1.6 THE PHENOMENON
THE PHENOMENON IN THE NEW TESTAMENT I have discovered 70 plural constructions in the NT which fit the pattern article-noun- kai<-noun17 and 7 other plural constructions which perhaps fit this pattern.18 Of these seven questionable instances, I consider one to be legitimate,19 bringing the total to 71 constructions 17 As noted earlier in the paper, I am restricting my discussion to personal constructions. These constructions are found in the following texts: Matthew 2:4; Matthew 3:7; Matthew 5:6; Matthew 5:20; Matthew 9:11; Matthew 11:28; Matthew 12:38; Matthew 16:1; Matthew 16:6; Matthew 16:11-12; Matthew 16:21; Matthew 20:18; Matthew 21:12; Matthew 21:15; Matthew 26:47; Matthew 27:3; Matthew 27:12; Matthew 27:41; Mark 2:16 (twice); 12: Matthew 15:1; Luke 5:30. 6:35. 7:32- 8:21; 9:22; 11:28; 12.4; 14:3, 21, 15:9, 18.9.
20:46; 22:4, 52; John 1:40 John 7:45; John 11:31; John 11:45; John 20:29 20:29; Acts 15:2; Acts 16:4; Acts 17:12; Acts 23:7; Romans 16:7;
1 Corinthians 5:10; 2 Corinthians 12:21; Galatians 1:7; Ephesians 1:1; Ephesians 2:20; Ephesians 3:5; Ephesians 4:11; Php 3:3; 1 Thessalonians 5:12; 1 Timothy 4:3; 1 Timothy 5:8; 2 Timothy 3:6; Titus 1:15; Hebrews 5:2; 1 Peter 2:18; 2 Peter 2:10; 2 Peter 3:16; 3 John 1:5; Revelation 1:3; Revelation 11:9; Revelation 12:17; Revelation 18:9; Revelation 21:8.
18 See Luke 1:2; Luke 10:30; Acts 8:25; Acts 9:15; Acts 17:18; Colossians 1:2; Hebrews 6:4-6.
19 The one legitimate construction, as I see it, is in Colossians 1:2 (toi?j . . . a[gi<oij kai> pistoi?j a]delfoi?j). Here it is possible to construe a[gi<oij as an attributive adjective modifying a]delfoi?j (with pistoi?j being the second attributive) rather than as a substantival adjective. However, in light of the well worn substantival use of a!gioj in the NT generally (cf., e.g., Acts 9:13; Acts 9:32; Romans 8:27; Romans 12:13; 1 Corinthians 6:1-2; Ephesians 2:19; Ephesians 3:8;
Php 4:22; 1 Timothy 5:10; Hebrews 6:10), in the Pauline salutations more particularly (cf., e.g., Romans 1:7; 1 Corinthians 1:2; 2 Corinthians 1:1; Php 1:1), and in the parallel in Ephesians especially (1:1), a[gi<oij here is probably substantival and, consequently, fitting the article-noun- kai<-noun plural construction. The other constructions, which I do not consider to be legitimate, are: (I) Luke 1:2 (oi[ a]p ] a]rxh?j au]to<ptai kai> u[phre<tai geno<menoi) involves a definite article which functions as a substantiver of the prepositional phrase, though independently of the following nouns; (2) Luke 10:30, cited by Durham ("Sharp’s Rule," p. 34), does not use the article but the personal pronoun oi!; (3) Acts 8:25, cited by Durham (ibid.) and Rider ("The Granville Sharp Phenomenon and Plurals," pp. 71-72), employs the article in the place of a personal pronoun with circumstantial participles (Oi[ me>n . . . diamartura<menoi kai> lalh<santej); (4) in Acts 9:15, manuscripts B and C* add the article (tw?n e]qnw?n te kai> basile<wn ui[w?n te ]Israh<l), but the construction employs as well as kai< for its conjunctions; (5) Acts 17:18, cited by Rider ("The Granville Sharp Phenomenon and Plurals," pp. 51-52), involves two adjectives which are not sub- stantival, but attributive (tw?n ]Epikourei<wn kai> Stwi*kw?n filoso<fwn); (6) Hebrews 6:4-6 involves five substantival participles, but the second member of the group uses te instead of kai< for its conjunction (tou>j . . . fwtisqe<ntaj, geusame<nouj te . . . kai> genhqe<ntaj . . . kai> .. . . geusame<nouj . . . kai> parapeso<ntaj). It should be noted that although this construction does not fit the precise construction discussed in this paper, it is still clearly analogous to it. That is to say, all of the participles must be governed by the article and, consequently, must be substantival Thus the view held by some that the last participle (parapeso<ntaj) is conditional (and therefore circumstantial) flies in the face of clear syntactical usage (cf. J. A. Sproule, "Parapeso<ntaj in Hebrews 6:6,"
GTJ 2 [1981] 327-32).
THE ARTICLE-NOUN-KAI’-NOUN PLURAL CONSTRUCTION 71 which will form the substance of this portion of the paper. With regard to the use of participles, adjectives, and nouns as substantives, the breakdown is as follows: (1) 25 constructions involve participles;20 (2) 6 constructions involve adjectives;21 (3) 17 constructions involve nouns;22 and (4) 23 constructions are mixed.23 Semantic Classifications A well-established principle of lexical and syntactical investiga- tion is to define the actual field of meaning by bringing forth clear instances of a particular word or construction. Then, the ambiguous and/or exegetically significant passages would be expected to fit into one of the previously determined categories. The antecedent proba- bility24 that the ambiguous text will fit into an established category is determined by the total amount of constructions and the percentage of those which are clearly identiftable.25 Thus, for example, if we were unable to find one clear instance in which two nouns in an article- noun- kai<-noun plural construction were identical, we would be on rather shaky ground to demand such an interpretation in Ephesians 4:11 -- especially if such an interpretation were based primarily on the syntax. Our approach here, therefore, will first be to see which of the five antecedently possible categories have valid examples in the NT and second, to discuss some of the ambiguous and exegetically significant examples.
20 See Matthew 5:6; Matthew 11:28; Matthew 21:12; Matthew 21:15; Mark 12:40 Luke 7:32; Luke 8:21; Luke 11:28; Luke 12:4; Luke 18:9; Luke 20:46; John 1:40 John 11:31; John 11:45; John 20:29 20:29; 2 Corinthians 12:21; Galatians 1:7; Php 3:3 (three participles);
1 Thessalonians 5:12 (three participles); 2 Timothy 3:6; Hebrews 5:2; 2 Peter 2:10; Revelation 1:3; Revelation 12:17; Revelation 18:9.
21 See Luke 6:35; Luke 14:21 (four adjectives); Ephesians 1:1; 1 Timothy 5:8; 1 Peter 2:18; 2 Peter 3:16.
22 See Matthew 2:4; Matthew 3:7; Matthew 5:20; Matthew 12:38; Matthew 16:1; Matthew 16:6; Matthew 16:11-12; Matthew 20:18; Luke 22:4; John 7:45; Acts 17:12; Acts 23:7; Ephesians 2:20; Ephesians 3:5; Ephesians 4:11; Revelation 11:9.
23 These may be divided into two groups: mixed constructions with participles and mixed constructions without participles. With participles: 1 Timothy 4:3 (adjective, parti- ciple); Titus 1:15 (participle, adjective); Revelation 21:8 (adjective, adjective, participle, noun, noun, noun, noun). Without participles: Matthew 9:11 (na); 16:21 (ann); 26:47 (na); 27:3 (na), 12 (na), 41 (na); Mark 2:16 (twice--an, na); 15:1 (an); Luke 5:30 (na); 9:22 (ann);
14:3 (an); 15:9 (an); 22:52 (nna); Acts 15:2 (na); 16:4 (na); Romans 16:7 (an); 1 Corinthians 5:10 (na); Colossians 1:2 (an); 3 John 1:5 (na).
24 By "antecedent probability" I mean the probability which has been established by grammar alone--before other exegetical considerations enter the picture.
25 Thus, for example, if there are over 80 article-noun-kai<-noun personal, singular constructions in the NT, and all except the few Christologically significant ones are clear that one person is being identified by the two nouns, then there is an extremely high antecedent probability that in Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:1, et al., the biblical author is referring to one person. Arguments against such a view must be based on other than syntax, yet it is significant that those who do argue against the view usually attempt to use syntax as the primary weapon in their arsenal!
72 GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL Validation of the Semantically Possible Categories Two Entirely Distinct Groups, though United. I have discovered 19 clear examples of this semantic group.26 For example, in Matthew 3:7 we read tw?n Farisai?wn kai> Saddoukai<wn. Although the two reli- gious parties were entirely distinct, the one article unites them in some way. This is the first mention of either Pharisees or Sadducees in Matthew’s gospel, and it may be significant that he presents these two parties which were historically opposed to one another27 as united in their opposition to the Messiah’s forerunner. Matthew mentions the Pharisees and the Sadducees together only four other times in his gospel and in each instance the construction is article- noun-kai<-noun and the two groups are contrasted with the Messiah.28 In Matthew 16:21 we read tw?n presbute<rwn kai> a]rxiere<wn kai> gram- mate<wn. These were the three distinct parties which comprised the Sanhedrin.29 (Some have erroneously insisted that this construction fits the Granville Sharp rule because these three groups all refer to the Sanhedrin. However, to say that A + B + C = D is not the same as saying A = B = C, the latter equation being what the Granville Sharp rule asserts.) This phrase, involving at least two of the three groups, occurs another eight times in the NT.30 Apart from constructions involving the religious parties or groups which comprised the San- hedrin (for at least one of the substantives), there is only one clear example in which the two nouns are entirely distinct. In Acts 17:12 we see "women. . . and men" in the construction (tw?n . . . gunaikw?n . . . kai> a]ndrw?n). Nevertheless, even though the clear examples almost exclusively occur in set phrases, in light of such clear examples of entirely distinct groups united by one article (accounting for 27% of all plural constructions), the dogmatic insistence of many exegetes
26 See Matthew 2:4; Matthew 3:7; Matthew 16:1; Matthew 16:6; Matthew 16:11-12; Matthew 16:21; Matthew 20:18; Matthew 26:47; Matthew 27:3; Matthew 27:12; Matthew 27:41; Mark 15:1; Luke 9:22; Luke 22:4; Luke 22:52; John 7:45; Acts 17:12; Acts 23:7.
27 J. Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969),265- 67. Cf. also E. Schurer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.-A.D. 135), rev. and ed. by G. Vermes, F. Millar, M. Black (Edinburgh:
T. & T. Clark, 1979), 2. 409-11.
28 See Matthew 16:1; Matthew 16:6; Matthew 16:11-12. See also Acts 23:7 for the only other instance of these two groups in this construction.
29 On a]rxiereu<j, see Schrenk, "a]rxireu<j," TDNT, 3. 270-71; Jeremias, Jerusalem, 179-80; Schurer, Jewish People, 2. 212-13; on grammateu<j, see Jeremias, Jerusalem, 236; Schurer, Jewish People, 2. 212-13; on presbu<teroj, see BAGD, s.v. "presbu<teroj,"
2. a. 13.; G. Bomkamm, "presbu<teroj," TDNT, 6. 659; Schurer, Jewish People, 2.212-
13.
30 See Matthew 2:4; Matthew 20:18; Matthew 26:47; Matthew 27:3; Matthew 27:12; Matthew 27:41; Mark 15:1; Luke 9:22. On three other occasions, the chief priests are mentioned with another group(s): Luke 22:4 (toi?j a]rxiereu?sin kai> strathgoi?j); Luke 22:52 (tou?j . . . a]rxierei?j kai> strathgou>j . . . kai> presbute<rouj); John 7:45 (tou>j a]rxierei?j kai> Farisai<ouj).
THE ARTICLE-NOUN-KAI’-NOUN PLURAL CONSTRUCTION 73 that this construction fits the Granville Sharp rule does not seem to be borne out of sober reflection.
Two Overlapping Groups. I have discovered only two clear examples of this semantic group, making it the least attested category. In Luke 14:21 we read tou>j ptwxou>j kai> a]napei<rouj kai> tuflou>j kai> xwlou>j. It must be remembered that although these four adjectives are not synonymous, this does not preclude them from identifying the same group. (Otherwise it would not be possible for a blind man to be poor!) However, it is doubtful that in this parable the slave was told to bring only those who met all four "qualifications"! Rather, the obvious implication is that the new guest list was neither restricted on the one hand to those who fit only one category, nor on the other hand to those who fit all four. Thus an overlap of categories is obviously the nuance intended by the author. In Revelation 21:8, the most complex article-noun-kai<-noun construction in the NT (involving seven substantives: toi?j . . . deiloi?j kai> a[pi<stoij kai> e]bdelugme<noij kai> foneu?sin kai> po<rnoij kai> farma<koij kai> ei]selola<traij), we have a similar situation. Obviously, one would be committing exe- getical and theological suicide to insist that the lake of fire is reserved only for those who meet all of the "qualifications," or for those who meet only one requirement. These two texts, though comprising less than 3% of all the plural constructions, demonstrate the inadequacy of distinguishing only the entirely distinct and the entirely identical nuances for this structural phenomenon.
First Group Sub-Set of Second. I have found seven clear in- stances of this semantic group.31 In Matthew 5:20 (and 12:38) we read tw?n grammate<wn kai> Farisaai<wn. Although not all scribes were Pharisees,32 when the two groups are mentioned together the author is almost certainly indicating "the scribes and other Pharisees.”33 31 See Matthew 5:20; Matthew 9:11; Matthew 12:38; Mark 2:16; Luke 5:30; Luke 6:35; Luke 14:3.
32 See Jeremias, Jerusalem, 233-45, for an excellent argument against the notions that scribes = Pharisees (i.e., identical) and that all scribes were Pharisees (i.e., sub- set).
33 This point can be established in some measure by a comparison of the synoptic gospels. For example, Mark 2:16 has "the scribes of the Pharisees" (oi[ grammatei?j tw?n Farisai<wn) while the parallel passage in Luke 5:30 reads "the Pharisees and their scribes" (oi[ Farisai?oi kai> oi[ grammatei?j au]tw?n). Although the article is used with both nouns in the Lucan account, one could hardly argue that such indicates unity more strongly than the article-noun-kai<-noun construction would. As well, there are three parallels in which the Pharisees alone are mentioned in one gospel and the scribes and Pharisees in another (cf. Matthew 12:38 with Mark 8:11; Matthew 15:1 with Luke 11:37; and Matthew 9:11 with Mark 2:16 and Luke 5:30). Although such evidence does not prove that the scribes in these passages were Pharisees (due to the selectivity of the evangelists--cf., e.g., Matthew 16:6 with Luke 12:2), it is rather suggestive. Further- more, even though Jeremias insists that not all scribes were Pharisees and that not all
74 GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL Matthew 9:11 speaks of "the tax-collectors and sinners" (tw?n telwnw?n kai> a[martwlw?n).34 Although some have argued that two distinct groups are in view (the one Jewish, the other Gentile),35 it is far better to understand the telw<nhj as a Jew36 and a[martwlo<j as any sinner, Jew or Gentile.37 The impossibility of maintaining an absolute dis- tinction between the two is demonstrated in Luke 18:13 in which a tax-collector (telw<nhj) prays, "0 God, be merciful to me, the sinner"
(o[ qeo<j, i[la<sqhti< moi t&? a[martwl&?). In Luke 14:3 we see tou>j nomikou>j kai> Farisai<ouj.38 The substantival adjective nomiko<j is clearly synonymous with grammateu<j;39 thus the construction has the same semantic value as tou>j grammatei?j kai> Farisai<ouj. Finally, note the substantival adjectives in Luke 6:35 (tou>j a]xari<stouj kai> ponhrou<j). Quite obviously, ingratitude is a kind of evil; thus the ungrateful ones are a part of the larger group of evil ones. In summary, although the clear examples of this semantic category comprise only 10% of all plural constructions, it is a legitimate and well-attested category which will demand consideration in at least five exegetically significant and/or ambiguous passages.
Second Group Sub-Set of First. I have discovered four clear examples of this semantic category. In Mark 2:16 we read of both "the tax-collectors and sinners" (first sub-set of second) and "the sinners and tax-collectors" (tw?n a[martwlw?n kai> telwnw?n). However, there is some substantial textual deviation from the word order of this phrase, with x, A, C, families 1 and 13, and the Byzantine cursives, et al., reading tw?n telwnw?n kai> a[martwlw?n. In 1 Corinthians 5:10 we see toi?j pleone<ktaij kai> a!rpacin. Although one could be greedy (pleone<kthj) without being branded as a swindler (a!rpac), it is doubtful that the reverse could be true. What alters the picture, Pharisees were scribes (Jerusalem, 233-45), he nevertheless recognizes that most scribes were Pharisees (p. 243) and that "This expression [’the scribes and Pharisees’] shows that besides the leaders who were scribes, the great majority of members had not had a scribal education" (p. 258). The joining of the two nouns, then (whether with one article or two), is clearly used to indicate Pharisaic scribes and other Pharisees.
34 Cf. Mark 2:16 and Luke 5:30 for parallel accounts, both of which have the same construction as is found in Matthew 9:11.
35 See, e.g., G. W. Rider, "The Granville Sharp Phenomenon and Plurals," 42-44.
36 See BAGD, S.v. "’telw<nhj."
37 See BAGD, S.v. "a[martwlo<j" 2. That a[martwlo<j was applied both to Jew and Gentile can be easily substantiated. With reference to Gentiles, cf., e.g., Matthew 26:45 with Luke 18:32. With reference to both, cf., e.g., Matthew 9:13. With reference to Jews, cf., e.g., Luke 7:37 with John 12:3; Luke 13:1.
38 See Mark 2:16 and Luke 5:30 for the other two examples of this particular phrase.
39 Note the parallels: Matthew 22:35 (nomiko<j) with Mark 12:28 (ei$j tw?n grammate<wn);
Matthew 23:13 (grammatei?j) with Luke 11:52 (nomikoi?j) and 11:53 (oi[ grammatei?j).
Cf. also the comments by Gutbrod, TDNT, 4. 1088, and Jeremias, Jerusalem, 254-55.
THE ARTICLE-NOUN-KAI’-NOUN PLURAL CONSTRUCTION 75 however, is that h@ is found instead of kai< in P46, x2, D2, Y, and the Byzantine minuscules, et al., nullifying the construction in a large portion of the Greek witnesses to this text. In 1 Timothy 5:8 Paul adds an adverb to clarify the relation between the two substantives (tw?n i]di<wn kai> ma<lista oi]kei<wn), though again the MSS are divided with C, D1, and the Byzantine cursives containing a second article (thus, tw?n i]di<wn kai> ma<lista tw?n oi]kei<wn. Finally, in 3 John 1:5 we read ei]j tw?n a]delfou>j kai> tou?to ce<nouj. Here kai> tou?to functions adverbially, having a similar force to kai> ma<lista in 1 Timothy 5:8.40 But the construction (as we might have expected!) is altered in some of the witnesses (in particular, P and the Byzantine cursives which have ei]j tou>j instead of tou?to). Thus, although there are four clear passages in this semantic group (comprising almost 6% of all the plural constructions), their testimony in each instance is rendered somewhat less certain due to the textual variants. One might wonder, with some justification, whether the "preferred" readings have created an idiom which is foreign to the NT while these variae lectiones have preserved the true text.41 Two Groups Identical. I have discovered 28 clear examples of this semantic group.42 In Revelation 1:3 we read that "those who hear and who keep" (oi[ a]kou<ontej . . . kai> throu?ntej) the words of the prophecy are blessed. It would seem obvious that the one who only hears the Scripture read and does not obey it would fall short of the blessing.43 The two-fold response of hearing and keeping is necessary if one is to be counted among the maka<rioi. In John 1:40 we read of Andrew who was one of the two men who heard John and who began to follow the Lord (tw?n a]kousa<ntwn . . . kai> a]kolouqhsa<ntwn). If only two men are mentioned (du<o) and the participles are in the plural, then both must have heard and followed. In John 20:29 the Lord promises a particular blessing to "those who do not see and [yet] believe" (oi[ mh> i]do<ntej kai> pisteu<santej). The negative qualifi- cation of not seeing the risen Lord is, of course, insufficient of itself 40 See BAGD, s.v. "ou$toj," I. b. y. Romans 13:11; l Cor 6:6,8; and Ephesians 2:8 are cited as illustrative references.
41 It might be significant that the Byzantine minuscules were the only MSS to deviate in all instances. The possible significance is certainly worth pursuing, though it is beyond the scope of this paper.
42 See Matthew 5:6; Matthew 11:28; Matthew 21:15; Mark 12:40 Luke 7:32; Luke 8:21; Luke 11:28; Luke 12:4; Luke 18:9; Luke 20:46;
John 1:40 John 11:31; John 11:45; John 20:29 20:29; Romans 16:7; 2 Corinthians 12:21; Galatians 1:7; Ephesians 1:1; Php 3:3; Col l:2;
1 Thessalonians 5:12; 2 Timothy 3:6; Titus 1:15; 1 Peter 2:18; 2 Peter 2:10; Revelation 1:3; Revelation 12:17; Revelation 18:9.
43 Such a conclusion is so obvious in fact that most commentaries on the Apoca- lypse assume it to be true without any grammatical defense. Furthermore, if John were to pronounce a blessing on mere hearers, he would be contradicting James’ pointed remark that the man who simply hears is self-deluded (James 1:22). Both James and John are no doubt repeating their Lord’s statements to the same effect (cf. Luke 8:21; Luke 11:28).
76 GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL to procure such a blessing. What we have seen thus far are a few examples of this semantic group which involve only participles.
Altogether, 23 of the 28 constructions belonging to this category involve only participles.44 The participial constructions are in fact so transparent in their semantic force that Rider believes that every exclusively participial construction belongs to this semantic group,45 even though he does not see any clear examples of identity in non- participial constructions.46 Although some adjustment should be made to Rider’s view, it is an indisputed and rather significant fact that most (if not all) of the wholly participial constructions do follow the semantics of the Granville Sharp rule and that this final semantic category is comprised of an overwhelming majority of participial constructions.
However, although the participles hold a clear majority in this group, they are not the only grammatical forms an author could have selected to indicate identity between the two substantives. I have discovered five clear instances of non-participial or partially par- ticipial constructions which belong here as well. In Romans 16:7 Paul greets Andronicus and Junius, "my kinsmen and my fellow-prisoners"
(tou>j suggenei?j mou kai> sunaixmalw<touj mou). Here the substantival adjective suggenei?j and noun sunaixmalw<touj must, of course, both refer to the two men. Two Alexandrian MSS (P46 and B) add an article to the noun, however. In Ephesians 1:1 Paul addresses his letter "to the saints who are in Ephesus and [who are] faithful in Christ Jesus"
(toi?j a[gi<oij toi?j ou#sin e]n ]Efe<s& kai> pistoi?j e]n Xrist&? ]Ihsou?).
Although there are textual variants from this text, none affects the article-noun-kai<-noun construction. In light of Pauline theology, it is rather doubtful that he would be specifying two groups which could be distinguished in any way. If one were either to see the two groups as entirely distinct, as overlapping, or the first as a sub-set of the second, the resultant idea would be that at least some of the faithful in Christ Jesus were not saints!47 And the second group could hardly be viewed as a sub-set of the first because (1) syntactically and textually, this would be the lone NT instance which did not have a
44 See Matthew 5:6; Matthew 11:28; Matthew 21:15; Mark 12:40 Luke 1:32; Luke 8:21; Luke 11:28; Luke 12:4; Luke 18:9; Luke 20:46;
John 1:40 John 11:31; John 11:45; John 20:29 20:29; 2 Corinthians 12:21; Galatians 1:1; Php 3:3; 1 Thessalonians 5:12; 2 Timothy 3:6;
2 Peter 2:10; Revelation 1:3; Revelation 12:11; Revelation 18:9.
45 G. W. Rider, "The Granville Sharp Phenomenon and Plurals," 66.
46 Ibid., 11-18.
47 Though such a concept might fit the Roman doctrine of sainthood, it is not Pauline, for even the licentious Corinthians were called saints (1 Corinthians 1:2). The term can obviously be used of positional truth, which, if it speaks of merit, speaks only of the merit of Christ.
THE ARTICLE-NOUN-KAI’-NOUN PLURAL CONSTRUCTION 77 textual variant;48 (2) theologically, such a view would seem to restrict the Pauline doctrine of perseverance to less than all the elect; and (3) lexically, the route normally taken by those who deny a perseverance of all the elect is to read pistoi?j actively as "believing" and still to see identity of the two substantives.49 Thus, barring exegetical factors which may have been overlooked, there seems to be no good reason not to take the two adjectives as referring to the same group. Since this is so, with reasonable confidence we can say with Barth that It is unlikely that Paul wanted to distinguish two classes among the Christians, i.e. a "faithful" group from another larger or smaller group that is "holy." Such a distinction would be unparalleled in the Pauline letters. Even the wild Corinthians are called "sanctified" and "perfect"
(1 Corinthians 1:2; 1 Corinthians 2:6). While occasionally Paul presupposes a sharp division between "those outside" and "those inside," between "the unbelieving" and "the faithful," he has no room for half- or three-quarter Christians.
It is probable that here the Greek conjunction "and" has the meaning of "namely." It serves the purpose of explication and may therefore occasionally be omitted in translation if its intent is preserved.50 In Colossians 1:2 we see almost the same wording as in Ephesians 1:1 (toi?j e]n Kolossai?j a[gi<oij kai> pistoi?j a]delfoi?j e]n Xrist&?).51 Thus the arguments which were brought forth for the Ephesian text would be equally applicable to the construction in this sister epistle. In Titus 1:15 the apostle speaks of “those who are defiled and unbelieving"
(toi?j de> memiamme<noij kai> a]pi<stoij--a mixed construction of parti- ciple and adjective). He seems to be clarifying just who the defiled are with the adjective a]pi<stoij, thus identifying them, in a sense, as "filthy non-Christians." Paul continues to describe this group in v 16 with epithets which could hardly describe believers (bdeluktoi<, a]peiqei?j, a]do<kimoi, ktl.).52 Finally, Peter declares in his first epistle that servants should submit themselves to their masters, not only "to the good and gentle" (toi?j a]gaqoi?j kai> e]pieike<sin) but also to the harsh (1 Peter 2:18). There is an obvious contrast here between two 48 Admittedly, this is not the strongest argument against such a view, though it does bear some weight. Furthermore, even ignoring the variae lectiones, this category is not as well attested as all but one of the other groups, rendering it less likely as the correct view without a strong helping hand from non-grammatical factors.
49 See, e.g., W. Hendriksen, Exposition of Ephesians (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1967),
70.
50 M. Barth, Ephesians (AB; Garden City: Doubleday, 1974), 1. 68.
51 See n. 19 for a discussion of the legitimacy of this construction.
52 Even if one were to argue that the persons identified in v 15 were believers (taking a]pistoij in the sense of ’unfaithful’), he would still see one group being specified in the construction.
78 GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL classes of masters (note ou] mo<non . . . a]lla> kai>), with the result being that to posit any semantic nuance other than identity for the article- noun-kai<-noun construction would destroy the clearly intended antithetic parallel. To sum up, the identical category has captured almost % of all the plural constructions in the NT. Over 82% of the constructions in this group involve participles exclusively. And although the identical category is the largest semantic group, it is weakly attested by non- participial constructions (only four belonging to this category, none of which is composed only of nouns).
Summary. Overall, 60 of the 71 article-noun-kai<-noun construc- tions could be clearly tagged as to their semantic nuance (thus almost 85% percent were identifiable). With reference to these clear con- structions, the breakdown is as follows:
Distinct 27% of total; 32% of clearly marked constructionsOverlap roughly 3% of both First sub-set 10% and 12% Second sub-set 6% and 7% Identical Matthew% and 47% Although all five semantic groups were represented, certain patterns emerged which will certainly color our approach to the remaining eleven texts. We will break these down first by semantic groups and then by types of substantives. With reference to the "distinct" category, we noted that although this is the second largest category, all but one of the instances occurred in a particular set phrase. As well, not one of the construc- tions involved participles. Concerning the "overlap" group, we saw that this is the smallest category (two examples). Furthermore, both examples were the most complex constructions in the NT (Luke 14:21 has four substantives and Revelation 21:8 has seven). With reference to the "first sub-set of second" category, we found that this was well attested among adjective and noun constructions, though not at all found in participial constructions. With respect to the "second sub-set of first" group, we discovered four clear examples, though each one had fairly substantial textual deviations, making this nuance of the construction non-existent among the Byzantine MSS with various other witnesses departing from the "text" reading on each occasion as well. Finally, regarding the "identical" group, we observed that this, the largest of the semantic categories, captured all 23 of the wholly participial constructions (which could be clearly identified), five constructions involving at least one adjective, and no constructions made up exclusively of nouns.
THE ARTICLE-NOUN-KAI’-NOUN PLURAL CONSTRUCTION 79 The types of substantives involved are laid out in Chart 6:
Chart 6 Distinct Overlap 1st Sub- 2nd Sub- Identical Totals set of 2nd set of 1st
Noun +
Noun 11 2 13
Adjective +
Adjective 1 1 1 2 5
Participle +
Participle 23 23
Mixed: Non-
Participial 8 4 3 2 17
Mixed: With
Participle 1 1 2
Totals 19 2 7 4 28 60 In conclusion, such dead statistics as these, when properly used, can themselves impart life to the interpretive possibilities one might see for a given text. The very fact that all five semantic categories have at least some clear examples clarifies and expands our syntac- tical options for the ambiguous passages. A word of caution is in order, however. We have no desire to put the Scriptures into a straitjacket by telling an author what he must mean by a particular construction. Dead statistics, unfortunately, are too often employed this way by well-meaning expositors. We must keep in mind that as interpreters of Holy Writ, the apostles are teaching us--not vice versa! But in seeking to understand these authors, we attempt to discover the boundaries of what they can mean by investigating the idioms of their language. (Grammar, then, used correctly, is descrip- tive rather than prescriptive.) Therefore, with reference to the article- noun-kai<-noun construction, the patterns we have seen certainly give us initial direction as to the proper interpretation of a passage; but such leanings can be swayed by other exegetical factors. After all, we are speaking about probabilities and tendencies, not certainties, and about grammar alone, not the whole of exegesis.
80 GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL Ambiguous and Exegetically Significant Texts Altogether, there are eleven passages which fit the "ambiguous" category,53 four of which also have some particular significance exegetically.54 We will briefly examine the seven ambiguous examples whose exegetical significance is minimal, then the four more signifi- cant passages.55 Ambiguous Passages. In seven instances I could not make a positive identification of the semantics involved in the article-noun- kai<-noun plural construction. In Matthew 21:12 we read of our Lord entering the temple precincts and driving out "those buying and selling in the temple" (tou>j pwlou?ntaj kai> a]gora<zontaj e]n t&? i[er&?). On the surface, we have two distinct groups united by one article.
However, in light of the heretofore unanimous grouping of wholly participial constructions in the "identical" category, a hearing at least ought to be given to such a possibility in this text.56 In Luke 15:9 we read of "friends and neighbors" (ta>j fi<laj kai> gei<tonaj). There is some question as to whether gei<tonaj is feminine or masculine in form (if the latter, it would still include the female ’neighbors’). More than likely, it is to be taken as feminine. Nevertheless, due to the field of meaning of fi<loj57 as well as contextual58 and other factors,59 it is difficult to come down from the fence for any view dogmatically.
Acts 15:2 (= 16:4) speaks of the apostles and elders (tou>j a]posto<louj kai> presbute<rouj). Although a]posto<louj here seems to be used in its technical sense, it could be argued that all the apostles were elders,
53 See Matthew 21:12; Luke 15:9; Acts 15:2; Acts 16:4; Ephesians 2:20; Ephesians 3:5; Ephesians 4:11; 1 Timothy 4:3; Hebrews 5:2; 2 Peter 3:16; Revelation 11:9.
54 See Ephesians 2:20; Ephesians 3:5; Ephesians 4:11; Hebrews 5:2.
55 Obviously, to decide what is and what is not significant is a most subjective endeavor. The basic criterion I have followed in this selection is in two directions- theological and practical. Thus the four passages chosen for the "exegetically signifi- cant" category deal with dispensationalism (Ephesians 2:20; Ephesians 3:5), soteriology and hamar- tiology (Hebrews 5:2), and ecclesiology (Ephesians 4:11). All of these texts make a significant contribution to our understanding of such doctrines and each one, therefore, has practical ramifications as well.
56 Jeremias suggests that this phrase ("those who bought and those who sold ") "may well have meant cattle dealers (John 2:14)" (Jerusalem, 49). It is quite possible that the ’buyers’ were not the pilgrims who came to Jerusalem, but were the same as the sellers; the tenor of the passage certainly does not seem to indicate that the common people were among those booted out of the temple area.
57 See Stahlin, "fi<loj," TDNT, 9. 154.
58 Cf. Luke 14:12; Luke 15:6.
59 The parallels in 3 Macc 3:10 and Josephus, Ant 18.376, suggest a set phrase, the semantics of which are still elusive. As well, the addition of a second article (ta>j) by A, W, Y, families 1 and 13, and the Byzantine MSS casts doubt on the authenticity of the construction.
THE ARTICLE-NOUN-KAI’-NOUN PLURAL CONSTRUCTION 81 though not all the elders were apostles.60 Such a suggestion, however, is based partially on certain ecclesiological beliefs which are beyond the scope of this paper. In 1 Timothy 4:3 the apostle Paul speaks of "those who believe61 and know the truth" (toi?j pistoi?j kai> e]pegnwko<si th>n a]lh<qeian). Whatever the truth is here, it would seem impossible to believe it unless one knows it. Questions concerning whether this text is speaking about salvation or a specific situation, and the type of knowledge in view here leave us with two viable options: (1) the first group is a part of the second, or (2) the two are identical. Without further investigation into these questions, we cannot be dogmatic for either position. In 2 Peter 3:16, the apostle gives us his assessment of those who distort Paul’s letters: they are ignorant/untaught and unstable (oi[ a]maqei?j kai> a]sth<riktoi). Apparently both terms refer to unbelievers,62 though the relation of the two groups is ambiguous due to insufficient lexical and contextual data in the NT. Finally, in Revelation 11:9 John describes those who observe the corpses of the two witnesses as "from the peoples and tribes and tongues and nations"
(e]k tw?n law?n kai> fulw?n kai> glwssw?n kai> e]qnw?n). Although it is apparent that "The multitude is composed of those who are con- nected racially, those who are connected linguistically and those who are connected by customs and laws",63 this does not entirely solve the problem of identification. If lao<j could be construed to be lexically a part of fulh<, then we might have each term being a sub-set of the term which follows it. But since this is doubtful, it may be best to view each category as overlapping somewhat with the others, resulting in one grand hendiadys for ’the world.’ In comparing the plausible semantics of these seven ambiguous passages with the clearly tagged passages, certain observations can be made. First, in both clear and ambiguous texts, there were no noun + noun constructions belonging to the "identical" category. Second, only in Matthew 21:12 did we see a wholly participial construction as possibly fitting other than the "identical" category. Third, among the ambiguous texts the "first sub-set of second" category was plausible in all but two instances. These ambiguous passages, then, tend to confirm the patterns discovered for the clearly tagged texts and Song of Solomon 60 0 n the one hand, in Acts 15:4; Acts 15:6; Acts 15:22; Acts 23:1-35 the nouns are separated by an additional article before ’elders,’ suggesting that an exact equation is probably not in view. On the other hand, John calls himself o[ presbu<teroj in 2 John I and 3 John I, though the precise connotation remains in doubt (see BAGD, S.v. "presbu<teroj,"
2. b. b.). Cf. also 1 Peter 5:1.
61 BAGD, S.v. "pisto<j," 2.
62 This seems evident from the results predicated of them later in the verse: a]pw<leian.
63 Rider, "The Granville Sharp Phenomenon and Plurals," 52-53.
82 GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL help us in determining, at least antecedently, the meaning of the remaining four texts.
Exegetically Significant Passages. Four ambiguous passages car- ried particular exegetical significance (Ephesians 2:20; Ephesians 3:5; Ephesians 4:11; Hebrews 5:2). In Ephesians 2:20 Paul declares that the church is built upon the founda- tion of the apostles and prophets (tw?n a]posto<lwn kai> profhtw?n). If these prophets are OT prophets, as some have affirmed,64 Paul may be saying that the church was prophesied in the OT. Since the construction is noun + noun, such a possibility has some syntactical support. However, Paul uses the same construction just a few verses later, in 3:5 (toi?j a[gi<oij a]posto<loij au]tou? kai> profh<taij), indi- cating that the same men are in mind. There he clearly puts the prophets in the present dispensation.65 On the other hand, to see the apostles and prophets as identical should also be suspect: (1) this would be the only noun + noun construction which fits the identical category, and (2) in 4:11 Paul separates the two groups (notice especially the me>n . . . de> construction). What is the relation of apostles to prophets, then? In all probability, the first is a part of the second; that is, we should understand Ephesians 2:20; Ephesians 3:5 to be referring to the apostles and other NT prophets.66 In Hebrews 5:2 we are told that the high priest was able to deal gently with those who were ignorant and were going astray (toi?j a]gnou?sin kai> planwme<noij). Since two participles are used in the construction, the antecedent probability is that one group is in mind. Hughes writes that "The perversity of the human heart is such that, even if it should be possible for a person to be free from sins of waywardness, yet no man can claim to be free from sins of ignorance or inadvertency [italics added].”67 Although the terms are not identical, they may be referring to different attributes of the same group. In the least, since 64 See in particular I. J. Habeck, "Who Are the Prophets of Ephesians 2:20?"
Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly 71 (1974) 121-25.
65 This assertion does not have to rest on the view that roc; in 3:5 makes a comparison of kind rather than of degree (though I believe this to be the case; cf. Colossians 1:26), for the prophets are recipients of the revelation made ’now’ (nu?n a]pekalu<fqh).
66 There are solid grounds for this view biblico-theologically as well as semanti- cally. Habeck dismisses this view because the term prophet is not used of any of the apostles (Habeck, "Ephesians 2:20," 121), but he errs in making a conceptual-lexical equation. As David Hill ably points out, our concept of NT prophecy must not be restricted to the profht- word-group (David Hill, New Testament Prophecy [Atlanta:
John Knox, 1979], 2-3). Certainly we cannot deny that Paul or John or Peter prophesied!
67 P. E. Hughes, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1977), 178.
THE ARTICLE-NOUN-KAI’-NOUN PLURAL CONSTRUCTION 83 these sins were forgivable, the deliberate sins of 10:26 do not include being led astray (planw<menoj).68 Finally, we turn to the text which occupied us initially: Ephesians 4:11.
There the apostle enumerates the gifted leadership of the church, concluding his list with "the pastors and teachers" (tou>j de> poime<naj kai> didaska<louj). Although most commentaries consider the two terms to refer to one group,69 we must emphatically insist that such a view has no grammatical basis, even though the writers who maintain this view almost unanimously rest their case on the supposed semantics of the article-noun-kai<-noun construction.70 Yet, as we have seen, there are no other examples in the NT of this construction with nouns in the plural, either clearly tagged or ambiguous, which allow for such a possibility. One would, therefore, be on rather shaky ground to insist on such a nuance here--especially if the main weapon in his arsenal is syntax! On the other hand, the insistence of some that the two are entirely distinct is usually based on the same narrow view of the semantic range of this construction (i.e., only the two categories of absolute identity and absolute distinction are normally considered).
What is the relation of pastors to teachers, then? It must be readily admitted that the uniting of these two groups by one article sets them apart from the other gifted men. Absolute distinction, then, is probably not in view. In light of the fact that elders and pastors had similar functions in the NT,71 since elders were to be teachers,72 the pastors were also to be teachers. Conversely, not all teachers were said to be pastors.73 This evidence seems to suggest that the poime<naj were a part of the didaska<louj in Ephesians 4:11. This possibility is in keeping with the semantics of the construction, for the "first sub-set of the second" category is well attested in both the clear and ambiguous texts in the NT. Although one cannot be dogmatic, there is a high probability that, according to Ephesians 4:11, all pastors are to be teachers, though not all teachers are to be pastors.