Using New Testament Greek (David A. Black)-Part VIII

After discussing lexical analysis (the study of words), Black emphasizes the importance of syntactical analysis. By syntax, I mean sentence architecture or the way that sentences and phrases are formed: syntax is word order or the relationship that words bear to other words (signifier to signifier). Those who practice discourse analysis contend that grasping the macrostructure of a text is indispensable for gaining textual understanding; the exegete must not only look at individual phonemes, lexemes or morphemes. Nor is it sufficient to analyze Greek at the sentence level, but the student of Greek or the exegete must progress to discourse (the macrostructure), paragraphs, constituent structures, and the overall context of a work in order to better understand the biblical text.

Another vital point which Black makes is that translations can hide syntactical difficulties or ambiguities. Therefore, in order to know what's occurring on the syntactical level, one must be able to read biblical texts in the original languages. Now I stress that most students of Scripture will not want to do this kind of study or they may not have the time or resources needed for this activity, and I'm not saying that such individuals cannot get at truth if they do not study Hebrew or Greek. But in order to grasp the underlying issues that involve syntactical or morphosyntactic features, it takes a certain proficiency with Greek: the same principle applies to Hebrew or Aramaic.

There are many examples that could be adduced to illustrate why syntax matters for purposes of exegesis, but instead of using Black's examples, I will present my own.

Galatians 2:16 reads (WH): εἰδότες δὲ ὅτι οὐ δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος ἐξ ἔργων νόμου ἐὰν μὴ διὰ πίστεως Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ, καὶ ἡμεῖς εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐπιστεύσαμεν, ἵνα δικαιωθῶμεν ἐκ πίστεως Χριστοῦ καὶ οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων νόμου, ὅτι ἐξ ἔργων νόμου οὐ δικαιωθήσεται πᾶσα σάρξ.

The basic issue in this verse is whether ἐὰν μὴ is adversative ("but") or exceptive ("except" or "but only"). The NWT 2013 opts for the exceptive sense: "We who are Jews by birth, and not sinners from the nations, recognize that a man is declared righteous, not by works of law, but only through faith in Jesus Christ. So we have put our faith in Christ Jesus, so that we may be declared righteous by faith in Christ and not by works of law, for no one will be declared righteous by works of law."

Ernest De Witt Burton (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians, pp. 120-121) writes that ἐὰν μὴ in Gal. 2:16 "is properly exceptive, not adversative." But what part of the text does the construction except? Burton explains that it might be the "preceding statement taken as a whole" or "the principal part of it," but in the final analysis, he opts for ἐὰν μὴ excepting οὐ δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος only. He thus understands Paul to mean that we cannot be justified (declared righteous) by works of Law at all. In order to make the English translation intelligible though, Burton suggests the reading "but only."

James D.G. Dunn apparently read ἐὰν μὴ as strictly exceptive, preferring the translation, "that a person is not justified by law except (when also) through faith in Christ." This view seems to posit something in addition to faith in Christ, namely, works of law and placing faith in the Messiah. Dunn's approach is critiqued here: https://www.proquest.com/docview/213738491?pq-origsite=gscholar&fromopenview=true

A second examples is Revelation 1:1:

Ἀποκάλυψις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἣν ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ ὁ θεὸς δεῖξαι τοῖς δούλοις αὐτοῦ ἃ δεῖ γενέσθαι ἐν τάχει, καὶ ἐσήμανεν ἀποστείλας διὰ τοῦ ἀγγέλου αὐτοῦ τῷ δούλῳ αὐτοῦ Ἰωάννῃ, (UBS5)

"The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John" (ESV).

We have three occurrences of αὐτοῦ, the singular genitive form of αὐτός, in Rev. 1:1. How can we tell from the syntax whether the referent of αὐτοῦ is God or Jesus Christ?

I have personally grappled with the syntax of this passage for years and can say that it is hard to determine the pronominal referents on the basis of syntax alone. Nevertheless, it is quite possible that the referent of τοῖς δούλοις αὐτοῦ and τῷ δούλῳ αὐτοῦ Ἰωάννῃ and διὰ τοῦ ἀγγέλου αὐτοῦ is God. Yet Christ could be viewed as the intermediate agent of the revelation, that is, God is possibly the specific referent in Rev. 1:1, but he could be acting through Christ; conversely, God (Jehovah) could have given the revelation to Christ, who in turn sent "his" angel to God's servant John.

Rev. 22:6 explicitly states: Καὶ εἶπέν μοι, Οὗτοι οἱ λόγοι πιστοὶ καὶ ἀληθινοί, καὶ ὁ κύριος ὁ θεὸς τῶν πνευμάτων τῶν προφητῶν ἀπέστειλεν τὸν ἄγγελον αὐτοῦ δεῖξαι τοῖς δούλοις αὐτοῦ ἃ δεῖ γενέσθαι ἐν τάχει (UBS5).

In Rev. 22:16, the Risen Christ himself makes this expression: Ἐγὼ Ἰησοῦς ἔπεμψα τὸν ἄγγελόν μου μαρτυρῆσαι ὑμῖν ταῦτα ἐπὶ ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις. ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ῥίζα καὶ τὸ γένος Δαυίδ, ὁ ἀστὴρ ὁ λαμπρὸς ὁ πρωϊνός.

As I mentioned earlier, I think it is hard to be dogmatic about Rev. 1:1 especially when it comes to basing one's decision on syntax alone. For example, David Aune writes that "the subject of the verb ἐσήμανεν, 'he made known,' is ambiguous: it could be either God or Jesus Christ, though the latter is logically more probable since the revelation was transmitted by God to Jesus Christ, and it must be Jesus Christ who then further communicates the revelation" (Aune, Revelation 1-5, 15).

Aune observes that it could be either God or Christ who sent the angel. John later writes that both parties did in fact send the angel (Rev. 22:6, 16). On the other hand, I think the seeming confusion can be resolved if we appeal to the notion of divine agency and note what other NT texts say about the relationship between Jesus Christ and the other angels.

This exercise is not intended to determine who is right or wrong about these verses, but rather how syntactical analysis might work in practice and the difference it could make.

The next entry deals with structural analysis.