Two Sandals in Matthew 10:10

QUESTION

Is Jesus saying in Matthew 10:10 don't take two δύο sandals or don't take any sandals? Could the δύο apply to the ὑποδήματα as well as the χιτῶνας?

Matthew 10:10 (NA27 with Mounce-Koivisto Morphology)

10 μὴ πήραν εἰς ὁδὸν μηδὲ δύο χιτῶνας μηδὲ ὑποδήματα μηδὲ ῥάβδον· ἄξιος γὰρ ὁ ἐργάτης τῆς τροφῆς αὐτοῦ.

neither a purse for the road nor two tunics nor sandals nor a staff; for the worker is worthy of his food.

RESPONSE

I do not believe that Jesus is specifying whether to keep a pair of sandals on (two sandals) or not (go barefoot). Jesus’ practice was to use familiar details metaphorically to illustrate principles without meaning the details literally necessarily. The principle here is urgency, to start immediately without even stopping to put your sandals on. Jesus was not necessarily specifying whether to take off the sandals or wear what they had on, just not to go pack extra.

Greek is highly elliptical and the modifier of one coordinate (δύο χιτῶνας) often applies elliptically to some of the others (ὑποδήματα which do come in pairs), but the modifier of one conjunct is even more often not an elliptical modifier of the other.

Grammatical Commentary has a feature called distal head pointers to allow coding this kind of distal dependent when semantically appropriate. In the adjacent phrase “whatever town or village” whatever is a proximal modifier of town in the diagram but also a distal modifier of village. The distal head violates the hierarchy principle of diagrams. The hearer gets this intuitively. However, δύο is not coded as a distal modifier.

It seems that the answer is decided by semantics and common sense. You are as prepared as I am in that department.

The thing that is obvious is that by common sense Jesus is not saying not to take two staffs. He is probably saying not to take any staff or any bag. So the TWO does not carry to all the coordinates (and attributives usually do not carry backwards anyway). The second thing that seems apparent is that Jesus is not saying not to take two sandals, since taking one or three is ridiculous and two as applied to sandals is ambiguous as to whether he means two pairs.

The thing that seems simplest is to assume he means to take only one tunic (don't go naked) but no sandals or staff or at least no extras. I know I always go barefoot whenever possible. I would assume that these are not literal commands but only the typical colorful oriental way of saying to travel light.

The confirmation of these proposed interpretations comes from the translations. Take the NASB for example:

“10 or a bag for your journey, or even two coats, or sandals, or a staff; for the worker is worthy of his support.”

Notice that that NASB has inserted ‘even’ to set coats apart from a bag and a staff along with sandals as things not to bring.

— Dennis Kenaga

What is the meaning of καὶ γὰρ in 1 Corinthians 12:13-14 in the Greek New Testament?

QUESTION

What is the meaning of καὶ γὰρ in 1 Corinthians 12:13-14 in the Greek New Testament?

1 Corinthians 12:13-14 (NA27 with Mounce-Koivisto Morphology)

13 καὶ γὰρ ἐν ἑνὶ πνεύματι ἡμεῖς πάντες εἰς ἓν σῶμα ἐβαπτίσθημεν, εἴτε Ἰουδαῖοι εἴτε Ἕλληνες εἴτε δοῦλοι εἴτε ἐλεύθεροι, καὶ πάντες ἓν πνεῦμα ἐποτίσθημεν.

14 Καὶ γὰρ τὸ σῶμα οὐκ ἔστιν ἓν μέλος ἀλλὰ πολλά.

RESPONSE

καὶ γὰρ means "for even" or "for also” or “for indeed". καὶ is adverbial, and γὰρ is conjunctive. It is a fixed expression at the beginning of the independent clause that occurs 39 times in the GNT, in many books, primarily Pauline, but rarely Johannine. About 10% of καὶ occurrences are adverbial and most are conjunctive. The semantic force of this καὶ is quite light, and translators often ignore it.

γὰρ comes second because it is postpositive. If καὶ comes second after γὰρ, they refer to different clauses, for example Matthew 23:3, λέγουσιν γὰρ καὶ οὐ ποιοῦσιν “for they preach and do not practice.”

How do we know that καὶ is adverbial here and not conjunctive as usual? γὰρ is always a main inferential conjunction on a main clause (1042 occurrences). καὶ (9355 occurrences) is also often a main conjunction on a clause (over a thousand occurrences) but is never tolerated as a conjunction, either as a main or coordinating conjunction, on a clause that already has an inferential conjunction.

Generally, only one conjunction per main clause; γὰρ always trumps καὶ as the conjunction. This is intuitive for English speakers. We do not say “and for” unless for is a preposition. This rule contrasts with subordinating conjunctions like ὅτι. The subordinate clause takes a subordinator and may also take a coordinating conjunction καὶ ὅτι “and that.” This is also intuitive for English speakers. We say “and because.” These conjunctive grammar rules are firmly established statistically over large populations in the GNT.

— Dennis Kenaga

Conjunctions in the GNT

QUESTION

The other night you contrasted και and δε with ουν, γαρ and οτι. I couldn’t write fast enough. Can you refresh our memories? Thanks.

RESPONSE

Conjunctions and conjunctives (class and function) come under constructions.

There are 54 conjunction lexemes. An additional 11 adverbs and particles occasionally function conjunctively. 8% of conjunction occurrences are adverbial in context, but most conjunctions are always conjunctive. Three of the 54 conjunctions are never used conjunctively.

So 62 lexemes have conjunction types which are 1.) coordinating (13,70%), 2.) inferential (9, 9%), 3.) subordinating (25, 21%) and 4.) relative interrogative (5, 0%).(count represent lexemes; percentages represent occurrences in GNT). The first two are paratactic (their heads are at the same level) and the last two are hypotactic (they link the dependent to the head).

98% of conjunctive functions are performed by conjunctions. Functionally, conjunctives are 1.) main (27%), 2.) subordinating (21%) and 3.) coordinating (52%). Main and subordinating conjunctives are clausal but only half of coordinating conjunctives are clausal. Conjunctives link two words and are main if the prior conjunct is in a prior sentence. A sentence can have at most one main coordinating conjunction unless it is in a quote. Subordinating conjunctives are subordinating conjunctions, and coordinating conjunctives are coordinating conjunctions, but main conjunctions are 1.) coordinating (17%), inferential (9%) or occasionally crossovers like OTI.

So conjunctives are divided into a 2x2 conceptually

coordinating non-main (52%) coordinating main (17%)

subordinating (21%) inferential main (9%)

32 of the 54 conjunctions, like ουν, γαρ and οτι, are clausal-only, and 5 are never clausal. The other 17, like και and δε, are either clausal or non-clausal in context. δε is mostly clausal, but τε is mostly non-clausal; και is about equal. About 70% of conjunctions are clausal (finite verb). Some coordinating conjunctions like δε are adversative (and or but).

Many conjunction lexemes like ουν or γαρ are only main. γαρ, like for, is always main; οτι, like because, is usually subordinating, but editors may make it main by period placement. Even as an inferential main conjunction, it has a subordinating idea.

There is a play between conjunction types and conjunctive types (class and function). These concepts are thin and abstract at first but become natural and intuitive language patterns when the lexemes are listed with their types and when interface navigation in CG through the constructions make them concrete with all the example verses. It will be the CG task to make these patterns come alive for the GNT students the way they are for native speakers. The tactic is to provide direct connection between concepts and examples. The concepts may be simple individually but become more involved and interesting when compounded. As you can see, part of CG is classification of morphological and syntactical concepts.

— Dennis Kenaga

Jude 1:11 Translation

QUESTION

I’m having trouble with this verse, Jude 1:11, specifically with the dative τῇ πλάνῃ and the genitive τοῦ μισθοῦ. I would have translated it “The wages of Baalam” but the NASB somehow puts the dative with Baalam for “the error of Baalam”.

Jude 1:11 (NA27 with Mounce-Koivisto Morphology)

" 11 οὐαὶ αὐτοῖς, ὅτι τῇ ὁδῷ τοῦ Κάϊν ἐπορεύθησαν καὶ τῇ πλάνῃ τοῦ Βαλαὰμ μισθοῦ ἐξεχύθησαν καὶ τῇ ἀντιλογίᾳ τοῦ Κόρε ἀπώλοντο."

(NASB) Woe to them! For they have gone the way of Cain, and for pay they have rushed headlong into the error of Balaam, and perished in the rebellion of Korah

RESPONSE

Four genitives to sort out and connect. This is a very structured sentence with three clauses, each starting with an articular dative and its trailing articular genitive, according to the canon of Apollonius. τῇ ὁδῷ τοῦ Κάϊν, καὶ τῇ πλάνῃ τοῦ Βαλαὰμ, καὶ τῇ ἀντιλογίᾳ τοῦ Κόρε. Anarthrous genitives like μισθοῦ do not go with articular heads, ordinarily, and genitives do not have genitives, ordinarily This gives an immediate clue that μισθοῦ is adverbial, not a genitive modifier of a noun.

The extra genitive is the anarthrous genitive μισθοῦ which means for pay. Although adverbial nouns are generally dative (60%), the Greeks knew that the adverbial idiom of price was genitive.

—Dennis Kenaga

μή in Matthew 7:9-10 in the Greek New Testament

QUESTION

What is the meaning of μή in these verses, Matthew 7:9-10? It is here twice used with the indicative in the apodosis clause.

ἢ τίς ἐστιν ἐξ ὑμῶν ἄνθρωπος,

ὃν αἰτήσει ὁ υἱὸς αὐτοῦ ἄρτον,

μὴ λίθον ἐπιδώσει αὐτῷ;

ἢ καὶ ἰχθὺν αἰτήσει,

μὴ ὄφιν ἐπιδώσει αὐτῷ;

Or what man is there among you,

whose son shall ask for bread,

(not) shall give him a stone?

Or also shall ask for a fish,

(not) shall give him a serpent?

Strong notes that in the KJV μἠ is not translated 51x. These are two such instances. It definitely makes sense to leave them untranslated here.

Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich, Greek-English Lexicon (1957, reprint 1975) identifies μἠ as a negative particle and cites this reference as follows:

1. in direct questions (Xenophon Eph. 398, 26 H.; Job 1:9; 8:11) perhaps, usu. left untranslated, but cf. μή τινος ὑστερήσατε; you did not lack anything, did you? Lk 22:35. Cf. Mt 7:9f; 9:15; Mk 2:19; Lk 5:34; 11:11; 17:9; J 3:4; 4:12, 33; 6:67; 7:35, 51f; 21:5 (cf. μήτι); Ac 7:28 (Ex 2:14), 42 (Am 5:25); Ro 3:3, 5 (cf. Job 8:3); 9:14, 20 (Is 29:16); 1 Cor 1:13; 9:8f; 10:22 al. μὴ γάρ J 7:41; 1 Cor 11:22.—In cases like Ro 10:18f; 1 Cor 9:4f μή is an interrog. word and οὐ negatives the verb. The double negative causes one to expect an affirmative answer (Bl-D. §427, 2; cf. Rob. 1173f; Tetrast. Iamb. 17, 2 p. 266 μὴ οὐκ ἔστι χλόη;=‘there is grass, is there not?’).

If μἠ were omitted, would it still be good Greek? How would it affect the translation?

RESPONSE

This is the usual interrogative expecting a negative answer. μὴ is a marker in its clause.

He won’t give his son a stone/snake, will he?

If you make the verse into four main paratactic interrogative clauses, this is clear. However the translators and NU editors have taken them as two main interrogative clauses with elliptical hypotaxis. When the translators do this, the function of μὴ is lost English, and it is confusing for the exegete who is using the English verse as a guide to the Greek, which is more or less the default assumption.

It is good of you to put the verse into the six verbal units. However, the indenting is wrong because what would the grammatical relation of the μὴ clause be to its head? If you indent, you have to be able to identify a head and a grammatical relation. You can see this in your English gloss, which is not a grammatical sentence. The KJV is not a grammatical sentence in modern English either.

NASB is usually the best at being grammatical and attempting to preserve the Greek.

"Or what man is there among you who, when his son asks for a loaf, will give him a stone?

However NASB, like most, has supplied a hypotactic subordinator’ if/when’ that is missing in the paratactic original. So, the translations do not give any help to the original syntax, which is simpler than they think. It would not make sense in Greek if μὴ were omitted. μὴ is not a mysterious optional untranslatable word in Greek as the translations might suggest. That thinking is trying to make the Greek like the English, but our goal in syntax is the other way round. People are not used to translating syntax, but that is our goal.

— Dennis Kenaga

ἐν ᾧ in Mark 2:19 of the Greek New Testament

QUESTION

I noticed this idiom (if it is an idiom) ἐν ᾧ in my reading today in Mark 2:19, which looks to mean ‘during’. I don’t have any particular insight on it but did a search and saw that it occurs 52 times, and I’ve never really noticed it. Can you provide any insights into ἐν ᾧ ?

Mark 2:19 (NA27 with Mounce-Koivisto Morphology)

" 19 καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς· μὴ δύνανται οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ νυμφῶνος ἐν ᾧ ὁ νυμφίος μετʼ αὐτῶν ἐστιν νηστεύειν; 1ὅσον χρόνον ἔχουσιν τὸν νυμφίον μετʼ αὐτῶν οὐ δύνανται νηστεύειν."

RESPONSE

The hapax ὡς ἦν is an adverbial subordinator clause. Some translators connect local PP ἐν τῷ πλοίῳ in the default way with adjacent ἦν (option 1), and others connect it in the non default way with distal παραλαμβάνουσιν (option 2) skipping over the adjacent candidate ἦν. The syntax does not give us a decisive clue which is right (although we want to prefer the default adjacent general rule). It has to be decided semantically (playing field for speculators), although it is probably not a theological point.

The option 1 translators tend to imply “since/while” while the option 2 translators tend to put the comma and imply “just as he was without making special preparations” (Leedy takes option 2 and Robertson concurs, but NU lacks the comma, which is noncommittal).

I disagree with the majority that supply “just” or “even” (following the Vulgate supply of ita before ut). The “without preparation" idea of Robertson is very old, implied by Jerome and made explicit by Bengal sine apparatu. I did not see any English or German translations that I liked. My personal opinion is that Mark was not implying option 2 or “since" but was merely being pleonastic or parenthetical in making sure that the readers had the right picture that Jesus was in the ship with them when they took him by ship, but I could be wrong. Of course as usual I am not implying that option 2 is wrong semantically since they did take him in the ship just as he was. I just do not think option 2 identifies the Greek syntax. Option 1 has the right head-dependent connection for the PP but probably not the right syntax for the sentence. (This all will be more immediately apparent when we get the GNT-GC diagrammer launched.)

The bigger question (besides the connection) is what semantic purpose Mark had in inserting the (apparently secondary) subordinator clause. I personally do not see why Mark would want to be telling us that they did not get him a rain coat or tooth brush or something vague like that first before starting out. You get ready to leave by getting your stuff at hand. It is trivial and does not need real estate in the Bible verses.

My Option 3 connects the PP with ἦν like option 1 but uses different syntax and grammatical relations and lacks any semantic implications like ita or just or since:

And they dismissed the crowd and took him along--he was already with them in the ship.

The parenthetic option has the advantage of explicitly avoiding any eisegesis.

I prefer the French translation with the dangling participle, like a parenthetic assertion.

Marc 4:36 French: Louis Segond (1910)

Après avoir renvoyé la foule, ils l'emmenèrent dans la barque où il se trouvait; il y avait aussi d'autres barques avec lui.

Before having sent the crowd back, they brought him in the ship where he was located.

Marc 4:36 French: Martin (1744)

Et laissant les troupes, ils l'emmenèrent [avec eux], lui étant déjà dans la nacelle; et il y avait aussi d'autres petites nacelles avec lui.

And leaving the crowds, they brought him with them--himself already being in the boat.

However, the first one still requires syntactical transposition to make it smooth, but the second one is like an oblique circumstantial participle.

Should we be posting stuff like this in a blog on the site instead of in articles? It has a spontaneous question and answer format but is not a strong demonstration of GC syntax.

—Dennis Kenaga

P.S. The other thing that I did not mention is that ὡς is the most complex/flexible word in the GNT syntactically and is often almost colorless/optional.

ὡς is definitely a subordinator here, but the purpose of the subordinator clause is fuzzy, and a professional editor would probably have wanted to express the idea with more definition and concision.

Πολλῷ πλείους in John 4:41

QUESTION

I have a question concerning the phrase πολλῷ πλείους in John 4:41. Here is the context:

καὶ πολλῷ πλείους ἐπίστευσαν διὰ τὸν λόγον αὐτοῦ

Πολλῷ πλείους is generally rendered “many more,” but πολλῷ is dative and πλείους is nominative. What is the idiom here?

RESPONSE

When we encounter unfamiliar (infrequent) constructions and want to classify the syntax and grammatical relations (how it works in Greek), we first classify the morphology of the construction components and then look for precedents to tie the unfamiliar back to the familiar rules.

Πολύς and πλείων are adjectives by class (both with uncommon declensions). We take πολλῷ as modifier of the adjacent πλείους, as all interpretations naturally do. There are two levels of adjectives. Articles and generic pronouns like πόσος are also adjectives in a general sense (by lexical category). When an adjective (usually neuter) modifies a verb, adjective or adverb, it is adverbial. (Note the interplay between invariant lexical class and variable contextual function.)

Normally the declensional adverbial modifier is accusative (e.g., accusative in πολὺ σπουδαιότερον, 2 Cor 8:22). However, some adjectives, including πολύς, are sometimes dative when adverbial (see δημοσίᾳ, Acts 16:37, or ἰδίᾳ in 1 Cor. 12:11), particularly when modifying a comparative adverb or adjective. Πολλῳ μᾶλον, “much more” (more by much), is a common GNT phrase, where μᾶλον is a comparative adverb modified adverbially by a dative adjective. This common phrase is a close but not exact parallel of John 4:41, because μᾶλον is an adverb.

We see the dative adjective (pronominal) modifying the comparative adjective adverbially two times in Hebrews 1:4 (and 10:29) as a nearly exact parallel:

τοσούτῳ κρείττων γενόμενος τῶν ἀγγέλων ὅσῳ διαφορώτερον παρ’ αὐτοὺς κεκληρονόμηκεν ὄνομα (as much better)

This dative adverbial construction is grammatical but infrequent (although frequent with nouns). Note that the comparative adjective takes a genitive object of comparison, but a dative adverbial. And note that in John 4:41 πλείων is comparative. Although the exact construction with a dative adjective (by class) like πολλῷ modifying an adjective adverbially does not occur elsewhere in the completed quarter of the GNT (remember the two levels of adjectives) and thus might seem irregular to the student, nevertheless, the Hebrew parallels are exact using the broader definition of adjectives. So they are close enough to understand and legitimize the language pattern in John.

Also note that the adjective πλείων is substantival in John 4:41 (subject), but this function does not hinder πολλῷ from modifying it adverbially as an adjective. The case of the head (nominative) and its function are irrelevant to the adjective-modifies-adjective-adverbially idiom. They are like the extraneous fact in the algebra problem.

I dismiss the syntactical option of making πολλῷ adverbial to the verb (instead of the adjective) because πλείων is the first positional candidate for head by juxtaposition and since neuter dative adjectives modifying a verb are very rare and it appears semantically incorrect here.

—Dennis Kenaga