[B-Greek] Wallace's "rule" for PAS.-noun-adj. construction in an equative clause
Leonard Jayawardena
leonardj at sltnet.lk
Sun Oct 8 22:33:26 EDT 2006
In a note on QEOPNEUSTOS in his Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, D. B. Wallace proposes the following "rule" for an equative clause having a PAS-noun-adjective construction: "In [PAS] + noun + adjective constructions in equative clauses the [PAS] being by nature as definite as the article, implies the article, thus making the adjective(s) following the noun outside the implied article-noun group and, therefore, predicate." I think this "rule" is wrong for the reason I have explained below and would like to know what others think.
Wallace has a lengthier discussion on this point in his article "The Relation of qeovpneusto" to grafhv in 2 Timothy 3:16" (www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1480). He had searched for the PAS-noun-adjective structure in equative clauses in NT and extra-NT Greek texts and the following are the results:
1.. in certain representative portions from certain Greek classical writers he had examined, he had found one line of text yielding a parallel to the structure in 2 Timothy 3:16 in an equative clause: Herodotus 1:6, PANTES hELLHNES HSAN ELEUQEROI, where the pronominal adjective is attributive while the second adjective (ELEUQEROI) is predicative.
2.. He had found thirty-six PAS-noun-adjective constructions in equative clauses in the LXX, in thirty-five instances of which the adjective following PAS was attributive and the adjective(s) following the noun was/were predicate, e.g. Genesis 46:25 (PASAI YUCAI HEPTA). One, PANTES SOMATA NEKRA in 2 Kings 19:35, had contained an ambiguity in the sense that it was questionable as to which adjective was attributive and which was predicate. His other parallels are Genesis 46:22, 26, 27; Exodus 1;5; Leviticus 6:23 (6); 11:32, 34 (bis); 13:58; 15:4 (bis), 9, 17, 24, 26; 17:15; 27:11, 28; Numbers 3:28, 34, 39; Joshua 21:26; Judges 20:17; 1 Samuel 11:8; 1 Chronicles 2:4; 21:5; Proverbs 3:15; 8:1; 21:2; Jeremiah 9:26; Ezekiel 29:18; Zechariah 14:21; Sirach 23:17; and 3 Maccabees 3:29.
3.. In the NT, Luke 2:23 (PAN ARSEN ... hAGION ... KLHQHSETAI), PAN, the pronominal adjective, is attributive and the following adjective (hAGION) is predicative. In James 1:19 (ESTW DE PAS ANQRWPOS TACUS ... BRADUS ... BRADUS), the pronominal adjective is attributive and the following adjectives are predicative. Regarding James 4:16 (PASA KAUCHSIS TOIAUTH), he says, "This is the first clear instance in either the NT or extra-NT literature which we have examined in which both the preceding and trailing adjectives are attributive." In 1 Timothy 4:4, he sees the closest NT parallel to 2 Timothy 3:16: PAN KTISMA QEOU KALON KAI OUDEN .... Here PAN is attributive and KALON is predicative. He makes the following debatable statement: "There is the further parallel in that the second adjective is joined by [KAI] to the word in the predicate, [OUDEN]. It might be objected that [OUDEN] here is used substantivally and therefore does not afford an exact parallel with 2 Tim. 3:16. However, the parallel is not at all diminished for [WFELIMOS] in 2 Tim. 3:16, as [OUDEN] here, could grammatically stand in the predicate alone."
In a footnote he makes the following admission:
One should not be under the delusion that this 'rule' is absolute. As we have already pointed out, there may be exceptions to it within the NT itself (Jas 1:17; 4:16). And I am sure that exceptions from extra-biblical Greek may well be produced. (Indeed, since the writing of this paper, I have found one clear exception to this principle. In Didache 13:1, we read that "Every true prophet ... is worthy of his food" [PAS DE PROFHTHS ALHQINOS ... AXIOS ESTI THS TROFHS AUTOU]. Here, [ALHQINOS] is attributive even though the clause is equative.) After all, a database of about fifty examples is simply too small a foundation from which to build a dogmatic superstructure. [He admits to finding another unspecified "exception" in Josephus in Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics.]
Wallace's argument seems impressive, even compelling, until you realize that there is a fundamental flaw in his method: His "rule" is based on equative clauses having only one attributive adjective: PAS. There is some circular reasoning involved. He argues that, in all his "parallels" to 2 Timothy 3:16 in equative clauses, the second adjective is predicative; therefore in the verse in question the second adjective (QEOPNEUSTOS), too, must be predicative by rule. The point he misses is the fact that in all of his "parallels" the second adjective (plus any additional adjectives) is predicative because the writer intended to put only one attributive adjective in the clause, which makes the second adjective (plus any further adjectives) necessarily predicative! A more correct method would have been to set out to discover the construction of PAS, the noun and the adjective in equative clauses known to have a second attributive adjective and then compare it with the construction in non-equative clauses (in which the second adjective following the noun is attributive, e.g. PAN DENDRON AGAQON in Matthew 7:17), and with the construction in 2 Timothy 3:16. He does not indicate what structure he expects in an equative clause in which, in addition to PAS, there is a second attributive adjective. If, for example, instead of just "every creature of God is good" in 1 Timothy 4:4, Paul had wanted to say, "every holy creature of God is good" (two attributive adjectives), how should he have said it in Greek? A possible answer, going by Wallace's "rule," would be PAN AXION KTISMA QEOU KALON, where AXION is inside the "implied article-noun group." But Didache 13:1; James 1:17; and 4:16 demonstrate that when a second attributive adjective is added to a PAS-noun phrase in an equative clause, the construction can be the same as in a non-equative clause, and the second adjective can be outside Wallace's "implied article-noun group." What his searches have revealed is the fact the same PAS-noun-adjective construction can have the identical function semantically in both a non-equative and an equative clause. The above three verses became "exceptions" only because of Wallace's non-existent, and may I add, self-serving "rule"! In reality his "exceptions" are the only three cases encountered in his searches where an equative clause has a second attributive adjective. There is also no logical reason why a PAS-noun phrase in an equative clause should syntactically behave differently from that in a non-equative clause.
Leonard Jayawardena
Colombo, Sri Lanka
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list