[B-Greek] Wallace's "rule" for PAS.-noun-adj. construction inan equative clause

Leonard Jayawardena leonardj at sltnet.lk
Tue Oct 10 08:01:26 EDT 2006


On Oct 8, 2006, at 7:33 PM, Leonard Jayawardena wrote:

> 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."


Leonard,

It is difficult to interact with Wallace (the book) since he appears
to be working within no readily identifiable linguistic framework.
For that reason this rule appears, to me at least, to be an adhoc
musing of someone who knows the language quite well but has an
unstructured "creative" approach to dealing with syntax.

What about the leading statement? "[PAS] being by nature as definite
as the article, implies the article." If that were true then why do
we find PAS followed by an articular noun numerous times in the
GNT? What does the article add to the syntax if the noun following
PAS is definite without the article?


Elizabeth Kline

LJ: There is, of course, that basic objection.  But Wallace would say that his "rule" applies only to "PAS-noun-constructions in equative clauses."  Footnote 35 (last para.) of his article reads, "We might add here a further clarification of the 'rule': By saying that [PAS] implies the article, we do not mean that the construction is semantically identical, on all levels, to [PASA hH GRAFH].  For if that were the case we would have to read the text as 'all scripture,' rather than 'every scripture,' yet the evidence from the LXX mitigates the necessity of the former translation (cf. 1 Chron. 21:5; 3 Macc.3:29).  The 'rule,' then, extends only to defining the relation of the trailing adjective to the noun."
Wallace's article starts with a critique of J. W. Robert's article "Every Scripture Inspired of God" (Restoration Quarterly 5 [1961], www.restorationquarterly.org), who argues for an attributive QEOPNEUSTOS based on the linguistic structure of the text: 

There are twenty one instances in the New Testament in which [PAS] is used to modify a noun which is immediately followed by another adjective as in 2 Tim. 3:16.  In every case the Greek order of words is (1) [PAS] (2) the noun, and (3) the adjective.  Typical examples are "every good tree" (Matt. 7:17); "every idle word" (Matt. 12:36); "every spiritual blessing" (Eph. 1:3); "every good gift" (James 1:117).  The other examples are Acts 23:1; 2 Cor. 9:8; Eph. 4:29; Col. 1:10; 2 Thes. 2:17; 2 Tim. 2:21; 4:18; Titus 1:16; 2:10; 3:1; Heb. 4:12; James 3:16; Rev. 8:7; 18:2; [sic] 12: [sic] and 12:19. ... Where the noun is the subject of the sentence the verb follows the adjective which is attributive as in James 1:17 "every perfect gift is from above."  In no case of this usage is the adjective separated from the noun so as to be taken as a predicate.  [In fact there are more than tweny-one instances of the PAS-noun-adjective construction in the NT: Matthew 23:15, Col. 1:28; 1 Thess. 5:22 and 1 Tim. 5:10, too, should be added to the list.]

The natural conclusion is that our passage should be translated "Every God-inspired Scripture is also profitable." ... 

Wallace, who advocates a predicative QEOPNEUSTOS, points out the flaws in Robert's argument:

However, there seems to be a fundamental logical error in Roberts' presentation: by definition Roberts seems to deny the possibility of the second adjective being predicate.  He first declares that the only constructions he is examining are those in which [PAS] "is used to modify a noun which is immediately followed by another adjective [italics added]."  But he concludes this survey by adding, "In no case of this usage is the adjective separated from the noun so as to be taken as a predicate" [italics added].  Further, he assumes that the position of the adjective in an anarthrous construction is a reliable indicator of its relation to the noun....  In actual NT usage, however, the adjective following a [PAS]-noun construction may be separated from the noun by an intervening word or phrase without being a predicate adjective [Wallace cites 2 Thessalonians 2:17, PANTI ERGW KAI LOGW AGAQW, as an example], and conversely, as we will demonstrate, it may immediately follow the noun, yet not be attributive [Colossians 1:28, PANTA ANQRWPON TELEION, an object-complement construction].  

He also notes that "Roberts does not consistently follow his own rule for not all his examples fit the structural definition of an adjective immediately following the same noun which [PAS] precedes (cf. [EN PANTI ERGW KAI LOGW AGAQW] in 2 Thess. 2:17 and [PASAN PISTIN ENDEIKNUMENOUS AGAQHN] in Titus 2:10)."  

Wallace then proposes what he considers to be a "proper method" of approaching this problem:

In addition to being circular, Roberts' argument is also semantically insensitive: all his examples, save perhaps one [James 1:17], are from non-equative clauses-i.e., clauses in which the main point (grammatically speaking) is not an assertion about the subject.  In such clauses, predicate adjectives are indeed few and far between.

But the construction in 2 Tim. 3:16 belongs to an equative clause-i.e., a clause in which the central point (syntactically at least) is an assertion about the subject.  ...

A more valid approach than Roberts', it seems to me, is one which focuses on equative clauses.  We need to ask whether the adjective in a [PAS]-noun-adjective construction in an equative clause is normally predicate or attributive. ... 

He then proceeds to describe the results of his searches as mentioned in my first post and proposes the "rule."  One of his contentions is that there is no grammatical impasse over whether QEOPNEUSTOS in 2 Timothy 3:16 is attributive or predicative.  After reading both Robert's and Wallace's articles, I am sure that the issue of whether QEOPNEUSTOS is attributive or predicative cannot be resolved by grammar.  There is indeed an impasse and many exegetes have expressed the same opinion.  But I am happy to say that I have now found a way out of this impasse: a correct understanding of QEOPNEUSTOS based on its OT background coupled with the translation of PASA as "every" (based on the demonstrable fact that the NT always uses GRAFH in a singular sense) will eliminate all possible translations of 2 Timothy 3:16 leaving only one.  And that translation is this: "Every God-breathed writing is also profitable for doctrine," etc.  But I will desist from a demonstration of the correctness of this translation as it would be an exercise in hermeneutics! 

I take this opportunity to make the following corrections to my first post:

1.  In the sentence "A possible answer ... would be PAN AXION KTISMA QEOU KALON, where AXION is inside the 'implied article-noun group,'" AXION in both instances should read as "hAGION" (holy).

2.  In the sentence beginning with the words "What his searches have revealed...," "syntactically" should replace "semantically."
 

Leonard Jayawardena
Colombo, Sri Lanka






More information about the B-Greek mailing list