of action: µὴ ψευδοµαρτυρήσῃς. Do not bear false witness.76

CI

– William Graham MacDonald (1986): There are two perspectives utilized in prohibitions with an initial µή: 1. Cease from an action in progress: µή + present imperative: “Do not continue … Stop … Cease … Quit …” … 2. Do not begin an anticipated action: µή + aorist subjuctive “Do not begin to … Do not start to …” …

73 James A. Brooks and Carlton L. Winbery, Syntax of New Testament Greek (Lanham, Md: University Press of America, 1979), 118 and 127. 74 Curtis Vaughan and Virtus E. Gideon, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament: A Workbook Approach to Intermediate Grammar (Nashville: Broadman, 1979), 107. 75 Huber L. Drumwright Jr., An Introduction to New Testament Greek (Nashville: Broadman, 1980), 127 and 130 (§22.5 and §23.1). 76 Molly Whittaker, New Testament Greek Grammar: An Introduction, rev. ed. London: SCM, 1980. Whittaker comments in a footnote, “Distinction between the two types (a) and (b) is not always clear cut.”


503

Note on other probibitions [sic]: If the µή comes after the imperative, the fine distinctions above do not apply. In such a case the µή makes negative what follows it, rather than keying directly on the verb. ἐργάζεσθε µὴ τήν βρῶσιν τὴν ἀπολλυµένην ἀλλα… (John 6:27) The translation of such a construction is necessarily more ambiguous: “Work not for …” or “Do not labor for ….” If the µή precedes a verb other than the present imperative or the aorist subjunctive the ambiguity follows: µὴ ὀµόσαι (Matt. 5:34) “Do 77 not take an oath.” CI

– James M. Efrid (1990): The Greek language has several ways to express prohibition. a. The present tense of the imperative is used with µή to indicate that one should stop an action already in process. µὴ κρίνετε Do not judge (better: Stop judging). b. The aorist subjunctive is used with µή to indicate that one should not begin a certain course of action. µή λύσητε Do not loose (better: Do not begin to loose). c. The use of µή with the aorist imperative is a simple negative command or wish. 78 µὴ φιλήσατε τὸν κόσµον Do not love the world.

DP

– Timothy Parkinson Schehr (1990): The semantic differences between the present and aorist stems are retained in the imperative mood throughout all periods of the language. The present imperative signifies action that is going on or is repeated; the aorist imperative on the other hand signifies action that is well-defined.…The present subjunctive expresses the 79 action as going on; the aorist subjunctive expresses the action as punctiliar.

——— 77 William Graham MacDonald, Greek Enchiridion: A Concise Handbook of Grammar for Translation and Exegesis (Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson, 1986), 50. While starting with the typical harsh CI position, MacDonald appreciably attempts to modify the approach in a way that might explain at least some of the exceptions. 78

James M. Efrid, A Grammar for New Testament Greek (Nashville: Abingdon, 1990),

121. 79

Timothy Parkinson Schehr, “Syntax of the Moods and Tenses of the Greek Verb in Septuagint Genesis 1–15,” Ph.D. diss. (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College—Jewish Institute of Religion, 1990), 110 and 113. While not specifically directed to prohibitions, Schehr’s comments here do not exempt the use of these tense-forms in negated constructions. Note also that his remark on the present vs. aorist distinction being retained “throughout all periods of the language” echoes that of Moulton in MHT 1:122–23.

504 GS


– Frank Beetham (1992): … normal requests for something to be done once are expressed by an aorist imperative whereas a present imperative tends to express an order which is to be obeyed continually, as a rule, in the future …. “Don’t” (a prohibition applying to a single occasion) was expressed by µή with the aorist subjunctive (rather than with the aorist imperative) …. … A general prohibition is µή + present imperative e.g. µὴ κρίνετε (= “don’t (ever) judge”) (Luke 4:33). A prohibition where generality is not emphasized is µή + aorist subjunctive (not µή + aorist imperative) e.g. µὴ βάλητε τοὺς µαργαρίτας ὑµῶν ἔµπροσθεν τῶν χοίρων (“don’t throw your pearls in front of pigs”) (Matthew 7:6).80

CI

– David Alan Black (1994 and 2009): The negative µή is sometimes used with the aorist subjunctive to forbid the initiation or occurrence of an action. In translation, the word “ever” may be supplied when the context warrants such a rendering….Prohibition may also be expressed by µή with the present imperative. However, the present imperative is normally used when the command is to stop doing something, whereas the aorist subjunctive is normally used when the command is not to start doing something. “Normally” is an important qualifier: “Do not marvel” in John 3:7 clearly does not mean “Do not start to marvel.” In this instance, as in many others, the aorist adds urgency to the prohibition. … …µή with the present imperative is generally used to prohibit the continuance of an action in progress. The word “stop” may be used in translation when the context suggests this sense…. The context, of course, has to determine whether the particular action being proscribed is actually occurring or lies in the future. Generally, in specific commands the present imperative means “make it your habit not to do.” Contrast µή 81 with the aorist subjunctive, which generally prohibits the beginning of an action.

CI

– Kendell H. Easley (1994): When second person aorist subjunctives are preceded by the negative µή, the action is conceived as a negative imperative. The action is prohibited from ever happening…. Another way to understand this is with the translation, “Don’t begin to [ask].” It means to stop in advance a possible course of action. Since English versions do not convey the sense of this, it can help to mention the exact force of a prohibition subjunctive when preaching or teaching.

——— 80 Frank Beetham, An Introduction to New Testament Greek: A Quick Course in the Reading of Koiné Greek (London: Bristol Classical, 1992), 201 and 202 and 225 n. 7. 81 David Alan Black, Learn to Read New Testament Greek (exp. ed.; Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1994), 163 (§152) and 172 (§158); cf. pp. 179 and 189 of the 2009 3rd ed., which remains substantially the same. Black exhibits a typical CI view, but highly qualifies it.


505

… A negative command is sometimes expressed by µή followed by a present imperative. In such instances, an action already under way must be stopped, although 82 sometimes common sense indicates that this implication is too subtle. GS

– Steven M. Baugh (1995): As a rule, the “present” imperative was chosen when an author wished to give a general exhortation to be practiced whenever applicable. The action is not necessarily to be performed continuously as some interpreters believe; it is a general practice. If there is to be a continuous fulfillment, the inherent meaning of the verb or contextual features of the discourse must communicate this: “Pray continuously” (1 Thess. 5:17) expresses continuous action through the adverb “continuously” (ἀδιαλείπτως). On the other hand, “Greet one another with a holy kiss” (Rom. 16:16 et al.) is to be done as a general practice, not continuously! The “aorist” imperative cannot be a past time action. How could you tell someone to do something previously?! No, the aorist imperative is usually a request, command, etc. that is given for a specific or discrete occasion. The action may be performed repeatedly over time, but it is usually something enjoined for a limited period, rather than as a lifelong obligation; e.g., “Wash (νίψαι) in the pool of Siloam” (John 9:7). Here are two further examples that illustrate the distinction: • PRESENT. µή κρίνετέ καὶ οὐ µὴ κριθῆτε· “Do not go around judging (others, then you will in no way be judged” (Luke 6:37; cf. Matt. 7:1). The present imperative forbids “judging” as a general practice. • AORIST. κατὰ τὸν νόµον ὑµῶν κρίνατε αὐτόν, “You judge him according to your law” (John 18:31). Pilate is telling the Jews to conduct a specific trial on a specific case, rather than setting their general behavior. … With the negative µή…, the present imperative prohibits an action. Sometimes the action is assumed to be going on by the speaker and means, ‘Stop doing that.’… [The aorist subjunctive in prohibitions is for simple negative commands; in some contexts it] speaks to a specific, hypothetical occasion, and the action is not under83 stood to be in process.”

CI

– Beaumont Ward Powers (1995): With the negative (µή…), the present imperative expresses the prohibition of an act already begun: “Do not continue doing, that is, stop doing, (the action of the verb)”.

——— 82

Kendell H. Easley, User-Friendly Greek: A Common Sense Approach to the Greek New Testament (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1994), 69 and 74 (§4.2.1.2 and §4.4.2.1). 83

Steven M. Baugh, A New Testament Greek Primer (Phillipsburg, N.J.: P & R, 1995), 130 (§23.6, emphasis his) and 131 (§23.7).

506

PROHIBITIONS IN THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT The prohibition of an act not yet begun—“Do not begin doing (the action of the verb)”—is expressed by µή with the aorist subjunctive.84

MX

– David Alan Black (1998): The subjunctive of prohibition involves µή plus the aorist subjunctive and is used to forbid an action as a whole or, in some instances, to forbid the initiation of an action…. … The imperative of prohibition is used with the negative adverb µή and the present imperative to forbid habitual action or, in some instances, to stop an action already in progress….Note that only the context can tell whether the action is 85 already under way.

CI

– N. Clayton Croy (1999): Prohibitions are expressed in two ways in Greek: by µή with the present imperative or by µή with the aorist subjunctive. (Prohibitions with the aorist imperative are very rare.) The difference pertains to how the action is conceived. The present imperative with µή forbids the continuance of an action, often an action that is in progress: “Stop doing that!” The aorist subjunctive with µή is a categorical prohibition. It views the action as a whole and often forbids action that has not yet begun: “Do not (begin to) do that!”86

CI

– Kerry S. Robichaux and Robert Good (2000): While present and aorist imperatives are both used with similar frequencies for positive commands, only the present imperative occurs with any frequency in negative commands or prohibitions (with the negative µή). The force of this structure is on the cessation of an ongoing activity or the prevention of its repetition in the future. The aorist imperative occurs only seven times in prohibitions, and all of them are third person imperatives. The aorist imperative with µή has the force of preventing the occurrence or inception of an action. In order to express a prohibition with punctual aspectual force, Greek uses mostly the aorist subjunctive (also negated with µή).87

——— 84

Beaumont Ward Powers, Learn to Read the Greek New Testament: An Approach to New Testament Greek Based Upon Linguistic Principles (Adelaide, Australia: SPCK Australia, 1995), 54 (§4.46). 85

David Alan Black, It’s Still Greek to Me: An Easy-to-Understand Guide to Intermediate Greek (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 99 and 100. Interestingly, Black’s description of prohibitions here seems less harsh and more mixed than the latest two editions of his elementary Greek grammar (1994 and 2009) published on either side of this book; see above. 86

N. Clayton Croy, A Primer of Biblical Greek (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 158.

87 Kerry S. Robichaux and Robert Good, A Reader’s Grammar of the Greek New Testament (Anaheim, Calif.: A & C, 2000), 181–82. Despite their quite fair description of verbal


507

– Reto Schoch (2000): Der Imperativ Präsens ist eine durativische Befehlsform und bezeichnet: a) eine Aufforderung, mit einer bereits begonnenen Handlung weiterzufahren… b) eine Aufforderung, ständig (linear) oder wiederholt (iterativ) zu tun… Wird er negiert (immer mit µή), so ergeht die Aufforderung: a) mit einer bereits begonnenen Handlung aufzuhören (Negation des linearen oder iterativen Aspekts: “was du immer wieder tust, tue nicht!”)… b) eine Handlung niemals zu tun (Negation des linearen Aspekts: “was du immer tust, tue nicht!”) … Der Imperativ Aorist dient a) als normale Befehlsform (komplexiv, um zusammenfassend zu sagen, was zu tun ist)… b) als Aufforderung, mit einer Handlung zu beginnen (ingressive)… c) als Aufforderung, eine zielgerichtete Handlung abzuschliessen (effektiv)… Der Imperativ Aorist kann nicht verneint werden. Um ein Verbot mit dem 88 Aorist auszudrucken, wird der Konjunktiv gebraucht. The present imperative is a durative form and refers to: a) a command to proceed with an already initiated action…[or] b) a command to do something constantly (linear) or repeatedly (iterative)... If it is negated (always with µή), then it issues the command: a) to stop an already initiated action (negation of the linear or iterative aspect: “What you do repeatedly, stop it!”)…[or] b) to never do an act (negation of the linear aspect: “What you always do, do not!”) … The aorist imperative serves a) as a normal imperative form (complexive, to sum up what to do)…[or] b) as a command to begin an action (ingressive)…[or] c) as a command to conclude a targeted action (effective).… The aorist imperative cannot be negated. For a prohibition with the aorist expression, the subjunctive is needed.

DP

– Gerald L. Stevens (2004): One can prohibit an action using the present imperative. The negative will be µή. This imperative use is the durative counterpart to the undefined aroist subjunctive with µή.

aspect (p. 181), we see here that Robichaux and Good have largely the traditional Aktionsart approach to prohibitions. 88 Reto Schoch, Griechischer Lehrgang zum Neuen Testament (UTB fur Wissenschaft, 2140; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 54–55. We provide the English translation. Note that Schoch’s view of the prohibition distinction is essentially a mixture of all three Aktionsart options on our continuum: CI + DP + GS.

508

PROHIBITIONS IN THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT However, distinctions between the uses of the two types of prohibition have been overworked. The idea has been that present tense prohibition infers action already in progress, and aorist prohibition forbids initiating an action. In fact, these supposed distinctions are more context than grammar. Deciding whether an author means to infer by using present imperative that some action already is in progress 89 cannot be made outside of a particular context.

CI

– John H. Dobson (2005): In Greek, prohibitions can be expressed in two ways: 1. µή followed by a verb in the aorist subjunctive…. The aorist is used because each forbids a single or definite act, or an activity that has not yet started. 2. µή followed by a verb in the present imperative…. The present is used because each concerns an action that is, or has been, going on. So to a person who is already in the habit of stealing, one might say: µὴ κλέπτε – do not steal, give up stealing but to a person one hopes will not steal: µὴ κλέψῃς – do not steal.90

GS

– Frank Beetham (2007): µή is used with the present imperative to forbid something continuing in the future … and with the aorist subjunctive for a prohibition applying to a single occasion…. A present imperative tends to express an order which is to be obeyed continually, as a rule, in future….An aorist imperative refers to a single action, and is sometimes more peremptory….While these distinctions can be regarded as true in a broad 91 sense in Plato, there are subtle distinctions in different situations.

CI

– Peter Frick (2007): The present imperative with µή generally implies the termination of an action. The prohibition with the aorist subjunctive, however, implies that an action is not even to 92 begin.

——— 89

Gerald L. Stevens, New Testament Greek Primer (Eugene, Ore.: Cascade Books, 2004; reprint: Cambridge: Lutterworth, 2007), 337. Acknowledging that the typical CI distinction between constructions is too harsh, Stevens retreats to the middle of the Aktionsart continuum and instructs that the context is where distinctions are to be found. He may overstate his case: “Aorist, present, and perfect imperatives may translate the same into English” (p. 336). 90

John H. Dobson, Learn New Testament Greek (3rd ed. Carlisle: Piquant, 2005), 255–56.

91 Frank Beetham, Learning Greek with Plato: A Beginner’s Course in Classical Greek, Based on Plato, Meno 70a1–81e6 (Bristol: Phoenix, 2007), 188–90. Beetham’s position here remains much the same as that in his earlier 1992 publication; see above. 92

Peter Frick, A Handbook of New Testament Greek Grammar (Montreal: Laodamia, 2007), 174.


509

– James William Voelz (2007): (1) µή plus the focus upon connection / “present” imperative is used to prohibit an action already engaged in. (2) µή plus the focus on the action / “aorist” subjunctive is used to prohibit the 93 commencing of an action ….

MX

– James Allen Hewett (2009): The aorist subjunctive is used with µή to categorically forbid an action. … Imperatives are also commonly used for prohibitions, most often in the present tense. Present imperative prohibitions may indicate either that an action is to be 94 generally avoided or that an action already in progress is to cease.

MX

– William D. Mounce (2009): For many years it has been argued that the force of the present imperative has the basic meaning, “Stop doing what your are presently doing!” while the force of the aorist imperative is “Don’t start!”… However, it is currently being questioned whether this is accurate. My position is that a prohibition with the present tense is prohibiting a continuous action while a prohibition with the aorist is prohibiting an undefined action…. …I also hold that the present tense prohibition tends to be used for “attitudes and conduct” (“general precept”) while the aorist tends to be used for “specific 95 cases” (“specific command”).

——— 93

James Voelz, Fundamental Greek Grammar (3rd ed.; St. Louis: Concordia, 2007), 201– 202. Voelz’s position on the Greek verb system is far more in line with verbal aspect theory than the typical Aktionsart approach, but his approach to prohibitions as expressed here comes out to be very much like the harshest of the various Aktionsart views. Cf. James William Voelz, “Present and Aorist Verbal Aspect: A New Proposal,” Neotestamentica 27 (1993): 153–64; and idem, “The Use of the Present and Aorist Imperatives and Prohibitions in the New Testament,” Ph.D. diss., University of Cambridge, 1977. 94

James Allen Hewett, New Testament Greek: A Beginning and Intermediate Grammar (rev. ed.; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2009 [1st ed., 1986]), 210 (§22.5.2) and 240 (§24.4.2); cf. pp. 167 and 192–193 of the 1st ed. 95 William D. Mounce, Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar (3rd ed.; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009), 317 (§33.19). Mounce correctly notes, “Aspect is not the same as tense although it is related to it” (§15.8 on p. 124), but he seems to confuse aspect with kind of action in many places.

—APPENDIX B— Comparing Verbal Aspect Models In the interest of full disclosure regarding the model I currently have for the Greek verbal system, I offer the following reflections on my preferences in the Porter/Fanning debate, with due appreciation for Campbell’s views. 1) Siding with Porter, I see the utility of a simpler, more consistent verb system, and verbal aspect provides that. While languages are always complicated by use, the base system need not be thought of as necessarily complicated. 2) Siding with Porter, I see three aspects worthy of contemplation for the Greek verb. The proposed stative aspect has been too hastily dismissed as a category error on his part, i.e., a wrongful assignment of aspect status to a kind-of-action category. On the contrary, it seems to me that to consider “stative” as merely a kind of action and not an aspect is to deny an author the opportunity to think about the state entailed by a non-stative action; on such a view, authors must only think about non-stative actions in a summary fashion (perfective aspect) or in a process fashion (imperfective aspect). This seems unnecessarily restrictive (and ironically counter to the charge that Porter’s verb system is overly simplistic). 3) Siding with Campbell, I consider the aorist tense-form as remote, contra Porter’s 1 non-remoteness label. 4) Siding with Campbell, I think the future tense-form grammaticalizes perfective 2 aspect, against those who see it as non-aspectual (Porter, Fanning, Olsen). 5) Contra Campbell’s non-spatial label, I see the future tense-form as marked with proximity in the perfective aspect in balance to the remoteness of the aorist. 6) Siding with Porter, I see the tense-forms as unencumbered by time concerns in their core meanings. Since all agree that various other factors (e.g., lexical, grammatical-syntactical, contextual) affect the use of verbs, it seems better to see time components as the implications of such factors that are added to the core meaning in particular cases and not somehow cancelled from the core meaning in exceptional cases. 7) The complaint that Porter’s timeless view does not fully explain the augment in the indicative mood is addressed sufficiently by my view that the augmented tense-forms (aorist, imperfect, and pluperfect) are all marked for remoteness of some kind (often temporal, but sometimes narratival or some other remoteness).

——— 1

See Campbell, Verbal Aspect, the Indicative Mood, and Narrative, 115–26.

2

See ibid., 134–51.

512


Let me add here four arguments for considering the future tense-form a perfective (summary) aspect. 1) Historically, ancient grammarians (e.g. Dionysius Thrax) describe the Greek verb tense-forms in paired relationships: present to imperfect, perfect to pluperfect, and 3 aorist to future. The future tense-form is even specifically compared to the aorist 4 tense-form with both said to be similarly “indeterminate” (ἀόριστοι). 2) Morphologically, the aorist and the future tense-forms both regularly utilize -σas the tense-form indicator (compare the similar use of -κ- in the perfect and pluperfect tense-forms and the non-occurrence of a tense-form indicator in the pre5 sent and imperfect tense-forms). Similarly, both the aorist and the future tenseforms have distinct middle and passive forms, unlike the paired present and im6 perfect tense-forms and the perfect and pluperfect tense-forms. Furthermore, commenting on the somewhat anomalous nature of the future tense-form, McKay notes, “the existence of future infinitives and participles seems more appropriate 7 to an aspect than to any other category.” 3) Contextually, the future tense-form is used in a variety of circumstances without specific regard for the kind of action that may be involved (like other aspects) but 8 in a summary way (comparable to the aorist). Even if used primarily in future referring contexts, a time component need not be seen as part of the core meaning of the aspect (again, not unlike the aorist, which is used primarily in past referring contexts but without a time component being seen as part of its core meaning). 4) Phenomenologically, following Fanning’s suggestion, Mark O’Brien examines the possibility that future tense-forms behave in the same predictable patterns that Fanning found for aorist tense-forms regarding the interaction between aspect and 9 Aktionsart. “If we are able to demonstrate similar procedural characteristics of

——— 3 Stanley E. Porter, “Grammarians, Hellenistic Greek,” DNTB, 419–20; see also C. H. M. Versteegh, “The Stoic Verbal System,” Hermes 108 (1980): 338–57, esp. pp. 341–42; and Robert Henry Robins, A Short History of Linguistics (3rd ed.; Longman Linguistics Library; New York: Longman, 1990), 40–41. This observation also bears some weight in arguing for three aspects—not two or four—in Greek corresponding to the three tense-form pairings by the ancient grammarians. 4 So argues Harmut Haberland, “A Note on the ‘Aorist’,” in Language and Discourse: Test and Protest, A Festschrift for Petr Sgall (ed. Jacob L. Mey; Linguistic and Literary Studies in Eastern Europe 19; Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1986), 173–84, which Campbell summarizes in Verbal Aspect, the Indicative Mood, and Narrative, 139–40. 5

Cf. Robins, A Short History of Linguistics, 41.

6

See GGBB, 501, n. 16; 566–67, n. 1. This observation is yet another argument for (the same) three aspects in Greek: those corresponding to the three pairs of tense-form indicators. 7

McKay, New Syntax, 34, n. 1.

8

See GGBB, 566–67, n. 1.

9

Mark B. O’Brien, “Verbal Aspect in the Future Tense of the Greek New Testament” (Th.M. thesis; Dallas Theological Seminary, 1997).

APPENDIX B: COMPARING VERBAL ASPECT MODELS

513

certain categories of future verbs as we find in the aorist tense with those same verbs, then it would seem reasonable to propose that both tenses share the same kind of verbal aspect, based on the aforementioned relationship between aspect 10 and Aktionsart.” Campbell critiques O’Brien’s investigation as convincing only as far as it goes, and then sets out to compensate for O’Brien’s incompleteness. In the end, Campbell agrees that the various Aktionsart contexts of the NT future 11 tense-forms can all be understood as legitimate expressions of perfective aspect.

Campbell developed a series of charts to portray visually the differences in the verbal aspect models used by Porter, Fanning, Olsen, and himself.12 These helpful tools are reproduced here for ease of reference (Tables B.1–4, respectively). Utilizing Campbell’s charting format, my own model for the Greek verbal system is portrayed in Table B.5.13 PORTER’S VERBAL ASPECT MODEL Spatial Quality

Perfective Aspect

Imperfective Aspect

Stative Aspect

(NonAspectual)

Nonremoteness

Aorist

Present

Perfect

Future [+expectation]

Imperfect

Pluperfect

Remoteness

Table B.1 ——— 10 Ibid., 25, as quoted in Campbell, Verbal Aspect, the Indicative Mood, and Narrative, 140–41. 11

Campbell, Verbal Aspect, the Indicative Mood, and Narrative, 140–51.

12

See Campbell, Verbal Aspect, the Indicative Mood, and Narrative, 242–43. The same charts are reproduced in idem, Verbal Aspect and Non-Indicative Mood, 9–11. Olsen offers similar diagrams comparing her system of the Greek verb with those of Porter and Fanning; Olsen, A Semantic and Pragmatic Model of Lexical and Grammatical Aspect, 201–202. 13 Even when scholars agree on the categories, the aspect labels vary from grammarian to grammarian. My preference would be to use labels that portray the authorial perspective more plainly (e.g., summary, progressive, and stative), but here I employ the labels that Campbell uses (respectively: perfective, imperfective, and stative). Arguably, these terms are becoming the standard labels. For the sake of clearer communication that can be facilitated by greater standardization, I am happy to use these labels. See also my, The Handy Guide to New Testament Greek: Grammar, Syntax, and Diagramming (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2012), 61–63.

514

PROHIBITIONS IN THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT FANNING’S VERBAL ASPECT MODEL Tense

Perfective Aspect

Imperfective (NonAspect Aspectual)

Future

Present

Future Perfect [+ stative Aktionsart]

Present

Aorist Past

Pluperfect [+ stative Aktionsart]

Imperfect

Table B.2

OLSEN’S VERBAL ASPECT MODEL Tense

Perfective Aspect

Imperfective (NonAspect Aspectual)

Future

Future

Timeless

Aorist

Present

Present

Perfect

Past

Pluperfect

Imperfect

Table B.3

APPENDIX B: COMPARING VERBAL ASPECT MODELS

CAMPBELL’S VERBAL ASPECT MODEL Spatial Quality

Perfective Aspect

Imperfective Aspect

Heightened Proximity

Perfect

Proximity

Present

Remoteness

Aorist

Heightened Remoteness (Non-spatial)

Imperfect Pluperfect

Future [+ future tense]

Table B.4

HUFFMAN’S VERBAL ASPECT MODEL Spatial Quality

Perfective Aspect

Imperfective Aspect

Stative Aspect

Proximity

Future

Present

Perfect

Remoteness

Aorist

Imperfect

Pluperfect

Table B.5

515

—APPENDIX C— Guidelines for Counting NT Prohibitions Over the course of this project, it became apparent that some rationale had to be developed for determining not only when a prohibition was involved (i.e., when in one way or another someone is being instructed not to do something), but for determining how to number them. This is particularly important for distinguishing between a single compound prohibition and multiple prohibitions within a compound construction. To put it in the form of a question, when an author expresses a prohibition against two things, is that one compound prohibition or two separate prohibitions? We could not simply count the “nots” in the Greek New Testament. On the one hand, the negative particles (µή and οὐ) and their compounds—with occurrences numbering over 3450 in the New Testament—are not always used with prohibitory force. In fact, non-prohibitory uses of the negative particles sometimes appear within prohibitory statements. These occur, for example, when the agent of a negated verb is also expressed with a negative particle (e.g., 2 Thess 2:2), when the direct and/or indirect objects of the negated verb are expressed as negatives (e.g., Mark 1:44), and in other idiomatic situations where “double negatives” do not cancel each other as they do in English (e.g., οὐ µή in Luke 1:15; µὴ...µηκέτι in Acts 25:24). On the other hand, there are many prohibitory statements that do not use any negative particles at all (e.g., those in the lexical category and some of those in the pragmatic categories). Thus, we had to develop some efficient protocol for determining whether or not a given construction added to our tally of all the prohibitions in the Greek New Testament. Given these complexities, the lists of NT prohibitions in this volume— sorted into fifteen different grammatical-syntactical, lexical, and pragmatic categories—are tallied according to the following seven guidelines for separating and counting them. 1. If a negation is repeated with two (or more) verbs, they are counted as two (or more) separate prohibitions in their independently recognized categories. E.g., pairs of pres. impv. prohibitions with repeated negations appear in John 14:27a–b; 1 Tim 5:22a–b; Heb 12:5a–b; and 2 John 10a–b.

518

PROHIBITIONS IN THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 2. If a negation is repeated but the verb is not repeated, the first occurrence is counted in its properly recognized category and the rest of the verbless negations are counted separately in the “dependent upon earlier prohibitions” category (section 13.1). 3. If a negation is repeated between two (or more) non-verbal constructions, they are counted as separate multiple prohibitions, slotted in the categories that best fit each non-verbal form (e.g., 1 Cor 9:26a–b). 4. Prohibitions in the lexical category have their negation element as part of the lexical value of the word itself; thus, those negations are treated in like manner to the above guidelines. E.g., the commands “to keep the commandment unstained and without criticism” in 1 Tim 6:14a and 14b (τηρῆσαί σε τὴν ἐντολὴν ἄσπιλον ἀνεπίληµπτον) are counted as two separate prohibitions. 5. If a negation is not repeated but shared between two (or more) verbs (or verbal ideas), they are counted as two (or more) separate prohibitions (based upon the weight of the verbs carrying separate ideas). E.g., Jas 3:14a–b contains the only pair of pres. impv. NT prohibitions with two different verbs negated by a single µή; two prohibitions structured with infinitives in 1 Thess 4:6a–b share a single µή; three pairs of vision verb object clauses display prohibitions with shared negations: Luke 21:34a–b (with µήποτε) and Heb 12:15b–c and 16a–b (with µή); two pairs of fearing verb object clauses display prohibitions with shared negations: 2 Cor 12:20a–b and 21a–b; one µή in John 12:40 negates four verbs in a four-part prohibitory ἵνα clause; and a single µήποτε in Acts 28:27 negates five verbs in a five-part prohibitory µήποτε clause. 6. If a negation is not repeated but shared between two (or more) non-verbal constructions (e.g., joined by καὶ or ἢ), they are counted as one compound prohibition. E.g., the prohibitions of 1 Tim 2:9; cf. 1 Pet 4:3). 7. Many prohibitions in the pragmatic categories (e.g., emulation statements, questions, warnings, etc.) must be counted in terms of sentences and treated at greater discourse levels. E.g., the separate sentences in Jas 4:11b and 11c are counted as two different prohibitory warnings, but the paragraph length warning of Jas 5:1–6 is lumped into one prohibitory exclamation and listed under Jas 5:1.

In the end, these seven guidelines come down to three basic principles. A) We count one separate prohibition for each prohibitory negation— whether those negations are formulated with µή (or its derivatives), οὐ (or its derivatives), χωρίς, α-privatives, or some other negation (guidelines 1–4). B) We count one separate prohibition for each negated verbal construction (even if those constructions share a negation), but we count together as one prohibition any jointly negated non-verbal constructions (guidelines 5–6). C) We count at the discourse level the prohibitions that do not utilize explicit negations in the pragmatic categories (guideline 7). These three basic principles and their seven attendant guidelines may well be disputed, but these have served our purposes here for counting the NT prohibitions.

—APPENDIX D— All the Perfect Imperatives in Biblical Greek While the New Testament has four commands constructed with verbs in the perfect imperative, it contains no such negated constructions.1 But five of the 21 OT and Apocrypha perfect imperative constructions are prohibitions in negated constructions. Given this small number of perfect constructions, we have collected them all together here. Denying a stative aspect in the Greek verb system, Constantine Campbell has offered his explanation of these constructions as having heightened proximity and imperfective aspect. He categorizes the 21 biblical perfect imperatives into three groups: six constructions with an idiomatic use of ἔρρωσθε (perf. mid./pass. impv. 2nd per. pl. of ῥώννυµι, “I strengthen”), four constructions that represent specific commands (not conforming to Campbell’s suggested normal guideline: 2 Macc 6:17; 2 Macc 7:42; Zeph 3:16; and Mark 4:39),2 and the constructions that do conform to what Campbell observes as the normal pragmatic use of the imperfective aspect for general commands (the remaining eleven).3 Following Porter’s three-aspect approach, however, we see these constructions as representing a stative aspect to their commands. Thus, albeit somewhat awkward for normal twenty-first-century parlance, our English renderings of these commands stress the claimed stativity in bracketed overtranslations. We suggest that, given the lexical values of the words involved and the contexts of these commands, these over-translations make sense and ——— 1

Notice, however, that the positively constructed perfect impv. in Mark 4:39c (πεφίµωσο) can be lexically understood as a prohibition: “Stop storming” (see in section 9.1.1 of Chapter 9) and that ἴστε in Eph 5:5 occurs in a prohibitory warning (see in section 12.2 of Chapter 12). 2 In an apparent oversight, Campbell (who reports the correct total number of biblical Greek perfect impvs. as 21) neglects to list Zeph 3:16 in this grouping; Campbell, Verbal Aspect and Non-Indicative Verbs, 99. 3

Again by apparent oversight, Campbell neglects to list 1 Macc 10:43 in this grouping; Campbell, Verbal Aspect and Non-Indicative Verbs, 97–98.

520


are proper renderings of the authors’ intentions.4 We list them here in three groups: the six idiomatic uses of ῥώννυµι, the ten other positive constructions, and the five negated constructions. 1. Idiomatic Use of the Perfect Imperative of ῥώννυµι in Greetings 2 Macc 9:20

εἰ ἔρρωσθε καὶ τὰ τέκνα καὶ τὰ ἴδια κατὰ γνώµην ἐστὶν ὑµῖν· εἰς οὐρανὸν τὴν ἐλπίδα ἔχων. If you and your children be [in a state of] faring well, and your affairs are according to your liking, I am having my hope in heaven.

2 Macc 11:21 ἔρρωσθε. ἔτους ἑκατοστοῦ τεσσαρακοστοῦ ὀγδόου, Διὸς Κορινθίου τετράδι καὶ εἰκάδι. Be [in a state of] faring well. The one hundred forty-eighth year, the twenty-fourth day of [the month] Dioscorinthius. 2 Macc 11:28 εἰ ἔρρωσθε, εἴη ἂν ὡς βουλόµεθα· καὶ αὐτοὶ δὲ ὑγιαίνοµεν. If you be [in a state of] faring well, it would be what we wish; and we also are in good health. 2 Macc 11:33 ἔρρωσθε. ἔτους ἑκατοστοῦ Ξανθικοῦ πεντεκαιδεκάτῃ.

τεσσαρακοστοῦ

ὀγδόου,

Be [in a state of] faring well. The one hundred forty-eighth year, the fifteenth day of [the month] Xanthicus. 3 Macc 7:9

γινώσκετε γὰρ ὅτι κατὰ τούτων ἐάν τι κακοτεχνήσωµεν πονηρὸν ἢ ἐπιλυπήσωµεν αὐτοὺς τὸ σύνολον, οὐκ ἄνθρωπον, ἀλλὰ τὸν πάσης δεσπόζοντα δυνάµεως θεὸν ὕψιστον ἀντικείµενον ἡµῖν ἐπ᾿ ἐκδικήσει τῶν πραγµάτων κατὰ πᾶν ἀφεύκτως διὰ παντὸς ἕξοµεν. ἔρρωσθε. For you know that if we devise some evil against these or annoy them in any instance, we will have not man, but the master of every power, the most high God, opposing us

——— 4 Lexically, most of the vocabulary terms involved are already somewhat stative (e.g., trust, be free, be calm, know), but several of the terms are arguably not stative in themselves (e.g., the various verbs of speech). If a stative aspect is operative in Greek, then non-stative terms can still be used statively.

APPENDIX D: ALL THE PERFECT IMPERATIVES IN BIBLICAL GREEK 521 according to everything inescapably through all, for vengeance of such deeds. Be [in a state of] faring well. Acts 15:29

... ἀπέχεσθαι εἰδωλοθύτων καὶ αἵµατος καὶ πνικτῶν καὶ πορνείας, ἐξ ὧν διατηροῦντες ἑαυτοὺς εὖ πράξετε. Ἔρρωσθε. ... that you abstain from what has been offered to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you are keeping yourselves from these, you will do well. Be [in a state of] faring well.”5

2. The Other Perfect Imperative Positive Constructions Judg 9:15

καὶ εἶπεν ἡ ῥάµνος πρὸς τὰ ξύλα Εἰ ἐν ἀληθείᾳ ὑµεῖς χρίετέ µε εἰς βασιλέα ἐφ᾿ ὑµῶν, δεῦτε πεποίθατε ἐν τῇ σκέπῃ µου· καὶ εἰ µή, ἐξέλθοι πῦρ ἐκ τῆς ῥάµνου καὶ καταφάγοι τὰς κέδρους τοῦ Λιβάνου. And the thornbush said to the trees, If in truth you are anointing me as king over you, come, be [in a state of] trusting in my shelter; and if not, let fire come out of the thornbush and may it devour the cedars of Lebanon.

1 Macc 10:43 καὶ ὅσοι ἐὰν φύγωσιν εἰς τὸ ἱερὸν τὸ ἐν Ιεροσολύµοις καὶ ἐν πᾶσιν τοῖς ὁρίοις αὐτοῦ ὀφείλων βασιλικὰ καὶ πᾶν πρᾶγµα, ἀπολελύσθωσαν καὶ πάντα, ὅσα ἐστὶν αὐτοῖς ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ µου. And whoever they be that flee into the temple at Jerusalem and in all its borders, being indebted to royalty and for any matter, let them be [in a state of] free [-dom], and all that they have in my kingdom. 2 Macc 6:17

πλὴν ἕως ὑποµνήσεως ταῦθ᾿ ἡµῖν εἰρήσθω· δι᾿ ὀλίγων δ᾿ ἐλευστέον ἐπὶ τὴν διήγησιν. But let these things be [in a] spoken [state] as a reminder to us. And now through a few words we come to the narration.

——— 5

A variant reading of ἔρρωσθε occurs in some manuscripts at Acts 23:30 as well.

522


2 Macc 7:42

Τὰ µὲν οὖν περὶ τοὺς σπλαγχνισµοὺς καὶ τὰς ὑπερβαλλούσας αἰκίας ἐπὶ τοσοῦτον δεδηλώσθω. Therefore, about the things concerning the eating of sacrifices and the extreme tortures, let this be [in a] declared [state] enough.

Isa 4:1

καὶ ἐπιλήµψονται ἑπτὰ γυναῖκες ἀνθρώπου ἑνὸς λέγουσαι Τὸν ἄρτον ἡµῶν φαγόµεθα καὶ τὰ ἱµάτια ἡµῶν περιβαλούµεθα, πλὴν τὸ ὄνοµα τὸ σὸν κεκλήσθω ἐφ᾿ ἡµᾶς, ἄφελε τὸν ὀνειδισµὸν ἡµῶν And seven women will take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own clothes: only let your name be [in a state that it is] called upon us, and take away our disgrace.

Isa 14:31

ὀλολύζετε, πύλαι πόλεων, κεκραγέτωσαν πόλεις τεταραγµέναι, οἱ ἀλλόφυλοι πάντες, ὅτι καπνὸς ἀπὸ βορρᾶ ἔρχεται, καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν τοῦ εἶναι. Be wailing, you gates of cities; let the troubled cities [be in a state of] cry [-ing] out, even all the Philistines, because smoke is coming from the north, and there is no way to live.

Isa 50:10

Τίς ἐν ὑµῖν ὁ φοβούµενος τὸν κύριον; ἀκουσάτω τῆς φωνῆς τοῦ παιδὸς αὐτοῦ· οἱ πορευόµενοι ἐν σκότει οὐκ ἔστιν αὐτοῖς φῶς, πεποίθατε ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόµατι κυρίου καὶ ἀντιστηρίσασθε ἐπὶ τῷ θεῷ. Who among you is one who fears the Lord? Let him hear the voice of his servant: Those who are walking in darkness and have no light, you be [in a state of] trusting in the name of the Lord, and rely on God.

Mark 4:39

καὶ διεγερθεὶς ἐπετίµησεν τῷ ἀνέµῳ καὶ εἶπεν τῇ θαλάσσῃ· σιώπα, πεφίµωσο. καὶ ἐκόπασεν ὁ ἄνεµος καὶ ἐγένετο γαλήνη µεγάλη. And being awakened he rebuked the wind and said to the sea, “Be quiet! Be [in a] silent [state]!” And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm.6

——— 6

See the comments on the three lexical prohibitions of Mark 4:39a–c in Chapter 9.

APPENDIX D: ALL THE PERFECT IMPERATIVES IN BIBLICAL GREEK 523 Eph 5:5

τοῦτο γὰρ ἴστε γινώσκοντες, ὅτι πᾶς πόρνος ἢ ἀκάθαρτος ἢ πλεονέκτης, ὅ ἐστιν εἰδωλολάτρης, οὐκ ἔχει κληρονοµίαν ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ θεοῦ. For this you may be [in a state of] knowing with certainty, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure or greedy (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.7

Jas 1:19

Ἴστε, ἀδελφοί µου ἀγαπητοί· ἔστω δὲ πᾶς ἄνθρωπος ταχὺς εἰς τὸ ἀκοῦσαι, βραδὺς εἰς τὸ λαλῆσαι, βραδὺς εἰς ὀργήν· Be [in a state of] knowing this, my beloved brothers: let every man be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger.8

3. Perfect Imperative Negated Constructions Psalm 145:3

µὴ πεποίθατε ἐπ᾿ ἄρχοντας καὶ ἐφ᾿ υἱοὺς ἀνθρώπων, οἷς οὐκ ἔστιν σωτηρία. Do not be [in a state of] trusting in rulers, nor in the sons of men, in whom there is no salvation.

Job 12:6

οὐ µὴν δὲ ἀλλὰ µηδεὶς πεποιθέτω πονηρὸς ὢν ἀθῷος ἔσεσθαι, ὅσοι παροργίζουσιν τὸν κύριον, ὡς οὐχὶ καὶ ἔτασις αὐτῶν ἔσται. Let not however any one be [in a state of] trusting that, being evil, he will be held guiltless, even as many as are provoking the Lord, as if indeed there will be no investigation of them.9

——— 7

Eph 5:5 is recognized as a prohibitory warning in section 12.2 of Chapter 12.

8 The perfect active indicative of οἶδα takes on the same morphological form: ἴστε. The occurrences in 3 Macc 3:14 and Heb 12:17 are understood as indicatives and not imperatives. 9 Job 12:6 in the LXX differs substantially from the MT, which contains a vague last line: ‫שׁ ָל֤יוּ ֽא ֹ ָה ִ֨לים ׀ ְל ֥שׁ ֹדְ דִ֗ ים ֭ ֽוּ ַבטֻּחוֹת ְל ַמ ְר ִגּ֣יזֵי ֵ ֑אל ַל ֲא ֶ ֤שׁר ה ִ ֵ֖ביא ֱאל֣ וֹ ַהּ ְבּי ָדֽ וֹ‬ ְ ִ ‫“ — י‬The tents of the destroyers are at ease, and those who provoke God are secure, who bring their god in their hand.” See the discussions in the critical commentaries.

524 Zeph 3:16

PROHIBITIONS IN THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT ἐν τῷ καιρῷ ἐκείνῳ ἐρεῖ κύριος τῇ Ιερουσαληµ Θάρσει, Σιων, µὴ παρείσθωσαν αἱ χεῖρές σου· At that time the Lord will say to Jerusalem, Be courageous, Zion; do not let your hands be [in a state of] slacking.

Jer 7:4

µὴ πεποίθατε ἐφ᾿ ἑαυτοῖς ἐπὶ λόγοις ψευδέσιν, ὅτι τὸ παράπαν οὐκ ὠφελήσουσιν ὑµᾶς λέγοντες Ναὸς κυρίου ναὸς κυρίου ἐστίν. Do not be [in a state of] trusting in yourselves with deceptive words, because they will not profit you at all, saying, It is the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord.

Jer 9:3

ἕκαστος ἀπὸ τοῦ πλησίον αὐτοῦ φυλάξασθε καὶ ἐπ᾿ ἀδελφοῖς αὐτῶν µὴ πεποίθατε, ὅτι πᾶς ἀδελφὸς πτέρνῃ πτερνιεῖ, καὶ πᾶς φίλος δολίως πορεύσεται. Each of you beware of his neighbor, and do not be [in a state of] trusting in their brothers: because every brother will surely do treachery, and every friend will act deceitfully.

— BIBLIOGRAPHY — Abbott, Evelyn, and Edward Dillon Mansfield. A Primer of Greek Grammar: Accidence and Syntax. Rev. ed. London: Rivingtons, 1963. Abel, Felix-Marie. Grammaire du grec biblique: Suivie d’un choix de papyrus. Études Bibliques. Paris: J. Gabalda, 1927. Aland, Kurt, et al., eds. The Greek New Testament. 4th ed. Stuttgart: United Bible Societies, 2001. Aland, Kurt, ed. Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum: Locis Parallelis Evangeliorum Apocryphorum et Patrum Adhibitis. 13th ed. Stuttgart: German Bible Society, 1985. Alexander, Patrick H. et al. The SBL Handbook of Style: For Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical, and Early Christian Studies. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1999. Argyle, Aubrey William. An Introductory Grammar of New Testament Greek: With Exercises. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1965. Armytage, W. H. G. “Thomas Davidson, Anglo-American Educator.” History of Education Journal 2.3 (1951): 75–79. Arndt, William. Does the Bible Contradict Itself? A Discussion of Alleged Contradictions in the Bible. 5th ed. St. Louis: Concordia, 1955. Arnold, Thomas Kerchever. An Elementary Greek Grammar. London: Francis & John Rivington, 1848. ———. First Greek Lessons. Ed. J. A. Spencer. New York: D. Appleton, 1846. ———. A Greek Grammar: Intended as a Sufficient Grammar of Reference for Schools and Colleges. London: Francis & John Rivington, 1848. ———. Practical Introduction to Greek Accidence. 4th ed. London: Francis & John Rivington, 1847 [1st ed., 1841]. Babbitt, Frank Cole. A Grammar of Attic and Ionic Greek. New York: American Book Company, 1902. Bache, Carl. “Aspect and Aktionsart: Toward a Semantic Distinction,” Journal of Linguistics 18 (1982): 57–72. ———. The Study of Aspect, Tense, and Action: Towards a Theory of the Semantics of Grammatical Categories. 2nd ed. New York: Lang, 1997 [1st ed., 1995]. ———. Verbal Aspect: A General Theory and Its Application to Present-Day English. Odense: Odense University Press, 1985. Bakker, Willem Frederik. The Greek Imperative: An Investigation into the Aspectual Differences between the Present and Aorist Imperatives in Greek Prayer from Homer up to the Present Day. Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1966. Balz, Horst, and Gerhard Schneider, eds. Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament. 3 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,1990–93. [EDNT] Barham, Thomas Foster. An Introduction to Greek Grammar on a New Plan: For the Use of Schools and Private Students. London: Arthur Taylor, 1829.

526


Barnard, Jody A. “Is Verbal Aspect a Prominence Indicator? An Evaluation of Stanley Porter’s Proposal with Special Reference to the Gospel of Luke.” Filología Neotestamentaria 19 (2006): 3–29. Bauer, Walter. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Trans., W. F. Arndt and F. W. Gingrich; 2nd ed. rev. and augmented, F. W. Gingrich and F. W. Danker. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1979. [BAGD] Beetham, Frank. An Introduction to New Testament Greek: A Quick Course in the Reading of Koiné Greek. London: Bristol Classical, 1992. ———. Learning Greek with Plato: A Beginner’s Course in Classical Greek, Based on Plato, Meno 70a1–81e6. Bristol: Phoenix, 2007. Bekker, August Immanuel. Anecdota Graeca. Berlin: Reimer, 1817. Binnick, Robert I. Time and the Verb: A Guide to Tense and Aspect. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991. Black, David Alan. It’s Still Greek to Me: An Easy-to-Understand Guide to Intermediate Greek. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998. ———. Learn to Read New Testament Greek. Exp. ed. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2000 [1st ed., 1994]. ———. Linguistics for Students of New Testament Greek: A Survey of Basic Concepts and Applications. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995. Black, David Alan, Katharine Barnwell, and Stephen Levinsohn, eds. Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Discourse Analysis. Nashville: Broadman, 1992. Blass, Friedrich Wilhelm. Grammar of New Testament Greek. 2nd ed. Trans. Henry St. John Thackeray. London: MacMillan, 1905. ———. Grammatik des Neutestamentlichen Griechisch. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1896. Blass, Friedrich Wilhelm, and Albert DeBrunner. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Trans. Robert W. Funk. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1961. [BDF] Boyer, James L. “A Classification of Imperatives: A Statistical Study.” GTJ 8.1 (1987): 35– 54. ———. “The Classification of Infinitives: A Statistical Study.” GTJ 6.1 (1985): 3–27. ———. “The Classification of Optatives: A Statistical Study.” GTJ 9.1 (1988): 129–40. ———. “The Classification of Participles: A Statistical Study.” GTJ 5.1 (1984): 163–79. ———. “The Classification of Subjunctives: A Statistical Study.” GTJ 7.1 (1986): 3–19. ———. “Supplemental Manual of Information: Imperative Verbs.” Winona Lake, Ind.: Grace Theological Seminary, n.d. ———. “Supplemental Manual of Information: Infinitive Verbs.” Winona Lake, Ind.: Grace Theological Seminary, n.d. ———. “Supplemental Manual of Information: Optative Verbs.” Winona Lake, Ind.: Grace Theological Seminary, n.d. ———. “Supplemental Manual of Information: Participles.” Winona Lake, Ind.: Grace Theological Seminary, n.d. ———. “Supplemental Manual of Information: Subjunctive Verbs.” Winona Lake, Ind.: Grace Theological Seminary, n.d. Brooks, James A., and Carlton L. Winbery, Syntax of New Testament Greek. Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 1979. Brugmann, Karl. Griechische Grammatik: Lautlehre, Stammbildungs- und Flexionslehre, Syntax. 4th ed. Ed. Albert Thumb. Munich: C. H. Beck, 1913 [1st ed., 1885].

BIBLIOGRAPHY

527

Buck, Carl Darling. The Greek Dialects: Grammar, Selected Inscriptions, Glossary. Rev. ed. Boston: Ginn, 1928; reprint, Chicago: Unversity of Chicago Press, 1955. Bullions, Peter. The Principles of Greek Grammar; Comprising the Substance of the Most Approved Greek Grammars Extant, for the Use of Schools and Colleges. 3rd ed. New York: Robinson, Pratt & Co., 1843. Burton, Ernest de Witt. Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in New Testament Greek. 2nd rev. enl. ed.; Chicago: University Press of Chicago, 1893 [1st ed., 1888]; 3rd ed., 1900; reprint, Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1976. Bussman, Hadumod. Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics. Trans. and ed. Gregory P. Trauth and Kerstin Kazzazi. New York: Roultedge, 1996. Buth, Randall. “Verbs Perception and Aspect, Greek Lexicography and Grammar: Helping Students to Thinks in Greek.” Pages 177–98 in Biblical Greek Language and Lexicography: Essays in Honor of Frederick W. Danker. Ed. Bernard A. Taylor et al. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004. Buttmann, Alexander. A Grammar of the New Testament Greek. Trans. J. H. Thayer. Andover, Mass.: Warren F. Draper, 1873 [German original, 1858]. Buttmann, Philipp Karl. Ausführliche Griechische Sprachlehre. 2 vols. Berlin: Mylios, 1819, 1825. ———. Griechische Grammatik. 6th ed. Berlin: Mylios, 1811 [1st ed., 1792; 2nd ed., 1799; 3rd ed., 1805; 4th ed., 1808; 5th ed., 1810]. English trans.: idem. Greek Grammar: For the Use of High Schools and Universities. 2nd ed. Trans. Edward Robinson. New York: Gould, Newman & Sazton, 1839 [1st ed., 1833; trans. of the 6th German ed., 1811]. Cadoux, C. J. “The Imperatival Use of ἵνα in the New Testament.” JTS 42 (1941):165–73. Campbell, Constantine R. Basics of Verbal Aspect in Biblical Greek. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008. ———. Verbal Aspect, the Indicative Mood, and Narrative: Soundings in the Greek of the New Testament. Studies in Biblical Greek 13. New York: Lang, 2007. ———. Verbal Aspect and Non-Indicative Verbs: Further Soundings in the Greek of the New Testament. Studies in Biblical Greek 15. New York: Lang, 2008. Caragounis, Chrys C. The Development of Greek and the New Testament: Morphology, Syntax, Phonology, and Textual Transmission. WUNT 167. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006. Carroll R., Mark Daniel, ed. Rethinking Contexts, Rereading Texts: Contributions from the Social Sciences to Biblical Interpretation. JSOTSup 299. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000. Carson, D. A. “An Introduction to the Porter/Fanning Debate.” Pages 18–25 in Biblical Greek Language and Linguistics: Open Questions in Current Research. Ed. Stanley E. Porter and D. A. Carson. JSNTSup 80, SNTG 1. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993. Catford, John Cunnison. A Linguistic Theory of Translation: An Essay in Applied Linguistics. Language Arts & Disciplines. New York: Oxford University Press, 1965. Chamberlain, William Douglas. An Exegetical Grammar of the Greek New Testament. New York: Macmillan, 1941. Chase, Alston Hurd, and Henry Phillips Jr. A New Introduction to Greek. 3rd ed. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1961 [1st ed., 1941]. Christidis, Anastassios-Fivos, ed. A History of Ancient Greek: From the Beginnings to Late Antiquity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007 [original in Greek, 2001]. Clyde, James. Greek Syntax with a Rationale of the Constructions. Prefatory Notice by John S. Blackie. 6th ed. London: Simpkin, Marshall & Co., 1881 [1st ed., 1856].

528


Comrie, Bernard. Aspect: An Introduction to the Study of Verbal Aspect and Related Problems. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976. ———. Tense. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985. Costas, Procope S. An Outline of the History of the Greek Language: With Particular Emphasis on the Koine and the Subsequent Periods. Chicago: Ukrainian Society of Sciences of America, 1936; reprint, Chicago: Ares, 1979. Cotterell, Peter, and Max Turner. Linguistics & Biblical Interpretation. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1989. Crosby, Alpheus. A Grammar of the Greek Language. Boston: James Munroe, 1844; 2nd ed., 1846; Rev. ed., New York: Woolworth, Ainsworth & Co., 1871. Croy, N. Clayton. A Primer of Biblical Greek. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. Cuendet, Georges. L’impératif dans le Texte Grec et dans les Versions Gotique, Arménienne et Vieux Slave des Evangiles. Paris: Paul Geuthner, 1924. Curtius, Georg. Die Bildung der Tempora und Modi im Griechischen und Lateinischen sprachvergleichend dargestellt. Berlin: Wilhelm Besser, 1846. ———. Elucidations of the Student’s Greek Grammar. 2nd ed. Trans. E. Abbott. London: John Murray, 1875 [1st ed., 1870; German original, 1863]. ———. Erläuterungen zu meiner griechischen Schulgrammatik. 2nd ed. Prague: F. Tempsky, 1870 [1st ed., 1863]. ———. The Greek Verb: Its Structure and Development. Trans. Augustus S. Wilkins and Edwin B. England. London: John Murray, 1880 [German original, 1873–76]. ———. Griechische Schulgrammatik. 4th ed. Prague: F. Tempsky, 1859 [1st ed., 1852]. ———. The Student’s Greek Grammar: A Grammar of the Greek Language. 2nd ed. Trans. William Smith; London: John Murray, 1867 [German original, 1852]. ———. Das Verbum der griechische Sprache. 2 vols. 2nd ed. Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1877–80 [1st ed., 1873–76]. Dahl, Östen. Tense and Aspect in the Languages of Europe. New York: de Gruyter, 2000. ———. Tense and Aspect Systems. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1985. Dana, Harvey Eugene, and Julius R. Mantey. A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament. Toronto: Macmillan, 1955. Danker, Frederick William, rev. ed. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. Based on Walter Bauer’s Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der frühchristlichen Literatur, 6th ed., ed. Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, with Viktor Reichmann, and on previous English editions by W. F. Arndt, F. W. Gingrich, and F. W. Danker. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000. [BDAG] Daube, David. “Participle and Imperative in 1 Peter.” Appended note, pp. 467–88 in The First Epistle of St. Peter by Edward Gordon Selwyn. 2nd ed. New York: Macmillan, 1947. David, Jules. A Grammatical Parallel of the Ancient and Modern Greek Languages. Trans. John Mitchell. London: Black, Young & Young, 1824. Davis, William Hersey. Beginner’s Grammar of the Greek New Testament. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1923; 5th ed., Nashville: Broadman, 1942. Decker, Rodney J. Temporal Deixis of the Greek Verb in the Gospel of Mark. Studies in Biblical Greek 10. New York: Lang, 2001. Deer, Donald S. “More About the Imperatival ἵνα.” The Bible Translator 24.3 (1973): 328–29. ———. “Still More About the Imperatival ἵνα.” The Bible Translator 30.1 (1979): 148.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

529

Delbrück, Berthold. Die Grundlagen der Griechischen Syntax. Syntaktische Vorschungen 4. Halle: Waisenhauses, 1879. Deissmann, Adolf. Light from the Ancient East: The New Testament Illustrated by Recently Discovered Texts of the Graeco-Roman World. Trans. Lionel R. M. Strachan. 4th ed. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1927 [1st ed., 1908]. Dines, Jennifer M. The Septuagint. Understanding the Bible and Its World. London: T&T Clark, 2004. Dobson, John H. Learn New Testament Greek. 3rd ed. Carlisle: Piquant, 2005 [1st ed., 1988]. Donaldson, John William. A Complete Greek Grammar for the Use of Learners. London: John W. Parker, 1848; 3rd ed., Cambridge, [Eng.]: Deighton & Bell, 1862. Donovan, J. “German Opinion on Greek Jussives.” The Classical Review 9.6 (1895): 289–93. ——— “German Opinion on Greek Jussives (Continued).” The Classical Review 9.7 (1895): 342–46. ———. “German Opinion on Greek Jussives (Conclusion).” The Classical Review 9.9 (1895): 444–47. ———. “Greek Jussives.” The Classical Review 9.3 (1895): 145–49. ———. “Sonnenschein’s Greek Grammar.” The Classical Review 9.1 (1895): 60–67. Duff, Jeremy. The Elements of New Testament Greek. 3rd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Erteschik-Shir, Nomi, and Tova R. Rapoport, eds. The Syntax of Aspect: Deriving Thematic and Aspectual Interpretation. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005. Evans, Craig A., and Stanley E. Porter, eds. Dictionary of New Testament Backgrounds. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000. Evans, Trevor V. “Future Directions for Aspect Studies in Ancient Greek.” Pages 199–206 in Biblical Greek Language and Lexicography: Essays in Honor of Frederick W. Danker. Ed. Bernard A. Taylor et al. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004. ———. Verbal Syntax in the Greek Pentateuch: Natural Greek Usage and Hebrew Interference. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Fanning, Buist M. “Approaches to Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek: Issues in Definition and Method.” Pages 46–62 in Biblical Greek Language and Linguistics: Open Questions in Current Research. Ed. Stanley E. Porter and D. A. Carson. JSNTSup 80, SNTG 1. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993. ———. Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek. Oxford Theological Monographs. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990. [VANT] Fantin, Joseph D. The Greek Imperative Mood in the New Testament: A Cognitive and Communicative Approach. Studies in Biblical Greek 12. New York: Lang, 2010. Fernández, Paula Lorente. L’aspect verbal en Grec Ancien: Le choix des thèmes verbaux chez Isocrate. Bibliothèque des Cahiers de L’Institut de Linguistique de Louvain 111. Leuven: Peeters, 2003. Fernando, Andrew P. “Translation of Questions and Prohibitions in Greek.” The Bible Translator 27.1 (1976): 138–42. Fisk, Benjamin Franklin. A Grammar of the Greek Language. Boston: Hilliard, Gray, Little & Wilkins, 1830. Foley, Toshikazu S. Biblical Translation in Chinese and Greek: Verbal Aspect in Theory and Practice. Linguistic Biblical Studies 1. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Forssman, B. “Der Imperativ im Urindogermanischen Verbalsystem.” Pages 181–97 in Grammatische Kategorien: Funktion und Geschichte, ed. B. Schlerath. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 1985.

530


France, R. T. The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. Friberg, Barbara, and Timothy Friberg, eds. Analytical Greek New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981. Frick, Peter. A Handbook of New Testament Greek Grammar. Montreal: Laodamia, 2007. Friedrich, Paul. On Aspect Theory and Homeric Aspect. International Journal of American Linguistics, Memoir 28. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974. Frisbee, Ivory Franklin. The Beginner’s Greek Book. New York: Hinds & Noble, 1898. Funk, Robert Walter. A Beginning-Intermediate Grammar of Hellenistic Greek. 3 vols. 2nd ed. SBL Sources for Biblical Study 2. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1977 [1st ed., 1973]. Geddes, William Duguid. A Greek Grammar for the Use of Schools and Colleges. 17th ed. London: Simpkin, Marshall & Co., 1883 [1st ed., 1855]. Gildersleeve, Basil Lanneau. “Brief Mention.” American Journal of Philology 23.1 (1902): 106. ———. “Problems in Greek Syntax I.” American Journal of Philology 23.1 (1902): 1–27. ———. “Problems in Greek Syntax II.” American Journal of Philology 23.2 (1902): 121–41. ———. “Problems in Greek Syntax III.” American Journal of Philology 23.3 (1902): 241–60. ———. “Stahl’s Syntax of the Greek Verb: First Article.” American Journal of Philology 29.3 (1908): 257–79. ———. “Stahl’s Syntax of the Greek Verb: Second Article.” American Journal of Philology 29.4 (1908): 389–409. ———. “Stahl’s Syntax of the Greek Verb: Third Article.” American Journal of Philology 30.1 (1909): 1–21. Gildersleeve, Basil Lanneau, and Charles William Emil Miller. Syntax of Classical Greek from Homer to Demosthenes. 2 vols. New York: American Book Company, 1900–1911. Givón, Talmy. Syntax: An Introduction. 2 vols. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2001. Goetchius, Eugene Van Ness. The Language of the New Testament. New York: Scribners, 1965. Goodwin, William Watson. An Elementary Greek Grammar. Boston: Ginn, 1870. ———. A Greek Grammar. Rev. enl. ed. Boston: Ginn, 1894 [1st ed., 1879]. ———. Syntax of the Moods and Tenses of the Greek Verb. Cambridge: Sever & Francis, 1860; rev. enl. ed., Boston: Ginn, 1889. Green, Samuel G. Handbook to the Grammar of the Greek New Testament. London: The Religious Tract Society, 1876. Green, Thomas Sheldon. A Treatise on the Grammar of the New Testament Dialect; Embracing Observations on the Literal Interpretation of Numerous Passages. London: Samuel Bagster & Sons, 1842. Greenwood, Joseph George. The Elements of Greek Grammar: Including Accidence, Irregular Verbs, and Principles of Derivation and Composition; Adapted to the System of Crude Forms. London: Walton & Maberly, 1857. Haberland, Harmut. “A Note on the ‘Aorist’.” Pages 173–84 in Language and Discourse: Test and Protest, A Festschrift for Petr Sgall. Ed. Jacob L. Mey. Linguistic and Literary Studies in Eastern Europe 19. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1986. Hadley, James. A Greek Grammar for Schools and Colleges. London: D. Appleton, 1860; 2nd ed., ed. Frederic DeForest Allen, 1884. [Hale, W. G., et. al.] Report of the Joint Committee on Grammatical Nomenclature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1913. Halliday, Michael A. K., and Ruqaiya Hasan. Language, Context, and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-Semiotic Perspective. Language Education Series. New York: Oxford University Press, 1989.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

531

Hansen, Hardy, and Gerald M. Quinn. Greek: An Intensive Course. 2nd rev. ed. New York: Fordham University Press, 1992 [1st ed., 1987]. Harris, Murray J. Prepositions and Theology in the Greek New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012. Harry, J. E. “The Perfect Subjunctive, Optative, and Imperative in Greek.” The Classical Review 19.7 (1905): 347–54. ———. “The Perfect Subjunctive, Optative, and Imperative in Greek Again.” The Classical Review 20.2 (1906): 100–103. Hatina, Thomas R. “The Perfect Tense-form in Recent Debate: Galatians as a Case Study.” Filología Neotestamentaria 8 (1995): 3–22. Headlam, Walter G. “Greek Prohibitions.” The Classical Review 19.1 (1905): 30–36. ———. “Some Passages of Aeschylus and Others,” The Classical Review 17.6 (1903): 286– 95. Heidt, William. “Translating New Testament Imperatives.” CBQ (1951): 253–56. Hermann, [Johann] Gottfried [Jakob]. De Praeceptis Quibusdam Atticistarum. Leipzig: Klavbarthia, 1810. ———. Editorial Notes in De Praecipuis Graecae Dictionis Idiotismis. By François Viger. Ed. Hendrik Hoogeveen, Johann Carl Zeune, and Gottfried Hermann. Leipzig: Fritschi, 1802; 2nd ed., Leipzig: Hahn, 1813; 3rd ed., 1822; 4th ed. 1834. ———. Opuscula 1. Leipzig: Fleischer, 1827. Hewett, James Allen. New Testament Greek: A Beginning and Intermediate Grammar. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1986. Hime, Maurice Charles. An Introduction to the Greek Language: Comprising Accidence and Syntax; Exercises and Vocabularies. London: Simpkin, Marshall, Hamilton & Kent, 1891. Hoerber, Robert G. “Implications of the Imperative in the Sermon on the Mount.” Concordia Journal 7.3 (1981): 100–103. Holmes, Michael W., ed. The Greek New Testament: SBL Edition. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2010; Bellingham, WA: Logos, 2010. Holt, Jens. Études d’aspect. Acts Jutlandica Aarskrift for Aarhus Universitet 15.2. Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1943. Hooper, Paul J., ed. Tense–Aspect: Between Semantics and Pragmatics. Typological Studies in Language 1. Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1982. Hoopert, Daniel A. “Verb Ranking in Koine Imperativals.” Journal of Translation 3.1 (2007):1–8. Horrocks, Geoffrey C. Greek: A History of the Language and Its Speakers. 2nd ed. Malden, Mass.: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010. Householder, Fred W. The Syntax of Apollonius Dyscolus. Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science, Series 3: Studies in the History of Linguistics 23. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 1981. Huffman, Douglas S. The Handy Guide to New Testament Greek: Grammar, Syntax, and Diagramming. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2012. Hudson, Donald Foster. New Testament Greek. Teach Yourself Books. Sevenoaks: Teach Yourself Books, 1960. Hummel, Pascale. De Lingua Graeca: Histoire de L’histoire de la Langue Grecque. Bern: Lang, 2007. Humphreys, M. W. “On Negative Commands in Greek.” Transactions of the American Philological Association 7 (1876): 46–49.

532


International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies (IOSCS). A New English Translation of the Septuagint. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. Jackson, Henry. “Prohibitions in Greek.” The Classical Review 18.5 (1904): 262–63. Jacob, George Andrew. The Bromsgrove Greek Grammar. Rev. ed. London: Simpkin, Marshall & Co., 1845 [1st ed., 1838]. ———. Elementary Greek Grammar. 2nd ed. London: Simpkin, Marshall & Co., 1860. ———. Greek Grammar, for the Use of the Lower Grammar School in Christ’s Hospital. Simpkin, Marshall & Co., 1854. Jakobson, Roman. “Zur Struktur des russischen Verbums.” Pages 74–83 in Charisteria Guilelmo Mathesia. Prague: Cercle Linguistique de Prague, 1932; reprinted on pages 3– 15 in idem, Selected Writings II: Word and Language. The Hague: Mouton, 1971. Jannaris, Antonius N. An Historical Greek Grammar: Chiefly of the Attic Dialect as Written and Spoken from Classical Antiquity Down to Present Time: Founded upon the Ancient Texts, Inscriptions, Papyri and Present Popular Greek. London: Macmillan, 1897; reprint, Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1987. Jay, Eric George. New Testament Greek: An Introductory Grammar. London: SPCK, 1958. Jelf, William Edward. A Grammar of the Greek Language: Chiefly from the German of Raphael Kühner. 2 vols. 2nd ed. London: John Henry Parker, 1851 [1st ed., 1842–45, of the 1st German ed., 1834–35]. Jobes, Karen H., and Moisés Silva. Invitation to the Septuagint. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000. Joint Association of Classical Teachers, The (JACT). Reading Greek: Grammar, Vocabulary and Exercises. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978. Keith, A. Berriedale. “Some Uses of the Future in Greek.” The Classical Quarterly 6.2 (1912): 121–26. Kenny, Anthony John Patrick. Action, Emotion and Will. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1963. Kittel, Gerhard, and Gerhard Friedrich, eds. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. 10 vols. Trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–74. [TDNT] Koen, Gisbert, and Gottfried Heinrich Schaefer, et al., eds. Gregorius Corinthius. Leipzig: Weigel, 1811. Krüger, Karl Wilhelm. Griechische Sprachelehre für Schulen: Syntax. 3rd ed. Berlin: K. W. Krüger, 1852; 6th ed., 1891. Kühner, Raphael. Ausführliche Grammatik der Griechischen Sprache. 2 vols. Hannover: Hahn, 1834–35. English trans: Jelf, William Edward. A Grammar of the Greek Language: Chiefly from the German of Raphael Kühner. 2 vols. 2nd ed. London: John Henry Parker, 1851 [1st ed., 1842–45, of the 1st German ed., 1834–35]. ———. Elementargrammatik der Griechischen Sprache. 3rd enl. ed. Hannover: Hahn, 1842 [1st ed., 1837]. English trans.: Kühner, Raphael. An Elementary Grammar of the Greek Language: Containing a Series of Greek and English Exercises for Translation, with the Requisite Vocabularies, and an Appendix on the Homeric Verse and Dialect. 2nd ed. Trans. Samuel Harvey Taylor. Ed. Charles W. Bateman. London: Simpkin & Marshall, 1863 [1st ed., 1846, of the 3rd German ed., 1842]. ———. Schulgrammatik der Griechischen Sprache. 2nd enl. ed., 1843 [1st ed., 1836]. English trans.: Kühner, Raphael. Grammar of the Greek Language for the Use of High Schools and Colleges. Trans. B. B. Edwards and Samuel Harvey Taylor. London: Wiley & Putnam, 1844 [of the 2nd German ed., 1843]. Lamp, Jeffrey S. “An Alternative Explanation for the Alleged ‘Imperatival’ Participles of Romans 12:9–21.” Tyndale Bulletin 61.2 (2010): 311–16.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

533

Lee, John A. L. “Some Features of the Speech of Jesus in Mark’s Gospel.” Novum Testamentum 27.1 (1985): 1–26. Levinsohn, Stephen H. Discourse Features of New Testament Greek: A Coursebook on the Information Structure of New Testament Greek. 2nd ed. Dallas: SIL International, 2000. Long, Gary Alan. Grammatical Concepts 101 for Biblical Greek: Learning Biblical Greek Grammatical Concepts through English Grammar. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2006. Longacre, Robert. “Toward an Exegesis of 1 John Based on the Discourse Analysis of the Greek Text.” Pages 271–86 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Discourse Analysis. Ed. David Allen Black, Katharine Barnwell, and Stephen Levinsohn. Nashville: Broadman, 1992. Louw, Johannes P. “On Greek Prohibitions.” Acta Classica 2 (1959): 43–57. ———. “Prohibitions in the Greek New Testament: A Study of MH with the Present Imperative and the Aorist Subjunctive.” D. Litt. thesis, University of Pretoria, 1958. Louw, Johannes P., and Eugene A. Nida, eds. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains. 2 vols. New York: United Bible Societies, 1988. Lyons, John. Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968. Machen, J. Gresham. New Testament Greek for Beginners. New York: Macmillan, 1923. MacDonald, William Graham. Greek Enchiridion: A Concise Handbook of Grammar for Translation and Exegesis. Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson, 1986. Macnair, Ian. Discovering New Testament Greek. London: Marshall Pickering, 1993. Madvig, Johan Nicolai. Syntax der griechischen Sprache: Besonderers der Attischen Sprachform, für Schulen. Braunschweig: F. Vieweg, 1847. ———. Syntax of the Greek Language: Especially of the Attic Dialect, for the Use of Schools. Trans. Henry Browne and Thomas Kerchever Arnold. London: Francis & John Rivington, 1853 [trans. of 1847 German original]. Mandilaras, Basil G. Studies in the Greek Language. Athens: N. Xenopoulos, 1972. ———. The Verb in the Greek Non-Literary Papyri. Athens: Hellenic Ministry of Culture & Sciences, 1973. Mansfield, Edward Dillon. A Primer of Greek Grammar: Syntax. London: Rivingtons, 1880. Marcos, Natalio Fernandez. The Septuagint in Context: Introduction to the Greek Version of the Bible. Trans. Wilfred G. E. Watson. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Marshall, Alfred. New Testament Greek Primer. London, Samuel Bagster, 1962. Martin-Asensio, Gustavo. Transitivity-Based Foregrounding in the Acts of the Apostles: A Functional-Grammatical Approach to the Lukan Perspective. JSNTSup 202, SNTG 8. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000. Masterman, K. C. “On Grammatical Terminology and Aspect in Particular.” Greece & Rome 2nd ser. 9.1 (1962): 72–86 Mastronarde, Donald J. Introduction to Attic Greek. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993. Mateos, Juan. El aspect verbal en el nuevo testmento. Estudios de nuevo testament 1; Madrid: Ediciones Cristiandad, 1977. Mathewson, David L. “Rethinking Greek Verb Tenses in Light of Verbal Aspect: How Much Do Our Modern Labels Really Help Us?” Unpublished paper, Gordon College, 2006. ———. “Verbal Aspect in Imperatival Constructions in Pauline Ethical Injunctions.” Filología Neotestamentaria 9 (1996): 21–35. ———. Verbal Aspect in the Book of Revelation: The Function of Greek Verb Tenses in John’s Apocalyspse. Linguistic Biblical Studies 4. Leiden: Brill, 2010.

534


Matthiæ, August Heinrich. Ausführliche Griechische Grammatik. Leipzig: Crusius, 1807; 2nd ed., 1827; 3rd ed., 1835. English trans.: idem. A Copious Greek Grammar. 5th ed. Trans. Edward Valentine Bloomfield. Ed. John Kendrick. London: John Murray, 1832 [1st ed., 1818]. ———. Griechische Grammatik zum Schulgebrauch. Leipzig: Crusius, 1808. Mayser, Edwin. Grammatik der Griechischen Papyri aus der Ptolemäerzeit: Mit Einschluss der gleichzeitigen Ostraka und der in Ägypten verfassten Inschriften. Vol. 2, Satzlehre, 3 parts. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1926, 1933, 1934. McKay, Kenneth Leslie. “Aspect in Imperatival Constructions in New Testament Greek,” Novum Testamentum 27.3 (1985): 201–26. ———. “Aspects of the Imperative in Ancient Greek,” Antichthon 20 (1986): 41–58. ———. “Aspectual Usage in Timeless Contexts in Ancient Greek.” Pages 193–208 in In the Footsteps of Raphael Kühner: Proceedings of the International Colloquium in Commemoration of the 150th Anniversary of the Publication of Raphael Kühner’s Ausführlihe Grammatik der Griechischen Sprache, II. Theil: Syntaxe. Ed. Albert Rijksbaron et al. Amsterdam: J. C. Gieben, 1988. ———. Greek Grammar for Students: A Concise Grammar of Classical Attic with Special Reference to Aspect in the Verb. 2nd ed. Canberra: Australian National University, 1994 [1st ed., 1974]. ———. A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek: An Aspectual Approach. Studies in Biblical Greek 5. New York: Lang, 1994. ———. “On the Perfect and Other Aspects in the Greek Non-Literary Papyri,” Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 27 (1980): 23–49. ———. “On the Perfect and Other Aspects in New Testament Greek.” Novum Testamentum 23.4 (1981): 289–329. ———. “Repeated Action, the Potential and Reality in Ancient Greek,” Antichthon 15 (1981): 36–46. ———. “Some Linguistic Points in Marxsen’s Resurrection Theory,” Expository Times 84.11 (1973): 330–332. ———. “Syntax in Exegesis,” Tyndale Bulletin 23 (1972): 39–57. ———. “Time and Aspect in New Testament Greek,” Novum Testamentum 34.3 (1992): 209– 28. ———. “The Use of the Ancient Greek Perfect down to the End of the Second Century AD,” Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 12 (1965): 1–21. Meecham, Henry G. “The Imperatival Use of ἵνα in the New Testament.” JTS 43 (1942):179– 80. ———. “The Use of the Participle for the Imperative in the New Testament.” ExpT 58 (1947): 207–208. Meecham, Henry G., ed. An Introduction to the Study of New Testament Greek by James Hope Moulton. 5th ed. London, Epworth, 1955. Miklosisch, Franz. Vergleichende Grammatik der slavischen Sprachen. 4 vols. Wien: Braumüller, 1868–74. Miller, Neva F. “The Imperativals of Romans 12.” Pages 162–82 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Discourse Analysis. Ed. David Alan Black, Katharine Barnwell, and Stephen Levinsohn. Nashville: Broadman, 1992. Milner, John. A Practical Grammar of the Greek Tongue: Wherein All the Rules are Expressed in English, in the Method of Text, and Notes; and Thrown into the Most

BIBLIOGRAPHY

535

Agreeable View for the Benefit of Learners. 2nd ed. London: John Noon, 1740 [1st ed., London: John Gray, 1734]. Monro, David Binning. A Grammar of the Homeric Dialect. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 1891; reprint, New York: Olms, 1974. Moore, Ralph Westwood. Comparative Greek and Latin Syntax. London: G. Bell & Sons, 1934. Moorhouse, Alfred Charles. Studies in the Greek Negatives. Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1959. Morrice, William G. “The Imperatival ἵνα.” The Bible Translator 23.3 (1972): 326–30. ———. “Translating the Greek Imperative.” The Bible Translator 24.1 (1973): 129–34. Morwood, James. The Oxford Grammar of Classical Greek. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Moule, Charles Francis Digby. An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953; 2nd ed., 1959. Moulton, James Hope. An Introduction to the Study of New Testament Greek. London: Charles H. Kelly, 1895; 5th ed. Ed. Henry G. Meecham. London, Epworth, 1955. ———. Prolegomena, vol. 1 of A Grammar of New Testament Greek. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1906; 3rd ed., 1908. [MHT 1] Moulton, James Hope, and Wilbert F. Howard. Accidence and Word-Formation, vol. 2 of A Grammar of New Testament Greek. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1929. [MHT 2] Moulton, James Hope, Wilbert F. Howard, and Nigel Turner. A Grammar of New Testament Greek. 4 vols. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1906–76. [MHT] Mozley, Francis Woodgate. “Notes on the Biblical Use of the Present and Aorist Imperative.” JTS 4 (1903): 279–82. Müeller, Theodore H. New Testament Greek: A Case Grammar Approach. Fort Wayne, IN: Concordia Theological Seminary, 1978. Musić, A. “Zum Gebrauche des negierten Konjunktivs für den negierten Imperativ im Griechischen.” Glotta (1915): 206–210. Napoli, Maria. Aspect and Actionality in Homeric Greek: A Contrastive Analysis. Materiali Linguistici 54. Milan: FrancoAngeli, 2006. Naselli, Andrew David. “A Brief Introduction to Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek.” Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 12 (2007): 17–28. Naylor, H. Darnley. “More Prohibitions in Greek.” The Classical Review 20.7 (1906): 348. ———. “Prohibitions in Greek.” The Classical Review 19.1 (1905): 26–30. Nestle, Eberhard, Erwin Nestle, Kurt Aland, et al. eds. Novum Testamentum Graece. 27th rev. ed. Stuttgart: German Bible Society, 1993; 28th rev. ed., 2012. New, David S. “The Injunctive Future and Existential Injunctions in the New Testament,” JSNT 44 (1991): 113–27; reprinted on pages 130–44 in New Testament Text and Language: A Sheffield Reader, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Craig A. Evans. The Biblical Seminar 44. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. Nida, Eugene A., and Johannes P. Louw. Lexical Semantics of the Greek New Testament: A Supplement to the Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains. SBL Resources for Biblical Study 25. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992. Nolland, John. The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. Nunn, Henry Preston Vaughan. The Elements of New Testament Greek: A Method of Studying the Greek New Testament with Exercises. 8th ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1945 [1st ed., 1915]; reprinted 1958.

536


———. A Short Syntax of Attic Greek. Cambridge [Eng.]: W. Heffer, 1948. ———. A Short Syntax of New Testament Greek. 5th ed. Cambridge [Eng.]: Cambridge University Press, 1938 [1st ed., 1912]. O’Brien, Mark B. “Verbal Aspect in the Future Tense of the Greek New Testament.” Th.M. thesis. Dallas Theological Seminary, 1997. O’Donnell, Matthew Brook. Corpus Linguistics and the Greek of the New Testament. NTM 6. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2005. Olsen, Mari Broman. A Semantic and Pragmatic Model of Lexical and Grammatical Aspect. Outstanding Dissertations in Linguistics. New York: Garland, 1997. Paine, Stephen William. Beginning Greek: A Functional Approach. New York: Oxford University Press, 1961. Palmer, Frank Robert. Mood and Modality. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986. Palmer, Leonard Robert. The Greek Language. The Great Languages. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press, 1980. Picirilli, Robert E. “The Meaning of the Tenses in New Testament Greek: Where are We?” JETS 48 (2005): 533–55. Pickavance, Tim. “Commands in the Context of Scripture: A Prospectus.” Pages 166–83 in Discipling the Disciplines: Theological Hermeneutics for the Arts and Sciences, ed. Richard Langer. La Mirada, CA: Biola University, 2011. Porter, Stanley E. “Aspect Theory and Lexicography.” Pages 207–222 in Biblical Greek Language and Lexicography: Essays in Honor of Frederick W. Danker, ed. Bernard A. Taylor et al. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004. ———. “Dialect and Register in the Greek of the New Testament: Theory.” Pages 190–208 in Rethinking Contexts, Rereading Texts: Contributions from the Social Sciences to Biblical Interpretation, ed. M. Daniel Carroll R. JSOTSup 299. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000. ———. “Discourse Analysis and New Testament Studies: An Introductory Survey.” Pages 14–35 in Discourse Analysis and Other Topics in Biblical Greek, ed. Stanley E. Porter and D. A. Carson. JSNTSup 113, SNTG 2. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995. ———. “Grammarians, Hellenistic Greek.” Pages 418–21 in Dictionary of New Testament Backgrounds, ed. Craig A. Evans and Stanley E. Porter. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2000. ———. “Greek Grammar and Syntax.” Pages 76–103 in The Face of New Testament Studies: A Survey of Recent Research, ed. Scot McKnight and Grant R. Osborne. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004. ———. “The Greek Language of the New Testament.” Pages 99–130 in Handbook to Exegesis of the New Testament, ed. Stanley E. Porter. NTTS 25. Leiden: Brill, 1997. ———. “Greek of the New Testament.” Pages 426–35 in Dictionary of New Testament Backgrounds, ed. Craig A. Evans and Stanley E. Porter. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2000. ———. “Greek Linguistics and Lexicography.” Pages 19–61 in Understanding the Times: New Testament Studies in the 21st Century: Essays in Honor of D. A. Carson on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday, ed. Andreas J. Köstenberger and Robert W. Yarbrough. Wheaton: Crossway, 2011. ———. Idioms of the Greek New Testament. 2nd ed. Biblical Languages: Greek 2. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994 [1st ed., 1992].

BIBLIOGRAPHY

537

———. “In Defence of Verbal Aspect.” Pages 26–45 in Biblical Greek Language and Linguistics: Open Questions in Current Research. Ed. Stanley E. Porter and D. A. Carson. JSNTSup 80, SNTG 1. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993. ———. “P. Oxy 744.4 and Colossians 3,9.” Biblica 73.4 (1992): 565–67. ———. “Register in the Greek of the New Testament: Application with Reference to Mark’s Gospel.” Pages 209–229 in Rethinking Contexts, Rereading Texts: Contributions from the Social Sciences to Biblical Interpretation, ed. M. Daniel Carroll R. JSOTSup 299. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000. ———. “Septuagint/Greek Old Testament.” Pages 1099–106 in Dictionary of New Testament Backgrounds, ed. Craig A. Evans and Stanley E. Porter. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2000. ———. Studies in the Greek New Testament: Theory and Practice. Studies in Biblical Greek 6. New York: Lang, 1996. ———. Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, with Reference to Tense and Mood. Studies in Biblical Greek 1. New York: Lang, 1989; 2nd ed., 1993. [VAG] Porter, Stanley E., and Andrew W. Pitts. “New Testament Greek Language and Linguistics in Recent Research.” CBR 6.2 (2008): 214–55. Porter, Stanley E., and Jeffrey T. Reed. “Greek Grammar since BDF: A Retropective and Prospective Analysis.” Filología Neotestamentaria 4 (1991): 143–64. Porter, Stanley E., Jeffrey T. Reed, and Matthew Brook O’Donnell. Fundamentals of New Testament Greek. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. Porter, Stanley E., and Matthew Brook O’Donnell. “The Greek Verbal Network Viewed from a Probabilistic Standpoint: An Exercise in Hallidayan Linguistics.” Filología Neotestamentaria 14 (2001): 3–41. Porter, Stanley E., ed. Diglossia and Other Topics in New Testament Linguistics. JSNTSup 193, SNTG 6. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000. ———, ed. The Language of the New Testament: Classic Essays. JSNTSup 60. Sheffield, England: JSOT Press, 1991. Porter, Stanley E., and D. A. Carson, eds. Biblical Greek Language and Linguistics: Open Questions in Current Research. JSNTSup 80, SNTG 1. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993. ———, eds. Discourse Analysis and Other Topics in Biblical Greek. JSNTSup 113, SNTG 2. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995. ———, eds. Linguistics and the New Testament: Critical Junctures. JSNTSup 168, SNTG 5. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. Porter, Stanley E., and Jeffrey T. Reed, eds. Discourse Analysis and the New Testament: Approaches and Results. JSNTSup 170, SNTG 4. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. Post, Levi Arnold. “Dramatic Uses of the Greek Imperative,” American Journal of Philology 59.1 (1938): 31–59. Powers, Beaumont Ward. Learn to Read the Greek New Testament: An Approach to New Testament Greek Based Upon Linguistic Principles. Adelaide: SPCK Australia, 1995. Radermacher, Ludwig. Neutestamentliche Grammatik: Das Griechisch des Neuen Testaments im Zusammenhang mit der Volkssprache. 2nd ed. Handbuch zum Neuen Testament 1. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1925 [1st ed., 1911]. Rahlfs, Alfred, ed. Septuaginta. 2 vols. in 1. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1979. Reed, Jeffrey T. A Discourse Analysis of Philippians: Method and Rhetoric in the Debate over Literary Integrity. JSNTSup 136. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997.

538


———. “Discourse Analysis.” Pages 189–217 in Handbook to Exegesis of the New Testament. Ed. Stanley E. Porter. NTTS 25. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Reed, Jeffrey T., and Ruth A. Reese. “Verbal Aspect, Discourse Prominence, and the Letter of Jude.” Filología Neotestamentaria 9 (1996): 181–99. Rijksbaron, Albert. The Syntax and Semantics of the Verb in Classical Greek: An Introduction. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002 [1st ed., 1984]. Robertson, Archibald Thomas. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1914; reprint, Nashville: Broadman, 1934. [ATR] ———. A Short Grammar of the Greek New Testament: For Students Familiar with the Elements of Greek. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1908. Robertson, Archibald Thomas, and William Hersey Davis. A New Short Grammar of the Greek New Testament: For Students Familiar with the Elements of Greek. 9th ed. London: SPCK, 1931 [1st ed., 1908]. Robichaux, Kerry S., and Roger Good. A Reader’s Grammar of the Greek New Testament. Anaheim, Calif.: A & C, 2000. Robins, Robert Henry. A Short History of Linguistics. 3rd ed. Longman Linguistics Library. New York: Longman, 1990. Roby, H. J. “The Imperative in St. John 20:17.” The Classical Review 19.4 (1905): 229. Rost, Valentin Christian Friedrich. Griechische Grammatik. 2nd ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1821. Runge, Steven E. Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament: A Practical Introduction for Teaching and Exegesis. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2010. Salom, A. P. “The Imperatival Use of the Participle in the New Testament.” Australian Biblical Review 11 (1963): 49. Schehr, Timothy Parkinson. “Syntax of the Moods and Tenses of the Greek Verb in Septuagint Genesis 1–15.” Ph.D. diss. Cincinnati, Ohio: Hebrew Union College—Jewish Institute of Religion, 1990. Schoch, Reto. Griechischer Lehrgang zum Neuen Testament. UTB fur Wissenschaft, 2140. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. Schwyzer, Eduard. Griechische Grammatik: Auf der Grundlage von Karl Brugmanns Griechischer Grammatik, Vol. 2: Syntax und Syntaktische Stilistik. 2nd ed. Ed. Albert Debrunner. Munich: C. H. Beck, 1959. Seaton, Robert Cooper. “Prohibitions in Greek.” The Classical Review 20.9 (1906): 438. Sicking, C. M. J. “The Distribution of Aorist and Present Stem Forms in Greek, Especially in the Imperative.” Glotta 69 (1991): 14–43 and 154–70. Sicking, C. M. J., and P. Stork. Two Studies in the Semantics of the Verb in Classical Greek. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Sim, Margaret G. Marking Thought and Talk in New Testament Greek: New Light from Linguistics on the Particles ἵνα and ὅτι. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2010. Simcox, William Henry. The Language of the New Testament. The Theological Educator. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1889. Simonson, Gustave. A Greek Grammar: Syntax. London: Swan Sonnenschein, 1911. Smith, Carlota R. The Parameter of Aspect. 2nd ed. Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy 43. Boston: Kluwer, 1997 [1st ed., 1991]. Smith, Charles R. “Errant Aorist Interpreters.” GTJ 2 (1981): 205–226. Smith, James Hamblin. An Elementary Greek Grammar. London: Rivingtons, 1878. Smotritsky, Melety Grammatika Slovenska. Evyu: n.p., 1619; reprint, Moscow: ZMS, 1648.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

539

Smyth, Herbert Weir. A Greek Grammar for Colleges. New York: American Book, 1920; republished as: Greek Grammar. Rev. Gordon M. Messing. Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1956. Sonnenschein, Edward Adolf. A Greek Grammar for Schools: Based on the Principles and Requirements of the Grammatical Society. 2 vols. London: 1892–1894. ———. “Interrogative Commands: A New Theory of οὐ µή (Prohibitive) in the Light of Latin quin with Moods of Command.” The Classical Review 16.3 (1902): 165–69. ———. “The Perfect Subjunctive, Optative, and Imperative in Greek.” The Classical Review 20.3 (1906): 155–56. ———. “The Perfect Subjunctive, Optative, and Imperative in Greek.—A Reply.” The Classical Review 19.9 (1906): 349–40. [Sonnenschein, Edward Adolf, et. al.] Interim Report of the Joint Committee on Grammatical Terminology. London: John Murry, 1909. [———.] On the Terminology of Grammar: Being the Report of the Joint Committee on Grammatical Terminology. London: John Murray, 1911. Sophocles, Evangelinus Apostolides. A Glossary of Later and Byzantine Greek. Memoirs of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences: New Series, 7. Cambridge: Welch, Bigelow, 1860. ———. A Greek Grammar for the Use of Schools and Colleges. 2nd ed. Hartford: William J. Hamersley, 1854 [1st ed., 1847]. Stagg, Frank. “The Abused Aorist.” JBL 91 (1972): 222–31. Stahl, Johann Matthias. Kritisch-historische Syntax des Griechischen Verbums der Kalssischen Zeit. Indogermanische Bibliothek, Erste Abteilung: Sammlung Indogermanischer Lehr-und Handbücher, I. Reihe: Grammatiken, 4. Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1907. Stephens, Laurence. “The Origins of a Homeric Peculiarity: µή Plus the Aorist Imperative,” TAPA 113 (1983): 69–78. Stevens, Gerald L. New Testament Greek Primer. Eugene, Ore.: Cascade Books, 2004; reprint: Cambridge: Lutterworth, 2007. Stewart, Thomas A., A New First Greek Course; Comprising Grammar, Syntax, and Exercises with Vocabularies Containing All the Words in the Text. London: Simpkin, Marshall & Co., 1873. Strunk, K. “Zur Diachronischen Morphosyntax des Konjunktivs.” Pages 291–312 in In the Footsteps of Raphael Kühner: Proceedings of the International Colloquium in Commemoration of the 150th Anniversary of the Publication of Raphael Kühner’s Ausführlihe Grammatik der Griechischen Sprache, II. Theil: Syntaxe. Ed. Albert Rijksbaron et al. Amsterdam: J. C. Gieben, 1988. Stuart, Moses. A Grammar of the New Testament Dialect. Andover: Gould & Newman, 1834. Swete, Henry Barclay. An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek: With an Appendix Containing the Letter of Aristeas. Rev. Richard Rusden Ottley. Ed. Henry St. John Thackeray. Reprinted in the Cambridge Library Collection – Religion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Swetnam, James. An Introduction to the Study of New Testament Greek, Part One: Morphology. 2 vols. 2nd ed. Subsidia Biblica 16. Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1998 [1st ed., 1981]. Taylor, Bernard A. et al., eds. Biblical Greek Language and Lexicography: Essays in Honor of Frederick W. Danker. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004. Taylor, Mark Edward. A Text-Linguistic Investigation into the Discourse Structure of James. LNTS/JSNTSup 311. New York: T&T Clark, 2006.

540


Taylor, Robert West. A Short Greek Syntax: Extracted from ‘Xenophon’s Anabasis, with Notes’. London: Rivingtons, [1878]. Temporini, Hildegard, and Wolfgang Haase, eds. Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt. Part 1 in 4 vols.; part 2 in 37 vols. New York: De Gruyter, 1972–. Thackeray, Henry St. John. A Grammar of the Old Testament in Greek According to the Septuagint, Vol. 1: Introduction, Orthography and Accidence. Cambridge: University Press, 1909. Thieroff, Rolf, and Joachim Ballweg, eds. Tense Systems in European Languages. 2 vols. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1994–95. Thiersch, Frederick. Griechische Grammatik: vorzüglich des homerischen Dialektes. 3rd ed. Leipzig: Gerhard Fleischer, 1826 [1st ed., 1812]; English trans.: idem. The Greek Grammar of Frederick Thiersch. Trans. D. K. Sandford. Edinburgh: William Blackwood, 1830. Thompson, Francis Edward. An Elementary Greek Syntax. 3rd ed. London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1892 [1st ed., 1885]. ———. A Syntax of Attic Greek. London: Rivingtons, 1883; rev. ed., London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1907. Thompson, John. A Greek Grammar: Accidence and Syntax for Schools and Colleges. London: John Murray, 1902. Thorley, John. “Aktionsart in New Testament Greek: Infinitive and Imperative.” Novum Testamentum 31.4 (1989): 290–315. ———. “Subjunctive Aktionsart in New Testament Greek: A Reassessment.” Novum Testamentum 30.3 (1988): 193–211. Thumb, Albert. Handbuch der Neugriechischen Volkssprache: Grammatik. Texte. Glossar. Strassbury: Karl J. Trübner, 1895; 2nd ed., 1910. English trans.: idem, Handbook of the Modern Greek Vernacular: Grammar, Texts, Glossary. Trans. S. Angus. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1912 [of the 1910 2nd German ed.]. Turner, Nigel. Grammatical Insights into the New Testament. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1965. ———. Style, vol. 4 of A Grammar of New Testament Greek. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1976. [MHT 4] ———. Syntax, vol. 3 of A Grammar of New Testament Greek. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1963. [MHT 3] Vaughan, Curtis, and Virtus E. Gideon. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament: A Workbook Approach to Intermediate Grammar. Nashville: Broadman, 1979. Vendler, Zeno. “Verbs and Times,” Philosophical Review 66 (1957): 143–60; reprinted on pages 97–121 in idem, Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1967. Versteegh, C. H. M. “The Stoic Verbal System,” Hermes 108 (1980): 338–57. Viger, François. De Praecipuis Graecae Dictionis Idiotismis. Ed. Hendrik Hoogeveen, Johann Carl Zeune, and Gottfried Hermann. Leipzig: Fritschi, 1802; 2nd ed., Leipzig: Hahn, 1813; 3rd ed., 1822; 4th ed. 1834 [Viger’s work was originally published in 1644 in Paris]. ———. Viger’s Greek Idioms: Abridged and Translated into English from Professor Hermann’s Last Edition. Ed. John Seager. 2nd ed. London: A. J. Valpy, 1828. Vine, William Edwyn. New Testament Greek Grammar: A Course of Self-Help. London: Pickering & Inglis, 1930. Voelz, James William. Fundamental Greek Grammar. 3rd ed. St. Louis: Concordia, 2007 [1st ed., 1986; 2nd ed., 1993].

BIBLIOGRAPHY

541

———. “The Language of the New Testament.” Pages 893–977 in Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung, vol. II.25.2, ed. Wolfgang Haase. New York: De Gruyter, 1984. ———. “Present and Aorist Verbal Aspect: A New Proposal.” Neotestamentica 27 (1993): 153–64. ———. “The Use of the Present and Aorist Imperatives and Prohibitions in the New Testament.” Ph.D. diss., University of Cambridge, 1977. Votaw, Clyde W. The Use of the Infinitive in Biblical Greek. Chicago: by the Author, 1896. Wallace, Daniel B. Granville Sharp’s Canon and Its Kin: Semantics and Significance. Studies in Biblical Greek 14. New York: Lang, 2009. ———. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996. Ware, James P., ed. Synopsis of the Pauline Letters in Greek and English. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2010. Watt, Jonathan M. Code-Switching in Luke and Acts. Berkeley Insights in Linguistics and Semiotics 31. New York: Lang, 1997. Webster, William. The Syntax and Synonyms of the Greek Testament. London: Rivingtons, 1864. Weinrich, Harald. “Tense and Time.” Archivum Linguisticum NS 1 (1970): 31–41. Wendland, Ernst R. “‘Stand Fast in the True Grace of God!’: A Study of 1 Peter.” JOTT: Journal of Translation and Textlinguistics 13 (2000): 25–102. Wenham, John William. The Elements of New Testament Greek. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965. Westfall, Cynthia Long. A Discourse Analysis of the Letter to the Hebrews: The Relationship between Form and Meaning. LNTS/JSNTSup 297; SNTG 11. New York: T&T Clark, 2005. White, John Williams. The Beginner’s Greek Book. Boston: Ginn, 1892. Whitelaw, R. “Interrogative Commands.” The Classical Review 16.5 (1902): 277. Whitelaw, R. “On µή Prohibitive with Future Indicative.” The Classical Review 2.10 (1888): 322–23. Whittaker, Molly. New Testament Greek Grammar: An Introduction. Rev. ed. London: SCM, 1980 [1st ed., 1969]. Willmott, Jo. The Moods of Homeric Greek. Cambridge Classical Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Winer, Georg Benedict. A Grammar of the Idioms of the Greek Language of the New Testament. Trans. J. H. Agnew and O. G. Ebbeke. New York: Robert Carter & Brothers, 1839 [of the 4th German ed., 1836]. ———. Grammatik des Neutestamentlichen Sprachidioms als einzig sichere Grundlage der neutestamentlichen Exegese. Liepzig: Friedrich Christian Wilhelm, 1822. ———. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament. Trans. Moses Stuart and Edward Robinson. Anover: Flagg & Gould, 1825 [of the 1st German ed., 1822]. ———. A Treatise on the Grammar of New Testament Greek, Regarded as a Sure Basis for New Testament Exegesis. Trans. & ed. William Fiddian Moulton. 3rd ed.; 9th English ed. Edinburgh: T. &. T. Clark, 1882 [1st ed., 1870, of the 6th German ed., 1855]. Young, Richard A. Intermediate New Testament Greek: A Linguistic and Exegetical Approach. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1994. Zerwick, Maximilian. Biblical Greek: Illustrated by Examples. Trans. Joseph Smith. Rome: Scripta Pontificii Insituti Biblici, 1963 [from Italian 4th ed., 1960; Latin 1st ed., 1944].

542


Zuntz, Günther. Greek: A Course in Classical and Post-classical Greek Grammar from Original Texts. 2 vols. Ed. Stanley E. Porter. Biblical Languages: Greek 4. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994.

— SCRIPTURE INDEX— This index is also a record of how each passage is classified in our prohibition categories: PI—Present Imperative AS—Aorist Subjunctive AI—Aorist Imperative FI—Future Indicative HS—Hortatory Subjunctive

Opt—Optative Inf—Infinitive Ptc—Participle Obj—Direct Object Clause Purp—Final Purpose Clause

Lex—Lexical Prohibition PQ—Prohibitory Question WP—Warnings & Promises ES—Emulation Statement NE—Negative Expression

In addition to the above codes for the fifteen category classifications, we make note of voice, person, number, and other fitting descriptors using the following single-digit codes: a = active m = middle m/p = middle/passive p = passive d = deponent

1 = 1st person 2 = 2nd person 3 = 3rd person s = singular p = plural

cop. = copulative verb F = Fearing verb S = Speech verb V = Vision verb W = Willing verb

For example, “AS a2s” represents the parsing “Aorist Subjunctive active 2nd person singular.” Those items that can be helpfully described further, we note additional information in parentheses. For example, “Purp (ἵνα + AS p2p)” indicates a prohibition constructed as a Final Purpose Clause with a verb of the noted parsing; “Obj (V + Inf)” indicates a prohibition constructed as a vision verb with a Direct Object Clause containing a negated infinitive. Naturally, passages with no classifications noted are those in the discussion apart from any prohibitory intentions. Genesis 2:24 LXX ....................................... 411 22:12 LXX ..................................... xxii Exodus 2:13 LXX ....................................... 365 2:14 LXX ....................................... 365 20 ................................................... 202 20:1–17 ............................................... 3 20:12–16 LXX ............................... 184 20:12 ............................................... 431 20:13 LXX ..................................... 203 20:14 LXX ..................................... 203 20:15 LXX ..................................... 203 20:16 LXX ..................................... 203

Exodus (continued) 20:17 LXX ..................................... 203 21:16 LXX ............................. 396, 398 22:28 LXX ............................. 203, 368 Leviticus 19:12 LXX ............................... 49, 203 20:9 LXX ............................... 396, 398 Deuteronomy 5:6–21 ................................................. 3 5:17 ................................................ 203 5:18 ................................................ 203 5:19 ................................................ 203 5:20 ................................................ 203

544


Deuteronomy (continued) 5:21 ................................................ 203 6:13 ........................................ 455, 456 6:16–20 .......................................... 184 6:16 ................................................ 203 8:3 .................................................. 203 9:4 LXX ......................................... 191 17:6 ................................................ 421 25:4 ................................................ 203 27:26 .............................................. 416 30:12 LXX ..................................... 191 Judges 9:15 LXX ....................................... 521 Job 12:6 MT ......................................... 523 12:6 LXX ....................................... 523

Isaiah (continued) 29:16 LXX ..................................... 372 45:9 LXX ....................................... 372 50:10 LXX ..................................... 522 52:11 LXX ..................................... 154 53:7 LXX ....................................... 344 53:9 LXX ...................................... 344 56:7 LXX ....................................... 457 66:1 LXX ....................................... 365 Jeremiah 7:4 LXX ......................................... 524 7:11 LXX ....................................... 457 9:3 LXX ......................................... 524 47:16 LXX .................................... xxii Hosea 6:6 LXX ................................. 332, 333

Psalms 4:4 ................................................... 155 4:5 LXX ......................................... 155 33:13–14 LXX ....................... 228, 293 33:15 LXX ..................................... 293 40:7 LXX ............................... 332, 333 68:26 LXX ..................................... 164 69:25 .............................................. 164 90:11–12 LXX ....................... 276, 277 145:3 LXX ..................................... 523

Habakkuk 1:5 LXX ......................................... 406 2:4 MT ........................................... 422 2:4 LXX ......................................... 422

Proverbs 3:11–12 LXX .................................. 159 3:34 LXX ........................................ 422

Sirach 8:16 LXX ...................................... xxii 8:18 LXX ...................................... xxii 33:30 LXX .................................... xxii

Isaiah 4:1 LXX ......................................... 522 6:9–10 LXX ........... 262, 264, 275, 277 6:9 MT ........................................... 180 6:9 LXX ........ 180, 181, 189–191, 262, 264, 275, 279 6:10 MT ......................................... 275 6:10 LXX ...... 181, 191, 262, 264, 275, 277 14:31 LXX ..................................... 522

Zephaniah 3:16 LXX ............................... 519, 524 Zechariah 9:9 .................................................. 147

Matthew 1:18–19 ............................ 34, 107, 176 1:19 ................................................ 332 1:20—AS p2s ........... 34, 107, 176, 256 2:12—Inf ............................... 212, 214 2:13 ................................................ 288 2:18 ................................................ 332 3:9—AS a2p ................... 176, 185, 354 3:11 ................................................ 325 3:14a—Lex .................................... 310

SCRIPTURE INDEX Matthew (continued) 3:14b—PQ ..................................... 350 4:4 .................................................. 203 4:6—Purp (µήποτε + AS a2s) ....... 274, 277 4:7—FI a2s ............................ 203, 204 4:10—NE ............................... 456, 459 5:13a—PQ ..................... 350, 356, 361 5:13b—WP ............ 350, 356, 361, 392 5:14 ................................................ 324 5:15—ES ................ 335, 337, 355, 438 5:17—AS a2p ........................ 177, 354 5:19—WP ...................................... 392 5:21a—FI a2s ................. 203, 204, 391 5:21b—WP ............................ 392, 449 5:22a—WP ............................. 392, 449 5:22b—WP ............................ 392, 449 5:22c—WP ............................. 392, 449 5:25—Purp (µήποτε + AS a3s) ...... 274 5:27—FI a2s .......................... 203, 204 5:28—WP ...................................... 393 5:32a—WP ..................................... 393 5:32b—WP .................................... 393 5:33—FI a2s .......................... 203, 204 5:34–37 .................................... 48, 111 5:34a—Inf .................. 48, 49, 214, 503 5:34b—NE ..................................... 436 5:35a—NE ..................................... 436 5:35b—NE ..................................... 436 5:36—AS a2s ..... 49, 111, 177, 324–25 5:39—Inf ........................................ 215 5:42—AS p2s ................. 139, 177, 285 5:46—PQ ....................................... 350 5:47—PQ ....................................... 350 6 ..................................................... 113 6:1—Obj (V + Inf) ... 213–14, 244, 246 6:2—AS a2s ................................... 177 6:3—AI a3s ............ 175, 196, 197, 200 6:5a—FI –2p .................. 202–204, 448 6:5b—WP ...................................... 393 6:7—AS a2p .......................... 177, 479 6:8—AS p2p .................................. 178 6:12 —Lex ...................................... 245 6:13—AS a2s ......................... 178, 199 6:16—PI d2p ........................... 134, 448 6:18—Purp (ὅπως + AS p2s) .... 279–80 6:19—PI a2p ............................ 50, 134 6:24 ................................................ 324

545

Matthew (continued) 6:25–34 ............................ 50, 112, 113 6:25 ................................................ 435 6:25a—PI a2p ............ 50, 51, 112, 134 6:25b—NE ..................................... 436 6:27—PQ ....................................... 351 6:28—PQ ......... 44, 107, 134, 178, 351 6:31—AS a2p ......... 43, 44, 50, 51, 107 112, 114, 143, 178 6:34—AS a2p ....... 43, 44, 50, 51, 107, 108, 112, 114, 143, 178 7:1a—PI a2p .................. 120, 135, 505 7:1b—Purp (ἵνα + AS p2p) .... 260, 261 7:3—PQ ......................................... 351 7:4—PQ ................................. 284, 351 7:6a—AS a2p ................. 178, 179, 504 7:6b—AS a2p ................................. 179 7:6c—Purp (µήποτε + PS a3p) ...... 274 7:6d—Purp (µήποτε + PS a3p) ...... 275 7:15—Lex ...................... 245, 283, 286 7:18 .......................................... 324–25 7:21—WP .............................. 359, 432 7:26–27—WP ........................ 393, 449 8:4—Obj (V + AS a2s) ......... 175, 176, 246, 311 8:8 .................................................. 325 8:26a—PQ ...................... 351, 355, 449 8:26b—Lex .................................... 310 8:28 ................................................ 214 8:29 ................................ 107, 183, 186 9:4—PQ ................................. 351, 354 9:11—PQ ............................... 351, 358 9:13—ES ................................ 332, 333 9:15 .......................................... 324–25 9:16—ES ........................................ 335 9:17—ES ........................................ 335 9:30a—Lex .................................... 310 9:30b—Obj (V + PI a3s) ......... 36, 133, 171, 244, 247 10:1–16 ............................................. 55 10:5a—AS a2p ............................... 179 10:5b—AS a2p ............................... 179 10:9–10 .......................................... 435 10:9a—AS d2p .......... 44, 45, 108, 141, 179, 253 10:9b—NE ............. 141, 179, 253, 436 10:9c—NE ............. 141, 179, 253, 436 10:10 .............................................. 108

546


Matthew (continued) 10:10a—NE ........... 141, 179, 253, 437 10:10b—NE ... 141, 179, 225, 253, 437 10:10c—NE ........... 141, 179, 253, 437 10:10d—NE ........... 141, 179, 253, 437 10:14–15 ........................................ 383 10:16—Lex ............................ 294, 450 10:17–42 .................................. 52, 113 10:17—Lex .................... 245, 283, 286 10:19—AS a2p ......... 45, 52, 109, 138, 180, 187 10:26–31 .......................................... 34 10:26—AS p2p ................ 52, 113, 180 10:28—PI m/p2p ........ 46, 52, 53, 109, 113, 114, 134, 186, 256 10:28 ........................................ 324–25 10:31—PI m/p2p ........ 52, 53, 113, 256 10:33—WP .................................... 394 10:34—AS a2p ...... 180, 354, 360, 459 10:37a—ES .................... 325, 326, 449 10:37b—ES .................... 325, 326, 449 10:38 ............................................... 326 10:39—WP .................... 394, 396, 404 10:40 .............................................. 401 11:6—WP .............................. 432, 449 11:20–24 ........................................ 383 11:20 .............................................. 383 11:21–22—WP (οὐαί) .......... 382, 383, 387, 394, 401, 449 11:23–24—WP ...................... 394, 449 12:2—ES ........................ 326, 354, 359 12:4a—ES .............................. 326, 449 12:4b—NE ............................. 437, 449 12:7—ES ................................ 332, 333 12:16a—Lex .................................. 310 12:16b—Obj (S + AS a3p) ............ 252 12:31—WP .................................... 394 12:32—WP .................................... 395 12:39–42—WP ..... 356, 395, 396, 402, 449 13 ................................................... 181 13:5 ................................................ 214 13:6 ................................................ 214 13:14–15 ........................................ 264 13:14 ...................................... 264, 275 13:14a—AS a2p (οὐ µή) ........ 175, 180, 181, 189, 190, 195, 199, 262, 264

Matthew (continued) 13:14b—AS a2p (οὐ µή) ....... 175, 180, 181, 189, 190, 195, 199 13:15 ........................ 262, 275–77, 279 13:15a—Purp (µήποτε + AS a3p) ......... 262, 275, 279 13:15b—Purp (µήποτε + AS a3p)....275 13:15c—Purp (µήποτε + AS a3p) ....276 13:15d—Purp (µήποτε + AS a3p)....276 13:15e—Purp (µήποτε + FI d1s).... 274, 276 13:28–29a—NE ............. 454, 456, 457 13:29b—Purp (µήποτε + AS a2p)....276 14:4—ES ................................ 313, 326 14:16—ES ...................................... 336 14:26 .............................................. 135 14:27—PI m/p2p .............. 31, 135, 256 14:31—PQ ..................................... 352 15:2—PQ ....................................... 352 15:3—PQ ............................... 352, 458 15:4—WP .............................. 396, 398 15:6—FI a3s ................... 202, 203, 205 15:14 .............................................. 284 15:26—ES .............................. 327, 449 15:32a—ES (W + Inf) .................... 333 15:32b—Purp (µήποτε + AS a3p)....276 16:3 ................................................ 325 16:4—WP .............................. 395, 396 16:6—Lex ................ 245, 283, 286–88 16:8—PQ ....................................... 352 16:11—Lex .................... 245, 286, 287 16:12—Lex .................... 245, 286, 303 16:20a—Lex ......................... 308, 310 16:20b—Obj (S + AS a3p) ............ 252 16:22a—Lex .................................. 252 16:22b—NE ........................... 449, 456 16:23—NE ............................. 546, 457 16:24—Lex ............................ 291, 316 16:25—WP .... 394, 396, 399, 400, 405 16:26a—PQ .................................... 352 16:26b—PQ ................................... 352 17:6 ................................................ 135 17:7—PI m/p2p ................ 31, 135, 256 17:9—AS a2p ........................... 32, 181 17:16 ........................................ 324–25 17:18—Lex .................................... 310 19:19 ........................................ 324–25 17:25 .............................................. 354

SCRIPTURE INDEX Matthew (continued) 17:27—Purp (ἵνα + AS a1p) .......... 261 18:6—WP ...................................... 396 18:7a—WP (οὐαί) .................. 383, 449 18:7b—WP (οὐαί) ......................... 383 18:10—Obj (V + AS a2p) ...... 176, 247 18:12 .............................................. 354 18:15—Lex .................................... 317 18:30 .............................................. 332 18:33 .............................................. 324 19:6—PI a3s .................................. 163 19:9—WP ..................................... 397 19:13—Lex ............................ 136, 310 19:14—PI a2p ................ 136, 284, 285 19:18 .............................................. 193 19:18a—FI a2s ............... 184, 203, 204 19:18b—FI a2s .............. 184, 203, 204 19:18c—FI a2s ............... 184, 203, 204 19:18d—FI a2s .............. 184, 203, 204 20:15—PQ ............................. 353, 449 20:26—FI –3s ....... 202, 203, 206, 328, 448 20:31a—Lex .................................. 311 20:31b—Lex .......................... 303, 304 21:13—NE ............... 144, 456–58, 460 21:19—AS d3s (µηκέτι) ....... 190, 195, 199, 210, 448 21:21—WP (AS p2p) ............. 432, 449 21:28 .............................................. 354 21:29 .............................................. 332 21:44—WP .................................... 397 22:3 ................................................ 332 22:18—PQ ..................................... 353 22:23 .............................................. 213 22:34 .............................................. 283 22:42 .............................................. 354 22:46 ........................................ 324–25 23 ................................................... 382 23:3—PI a2p .......... 136, 224, 287, 388 23:4 ................................................ 332 23:4–7 ............................ 136, 287, 388 23:8—AS p2p ................................ 182 23:9—AS a2p ................................ 182 23:10—AS p2p .............................. 182 23:12—WP .................................... 397 23:13 .............................................. 284 23:13a—WP (οὐαί) ........................ 383 23:13b—ES .................... 309, 314, 347

547

Matthew (continued) 23:14 ...................................... 287, 383 23:15—WP (οὐαί) .......................... 384 23:16–17—WP (οὐαί) ............ 384, 397 23:18–19—WP .............. 384, 397, 449 23:23a—WP (οὐαί) ........................ 384 23:23b—Inf ............................ 224, 324 23:25—WP (οὐαί) .................. 385, 402 23:27–28—WP (οὐαί) ............ 385, 449 23:29–31—WP (οὐαί) .... 385, 449, 457 23:32—NE ............................. 456, 457 23:37 .............................................. 332 24 ...................................... 47, 196, 198 24:4—Obj (V + AS a3s) ................ 247 24:6—Obj (V + PI m/p2p) ........ 36, 46, 47, 110, 133, 137, 171, 189, 244, 247 24:17—AI a3s ................ 163, 196, 197 24:18—AI a3s ................ 163, 196, 197 24:19—WP (οὐαί) .................. 382, 449 24:20a—Obj (S + AS d3s) .... 251, 252, 449 24:20b—NE ........................... 437, 449 24:23—AS a2p ........ 47, 110, 138, 182, 187 24:26a—AS a2p ............. 138, 182, 187 24:26b—AS a2p ..... 138, 182, 183, 187 24:43—ES ...................................... 347 24:48–51—WP ...................... 398, 449 25:9 ................................................ 274 25:14–30 ........................................ 460 26:3–4 ............................................ 440 26:5a—NE ..................................... 440 26:5b—Purp (ἵνα + AS d3s) ......... 259, 260, 262, 449 26:8—PQ ............................... 353, 449 26:10—PQ ..................................... 353 26:24—WP (οὐαί) .......................... 386 26:39—NE ..................... 164, 450, 451 26:41—Obj (S + AS a2p) ..... 245, 253, 255 26:42 ........................................ 324–25 26:45—PQ ............. 284, 353, 358, 458 26:52—WP ........................... 284, 398 26:53—PQ ....................... 324–25, 354 26:66 .............................................. 354 26:70 .............................................. 316 26:72 .............................................. 316 27:6—ES ........................................ 327

548


Matthew (continued) 27:19—NE ............................. 450, 451 27:34 .............................................. 332 27:42 ........................................ 324–25 27:48 .............................................. 284 27:64a—Purp (µήποτε + AS a3p) .... 276 27:64b—Purp (µήποτε + AS a3p) ... 276 28:4 ................................................ 136 28:5—PI m/p2p ........ 31, 136, 256, 361 28:10—PI m/p2p .................... 136, 256 Mark 1:7 .................................................. 325 1:25a—Lex .................................... 311 1:25b—Lex .................................... 291 1:34—ES ........................................ 347 1:43—Lex ...................................... 311 1:44—Obj (V + AS a2s) ....... 176, 247, 311, 517 1:45 ........................................ 214, 325 2:2 .................................................. 214 2:4 .................................................. 325 2:7—PQ ................................. 350, 354 2:8—PQ ......................................... 354 2:16—PQ ............................... 354, 358 2:19a ............................................... 325 2:19b .............................................. 325 2:21—ES ........................................ 336 2:22—ES ........................................ 336 2:24—PQ ....................... 326, 354, 358 2:26—ES ........................................ 327 3:9—Purp (ἵνα + AS a3p) ..... 259, 262, 3:12a—Lex .................................... 311 3:12b—Obj (S + AS a3p) .............. 253 3:20 ........................................ 214, 325 3:24 ................................................ 325 3:25 ................................................ 325 3:26 ................................................ 325 3:27 ................................................ 325 3:29—WP .............................. 398, 449 4:5 .................................................. 214 4:6 .................................................. 214 4:12 ........................................ 181, 264 4:12a—Purp (ἵνα + AS a3p) ......... 189, 191, 195, 262, 264, 275, 277 4:12b—Purp (ἵνα + PS a3p) ......... 189, 191, 195, 262, 264, 275, 277

Mark (continued) 4:12c—Purp (µήποτε + AS a3p) .... 181, . 262, 264, 275–77, 279 4:12d—Purp (µήποτε + AS p3s) .... 181, 264, 275, 277, 279 4:21—PQ ............... 259, 335, 355, 438 4:39 ........................................ 519, 522 4:39a—Lex ............ 287, 309, 311, 522 4:39b—Lex ............ 287, 293, 309, 522 4:39c—Lex .... 286, 293, 309, 417, 522 4:40—PQ ............................... 355, 449 5:3 .................................................. 325 5:7—AS a2s .... 107, 183, 186, 200, 245 5:8 .......................................... 107, 183 5:10—Obj (S + AS a3s) ................. 253 5:19—ES ........................................ 347 5:35—PQ ............................... 141, 355 5:36—PI m/p2s ................. 31, 136, 256 5:37—ES ........................................ 347 5:39—PQ ............................... 141, 355 5:43a—Lex ............................ 308, 311 5:43b—Obj (S + AS a3s) ............... 253 6:5 .................................................. 325 6:6–13 ............................................... 55 6:8 .................................. 108, 183, 435 6:8a—Obj (S + PS a3p) .......... 44, 141, 179, 253 6:8b—NE ............... 141, 179, 253, 437 6:8c—NE ............... 141, 179, 253, 437 6:8d—NE ................141, 179, 253, 437 6:9—AS m2p ......................... 183, 225 6:10 ................................................ 183 6:11 ................................................ 383 6:18—ES ................................ 313, 327 6:19 ................................................ 325 6:26 ................................................ 332 6:31 ................................................ 284 6:49–50 .......................................... 137 6:50—PI m/p2p ................ 31, 137, 256 7:3—ES .......................................... 327 7:4—ES .......................................... 327 7:5—PQ ......................................... 355 7:8–9—NE ..................... 352, 456, 458 7:10—WP .............................. 396, 398 7:12—ES ........................................ 347 7:24—Obj (W + Inf) ...................... 332 7:18 ................................................ 325 7:24 ................................................ 325

SCRIPTURE INDEX Mark (continued) 7:27—ES ................................ 328, 449 7:36a—Lex ............................ 308, 311 7:36b—Obj (S + PS a3p) ............... 254 7:36c—Lex ............................ 308, 311 8:12—PQ ............................... 356, 395 8:15a—Lex .................... 284, 308, 312 8:15b—Lex .................... 245, 286, 287 8:17—PQ ....................................... 356 8:26—AS a2s ................................... 32 8:30a—Lex .................................... 312 8:30b—Obj (S + PS a3p) ............... 254 8:32—Lex ...................................... 312 8:33a—Lex .................................... 312 8:33b—NE ............................. 456, 458 8:34 —Lex ............................. 291, 316 8:35—WP ...................... 394, 396, 399 8:36—PQ ....................................... 356 8:37—PQ ....................................... 356 8:38—WP ...................................... 399 9:3 .................................................. 325 9:9a—Lex .............................. 308, 312 9:9b—Obj (S + AS d3p) ................ 254 9:25a—Lex .................................... 312 9:25b—AS d2s (µηκέτι) ................. 245 9:28 ................................................ 325 9:29 ................................................ 325 9:30 ................................................ 332 9:38—Lex .............................. 137, 312 9:39—PI a2p .......................... 137, 285 9:42—WP .............................. 399, 449 9:50—PQ ....................... 350, 356, 361 10:4 ................................................ 284 10:9—PI a3s .................................. 163 10:11—WP .................................... 399 10:12—WP .................................... 400 10:13—Lex ............................ 137, 312 10:14—PI a2p ........................ 137, 285 10:19 .............................................. 479 10:19a—AS a2s ..... 184, 189, 193, 203 10:19b—AS a2s ............................. 184 10:19c—AS a2s ......................... 5, 184 10:19d—AS a2s ............................. 184 10:19e—AS a2s ..................... 184, 185 10:43—ES ...................... 206, 328, 449 10:48a—Lex .................................. 313 10:48b—Lex .......................... 303, 304

549

Mark (continued) 11:14—Opt (µηκέτι µηδεὶς φάγοι) ....... 195, 209, 210 11:16—ES ...................................... 347 11:17—NE ....................... 144, 456–58 11:23—WP .................... 176, 433, 449 12:15—PQ ...................................... 356 12:18 .............................................. 213 12:38–40 ........................................ 287 12:38—Lex ........... 136, 245, 284, 287, 288, 400 12:40—WP ............ 287, 383, 400, 405 13 .............................................. 47, 196 13:5—Obj (V + AS a3s) ................ 247 13:7—PI m/p2p ......... 46, 47, 110, 137, 189 13:11—PI a2p ......... 45, 109, 138, 180, 188 13:14—ES .............................. 288, 328 13:15a—AI a3s ................ 163, 196–98 13:15b—AI a3s ................ 163, 196–98 13:16—AI a3s ................. 163, 196–98 13:17—WP (οὐαί) .......... 382, 386, 449 13:18—Obj (S + AS d3s) ...... 251, 254, 449 13:21—PI a2p ......... 47, 110, 111, 138, 182, 187 13:36—Purp (– + AS a3s) .............. 281 14:1 ................................................ 440 14:2a—NE ...................................... 440 14:2b—Purp (µήποτε + FI –3s) .... 277, 449 14:4—PQ ............................... 357, 449 14:5—Lex ...................................... 313 14:6—PQ ............................... 284, 357 14:21—WP (οὐαί) .......................... 386 14:36—NE ...................... 164, 450, 451 14:37—PQ ..................................... 357 14:38—Obj (S + AS a2p) ..... 245, 253, 254 14:41a—PQ ............ 284, 353, 357, 458 14:41b—NE ........... 357, 455, 456, 458 14:42 .............................................. 357 15:31 .............................................. 325 15:36 .............................................. 284 16:5 ................................................ 138 16:6—PI m/p2p ...................... 138, 362 16:14 .............................................. 308

550


Luke 1:12 ................................................ 138 1:13—PI m/p2s ................ 31, 138, 256 1:15—AS a3s (οὐ µή) ... 175, 181, 190, 195, 517 1:20a—Lex .... 230, 236, 294, 295, 449 1:20b—Ptc ............. 236, 295, 325, 450 1:22 ................................................ 325 1:29 ................................................ 139 1:30—PI m/p2s ................ 31, 139, 256 1:60—NE ....................... 455, 456, 459 2:9 .................................................. 139 2:10—PI m/p2p ................ 31, 139, 256 2:26 ................................................ 213 2:48—PQ ....................................... 357 2:49—PQ ....................................... 357 3 ..................................................... 114 3:8—AS m2p ......................... 176, 185 3:13—PI a2p ............. 36, 54, 114, 133, 139, 164 3:14a—AS a2p ................. 54, 114, 185 3:14b—AS a2p ................ 54, 114, 185 3:15 ................................................ 274 3:16 ................................................ 325 3:19—Lex ...................................... 313 4:4 .................................................. 203 4:8—NE ......................... 455, 456, 459 4:10–11—Purp (µήποτε + AS a2s) ....... 274, 277 4:12—FI a2s .......................... 203, 204 4:33 ................................................ 504 4:35a—Lex .................................... 313 4:35b—Lex .................................... 291 4:39—Lex ...................................... 313 4:41a—Lex .................................... 313 4:41b—ES ...................................... 347 4:42—Inf ................ 214, 228, 229, 252 5:5—NE ................................. 455, 456 5:8–9 .............................................. 139 5:10—PI m/p2s ................ 31, 139, 256 5:14—Inf ................................ 215, 311 5:21 ................................................ 354 5:22—PQ ....................................... 358 5:30—PQ ....................... 351, 354, 358 5:34 ................................................ 325 5:36—ES ........................................ 336 5:37—ES ........................................ 336 6:2—PQ ......................... 325, 354, 358

Luke (continued) 6:4—ES .......................................... 328 6:24—WP (οὐαί) ............................ 386 6:25a—WP (οὐαί) .......................... 387 6:25b—WP (οὐαί) .......................... 387 6:26—WP (οὐαί) ............................ 387 6:29— AS a2s ........................ 185, 286 6:30—PI a2s ........................... 139, 177 6:32—PQ ............................... 358, 449 6:33—PQ ............................... 358, 449 6:34—PQ ............................... 358, 449 6:35—Ptc ....................................... 231 6:37a—PI a2p ................ 120, 140, 505 6:37b—PI a2p ................................ 140 6:39 ................................................ 325 6:41—PQ ....................................... 359 6:42—PQ ............................... 284, 359 6:46—PQ ............................... 359, 432 6:49—WP .............................. 400, 449 7:6—PI m/p2s ............... 140, 171, 325, 7:7 .................................................. 325 7:12 ................................................ 140 7:13—PI a2s ................................... 140 7:23—WP ...................................... 433 8:6 .................................................. 214 8:10 ................................................ 181 8:10a—Purp (ἵνα + PS a3p) .......... 189, 191, 195, 262, 264, 275, 279 8:10b—Purp (ἵνα + PS a3p) .......... 189, 191, 195, 262, 264, 275, 279 8:16—ES ................ 335, 337, 354, 438 8:19 ................................................ 325 8:24—Lex ...................................... 314 8:25 ................................................ 355 8:28—AS a2s ............ 3, 107, 183, 186, 199, 245 8:29 ........................................ 107, 186 8:31—Obj (S + AS a3s) ................. 254 8:45 ................................................ 316 8:49— PI a2s (µηκέτι) .... 140, 141, 355 8:50—PI m/p2s ................ 31, 141, 256 8:51—ES ........................................ 348 8:52—PI a2p .................... 31, 141, 355 8:56—Inf ........................................ 215 9:1–6 ................................................. 55 9:3 .................................................. 435 9:3a—PI a2p ..... 44, 45, 108, 141, 179, 225, 253

SCRIPTURE INDEX Luke (continued) 9:3b—NE ....... 141, 179, 225, 253, 437 9:3c—NE ....... 141, 179, 225, 253, 438 9:3d—NE ....... 141, 179, 225, 253, 438 9:3e—NE ....... 141, 179, 225, 253, 438 9:3f—Inf ........ 141, 179, 213, 225, 253 9:5 .................................................. 383 9:21a—Lex .................................... 314 9:21b—Inf ...................................... 215 9:23—Lex .............................. 291, 316 9:24—WP ...................... 394, 396, 400 9:25—PQ ....................................... 359 9:26—WP ...................................... 400 9:40 ................................................ 325 9:42—Lex ...................................... 314 9:49—Lex .............................. 142, 314 9:50—PI a2p .......................... 142, 285 9:54 ................................................ 314 9:55—Lex ...................................... 314 9:62—ES ........................................ 337 10:1–12 ..................................... 55, 115 10:4 ................................................ 435 10:4a—PI a2p ...... 44, 54, 55, 115, 142 10:4b—NE ....................... 55, 115, 438 10:4c—NE ..................................... 438 10:4d—AS d2p ................ 54, 115, 186 10:7—PI a2p .............. 54, 55, 115, 142 10:10–12 ........................................ 383 10:13–15 ........................................ 383 10:13–14—WP (οὐαί) .......... 382, 387, 401, 449 10:15—WP .................................... 401 10:16—WP .................................... 401 10:17 .............................................. 142 10:20—PI a2p ................................ 142 10:36 .............................................. 354 10:41–42—NE ............... 449, 456, 459 11 ................................................... 382 11:4—AS a2s ......................... 186, 199 11:5–6 ............................................ 142 11:7—PI a2s .......................... 142, 171 11:7 ................................................ 325 11:29–32—WP ...... 356, 395, 401, 449 11:33 .............................................. 354 11:33a—ES .................... 335, 337, 438 11:33b—NE ........................... 337, 438 11:35—Obj (V + ἐστίν) ......... 247, 449 11:39–40—WP .............................. 402

551

Luke (continued) 11:42a—WP (οὐαί) ........................ 387 11:42b—Inf ............................ 224, 324 11:43—WP (οὐαί) .......................... 388 11:44—WP (οὐαί) .................. 388, 449 11:46—WP (οὐαί) .......................... 388 11:47–48—WP (οὐαί) ............ 388, 449 11:52a—WP (οὐαί) ........................ 389 11:52b—Lex .................. 309, 314, 347 12:1–12 ............................................ 53 12:1—Lex .............. 245, 284, 286, 288 12:2–7 .............................................. 34 12:4—AS p2p ..... 46, 52, 53, 109, 113, 114, 135, 186, 256 12:7—PI m/p2p ......... 31, 53, 113, 142, 143, 256 12:9—WP ...................................... 402 12:10—WP .................................... 402 12:11–12 .........................................186 12:11—AS a2p ........ 45, 109, 138, 180, 187 12:14—PQ ..................................... 359 12:15—Lex ............................ 283, 288 12:19 .............................................. 284 12:20–21—WP ...................... 403, 449 12:22a—PI a2p .............................. 143 12:22b—NE ................................... 438 12:25—PQ ..................................... 360 12:26—PQ ............... 44, 143, 325, 360 12:28 ......................................... 44, 143 12:29a—PI a2p ... 43, 44, 50, 108, 114, 143, 178 12:29b—PI d2p .... 43, 44, 50, 108, 114, 143, 178 12:32—PI m/p2s ...... 31, 34, 43, 44, 50, 108, 114, 143, 178, 256 12:39—ES ...................................... 348 12:45–46—WP .............................. 403 12:51a—PQ .................... 354, 360, 459 12:51b—NE ............. 360, 456, 459–61 12:58—Purp (µήποτε + PS a3s) ..... 278 13:2—PQ ....................... 354, 360, 460 13:3—NE ............................... 456, 460 13:4—PQ ....................... 354, 360, 460 13:5—NE ............................... 456, 460 13:7—PQ ....................................... 361 13:8 ................................................ 284 13:11 .............................................. 325

552


Luke (continued) 13:14—NE ..................................... 441 13:16 .............................................. 324 13:34 .............................................. 332 14:4 ................................................ 283 14:8a—AS p2s ............................... 187 14:8b—Purp (µήποτε + cop. + ptc.) ..... 274, 278 14:9 ................................................ 278 14:11—WP .................................... 403 14:12a—PI a2s ....................... 144, 438 14:12b—NE ................................... 438 14:12c—NE ................................... 439 14:12d—NE ................................... 439 14:12e—Purp (µήποτε + AS a3p) .... 278 14:12f—Purp (µήποτε + AS d3s) ......... 278, 449 14:20 .............................................. 325 14:26–27 ........................................ 326 14:26 .............................................. 325 14:27 .............................................. 325 14:29—Purp (ἵνα + AS a3p) .... 261, 263 14:33 .............................................. 325 14:34–35 ........................ 350, 356, 361 14:34—PQ ..................................... 361 14:35—WP ............................ 403, 449 15:19 .............................................. 325 15:21 .............................................. 325 15:28 .............................................. 332 16:2 ................................................ 325 16:13 .............................................. 324 16:18a—WP ................................... 404 16:18b—WP .................................. 404 16:26a—Purp (ὅπως + PS d3p) .... 259, 280, 325 16:26b—Purp (ὅπως + PS a3p) .... 259, 280 16:28a—Lex .......................... 309, 318 16:28b—Obj (S + AS a3p) ............ 254 16:30—NE ..................... 455, 456, 460 17 ........................................... 196, 198 17:1—WP (οὐαί) ................... 213, 389 17:2—WP ...................................... 404 17:3—Lex .......................... 4, 317, 318 17:23a—AS a2p ............. 138, 182, 187 17:23b—AS a2p ............ 138, 182, 187 17:31a—AI a3s .............. 163, 196, 198 17:31b—AI a3s .............. 163, 196, 198

Luke (continued) 17:33—WP ............ 385, 394, 396, 404 18:1—Inf ................................ 224, 324 18:4 ................................................ 332 18:13 .............................................. 332 18:14—WP .................................... 404 18:15—Lex ............................ 144, 314 18:16—PI a2p ................ 144, 284, 285 18:20a—AS a2s ............. 184, 188, 193 18:20b—AS a2s ............. 184, 188, 193 18:20c—AS a2s ......... 5, 184, 188, 193 18:20d—AS a2s ............. 184, 188, 193 18:39a—Lex .................................. 315 18:39b—Lex .......................... 303, 304 19:3 ................................................ 325 19:11–27 ........................................ 460 19:14—ES (W + Inf) ..................... 333 19:25—NE ............................. 456, 460 19:27—ES (W + Inf) ............. 332, 333 19:39—Lex ............................ 317, 318 19:46—NE ............. 144, 456, 457, 460 20:7 ................................................ 213 20:16—Opt (µὴ γένοιτο) ........ 210, 448 20:18—WP ............................ 397, 404 20:27 .............................................. 213 20:36 .............................................. 325 20:46—Lex ... 136, 245, 284, 287, 288, 405 20:47—WP ............ 287, 383, 400, 405 21 ...................................... 47, 196, 198 21:8a—Obj (V + AS p2p) ..... 188, 247, 21:8b—AS d2p ............................. 188, 21:9—AS p2p .......... 47, 110, 137, 189 21:14—Inf ...... 138, 180, 187, 215, 244 21:15 .............................................. 325 21:21—PI d3p ................ 163, 198, 288 21:23—WP (οὐαί) .......... 382, 389, 449 21:30 ...................................... 245, 284 21:34a—Obj (V + AS p3p) .... 160, 244, 245, 247, 248, 249, 273, 274, 518 21:34b—Obj (V + AS a3s) .... 160, 244, 245, 248, 249, 273, 274, 518 22:22—WP (οὐαί) .......................... 389 22:26—ES ...................... 206, 328, 449 22:32—Obj (S + AS a3s) ............... 255 22:40—Inf ...................................... 215 22:42—PI d3s ....... 139, 164, 171, 448, 450

SCRIPTURE INDEX Luke (continued) 22:46a—PQ ................................... 361 22:46b—Obj (S + AS a2p) .... 253, 255 22:48—PQ ..................................... 361 22:51 .............................................. 284 23:2—Lex ...................................... 318 23:18 ................................................ 96 23:21 ................................................ 96 23:27 .............................................. 144 23:28—PI a2p ................................ 144 23:40a—Lex .................................. 315 23:40b—PQ ................................... 361 23:56 .............................................. 283 24:5—PQ ....................................... 361 24:16 .............................................. 214 24:26 .............................................. 324 24:38—PQ ..................................... 362 John 1:21 ................................................ 454 1:27 ................................................ 325 2:14–15 .......................................... 144 2:16—PI a2p .................................. 144 3:2 .................................................. 325 3:4 .................................................. 106 3:5 .................................................. 325 3:7—AS a2s ................... 106, 189, 504 3:20—Lex .............................. 317, 318 3:27 ................................................ 325 4:15a—Purp (ἵνα + PS d1s) ........... 263 4:15b—Purp (ἵνα + PS d1s) ........... 263 5:10—ES ........................................ 329 5:14a—PI a2s (µηκέτι) .......... 145, 154 5:14b—Purp (ἵνα + AS d3s) ......... 260, 263, 449 5:19 ................................................ 325 5:28—PI a2p .................................. 145 5:30 ................................................ 325 5:40 ................................................ 332 5:45—PI a2p ............ 36, 133, 145, 354 6:12—Purp (ἵνα + AS m3s) ........... 263 6:19 ................................................ 145 6:20—PI m/p2p ................ 31, 145, 256 6:26 ................................................ 145 6:27—PI m/p2p ...... 36, 133, 145, 244, 503 6:38 ................................................ 259 6:39—Obj ([S] + AS a1s) ...... 251, 255

553

John (continued) 6:41–42 .......................................... 146 6:43—PI a2p ............................ 31, 146 6:44 ................................................ 325 6:61—PQ ....................................... 362 6:65 ................................................ 325 7:1 .................................................. 332 7:4—ES .......................................... 337 7:7 .................................................. 325 7:23—PQ ....................................... 362 7:24—PI a2p .................................. 146 7:26 ................................................ 274 7:34 ................................................ 325 7:36 ................................................ 325 7:51—PQ ....................................... 362 7:52a—PQ ...................................... 362 7:52b—NE ............................. 449, 461 7:53–8:11 ............................... 146, 456 8:11—PI a2s (µηκέτι) ... 133, 134, 146, 154, 171 8:21 ................................................ 325 8:22 ................................................ 325 8:24 ................................................ 432 8:39 ........................................ 176, 185 8:43 ................................................ 325 8:46—Lex .............................. 317, 318 9:4 .................................................. 325 9:33 ................................................ 325 9:7 .................................................. 505 9:8–9 .............................................. 454 9:34—PQ ....................................... 362 10:20—PQ ..................................... 362 10:24—PQ ..................................... 363 10:29 .............................................. 325 10:35 .............................................. 325 10:37—PI a2p ................................ 146 11:10—ES ...................................... 337 11:12—NE .............................. 456, 461 11:37 .............................................. 325 11:39—NE .............................. 456, 461 11:48—WP .................................... 405 11:56 .............................................. 354 12:5—PQ ....................................... 363 12:8 ................................................ 441 12:9 ................................................ 441 12:15—PI m/p2s .............. 31, 147, 256 12:25—WP ............................ 394, 396 12:27—PQ ..................................... 363

554


John (continued) 12:35—Purp (ἵνα + AS a3s) ... 259, 263 12:39 .............................................. 325 12:40 ...................................... 275, 518 12:40a—Purp (ἵνα + AS a3p) ....... 181, 262, 264, 277, 279 12:40b—Purp (ἵνα + AS a3p) ....... 181, 262, 264, 277, 279 12:40c—Purp (ἵνα + AS p3p) ....... 181, 262, 264, 277, 279 12:40d—Purp (ἵνα + FI m1s) ....... 181, 261, 262, 264, 277, 279 13 ................................................... 189 13:6—PQ ....................................... 363 13:8—AS a2s (οὐ µή) .... 175, 181, 189, 190, 195, 199 13:9—NE ....................................... 441 13:10—ES ...................................... 338 13:30 .............................................. 401 13:33 .............................................. 325 13:36 .............................................. 325 13:37 .............................................. 325 14:1—PI m/p3s .............................. 164 14:17 .............................................. 325 14:27a—PI m/p3s ... 133, 160, 164, 517 14:27b—PI a3s ...... 133, 160, 164, 517 15:4 ................................................ 325 15:5 ................................................ 325 16:1—Obj (S + AS p2p) ........ 252, 255 16:8—Lex .............................. 317, 319 16:12 .............................................. 325 18:8 ................................................ 284 18:11 ...................................... 284, 398 18:21—PQ ..................................... 363 18:22—PQ ..................................... 363 18:23—PQ ..................................... 363 18:31—ES ...................... 325, 329, 505 18:39 .............................................. 441 18:40—NE ..................................... 441 19:7—WP .............................. 325, 405 19:12—NE ..................... 449, 456, 461 19:19–20 ........................................ 147 19:21—PI a2s .... 38, 39, 106, 147, 171 19:24—HS (AS a1p) ...................... 209 19:31—Obj (S + AS a3s) ............... 255 20:15—PQ ..................................... 364 20:17—PI m2s ............................... 147 20:25 .............................................. 147

John (continued) 20:27—PI d2s ........................ 147, 448 21:18 .............................................. 332 Acts 1:4—Inf .......................................... 215 1:7—ES .................................. 338, 449 1:11—PQ ....................................... 364 1:20—PI a3s ........................... 164, 448 2:40 ................................................ 309 3:12—PQ ....................................... 364 4:16 ........................................ 316, 325 4:17a—Purp (ἵνα + AS p3s) ...... 4, 259, 260, 264 4:17b—Inf .................................. 4, 215 4:18a—Inf ...................................... 216 4:18b—Inf ...................................... 216 4:20 ........................................ 214, 325 5:3—PQ ......................................... 364 5:9—PQ ......................................... 364 5:26—Obj (F + AS p3p) ................ 257 5:28—Inf ........................................ 216 5:38—Lex .............................. 284, 292 5:39 ................................................ 325 5:39—Purp (µήποτε + AS p2p) ..... 278 5:40—Inf ........................................ 216 7:19 ................................................ 214 7:26—PQ ....................................... 365 7:27—PQ ....................................... 365 7:28 ................................................ 214 7:32 ................................................ 332 7:35 ................................................ 316 7:35—PQ ....................................... 365 7:39 ................................................ 332 7:49—PQ ....................................... 365 7:60—AS a2s ......................... 189, 199 8:20—WP (Opt.) .................... 405, 449 8:24—Obj (S + AS a3s) ........ 251, 255, 280 8:25 ................................................ 309 8:38—Lex .............................. 303, 304 9:4—PQ ......................... 365, 367, 368 9:38—AS a2s ......................... 190, 199 10:14 ...................................... 148, 454 10:15—PI a2s ................................. 148 10:20—Ptc ..................................... 231 10:28a—Lex .................. 294, 295, 450 10:28b—Inf. ................................... 216

SCRIPTURE INDEX Acts (continued) 10:42 .............................................. 309 10:47a—Lex .................. 303, 304, 366 10:47b—Inf ............ 214, 226, 252, 366 10:47c—PQ ................................... 366 11:3—NE ................................ 456, 461 11:4–17 .......................................... 366 11:8 ........................................ 148, 454 11:9—PI a2s .................................. 148 11:12—Ptc ............................. 231, 252 11:17—PQ ............................. 366, 449 11:18 ...................................... 283, 366 12:17a—Lex (gesture) ........... 309, 315 12:17b—Lex .................................. 304 13:10—PQ ..................................... 366 13:11—Ptc ............................. 236, 450 13:16—Lex (gesture) ............. 309, 315 13:38 .............................................. 325 13:40—Obj (V + AS a3s) .............. 248 13:41—WP .................................... 406 14:15—PQ ..................................... 366 14:18—Inf .............. 214, 228, 229, 252 15:10—PQ ..................................... 366 15:19—Inf ...................................... 216 15:20—Lex ............................ 305, 455 15:24 .............................................. 308 15:28—Inf ...................................... 224 15:29 .............................. 293, 417, 521 15:29a—Lex ... 213, 214, 294, 295, 455 15:29b—Lex .................. 230, 294, 295 15:38—Inf ...................................... 217 16:6—Lex ...................................... 315 16:7—ES ........................................ 348 16:21a—ES .................................... 329 16:21b—ES .................................... 329 16:28—AS a2s ............................... 190 16:37a—PQ ........................... 367, 461 16:37b—NE ................... 367, 456, 461 17:29—ES ...................................... 329 18 ................................................... 309 18:5 .................................................. 56 18:9a—PI m/p2s ........ 31, 56, 148, 256 18:9b—AS a2s ................. 56, 190, 285 18:15 .............................................. 332 19:30—ES ...................................... 348 19:31—Inf ...................................... 217 19:33—Lex (gesture) ............. 309, 315 19:36—Inf .............................. 224, 449

555

Acts (continued) 19:40 .............................................. 325 20:10—PI m/p2p ............................ 148 20:16—Purp (ὅπως + AS d3s) ...... 259, 279, 280, 449 20:20 .............................................. 214 20:21 .............................................. 309 20:23 .............................................. 309 20:24 .............................................. 309 20:27 .............................................. 214 20:30–31—WP .............................. 406 20:31 .............................................. 308 21:4—Inf ........................................ 217 21:12—Inf ...................................... 217 21:13—PQ ..................................... 367 21:14 .............................................. 283 21:21a—Lex .......................... 303, 305 21:21b—Inf ............................ 217, 305 21:21c—Inf ............................ 217, 305 21:25—Lex .................................... 305 21:34 .............................................. 325 21:40—Lex (gesture) ............. 309, 315 22:2 ................................................ 283 22:7—PQ ....................... 365, 367, 368 22:16—PQ ..................................... 367 22:22 .............................................. 325 22:25—PQ ..................................... 367 22:26—PQ ..................................... 367 23:4—PQ ....................................... 368 23:5—FI a2s ................... 203, 204, 368 23:8 ................................................ 213 23:10—Obj (F + AS p3s) ............... 257 23:11 .............................................. 309 23:12a—Inf .................................... 217 23:12b—Inf .................................... 218 23:14—Inf ...................................... 218 23:21a—AS p2s ....................... 32, 190 23:21b—Inf .................................... 218 23:21c—Inf .................................... 218 23:22—Inf ...................................... 218 23:30 .............................................. 521 24:4—Purp (ἵνα + PS a1s) ..... 259, 265 24:13 .............................................. 325 24:23—Inf ...................................... 218 25:11 .............................................. 325 25:16—ES .............................. 329, 449 25:24—Inf .............................. 219, 517 25:25 .............................................. 213

556


Acts (continued) 25:27 .............................................. 213 26 ........................................... 365, 367 26:8—PQ ....................................... 368 26:14—PQ ..................... 365, 367, 368 26:28—PQ ..................................... 368 27:7 ................................................ 231 27:10—WP ............................ 406, 449 27:15 .............................................. 325 27:17—Obj (F + AS a3p) .............. 257 27:21—Inf ...................................... 219 27:24—PI m/p2s .............. 31, 148, 256 27:29—Obj (F + AS a1p) .............. 257 27:31 .............................................. 325 27:31—WP .................................... 406 27:42—Purp (– + AS a3s) ..... 259, 281 27:43—Lex .................................... 316 28 ................................................... 181 28:4—ES ........................................ 348 28:18 .............................................. 214 28:23 .............................................. 309 28:26–27 ........................................ 264 28:26 ...................................... 264, 275 28:26a—AS a2p (οὐ µή) ....... 175, 180, 181, 189, 190, 195, 199 28:26b—AS a2p (οὐ µή) ...... 175, 180, 181, 189–91, 195, 199 28:27 .............................. 275, 277, 518 28:27a—Purp (µήποτε + AS a3p) ......... 181, 191, 262, 279 28:27b—Purp (µήποτε + AS a3p) ........ 181, 191, 279 28:27c—Purp (µήποτε + AS a3p) ......... 181, 191, 279 28:27d—Purp (µήποτε + AS a3p) ........ 181, 191, 279 28:27e—Purp (µήποτε + FI d1s) ... 181, 191, 274, 279 Romans 1:13—ES (W + Inf) ............... 309, 333 1:18–19—WP ................ 406, 407, 449 1:26–27—WP ........................ 236, 407 1:28—Ptc ............................... 236, 408 1:29–32—WP ................ 407, 408, 449 2:1—WP ........................ 369, 408, 449 2:3—PQ ................................. 368, 369 2:4—PQ ......................................... 369

Romans (continued) 2:5—WP ........................................ 408 2:8—WP ........................................ 408 2:9—WP ................................ 408, 449 2:21–23 .......................................... 369 2:21a—PQ .............................. 369, 370 2:21b—Inf .............................. 219, 369 2:21c—PQ ...................................... 369 2:22a—Inf .............................. 219, 369 2:22b—PQ ..................................... 369 2:22c—PQ .............................. 369, 370 2:23—PQ ............................... 369, 270 2:25—WP .............................. 409, 449 2:27—WP ...................................... 409 2:29a—ES ...................... 338, 440, 449 2:29b—ES ...................... 338, 440, 449 3:3–9 .............................................. 349 3:3—PQ ........................... 370–73, 375 3:4—Opt (µὴ γένοιτο) ............ 210, 448 3:5—PQ ......................... 370, 371, 449 3:6—Opt (µὴ γένοιτο) ............ 210, 448 3:8a—PQ ................................ 371, 409 3:8b—WP ...................... 371, 409, 449 3:9a—PQ ................................ 371, 462 3:9b—NE ....................... 370, 456, 462 3:19—Lex ...................... 261, 294, 295 3:27—Lex .............................. 294, 295 3:31—Opt (µὴ γένοιτο) .................. 211 6:1—PQ ................................. 370, 371 6:2a—Opt (µὴ γένοιτο) .......... 211, 448 6:2b—PQ ....................................... 371 6:6 .................................................. 214 6:11 ........................................... 49, 120 6:12—PI a3s ........................... 133, 165 6:13—PI a2p .................................. 149 6:14 ................................................ 202 6:15a—PQ .............................. 370, 372 6:15b—Opt (µὴ γένοιτο) ........ 211, 448 7:3—WP ........................ 214, 409, 449 7:7a—PQ ........................ 370, 372, 449 7:7b—Opt (µὴ γένοιτο) .......... 211, 448 7:7c—FI a2s ........................... 203, 205 7:13—Opt (µὴ γένοιτο) ... 211, 349, 448 7:16 ................................................ 332 7:19 ................................................ 332 7:20 ................................................ 332 8:6—WP ................................ 409, 449 8:7 .................................................. 325

SCRIPTURE INDEX Romans (continued) 8:8 .................................................. 325 8:12—NE ............................... 450, 451 8:13—WP ...................................... 410 8:15—ES ........................................ 338 8:38–39 .......................................... 325 9:14a—PQ ..................... 370, 372, 449 9:14b—Opt (µὴ γένοιτο) ............... 211 9:16 ........................................ 332, 448 9:20a—PQ ............................. 372, 449 9:20b—PQ ..................................... 372 10:6—AS a2s ................................. 191 11:1—Opt (µὴ γένοιτο) ......... 211, 349 11:8a—Inf ...................................... 226 11:8b—Inf ...................................... 226 11:10—Inf ...................................... 226 11:11—Opt (µὴ γένοιτο) ...... 211, 349, 448 11:18—PI m/p2s ............................ 149 11:20—PI a2s ................................ 149 11:22—WP .................................... 410 11:23—WP .................................... 433 11:25a—ES (W + Inf) .................... 334 11:25b—Purp (ἵνα + AS –2p) ....... 259, 265, 449 12 ................................... 241, 297, 469 12:2—PI m/p2p .............................. 149 12:3—Inf ................................ 212, 219 12:9–21 .......................................... 241 12:9–19 .......................................... 240 12:9a—Lex .................... 294, 296, 450 12:9b—Lex (Ptc) ... 230, 241, 294, 296 12:11—NE ............................. 450, 451 12:14—PI d2p ................................ 149 12:15 .............................................. 241 12:16a—Ptc ................... 150, 241, 242 12:16b—PI d2p .............................. 448 12:17–18 ........................................ 242 12:17—Ptc ..................................... 242 12:19—Ptc ............................. 231, 242 12:21—PI m/p2s ........................ 3, 150 13:2—WP ...................................... 410 13:3 ................................................ 214 13:4—WP .............................. 410, 449 13:8—PI a2p .................. 133, 150, 325 13:9 ....................................... 184, 193, 13:9a—FI a2s ................. 193, 203, 205 13:9b—FI a2s ................ 193, 203, 205

557

Romans (continued) 13:9c—FI a2s ................. 193, 203, 205 13:9d—FI a2s ................. 193, 203, 205 13:10—ES ...................................... 339 13:12—Lex .................... 208, 294, 296 13:13a—NE ................................... 441 13:13b—NE ................................... 441 13:13c—NE ................................... 411 13:14—PI m/p2p ............................ 150 14:1—NE ....................................... 441 14:3a—PI a3s ......................... 165, 208 14:3b—PI a3s ................................. 165 14:4—PQ ............................... 372, 449 14:10a—PQ .................................... 373 14:10b—PQ ................................... 373 14:13 .............................................. 165 14:13a—HS (PS a1p) ..................... 165 14:13b—Inf ............................ 165, 220 14:15a—ES ..................................... 339 14:15b—PI a2s ............................... 150 14:16—PI m/p3s ............................ 165 14:20a—PI a2s ............................... 151 14:20b—ES .................................... 330 14:21 .............................................. 439 14:21a—Inf .................... 225, 439, 449 14:21b—Inf .................... 225, 439, 449 14:21c—NE ........................... 225, 439 14:22—Ptc ..................... 237, 432, 450 14:23a—WP ................................... 410 14:23b—WP .......................... 410, 449 15:1—Inf ........................................ 229 15:2–3—ES .................................... 339 15:18 .............................................. 323 15:14 .............................................. 308 16:17—Lex .................................... 288 16:16 .............................................. 505 16:19—Lex .................... 294, 296, 450 1 Corinthians 1:7 .................................................. 214 1:10—Obj (S + Inf) ................ 256, 449 1:11–12 .......................................... 166 1:17a—NE ..................................... 442 1:17b—Purp (ἵνα + AS p3s) ... 259, 265 1:29—Purp (ὅπως + AS m3s) ....... 279, . 280 2:14 ................................................ 325 3:1 .................................................. 325

558


1 Corinthians (continued) 3:2 .................................................. 325 3:3–4 .............................................. 166 3:3—PQ ................................. 373, 449 3:11 ................................................ 325 3:17—WP ...................................... 411 3:18a—PI a3s ................................. 165 3:18b—ES .............................. 339, 449 3:21—PI d3s .................................. 166 3:22 ................................................ 166 4:3—ES .................................. 339, 449 4:5—PI a2p .................................... 151 4:6a—NE ............................... 456, 462 4:6b—Purp (ἵνα + PInd m/p2p) .... 259, 261, 265, 265 4:7—PQ ......................................... 373 4:14—Lex ...................... 303, 305, 308 4:16 ................................................ 323 4:18–21—WP ................................ 411 5:1—ES .......................................... 339 5:2—PQ ......................................... 373 5:6—ES .................................. 330, 449 5:8a—NE ....................................... 442 5:8b—NE ....................................... 442 5:9—Inf .......................................... 220 5:11a—Inf ...................................... 220 5:11b—Inf ...................................... 220 5:12—PQ ............................... 370, 373 6:1–8 .............................................. 374 6:1—PQ ................................. 229, 374 6:4—PQ ......................................... 374 6:5—NE ......................... 374, 456, 463 6:6—PQ ......................................... 374 6:7—ES .................................. 340, 449 6:9a—PQ ....................................... 374 6:9b—PI m/p2p .............................. 151 6:9c–10—WP ................................. 411 6:12—ES ........................................ 340 6:13—ES ................................ 340, 449 6:15a—PQ ..................................... 374 6:15b—Opt (µὴ γένοιτο) ....... 211, 448 6:16—WP .............................. 411, 449 6:18—Lex .............................. 288, 289 7:1—Inf .................................. 225, 449 7:5a—PI a2p .................................. 151 7:5b—Purp (ἵνα + PS a3s) ..... 260, 266 7:8 .................................................. 306 7:10—Inf ........................................ 220

1 Corinthians (continued) 7:11a—Lex ............................ 303, 306 7:11b—Inf ...................................... 220 7:12–13 ............................................. 38 7:12—PI a3s ............................. 38, 166 7:13—PI a3s ............................. 38, 166 7:18a—PI m/p3s ...................... 38, 166 7:18b—PI m/p3s ...................... 38, 166 7:21—PI a3s ................................... 167 7:23—PI d2p .......................... 151, 448 7:27a—PI a2s ................................. 152 7:27b—PI a2s ................................. 152 7:29—Ptc ............................... 237, 450 7:30a—Ptc .............................. 237, 450 7:30b—Ptc ............................. 237, 450 7:30c—Ptc .............................. 237, 450 7:31—Ptc ............................... 237, 450 7:32—Lex ...................... 294, 296, 450 7:35—Lex ...................... 259, 294, 296 8:2—ES .................................. 248, 340 8:9—Obj (V + AS d3s) .................. 449 8:10—PQ ....................................... 375 8:11—WP .............................. 375, 412 8:12—WP .............................. 375, 412 8:13—ES ........................................ 340 9:6 .................................................. 214 9:9—FI a2s ............................. 203, 205 9:15— FI a3s .................. 202, 203, 206 9:16—WP (οὐαί) .................... 389, 449 9:18 ................................................ 214 9:26a—ES .............................. 340, 518 9:26b—ES .............................. 341, 518 10:1—ES (W + Inf) ....................... 334 10:6—Inf ................................ 226, 449 10:7—PI d2p .................................. 152 10:8—HS (PS a1p) ........................ 208 10:9—HS (PS a1p) ........................ 208 10:10a—PI a2p ............................... 152 10:10b—WP .................................. 412 10:12—Obj (V + AS a3s) .............. 248 10:13—ES ...................................... 348 10:14—Lex .................................... 289 10:20—ES (W + Inf) ............. 334, 449 10:21 .............................................. 325 10:22—PQ ............................. 370, 375 10:24—PI a3s ................................. 167 10:25—Ptc ............................. 231, 232 10:27—Ptc ..................... 231, 232, 448

SCRIPTURE INDEX 1 Corinthians (continued) 10:28—PI a2p ................................ 152 10:32—Lex .................... 294, 297, 450 10:33—Ptc ..................................... 232 11:1 ........................................ 232, 323 11:4—WP ...................................... 412 11:5—WP .............................. 412, 449 11:7—ES ........................................ 330 11:13—PQ ............................. 375, 449 11:14–15—PQ ....................... 375, 449 11:16—ES .............................. 341, 449 11:20–21—WP ...................... 413, 449 11:21 .............................................. 462 11:22a—NE ........................... 456, 462 11:22b—PQ ................................... 375 11:22c—NE ........................... 456, 462 11:27—WP ............................ 413, 449 11:29—WP .................................... 413 11:34—Purp (ἵνα + PS d2p) .......... 266 12:1—ES (W + Inf) ....................... 334 12:3 ................................................ 325 12:21 .............................................. 325 13:1—WP .............................. 413, 449 13:2—WP .............................. 413, 449 13:3—WP ...................................... 414 13:4a—ES ...................................... 341 13:4b—ES ...................................... 341 13:4c—ES ...................................... 341 13:5a—ES ...................................... 341 13:5b—ES ...................................... 341 13:5c—ES ...................................... 341 13:5d—ES ...................................... 342 13:6—ES ........................................ 342 14:20—PI d2p ........................ 153, 448 14:23—PQ ..................................... 376 14:24—Lex ............................ 317, 319 14:28—Lex .................................... 289 14:30—Lex .................................... 289 14:34a—Lex .................................. 289 14:34b—ES .................................... 330 14:35—WP ............................ 414, 449 14:38—WP .................................... 414 14:39—PI a2p ........................ 153, 285 15:12—PQ ............................. 153, 376 15:9 ................................................ 325 15:33–34 .......................................... 31 15:33—PI m/p2p ............................ 153 15:34a—PI a2p .............................. 153

559

1 Corinthians (continued) 15:34b—NE ........................... 456, 463 15:50 .............................................. 325 15:58—Lex .................... 294, 297, 450 16:2—Purp (ἵνα + PS d3p) ............. 266 16:7 ................................................ 332 16:10–11 ............................................ 4 16:11—AS a3s ............................... 196 16:22 .............................................. 391 2 Corinthians 1:8—ES (W + Inf) ......................... 334 1:9—Purp (ἵνα + PS –1p) ....... 266, 449 2:1 .................................................. 213 2:3—Purp (ἵνα + AS a1s) ............... 267 2:4 .................................................. 259 2:7—Purp (– + AS p3s) ......... 259, 281 2:10–11—Purp (ἵνα + AS p1p) ...... 267 2:13 ................................................ 214 3:7 .......................................... 214, 325 3:13—Inf ........................................ 226 4:2 .................................................. 335 4:4—Inf .......................................... 227 4:5 .................................................. 335 4:12 ................................................ 335 4:16 ................................................ 335 4:18 ................................................ 335 5:4 .................................................. 332 5:10—WP ...................................... 414 5:15—Purp (ἵνα + AS a3p) ............ 267 5:16—ES ........................................ 342 5:17 ................................................ 342 6:1—Inf .......................................... 220 6:3 .......................................... 229, 335 6:4–13 ............................................ 335 6:14—PI d2p .......................... 154, 448 6:17—PI m2p ................................. 154 8–9 .................................................. 442 8:11 ................................................ 442 8:12—NE ............................... 442, 443 8:13 ................................................ 259 8:20—Purp (– + AS d3s) ....... 259, 281 8:24 ................................................ 240 9:4—Purp (– + AS p1p) ......... 259, 281 9:5—NE ................................. 443, 449 9:7—NE ......................................... 443 10:2—Inf ........................................ 221 10:6—WP ...................................... 414

560


2 Corinthians (continued) 10:18—WP ............................ 433, 449 11:1 ................................................ 196 11:3—Obj (F + AS p3s) ............... 256, 11:4—NE ............................... 456, 463 11:5 ................................................ 213 11:16—AS a3s ....................... 196, 354 12:4—ES ................................ 330, 449 12:6—Purp (– + AS d3s) ....... 259, 282 12:7a—Purp (ἵνα + PS m/p1s) ....... 267 12:7b—Purp (ἵνα + PS m/p1s) ....... 268 12:14—ES ...................................... 330 12:19—PQ ..................................... 376 12:20 .............................................. 332 12:20a—Obj (F + AS a1s) .... 256, 258, 518 12:20b—Obj (F + AS p1s) ... 256, 258, 518 12:20c—Obj (F + implied cop.) ... 256, 258, 449 12:21a—Obj (F + AS a3s) ..... 258, 518 12:21b—Obj (F + AS a1s) ..... 258, 518 13:2—WP ...................................... 415 13:7—Inf ................................ 221, 259 13:8 ................................................ 325 13:10—WP .................................... 415 Galatians 1:6—NE ......................................... 463 1:8—WP ........................................ 415 1:9—WP ........................................ 415 2:14—PQ ....................................... 376 2:17—Opt (µὴ γένοιτο) ........ 212, 349, 448 3:1—PQ ......................................... 377 3:3a—PQ ............................... 377, 449 3:3b—PQ ....................................... 377 3:4—PQ ......................................... 377 3:10—WP ...................... 415, 416, 449 3:15a—ES ...................................... 342 3:15b—ES ...................................... 342 3:21—Opt (µὴ γένοιτο) ........ 212, 349, 448 4:9—PQ ......................................... 377 4:11—Obj (F + Pf.Ind. a1s) .... 256, 258 4:12 ................................................ 323 4:16 ................................................ 259 4:18—NE ....................................... 443

Galatians (continued) 5:1—PI m/p2p ................................ 154 5:2—WP ....................................... 416 5:3—WP ................................ 416, 449 5:4—WP ........................................ 416 5:7 .................................................. 214 5:10a—ES (FI a2p) ........................ 342 5:10b—WP .................................... 416 5:12—WP ...................................... 416 5:13—NE ....................................... 443 5:15—Obj (V + AS p2p) ................ 248 5:19–21—WP ........................ 417, 449 5:26—HS (PS d1p) ........................ 208 6:1—Obj (V + AS p2s) ......... 244, 245, . 248, 456 6:3—WP ................................ 417, 449 6:7—PI m/p2p ........................ 154, 381 6:8—WP ......................................... 417 6:9a—HS (PS a1p) ......................... 209 6:9b—Ptc ............................... 230, 232 6:14—Opt (µὴ γένοιτο) ......... 209, 210, . 212, 448 6:17—PI a3s ................................... 167 Ephesians 1:4—Lex ........................ 294, 297, 450 2:9—Purp (ἵνα + AS d3s) .............. 268 3:13—Inf ........................................ 221 4:8 .................................................. 154 4:11–16 .......................................... 268 4:14—Purp (ἵνα + PS –1p)...... 268, 449 4:17—Inf ........................................ 221 4:20—ES ........................................ 343 4:22—Lex ............................. 303, 306 4:25—Lex ...................... 230, 294, 297 4:26a—PI a2p ................................ 155 4:26b—PI a3s ................................. 167 4:27—PI a2p .................................. 155 4:28—PI a3s................................ 5, 167 4:29—PI d3s .......................... 133, 168 4:30—PI a2p .................................. 155 4:31—Lex ...................................... 292 5:3—PI m/p3s ................................ 168 5:4—ES .................................. 324, 331 5:5—WP ................ 293, 417, 519, 523 5:6a—PI a3s ................................... 168 5:6b—WP ...................................... 418 5:7—PI d2p ............ 132, 155, 156, 448

SCRIPTURE INDEX Ephesians (continued) 5:11–13 .......................................... 310 5:11a—PI a2p ................................ 155 5:11b—Lex ............................ 317, 319 5:12—WP .............................. 418, 449 5:13 ........................................ 317, 319 5:15—NE ....................................... 444 5:17—PI d2p .................. 132, 156, 448 5:18—PI m/p2p .......... 34, 37, 106, 156 6:2 .................................................. 431 6:4—PI a2p .................................... 156 6:6—NE ......................................... 444 6:7—NE ......................................... 444 6:9—Lex ........................ 230, 294, 297 Philippians 1:27 ................................................ 233 1:28—Ptc ....................... 231, 233, 252 2:3a—NE ....................................... 444 2:3b—NE ....................................... 444 2:2–4 .............................................. 444 2:2 .......................................... 233, 444 2:4—Ptc ................................. 231, 233 2:5 .................................................. 444 2:12—NE ....................................... 445 2:14—NE ........................................ 445 2:15a—Lex ............ 261, 294, 298, 449 2:15b—Lex ............ 261, 294, 298, 449 2:15c—Lex ............ 261, 294, 298, 449 3:3—ES (Ptc) ................................. 343 3:13—ES ........................................ 343 3:15 ................................................ 343 3:16 ................................................ 241 3:17 ................................................ 323 3:18–19—WP ........................ 418, 449 4:6—PI a2p .................................... 156 4:9 .................................................. 323 Colossians 1:23—Ptc ............................... 236, 238 1:28 ................................................ 308 2:4—Purp (ἵνα + PS d3s) ....... 252, 268 2:8—Obj (V + ἔσται + Ptc) .... 249, 449 2:16—PI a3s .................................. 168 2:18—PI a3s .................................. 168 2:20–23 .......................................... 168 2:20—PQ ....................................... 378 2:21a—AS m2s ........................ 40, 191

561

Colossians (continued) 2:21b—AS d2s ......................... 40, 191 2:21c—AS a2s ................. 40, 191, 192 3:2—NE ......................................... 445 3:5—Lex .................. 49, 120, 292, 418 3:6—WP ........................................ 418 3:8—Lex ........................................ 292 3:9—PI d2p .................................... 156 3:16 ........................................ 240, 308 3:18 ................................................ 331 3:19—PI m/p2p ................ 37, 106, 157 3:21a—PI a2p .................. 37, 106, 157 3:21b—Purp (ἵνα + AS a3p) .... 37, 260, . 268 3:22—NE ....................................... 445 3:23—NE ....................................... 445 3:25—WP ...................................... 418 1 Thessalonians 1:5–7 .............................................. 323 1:8 .................................................. 214 2:9 .................................................. 214 2:16—Lex .............................. 303, 306 3:3—Inf .......................................... 227 4:3—Lex ........213, 214, 294, 298, 446, . 455 4:4–5—NE ..................................... 446 4:6a—Inf ................ 213, 225, 309, 518 4:6b—Inf ................ 213, 225, 309, 518 4:6c—Lex ...................................... 316 4:7—ES .......................................... 343 4:8—WP ........................................ 419 4:11 ................................................ 283 4:12—Purp (ἵνα + PS a2p) ............. 269 4:13a—ES (W + Inf) ....................... 334 4:13b—Purp (ἵνα + PS m/p2p) ...... 269 5:6—HS (PS a1p) .......................... 209 5:12 ................................................ 308 5:14—Lex .............................. 308, 319 5:15—Obj (V + AS a3s) ........ 176, 249 5:17—Lex ...................... 294, 298, 505 5:19—PI a2p .................... 38, 106, 157 5:20—PI a2p .................... 38, 106, 157 5:22—Lex .............................. 289, 455 2 Thessalonians 1:8–9 .............................................. 391 1:10 ................................................ 391

562


2 Thessalonians (continued) 2:1 .......................................... 221, 517 2:2a—Inf ................................ 221, 517 2:2b—Inf ................................ 221, 222 2:3—AS a3s ........................... 175, 196 2:9–12 ............................................ 181 2:12—WP ...................................... 419 3:6—Lex ................................ 303, 306 3:7—ES .......................... 227, 324, 343 3:8—Inf .......................................... 227 3:9 .......................................... 227, 324 3:10—PI a3s .......................... 169, 332 3:12 ................................................ 285 3:13—AS a2p ................................ 192 3:14—Inf ................................ 157, 227 3:15—PI d2p .......................... 157, 308 1 Timothy 1:3—Inf .......................................... 222 1:4—Inf .......................................... 222 1:20—Inf ........................................ 222 2:2 .................................................. 283 2:8—NE .......................................... 446 2:9—NE ................................. 446, 518 2:11–15 .............................................. 4 2:11 ................................................ 283 2:12a—ES ............................... 325, 331 2:12b—ES ............................... 325, 331 3:2–6 .............................. 238, 298, 451 3:2—Lex ....... 238, 294, 298, 299, 450, 451 3:3a—NE ......................... 298, 450–52 3:3b—NE ....................... 298, 450, 452 3:3c—Lex ...... 294, 298, 299, 450, 451 3:3d—Lex ...... 294, 298, 299, 450, 451 3:6a—NE ....................... 298, 450, 452 3:6b—Purp (ἵνα + AS a3s) .... 260, 269 3:7—Purp (ἵνα + AS a3s) .............. 269 3:8–11 ............................................ 238 3:8–9 .............................................. 452 3:8a—NE ....................... 238, 450, 452 3:8b—Ptc ....................... 238, 450, 452 3:8c—NE ............................... 450, 452 3:10—Lex .............................. 294, 299 3:11—NE ....................... 283, 450, 452 3:12 ................................................ 283 4:3a—Lex .............................. 303, 307 4:3b—Lex ...................... 303, 307, 455

1 Timothy (continued) 4:4—NE ................................. 450, 452 4:7—Lex ........................................ 289 4:12—PI a3s ........................... 169, 466 4:14—PI a2s ................... 106, 157, 285 5:1—AS a2s ........................... 192, 286 5:6—WP ........................................ 419 5:7—Lex ................ 261, 294, 299, 449 5:9—Ptc ................. 236, 238, 244, 449 5:11—Lex ...................................... 289 5:13—Ptc ............................... 236, 238 5:14—Inf ................................ 229, 332 5:16—PI m/p3s .............................. 169 5:18—FI a2s ........................... 203, 205 5:19—PI d2s .................... 38, 106, 158 5:20—Lex .............................. 317, 319 5:21a—NE ............................. 309, 446 5:21b—Ptc ..................... 231, 233, 252 5:22a—PI a2s ................. 158, 160, 517 5:22b—PI a2s ................. 158, 160, 517 5:23—PI a2s ................................... 158 5:25 ................................................ 325 6:1—Purp (ἵνα + PS m/p3s) ........... 269 6:2—PI a3p ...................... 37, 106, 169 6:3–4—WP .................................... 419 6:7 .................................................. 325 6:9—WP ........................................ 419 6:10—WP .............................. 420, 449 6:11—Lex ............................... 288, 289 6:13 ................................................ 307 6:14a—Lex .................... 303, 307, 518 6:14b—Lex .................... 303, 307, 518 6:16 ................................................ 325 6:17a—Inf .............................. 222, 245 6:17b—Inf .............................. 222, 245 6:20—Lex ...................... 230, 294, 299 2 Timothy 1:8a—AS p2s ................................. 192 1:8b—NE ....................................... 439 2:4—ES .......................................... 343 2:12—WP ...................................... 420 2:13 ................................................ 325 2:14a—Lex ............................ 309, 320 2:14b—Inf ...................................... 223 2:16—Lex ...................................... 290 2:17–18—WP ........................ 420, 449 2:19—Lex ...................................... 292

SCRIPTURE INDEX 2 Timothy (continued) 2:22—Lex .............................. 288, 290 2:23—Lex ...................................... 290 2:24—ES .................................... 4, 331 2:25 ................................................ 274 3:5—Lex ........................................ 290 3:7 .................................................. 325 3:16—Lex ...................................... 320 4:1 .................................................. 309 4:2a—Lex .............................. 317, 320 4:2b—Lex .............................. 317, 320 4:3—WP ................................ 420, 449 4:4a—WP ....................................... 420 4:4b—WP ..................................... 420 4:15—Lex ...................................... 290 4:16—Opt (µὴ λογισθείη) ..... 209, 210, 212 Titus 1:6a—Lex .............. 294, 299, 450, 453 1:6b—NE ....................... 299, 450, 453 1:7–9 ...................................... 300, 453 1:7a—Lex ...................... 294, 300, 450 1:7b—NE ......................... 300, 453–54 1:7c—NE ............................... 300, 453 1:7d—NE ............................... 300, 453 1:7e—NE ............................... 300, 453 1:7f—NE .......................... 300, 453–54 1:9—Lex ................................ 317, 320 1:10–12 .......................................... 321 1:11a—Lex .............. 213–14, 294, 300 1:11b—ES ...................................... 331 1:13—Lex .............................. 317, 321 1:14—Ptc (vv. 15–16 describes) .... 234 2:1 .......................................... 239, 454 2:2–10 .................................... 239, 454 2:3a—NE ....................................... 454 2:3b—Ptc ............... 239, 252, 450, 454 2:5—Purp (ἵνα + PS m/p3s) ........... 270 2:8—Ptc ................................. 234, 454 2:9—Ptc ................. 239, 252, 450, 454 2:10—Ptc ............... 239, 252, 450, 454 2:12—Lex .............. 303, 307, 303, 307 2:15a—Lex ............................ 317, 321 2:15b—PI a3s ................................ 169 3:2a—Inf ......................................... 223 3:2b—Lex ...................... 303, 308, 449

563

Titus (continued) 3:9—Lex ........................................ 290 3:10—Lex ...................................... 291 3:13—Purp (ἵνα + PS a3s) ............. 270 3:14—Purp (ἵνα + PS –3p) ..... 270, 449 Philemon 8 .......................................................331 14—Purp (ἵνα + PS –3s) ....... 270, 332, . 449 15–16—NE .................................... 447 20 .................................................... 284 Hebrews 2:1—Purp (µήποτε + PS a1p) ........ 279 2:6 .................................................. 309 3:8—AS a2p ................................... 192 3:12—Obj (V + µήποτε + ἔσται) ... 245, . 249, 273, 274, 449 3:13—Purp (ἵνα + AS p3s) ............ 270 3:15—AS a2p ................................. 193 3:18—Inf ........................................ 223 3:19 ................................................ 325 4:1—Obj (F + PS a3s) ........... 256, 258, . 273, 274 4:7—AS a2p ................................... 193 4:10—ES ........................................ 344 4:11—Purp (ἵνα + AS a3s) ..... 271, 344 4:15 ................................................ 325 6:1—Ptc ................................. 234, 284 6:12—Purp (ἵνα + AS d2p) .... 271, 449 9:5 .................................................. 323 9:8—Inf .......................................... 223 9:9 .................................................. 325 9:17 ................................................ 274 10:1 ................................................ 325 10:2 ................................................ 214 10:5 ........................................ 332, 333 10:8 ........................................ 332, 333 10:11 .............................................. 325 10:23—Lex ............................ 294, 300 10:25—Ptc ............................. 234, 235 10:26–27—WP .............................. 421 10:28—WP .................................... 421 10:29—WP ............................ 354, 421 10:35—AS a2p ............................... 193 10:38—WP .................................... 422

564


Hebrews (continued) 11:3 ................................................ 214 11:5 ................................................ 214 11:24—Lex .................................... 316 11:33 .............................................. 283 12:1—Lex ...................... 230, 294, 300 12:3—Purp (ἵνα + AS a2p) ............ 271 12:5–6 ............................................ 159 12:5a—PI a2s ......... 106, 159, 160, 517 12:5b—PI m/p2s .... 106, 159, 160, 517 12:5c—Lex .................... 160, 317, 321 12:13—Purp (ἵνα + AS p3s) .......... 271 12:15–16 ........................................ 245 12:15a—Obj (V + Ptc) .... 38, 230, 244, 248, 249 12:15b—Obj (V + AS p3s) ..... 38, 249, 518 12:15c—Obj (V + AS p3p) .... 249, 518 12:16a—Obj (V + noun + adj.) ..... 249, 250, 449, 518 12:16b—Obj (V + noun + adj.) .... 249, 250, 449, 518 12:17 .............................................. 523 12:19—Inf ...................................... 223 12:20—Lex ............................ 308, 316 12:25—Obj (V + AS m2p) ............ 250 13:2—PI d2p .................... 38, 106, 159 13:4a—Lex .................... 294, 300, 450 13:4b—WP .................................... 422 13:5—Lex ...................... 294, 301, 450 13:9a—PI m/p2p .............. 38, 106, 159 13:9b—NE ..................................... 447 13:16—PI d2p .................. 38, 106, 159 13:17—Ptc ............................. 231, 235 James 1:6—Ptc ................................. 231, 235 1:7—PI d3s .................................... 170 1:13—PI a3s .................................. 170 1:16—PI m/p2p .............................. 160 1:19 ................................ 293, 417, 523 1:21—Lex ...................... 230, 294, 301 1:22—NE ............................... 450, 454 1:25—Ptc ....................... 235, 432, 449 1:26—WP .............................. 422, 449 1:27—Lex .............................. 294, 301 2:1—PI a2p .................................... 160 2:4—PQ ......................................... 378

James (continued) 2:6 .................................................. 160 2:9—Lex ................................ 317, 321 2:11 ................................................ 184 2:11a—AS a2s ............................... 193 2:11b—AS a2s ............................... 193 2:15–16—PQ ................................. 378 3:1—PI d2p .................... 160, 381, 448 3:8 .................................................. 325 3:10—ES ................................ 331, 449 3:14a—PI d2p ................ 160, 249, 518 3:14b—PI d2p ................ 160, 249, 518 3:17a—Lex .................... 294, 301, 450 3:17b—Lex .................... 294, 301, 450 4:2 .......................................... 214, 325 4:3—ES .......................................... 344 4:4a—PQ ........................................ 278 4:4b—WP .............................. 422, 449 4:5—PQ ........................... 354, 378–79 4:6—WP .................................. 422–23 4:7—Lex ........................................ 292 4:11a—PI a2p ................................ 161 4:11b—WP ............................ 423, 518 4:11c—WP ..................... 423, 449, 518 4:12—PQ ............................... 379, 449 4:13–17 ........................................... 464 4:13–14—NE ................. 449, 456, 464 4:13 ................................................ 464 4:16—ES ................................ 344, 449 5:1–6 ...................................... 464, 518 5:1—NE ......................... 456, 464, 518 5:9a—PI a2p .................................. 161 5:9b—Purp (ἵνα + AS p2p) .... 260, 271 5:12a—PI a2p ............ 48, 49, 111, 161 5:12b—NE ..................................... 439 5:12c—NE ..................................... 439 5:12d—NE ..................................... 439 5:12e—Purp (ἵνα + AS a2p) .......... 271 5:17—Inf ........................................ 223 1 Peter 1:14—Ptc ......................... 239–40, 450 2:1—Lex ........................ 230, 294, 302 2:11—Lex ...................... 303, 308, 455 2:13 ................................................ 447 2:15 ........................................ 283, 447 2:16—NE ....................................... 447 2:18—NE ............................... 240, 447

SCRIPTURE INDEX 1 Peter (continued) 2:22–23 .......................................... 344 2:22a—ES ...................................... 344 2:22b—ES ...................................... 344 2:23a—ES ...................................... 345 2:23b—ES ...................................... 345 2:24—Lex ...................... 261, 294, 302 3:1 .................................................. 240 3:3—NE ......................... 245, 450, 454 3:4 .................................................. 283 3:6—Ptc ......................... 230, 235, 449 3:7—Inf .................................. 228, 240 3:8 .................................................. 240 3:9—Ptc ................................. 240, 450 3:10a—Lex ............................ 228, 293 3:10b—Inf ...................................... 228 3:11—Lex ...................................... 293 3:12—WP .............................. 423, 449 3:14a—AS p2p ...................... 194, 256 3:14b—AS p2p .............................. 194 3:16 ................................................ 240 4:1—Lex ................................ 294, 302 4:2—NE ......................................... 447 4:3—ES .......................... 345, 449, 518 4:7 .................................................. 448 4:8–10 ............................................ 240 4:9—NE ................................... 448–49 4:12—PI m/p2p .............................. 161 4:15—PI a3s .................................. 170 4:16—PI m/p3s .............................. 170 5:2–3 ...................................... 245, 249 5:2a—Obj (V + adv.) ............. 244, 250 5:2b—Obj (V + adv.) ............. 244, 250 5:3—Obj (V + Ptc) ............... 230, 250 5:5—WP .................................. 422–23 5:9—Lex ........................................ 293 2 Peter 2:1—WP ................................ 423, 449 2:2—WP ........................................ 424 2:3—WP ........................................ 424 2:9–10—WP .................................. 424 2:10–11—ES .................................. 345 2:12–13—WP ........................ 245, 424 2:13–19 ........................................... 424 2:16a—Lex .................................... 316 2:16b—Lex ............................ 309, 316 2:17—WP ........................ 424–25, 449

565

2 Peter (continued) 2:20–21 .......................................... 424 2:20—WP .............................. 425, 449 2:21—WP .............................. 213, 425 3:3–5 .............................................. 425 3:7—WP ................................ 425, 449 3:8—PI a3s ............................. 170, 171 3:9 .................................................. 332 3:14a—Lex ............................ 294, 302 3:14b—Lex ............................ 294, 303 3:16—WP ...................................... 426 3:17—Purp (ἵνα + AS a2p) ............ 272 1 John 1:6—WP ........................................ 426 1:8—WP ................................ 426, 449 1:10—WP .............................. 426, 449 2:1—Purp (ἵνα + AS a2p) ...... 252, 272 2:4—WP ................................ 426, 449 2:9—WP ................................ 427, 449 2:11—WP .............................. 427, 449 2:15a—PI a2p .................. 38, 106, 161 2:15b—NE ..................................... 439 2:16—ES ................................ 346, 449 2:23—WP ...................................... 427 2:28—Purp (ἵνα + AS p2p) ............ 272 3:7—PI a3s ..................................... 171 3:8—WP ................................ 427, 449 3:9 .................................................. 325 3:11 ................................................ 448 3:12—NE ....................................... 448 3:13—PI a2p .................... 38, 106, 161 3:15—WP .............................. 427, 449 3:17—PQ ............................... 350, 379 3:18a—HS (PS a1p) ....................... 209 3:18b—NE ..................................... 440 4:1—PI a2p ...................... 38, 106, 161 4:20—WP ...................................... 428 4:20 ................................................ 325 5:21—Lex ...................... 126, 283, 293 2 John 8—Obj (V + ἵνα + AS a2p) ........... 244, . 245, 251, 260–61 9—WP ............................................ 428 10a—PI a2p ................... 160, 162, 517 10b—PI a2p ........... 160, 162, 428, 517 11—WP .................................. 381, 428

566


2 John (continued) 12 ................................................... 332 3 John 2–4 ................................................. 10—Lex ......................................... 11—PI d2s ..................................... 13 ...................................................

162 317 162 332

Jude 4–7 ................................................. 346 4—WP ........................................... 428 5–7—WP ....................................... 428 5 ..................................................... 429 8—ES ............................................. 346 9a—ES ........................................... 346 9b—Lex ......................................... 321 10—WP ......................................... 429 11—WP (οὐαί) ............................... 389 12–13—WP ........................... 429, 449 14–16—WP ........................... 430, 449 15—Lex ................................. 317, 322 Revelation 1:17—PI m/p2s ................ 31, 162, 256 2:2 .................................................. 325 2:10—PI m/p2s .............. 162, 163, 256 2:21 ................................................ 332 3:8 .................................................. 325 3:11—Purp (ἵνα + AS a3s) ............ 272 3:18—Purp (ἵνα + AS p3s) ............ 273 3:19—Lex .............................. 317, 322 5:3 .................................................. 325 5:4 .................................................. 163 5:5—PI a2s .................................... 163 6:6—AS a2s ................................... 194 7:3a—AS a2p ................................. 194 7:3b—NE ....................................... 440 7:3c—NE ....................................... 440 7:9 .................................................. 325 8–11 ............................................... 382 8:13—WP (οὐαί) ........... 382, 390, 449 9:5—Purp (ἵνα + AS a3p) .............. 273 9:12 ................................................ 382 9:20 ................................................ 325 10:4—AS a2s ........................... 32, 194 11:2—AS a2s ................................. 194

Revelation (continued) 11:9—ES ........................................ 348 11:14 .............................................. 382 12:12—WP (οὐαί) .................. 382, 390 13:17—Purp (ἵνα + PS d3s) .... 273, 325 14:3 ................................................ 325 15:8 ................................................ 325 16:15a—Purp (ἵνα + PS a3s) ......... 273 16:15b—Purp (ἵνα + PS a3p) ......... 273 18:4—Purp (ἵνα + AS a2p) .... 259, 273 18:13 .............................................. 382 18:10—WP (οὐαί) .................. 382, 390 18:16–17—WP (οὐαί) ............ 382, 390 18:16 .............................................. 382 18:19—WP (οὐαί) .................. 382, 390 19:10—Obj (V + NE) ........... xxii, 251 21:8—WP .............................. 430, 449 22:9—Obj (V + NE) ............. xxii, 251 22:10—AS a2s ............................... 195 22:18—WP .................................... 431 22:19—WP .................................... 431

— AUTHOR INDEX— A Abbott, E., 9, 525 Abel, F.-M., 525 Aland, K., xxiv, 43, 525 Alexander, P. H., xxiii, 525 Allen, F. D., 14, 486, 530 ANRW, xxiii, 96 Argyle, A. W., 27, 500, 525 Armytage, W. H. G., 17, 525 Arndt, W., xxiii, 108, 525, 526, 528 Arnold, T. K., 27, 480, 481, 482, 525, 533 ATR (see also Robertson), xx, xxiii, 13– 15, 20, 39, 64, 123, 174, 240, 241, 353, 492, 538 B Babbitt, F. C., 27, 490 Bache, C., 61, 66, 68, 525 BAGD, xxiii, 324, 458, 526 Bakker, W. F., 33, 41, 60, 65, 74, 86–89, 97, 470, 525 Ballweg, J., 62, 540 Balz, H. (see also EDNT), xxiii, 525 Barham, T. F., 10, 525 Barnard, J. A., 471, 526 Barnwell, K., 469, 471 526, 533, 534 Bauer, W. (see also BAGD), xxiii, 526, 528 Baugh, S. M., 27, 505 BDAG, xxiii, 324, 353, 357, 458, 528 BDF, xx, xxiii, 64, 94, 126, 241, 353, 458, 489, 526, 537 Beetham, F., 27, 504, 508, 526 Bekker, A., 83, 84, 526 Binnick, R. I., 61, 526 Black, D. A., 27, 28, 118, 469, 471, 504, 506, 526, 533, 534 Blass, F. W., xxiii, 27, 28, 489, 526

Boyer, J. L., xvii, 15, 35–37, 39, 40, 124, 133, 134, 154, 158, 171, 176, 209 213, 214, 227, 244, 246, 475, 526, Brooks, J. A., 27, 501, 502, 526 Brill, xviii, xx, 56, 472, 529, 533, 536, 538 Brugmann, K., 8, 9, 11, 12, 65, 79, 526, 538 Buck, C. D., xx, 527 Bullions, P., 27, 28, 481, 527 Burton, E. d. W., 27, 29, 181, 205, 487, 527 Bussman, H., 527 Buth, R., 72, 73, 527 Buttmann, A., 527 Buttmann, P. K., xviii, 10, 22, 23, 26, 27, 78, 477, 478, 527 C Cadoux, C. J., 527 Campbell, C. R., 61, 62, 65, 69, 72, 73, 87, 100–104, 470, 511–513, 515, 519, 527 Caragounis, C. C., xx, 71, 527 Carroll R., M. D. , 472, 527, 536, 537 Carson, D. A., xv, xvii, xxi, 7, 61, 63, 64, 66, 68, 70, 90, 93, 103, 119, 471, 472, 527, 529, 536, 537 Cartledge, S. A., 27, 498 Catford, J. C., 3, 527 Chamberlain, W. D., 27, 480, 496, 527 Chase, A. H., 27, 499, 527 Christidis, A.-F., xx, 527 Clyde, J., 207, 208, 527 Comrie, B., 61, 65, 72, 528 Costas, P. S., xx, 528 Cotterell, P., 471, 528 Crosby, A., 27, 28, 482, 528 Crosby, H. L., 27, 495

568


Croy, N. C., 27, 118, 506, 528 Cuendet, G., 27, 493, 528 Curtius, G., 8–11, 13, 27, 62, 75, 77, 466, 483, 484, 528 D Dahl, Ö., 61, 528 Dana, H. E. (see also DM), xx, xxiii, 27, 59, 497, 528 Danker, F. W. (see also BDAG), xxiii, 64, 72, 526–29, 536, 539 Daube, D., 240, 528 David, J., 206, 528 Davidson, T., 16, 17, 20, 490, 527 Davis, W. H., 15, 27, 492, 528, 538 Decker, R. J., 61, 71, 528 Deer, D. S., 528 Delbrück, B., 529 Deissmann, A., xix, 529 Dines, J. M., xviii, 529 DM, xx, xxiii, 59 Dobson, J. H., 27, 118, 508, 529 Donaldson, J. W., 7, 8, 26, 27, 482, 483, 529 Donovan, J., 33, 77, 78–81, 90, 529 Drumwright, H. R., 27, 502 Duff, J., 118, 529 E Easley, K. H., 27, 504, 505 EDNT (see also Balz and Schneider), xxiii, 353, 458, 525 Efrid, J. M., 27, 503 Erteschik-Shir, N., 62, 529 Evans, C. A., xxiii, 202, 529, 535–37 Evans, T. V., 64, 71, 529 F Fanning, B. M. (see also VANT), xvii, xxiii, 7, 60, 61, 64–68, 70, 72, 73, 90, 93–97, 100–104, 116, 117, 119, 468, 470, 471, 473, 475, 511–14, 527, 529 Fantin, J. D., 15, 20, 90, 103, 196, 469, 471, 473, 479, 529 Fernández, P. L., 529 Fernando, A. P., 529 Fisk, B. F., 529

Foley, T. S., 529 Forssman, B., xx, 529 France, R. T., 530 Friberg, B., 181, 530 Friberg, T. 181, 530 Frick, P., 21, 27, 65, 118, 508, 530 Friedrich, P., 62, 530 Frisbee, I. F., 27, 489, 530 Funk, R. W., xxiii, 27, 65, 489, 501, 526, 530 G Geddes, W. D., 26, 27, 483, 530 GGBB (see also Wallace), xxiii, 15, 25, 33, 66–68, 70–72, 90, 104, 116, 117, 124, 227, 228, 233, 241, 244, 246, 349, 473, 475, 512, 541 Gideon, V. E., 27, 502, 540 Gildersleeve, B. L., 27, 173, 206, 207, 489, 530 Givón, T., 473, 530 Goetchius, E. V. N., 27, 65, 500, 501, 530 Good, R., 27, 28, 118, 207, 506, 507, 538 Goodwin, W. W., xviii, 27–29, 484–86, 530 Green, S. G., 27, 173, 485, 530 Green, T. S., 530 Greenwood, J. G., 27, 483, 484, 530 H Haase, W., xxiii, 96, 540, 541 Haberland, H., 512, 530 Hadley, J., 14, 27, 28, 484, 486, 487, 530 Hale, W. G., 530 Halliday, M. A. K., 4, 530 Hasan, R., 4, 530 Hansen, H. 118, 531 Harris, M. J., xx, 531 Harry, J. E., 531 Hatina, T. R., 72, 531 Headlam, W. G., 15–19, 21, 22, 27, 29, 490, 491, 531 Heidt, W., 27, 479, 496, 531 Hermann, J. G. J., 15–17, 20–24, 26–29, 78, 79, 83, 90, 466, 475, 477, 478, 481, 491, 531, 540 Hewett, J. A., 27, 118, 509, 531 Hime, M. C., 11, 26, 27, 487, 531

AUTHOR INDEX Hoerber, R. G., 26, 39, 51, 531 Holmes, M. W., xxiv, 531 Holt, J., 62, 531 Hooper, P. J., 62, 531 Hoopert, D. A., 469, 531 Horrocks, G. C., xx, 531 Householder, F. W., 83, 84, 531 Howard, W. F. (see also MHT), xxiii, 535 Huffman, D. S., 37, 515, 531 Hudson, D. F., 27, 498, 531 Hummel, P., xx, 531 Humphreys, M. W., 531 I IOSCS, xviii, 532 Jackson, H., 15–17, 21, 27, 29, 490, 532 Jacob, G. A., 75–77, 532 JACT, 532 Jakobson, R., 61, 532 Jannaris, A. N., xx, 125, 126, 131, 174, 532 Jay, E. G., 27, 497, 498, 532 Jelf, W. E., 479, 532 Jobes, K. H., xviii, 532 K Keith, A. B., 532 Kenny, A. J. P., 93, 95, 532 Kittel, G., et al. (see also TDNT), xxiii, 458, 532 Koen, G., 22, 477, 532 Krüger, K. W., 79, 532 Kühner, R., xx, 26–28, 78, 479, 481, 532, 534, 539 L Lamp, J. S., 241, 532 Lee, J. A. L., 205, 533 Leiden, xviii, xx, 56, 472, 529, 533, 536, 538 Levinsohn, S. H., 469, 471, 472, 526, 533, 534 Long, G. A., 118, 533 Longacre, R., 469, 533 Louw, J. P., xxiii, 83–85, 89, 284, 302, 308, 457, 458, 533, 535

569

LN, xxiii, 245, 283, 284, 302, 308, 319, 324, 457, 458 Lyons, J., 533 M Machen, J. G., 27, 28, 493, 533 MacDonald, W. G., 27, 502, 503, 533 Macnair, I., 533 Madvig, J. N., 27, 482, 533 Mandilaras, B. G., 62, 173, 533 Mansfield, E. D., 11, 26, 27, 486, 525, 533 Mantey, J. R. (see also DM), xx, xxiii, 27, 59, 497, 528 Marcos, N. F., xviii, 533 Marshall, A., 27, 499, 533 Martin-Asensio, G., 472, 533 Masterman, K. C., 533 Mastronarde, D. J., 65, 533 Mateos, J., 62, 533 Mathewson, D. L., 49, 120, 533 Matthiæ, A. H., 10, 26, 27, 480, 534 Mayser, E., 27, 480, 493, 494, 534 McKay, K. L., 4, 8, 34, 36, 62–64, 66–68, 71, 72, 88–91, 95, 98, 103, 104, 124, 474, 475, 512, 534 Meecham, H. G., 27, 240, 488, 497, 534, 535 MHT, xx, xxiii, 8, 15, 20, 22, 29, 49, 59, 64, 123, 240, 241, 353, 480, 491, 499, 503, 535, 540 Miklosisch, F., 61, 534 Miller, C. W. E., 27, 173, 206, 489, 530 Miller, N. F., 469, 534 Milner, J., 9, 10, 466, 534 Monro, D. B., 535 Moore, R. W., 98, 173, 535 Moorhouse, A. C., 535 Morrice, W. G., 65, 535 Morwood, J., 535 Moule, C. F. D., 27, 57, 123, 124, 496, 535 Moulton, J. H. (see also MHT), xxiii, 8, 12, 15, 20–22, 24, 27–29, 59, 123, 240, 475, 480, 488, 491, 497, 503, 534, 535, 541 Mounce, W. D., 27, 28, 118, 509 Mozley, F. W., 470, 535

570


Müeller, T. H., 65, 535 Musić, A., 535 N Napoli, M., 61, 535 Naselli, A. D., 61, 535 Naylor, H. D., 17–19, 21, 27, 491, 535 New, D. S., 202, 535 Nida, E. A., xxiii, 284, 302, 308, 457, 458, 533, 535 Nolland, J., 535 Nunn, H. P. V., 27, 495, 535 O O’Brien, M. B., 512, 513, 536 O’Donnell, M. B., 68, 92, 118, 472, 536 Olsen, M. B., 71, 72, 473, 511, 513, 536 Ottley, R. R., xviii, 539 P Paine, S. W., 27, 499, 536 Palmer, F. R., 469, 536 Palmer, L. R., xx, 536 Phillips Jr., H., 27, 499, 527 Picirilli, R. E., 73, 473, 536 Pickavance, T., 125, 536 Pitts, A. W., 471, 537 Porter, S. E. (see also VAG), xvii–xx, 7, 8, 60–66, 68, 69–73, 90–93, 95–97, 100–104, 116, 118, 119, 202, 467, 470–72, 475, 511–13, 527, 529, 535–38, 542 Post, L. A., 5, 81, 82, 97, 470, 537 Powers, B. W., 27, 65, 118, 505, 506, 537 Q Quinn, G. M., 118, 531 R Radermacher, L., xviii, 537 Rahlfs, A., xxiv, 537 Rapoport, T. R., 62, 529 Reed, J. T., 71, 92, 118, 471, 472, 537, 538 Reese, R. A., 71, 471, 538 Rijksbaron, A., xx, 206, 207, 534, 538, 539

Robertson, A. T. (see also ATR), xviii, xxiii, 13–15, 20, 27, 174, 207, 208, 241, 492, 538 Robichaux, K. S., 27, 28, 118, 207, 506, 507, 538 Robins, R. H., 512, 538 Roby, H. J., 19, 538 Rost, V. C. F., 27, 478, 538 Runge, S. E., 68, 472, 538 S Salom, A. P., 538 Schaefer, G. H., 22, 477, 532 Schaeffer, J. N., 27, 495 Schehr, T. P., 21, 27, 503, 538 Schneider, G. (see also EDNT), xxiii, 525 Schoch, R., 27, 28, 507, 538 Schwyzer, E., 65, 538 Seaton, R. C., 19–21, 27, 491, 538 Shilleto, R., 15, 16 Sicking, C. M. J., 50, 56, 472, 538 Silva, M., xviii, 70, 532 Sim, M. G., 251, 538 Simcox, W. H., 538 Simonson, G., 13, 538 Smith, Carlota R., 61, 538 Smith, Charles R., 117, 538 Smith, J. H., 27, 485, 538 Smith, J., 118, 498, 541 Smith, W., 9, 483, 538 Smotritsky, M., 61, 538 Smyth, H. W., xviii, 27 Sonnenschein, E. A., 27, 28, 77, 487, 529, 539 Sophocles, E. A., xviii, 15, 27, 28, 482, 539 Stagg, F., 117, 539 Stahl, J. M., xviii, 11, 207, 530, 539 Stephens, L., xx, 174, 539 Stevens, G. L., 27, 507, 508, 539 Stewart, T. A., 26, 27, 485, 539 Stork, P., 56, 538 Strunk, K., xx, 539 Stuart, M., 27, 28, 479, 489, 539, 541 Swete, H. B., xviii, 539 Swetnam, J., xix, 72, 118, 539

AUTHOR INDEX T Taylor, B. A., 64, 72, 527, 529, 536, 539 Taylor, M. E., 472, 539 Taylor, R. W., 4, 11, 540 TDNT (see also Kittel), xxiii, 458, 532 Temporini, H., xxiii, 540 Thackeray, H. St. J., xviii, 489, 526, 539, 540 Thieroff, R., 62, 540 Thiersch, F., 540 Thompson, F. E., xviii, 12, 27, 123, 486, 540 Thompson, J., xviii, 12, 13, 27, 490, 540 Thorley, J., 468, 473, 540 Thumb, A., 8, 27, 488, 526, 540 Turner, M., 471, 528 Turner, N. (see also MHT), xxiii, 27, 49, 241, 499, 535, 540 V VAG (see also Porter), xvii, xxiii, 15, 61, 62, 66, 68, 90–92, 240, 241, 470, 471, 537 VANT (see also Fanning), xviii, 61, 66– 68, 93–95, 116, 240, 468, 470, 471, 529 Vaughan, C., 27, 502, 540 Vendler, Z., 93, 95, 540 Versteegh, C. H. M., 512, 540 Viger, F., 23, 24, 477, 481, 531, 540 Vine, W. E., 27, 495, 540 Voelz, J. W., 27, 95–97, 118, 261, 509, 540

571

Votaw, C. W. , 212, 541 W Wallace, D. B. (see also GGBB), xxiii, 15, 25, 33, 66, 67, 70–73, 90, 103, 116– 18, 124, 227, 228, 244, 246, 473, 475, 541 Ware, J. P., 541 Watson, W. G. E., xviii, 533 Watt, J. M., 472, 541 Webster, W., 26, 27, 484, 541 Weinrich, H., 541 Wendland, E. R. , 469, 541 Wenham, J. W., 27, 501, 541 Westfall, C. L., 472, 541 White, J. W., 27, 487, 541 Whitelaw, R., 541 Whittaker, M., 27, 502, 541 Willmott, J., 98–100, 174, 470, 541 Winbery, C. L., 27, 501, 502, 526 Winer, G. B., 26, 27, 29, 59, 479, 480, 541 Y Young, R., 104, 118, 124, 541 Z Zerwick, M., 27, 117, 118, 489, 498, 541 Zuntz, G., 542


This series of monographs is designed to promote and publish the latest research into biblical Greek (Old and New Testaments). The series does not assume that biblical Greek is a distinct dialect within the larger world of koine, but focuses on these corpora because it recognizes the particular interest they generate. Research into the broader evidence of the period, including epigraphical and inscriptional materials, is welcome in the series, provided the results are cast in terms of their bearing on biblical Greek. Primarily, however, the series is devoted to fresh philological, syntactical, text-critical, and linguistic study of the Greek of the biblical books, with the subsidiary aim of displaying the contribution of such study to accurate exegesis. For additional information about this series or for the submission of manuscripts, please contact: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc. P.O. Box 1246 Bel Air, MD 21014-1246 To order other books in this series, please contact our Customer Service Department: (800) 770-LANG (within the U.S.) (212) 647-7706 (outside the U.S.) (212) 647-7707 FAX Or browse online by series at: www.peterlang.com


Douglas S. Huffman (Ph.D., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School) serves as Professor and Associate Dean of Biblical and Theological Studies at the Talbot School of Theology at Biola University in La Mirada, California, where he teaches courses in New Testament and Greek. His research interests include Luke-Acts, worldview and apologetics, and New Testament Greek. Huffman is author of several scholarly articles in books and journals, co-editor of God Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents God (2002), contributing editor of How Then Should We Choose? Three Views on God’s Will and Decision Making (2009), and contributing editor of Christian Contours: How a Biblical Worldview Shapes the Mind and Heart (2011).

16 Huffman

The end of the twentieth and the beginning of the twenty-first centuries have involved much discussion on overhauling and refining a scholarly understanding of the verbal system for first-century Greek. These discussions have included advances in verbal aspect theory and other linguistic approaches to describing the grammatical phenomena of ancient languages. This volume seeks to apply some of that learning to the narrow realm of how prohibitions were constructed in the first-century Greek of the New Testament. Part 1 “The Great Prohibition Debate” seeks to demonstrate that verbal aspect theory has a better explanation than traditional Aktionsart theory for authorial choices between the negated present imperative and the negated aorist subjunctive in expressing prohibitions in the Greek New Testament. Part 2 “All the Prohibitions in the Greek NT” continues to examine prohibitions, but is more of an exercise in functional linguistics. That is, rather than apply verbal aspect theory to the grammar of prohibition constructions, Part 2 seeks only to survey the (initially surprising) wide variety of ways prohibitions can be expressed in koine Greek: more than a dozen different constructions. To do this, the NT prohibitions are grouped in their varying grammatical-syntactical and/or pragmatic constructions, all of which function—in varying degrees—in a prohibitory fashion. This taxonomy may prove to be the beginnings of further investigations into how biblical Greek communicates commands.

PETER LANG

www.peterlang.com


Douglas S. Huffman

PETER LANG

Verbal Aspect Theory and the Prohibitions in the Greek New Testament.pdf

Recommend Documents