013
Syntax—the way words are put together to express meaning—is essential to the study of an author’s thought patterns. And it is here that Greek has an especially useful role to play in New Testament study. Flow of thought cannot be determined by the structure in English, not even in a literal translation. Moreover, syntactical problems frequently arise even in the original Greek, and such problems are rarely apparent in translation. For these reasons, a knowledge of Greek, although important in lexical analysis (see Greek for Bible Readers, BR 07:05 and Greek for Bible Readers, BR 07:06), is essential in syntactical analysis.
The Greek text of the New Testament offers numerous examples of syntactical analysis at work. Frequently the tense of a Greek verb affects its meaning. For example, when we read in 1 Corinthians 15:3–4 that Christ “died,” “was buried,” “has been raised” and “was seen,” we discover a dimension of the Gospel story that is basic to all New Testament preaching but buried in most translations. The Greek reads: Cristo;~ ajpevqanen … ejtavfh … ejghvgertai … w[fqh (Christos apethanen … etapheµ … egeµgertai … oµphtheµ, “Christ died … was buried … has been raised … was seen”). “Has been raised” translates a Greek perfect tense verb (ejghvgertai), a form that accentuates the continuing consequences of a completed action. Paul uses this tense to emphasize the permanence of Christ’s resurrection in contrast to the temporary nature of his death, burial and appearances.
The imperfect tense, which emphasizes continuous action in past time, can also be significant. The use of imperfect tense in Luke 23:34, oJ ÆIhsouß~ e[legen (ho leµsous elegen, “Jesus was saying”) rather than oJ ÆIhsouß~ eipen (ho leµsous eipen, “Jesus said”) suggests that Jesus kept pleading, over and over, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they are doing.” Similarly, the use of the imperfect tense in Matthew 27:30 (“And they … took the reed and struck him on the head”) indicates that the Roman soldiers beat Jesus over the head “again and again.”
Frequently the difference between a singular and a plural construction is important for interpretation. To illustrate the point, o{tan proseuvcesqe (hotan proseuchestheµ, “When you pray” Matthew 6:5) is plural, but o{tan proseuvchó (hotan proseucheµ, “When you pray”; Matthew 6:6) is singular, showing how Jesus is bringing his lesson home by making it personal. This interchange between singular and plural is masked in the English versions.
Occasionally New Testament sermons or Bible lessons can be rooted in Greek syntax. For example, in his message on Ephesians 5:18 (“And do not get drunk with wine, … but be filled with the Spirit”)1 W. A Criswell begins with a word study of the verb plhrovw (pleµrooµ, “to fill”) and then derives the body of his sermon from the syntactical nuances of the form plhroußsqe (pleµroustheµ, “be filled”): (1) God commands believers to be filled with the Spirit (the verb is in the imperative, or command, mood); (2) this filling is a repeated experience (the verb is in the present tense, which in this context emphasizes continuous action); (3) believers must yield themselves to the filling of the Spirit (the verb is in the passive voice, in which the subject receives the action of the verb). Like the steel rods embedded within concrete, Greek syntax has laid a firm foundation in this sermon.
Word order is yet another important aspect of syntactical analysis. For instance, in Romans 12:1 (“I appeal to you therefore … to present your bodies qusivan zwßsan aJgivan eujavreston to God”), the three adjectives zwßsan (zoµsan, “living”), aJgivan (hagian, “holy”), and eujavreston (euareston, “acceptable”) all follow the noun qusivan (thusian, “sacrifice”). Most English translations, however, give undue emphasis to zwßsan (zoµsan) by translating it before the noun qusivan (thusian); for example, the NRSV translates: “a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God.” Actually, Paul’s point is not that the sacrifice must be alive (animal victims were always alive when offered), but that the believer’s relationship to God involves a completely new way of living characterized by “newness of life,” as Paul had earlier reminded his readers (Romans 6:4). Hence, a more accurate translation would be: “to present your bodies as a sacrifice that is alive, holy, and acceptable to God.”
These examples show the relevance of syntactical analysis to the study of the New Testament.2
Greek syntax is not more “advanced” than that of other languages, since virtually anything said in one language can be said in another. However, not everything can be said with equal facility in every language. Greek, for example, has a wealth of syntactical options compared with the relatively fewer options available in Hebrew. Just as the seven or eight words for “snow” in certain Eskimo languages invite the speaker to be precise when speaking about snow, so the speaker of Greek was faced with significant options when specifying logical, causal, sequential and other similar syntactical relations. (This does not mean, of course, that Greek is superior to Hebrew, or that Hebrew cannot employ complex syntax—a point my fellow columnist is sure to discuss in the future!)
Once we have reached a decision about the syntax of the passage under study, another set of questions arises that has to do with the text’s larger composition. This brings us to the topic of structural analysis. While syntax is concerned with the meaning of words in their combination with other words, structural analysis is concerned with the way clauses and larger thought units are placed in relation with each other. The study of structure is an indispensable component of exegesis, since it is difficult to know what anything means until one has decided in a sense what everything means. In our next column we will discuss structural analysis and attempt to show its relevance for New Testament interpretation.
Syntax—the way words are put together to express meaning—is essential to the study of an author’s thought patterns. And it is here that Greek has an especially useful role to play in New Testament study. Flow of thought cannot be determined by the structure in English, not even in a literal translation. Moreover, syntactical problems frequently arise even in the original Greek, and such problems are rarely apparent in translation. For these reasons, a knowledge of Greek, although important in lexical analysis (see Greek for Bible Readers, BR 07:05 and Greek for Bible Readers, BR 07:06), is essential in […]
