Why This Book?
I.1. We love Greek. We want our students to love Greek or, falling short of that, to be committed to using it (and Hebrew) in life and ministry. Loving a language and teaching it, however, are insufficient reasons to write a new intermediate Greek grammar. After we started this project, we became aware that Andreas Köstenberger, Benjamin Merkle, and Robert Plummer were working on Going Deeper with New Testament Greek (B&H, 2016) and perhaps doing so for reasons similar to ours. The last substantial intermediate grammar, Dan Wallace’s Greek Grammar beyond the Basics (Zondervan), was published in 1996, preceded in 1994 by Richard Young’s Intermediate New Testament Greek (Broadman & Holman) and followed in 1998 by Black’s much shorter offering, It’s Still Greek to Me (Baker). All of these were preceded by Stanley Porter’s grammar, Idioms of the Greek New Testament (Sheffield, 1992), which is closest in perspective to what we have attempted to write. And while we acknowledge again our incalculable debt to all of them and the many others who have paved our way, much has shifted or changed in the world of NT Greek studies since the 1990s. The vastly increased availability of Accordance, BibleWorks, and Logos software along with modern linguistic developments and advances in specific areas of Greek grammar have necessitated some reassessments of our approach to grammar.1 One specific area yet to be integrated sufficiently into grammars is verbal aspect theory (the exception being Porter’s work mentioned above). These advances make the time ripe for an intermediate-level grammar that integrates them. We have written this grammar to be an accessible textbook for students and professors alike but also to be useful to pastors and anyone involved in teaching the NT. In short, it is intended for all who need an intermediate-level Greek grammar that incorporates insights from some of the most recent developments in the study of NT Greek.
I.2. What are the distinctive features of this grammar? First, as already mentioned, without trying to be comprehensive we have attempted to incorporate some of the most recent linguistic insights into the study of Koine Greek. We have particularly endeavored to make accessible to students advances in the areas of verbal aspect theory, the voice system, conjunctions, as well as linguistic and discourse studies. In a number of areas, we think that we are unique in the way we have categorized or “labeled” grammatical constructions. Second, we have attempted to keep grammatical categories and labels to a minimum, focusing on the most important or the most common usages. Third, we have tried to illustrate the different grammatical points with examples taken from across the entire spectrum of NT texts. That is, where possible, we have culled illustrations of each grammatical feature from the Gospels, Acts, the Pauline Letters, the General Epistles, and Revelation to expose the student to different literary genres and the Greek styles of various authors. We have also made a point of locating fresh examples, whenever possible, that have not been used by other grammars, though some conventional examples are just too good to pass up. Fourth, we have intentionally avoided writing an exegetical grammar; however, we often include discussion of illustrative texts to demonstrate the exegetical value of the application of Greek grammar. A final feature is the use of larger chunks of text for practice. Rather than following the custom of many grammars in choosing verse-length examples isolated from their contexts, in most instances we have chosen to include larger stretches of NT text. These come at the end of the discussion of each major grammatical point, or sometimes at the end of the chapter, and are labeled “For Practice.” Our hope is that students will be encouraged to move beyond looking at isolated grammatical features to considering their function within a larger context.
Though we would be thrilled if all Bible students shared our passion for reading Scripture in the original languages, we count it a blessing to live in an age of multiple translations. We affirm that God’s words should be made available to all people in every possible language. (We acknowledge that not everyone is called to study Hebrew and Greek and that among the great cloud of witnesses are multitudes who are not.) As any of us who have ever tried to learn a foreign language know, translation involves varying degrees of interpretation. There is no one-to-one correspondence between any two languages, and it is not always possible to bring out the fullest, most nuanced meaning of a particular text in translation. Therefore, in this grammar we do not rely on translation to bring out all the subtleties of the grammatical features that are illustrated with Greek examples. Our English translation may or may not fully capture the grammar being illustrated; that is, the goal of exegesis is not to produce an ideal translation. Rather, the focus should be on grammatical analysis and on knowing the importance of grammatical analysis for interpreting the biblical text.
The following reflect some of the broader and most basic commitments of this grammar. We have tried to keep these commitments firmly in mind as we have written each section. One important insight that has emerged from the application of linguistics to Greek grammar is the realization that Greek should be treated like any other language. Many mistreatments of NT Greek come down to a misunderstanding of how language actually works. The point is, we do not write and speak in our own language the way we often treat NT Greek.
Minimalistic Grammar
I.3. A very common approach, which gives unwarranted attention to individual grammatical units and their meanings, is what could be called a maximalist approach to grammar, or the “exegetical nuggets” approach.2 The goal of maximalist NT grammar and exegesis is to uncover the most meaning possible in each grammatical form or construction. This is often accompanied by the multiplication of categories, labels, and rules for their usage. The focus is on individual words and grammatical forms, often at the expense of sensitivity to the broader context in which they occur. Such individual elements of NT Greek are thought to be “rich” in meaning. This can be seen, for example, in approaches that read theological significance out of verb tenses. So we are told that the perfect tense (ἐγήγερται) in 1 Cor. 15:4 is theologically significant because it portrays Christ’s resurrection as a reality based on a past action that continues into the present. This theological insight may be valid (in fact, we would insist that it is!), but it is not dependent on a single linguistic unit, the perfect tense-form (nor are we convinced that this is a correct understanding of the perfect tense-form itself). Rather, such insight comes from the broader context of Paul’s discussion of the resurrection in 1 Cor. 15. Or how often have we heard the aorist tense, or the genitive case, or prepositions “milked” for theological purposes? We think here of the weight that has sometimes been given to the debate between the “objective” and “subjective” genitive in the expression πίστις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. It is not that it is unimportant whether we think in terms of faith placed in Jesus Christ or of Jesus’ own faithfulness; it is just that our decision in many cases is primarily theological rather than grammatical and should not be based solely on isolated elements such as tenses, cases, or prepositions. Once more, our focus should be on the larger context as the bearer of theology. Any major theological points worth affirming and arguing for will certainly not be nuanced in small grammatical subtleties or fine distinctions between case uses. Rather, they will be clear from their entire contexts.3 At the heart of this is the failure to recognize how language actually works. According to Rodney Decker, too much grammatical analysis is characterized by the efforts of preachers or teachers
to find nuggets that support an emphasis that they want to make in the text, . . . even in some commentaries that attempt to focus only on the Greek text. We do not understand our own language in this way even though a grammarian can dissect such texts and assign appropriate taxonomical labels to the individual elements. Grammatical study of ancient texts in “dead” languages (i.e., those no longer spoken by a community of native speakers) is of value. It helps us understand what is being said and enables us to grasp the alternative possibilities in a written text. More often it facilitates eliminating invalid possibilities of meaning. But when all is said and done, all the grammatical and syntactical data are important only in that they enable us to grasp the meaning of the statements in their context.4
A maximalist approach to Greek grammar is often an outgrowth of a view of Scripture as the inspired Word of God. Certainly if the NT is God’s Word, each grammatical expression must be semantically weighty and bursting with import! As Moisés Silva describes this perspective, “Surely an inspired text must be full of meaning: we can hardly think that so much as a single word in the Bible is insignificant or dispensable.”5 We agree with Silva that this overlooks that God has spoken to his people in normal language. As authors, we are committed to the authority and inspiration of Scripture. However, this does not necessitate taking the Greek language in an unnatural or artificial way. Inspiration does not somehow transform the language into something more than it was before. Therefore, we are committed to a minimalistic view of grammar, where maximal meaning is not attributed to the individual linguistic units but is found in their broader context.6 Also, we have kept categories and labels to a minimum. This does not mean that grammar is unimportant or that precise grammatical analysis should be avoided, but we must understand the role it plays in contributing meaning to the overall context. There is danger in reading far more from the grammar than is justified. A minimalist approach also has an andragogical benefit: it relieves the student from the burden of learning an unwieldy list of case or tense labels. It greatly streamlines the choices and the categories for which students are responsible, thereby freeing them up to focus on entire texts instead of isolated details.
Realistic View of Language
I.4. In a similar vein is the assessment of the overall character of the Greek language, especially as it relates to other languages. Many maintain a superior status for Greek. In their grammar Dana and Mantey claim that in comparison with others, “the Greek language, with scarcely an exception, proves to be the most accurate, euphonious, and expressive.”7 More recently, Chrys Caragounis has concluded that in its history and development Greek is “unique” and “unparalleled.”8 He also states that in the Classical (Attic) period
the Greek language reaches its highest degree of perfection: the verb attains 1,124 forms, expressing 1,602 ideas; the noun signals fifteen meaning-units, the great variety of subordinate conjunctions, along with the infinitive and participle, facilitate an almost infinite diversity of hypotactical clauses, the wealth of particles makes possible the expression of the finest of nuances, and the sentence becomes the paragon of complete thought expressed in balanced grammatical relations.9
However, such an assessment surely overestimates Greek as a language and its place within the development of language. Moreover, it can easily lead to the grammatical maximalism referred to above. In our view, Greek should be treated just like any other language. This means that it is not more precise, more expressive, more wonderfully accurate and intricate than any other language, as if it were the only language in which God could have possibly revealed his Second Testament. Greek is no better or worse than any other language. All languages have their unique features, but a general principle of linguistics is that what can be said in one language can be approximated (since we have said that there is no one-for-one correspondence) in any other. No one language is or was more suitable to communicate God’s revelation of himself to his people than any other. Greek has strengths and limitations, just like any other language.
Descriptive Grammar
I.5. Almost the opposite of the previous observation is found in many older grammars, such as BDF, that compared the Koine Greek of the NT to earlier Classical Greek. NT Greek grammar was judged by how well it measured up to Classical Greek standards. The general consensus was that the Greek of the NT was poorer or deficient, or that its users were less competent, or the like. Even today one still hears or reads statements such as, “the writers were careless in their use of Greek,” or claims that this or that construction is “sloppy,” “bad,” or “improper” Greek. Instead, throughout the pages of this grammar we have avoided making judgments as to the correctness or incorrectness of the grammar used by NT authors. It is our conviction that the job of grammar is to be descriptive of how language is actually used, not to be prescriptive and make judgments about how it “ought to be” used. Languages change and evolve, so it is illegitimate to hold up one period of the Greek language’s use as superior to another and then to judge a given usage to be “poor” or “incorrect.” The “correct” grammar is that upon which language users agree. A corollary of this approach to grammar is that the study of language should be primarily synchronic (describing the use of language at a given point in time) rather than diachronic (describing the historical development of a language through time).10 Therefore, although we occasionally make some diachronic observations, our study of Greek grammar has as its primary goal the (synchronic) description of usage at the time of the writing under consideration, the Koine Greek used in the NT, though the focus will be on the Greek of the NT. For example, an overreliance on diachronic (historical) study was partly responsible for the use by some grammarians of an eight-case system for Greek nouns. Based on a descriptive and synchronic approach to grammar, we will side with those who advocate a five-case approach (see chap. 1, on the cases).
Semantics versus Pragmatics
I.6. One important principle that this grammar has tried to keep in mind is the distinction between semantics and pragmatics. That is, there is a difference between the semantics (meaning) of a given grammatical unit and its pragmatic function in various contexts. For example, a participle is a specific grammatical form with specific meaning, but it can function in a variety of ways in a sentence: as adjective, substantive, adverb, or main verb. This distinction can be seen especially in the discussion on verbal aspect. Each aspect has a distinct meaning (semantics) but can function in a variety of temporal and “kind-of-action” contexts (pragmatics).
Realistic View of Software
I.7. Biblical language software (e.g., Logos, BibleWorks, and Accordance) is a boon to just about everyone, from serious scholars to interested laypeople. Word and grammar searches can now be conducted in seconds, saving us valuable time and energy. Statistics for a given grammatical feature are easier to compile accurately and effortlessly. Corpus studies can be executed with greater facility and thoroughness.11 We have relied heavily on such software in writing this grammar. From our perspective, though, the greatest software in the world still lacks the ability to ensure that people use it sensibly. Access to Hebrew and Greek versions (with every word parsed) and almost countless translations does not guarantee that one understands these texts.
We find ourselves at a pivotal point in history; at least in the West, theological education is in decline in terms of both duration and scope. There is a growing trend among seminaries either to discontinue courses in the biblical languages altogether or to replace them with courses on how to use Bible software. We believe that students need to develop a solid working knowledge of and feel for the biblical languages if they are to have any chance of using the tools well. We seem to be facing the opposite but equivalent problem to what was on Martin Luther’s mind when he penned his famous (at least among teachers of the biblical languages) letter on education to councilmen in Germany. In the sixteenth century the access problem was the reverse of ours: Greek and Hebrew manuscripts were available to very few, and the reformers were just beginning to displace Latin in favor of Hebrew and Greek. Nearly half a millennium later, biblical manuscripts are almost universally accessible, the two standard Greek texts by Nestle-Aland and the UBS are in their 28th and 5th editions respectively,12 standard lexical tools continue to be updated, biblical language computer programs continue to increase and develop, and Greek grammars are now plentiful. Yet the study of Greek has fallen on hard times in current theological education. With Martin Luther, we believe there is a spiritual battle underway.
For the devil smelled a rat, and perceived that if the languages were revived a hole would be knocked in his kingdom which he could not easily stop up again. Since he found he could not prevent their revival, he now aims to keep them on such slender rations that they will of themselves decline and pass away. . . . Although the gospel came and still comes to us through the Holy Spirit alone, we cannot deny that it came through the medium of languages, was spread abroad by that means, and must be preserved by the same means. . . . In proportion then as we value the gospel, let us zealously hold to the languages. . . . And let us be sure of this: we will not long preserve the gospel without the languages. . . . The Holy Spirit is no fool. He does not busy himself with inconsequential or useless matters. He regarded the languages as so useful and necessary to Christianity that he ofttimes brought them down with him from heaven. This alone should be a sufficient motive for us to pursue them with diligence and reverence and not to despise them. . . . When our faith is . . . held up to ridicule, where does the fault lie? It lies in our ignorance of the languages; and there is no other way out than to learn the languages. . . . Since it becomes Christians then to make good use of the Holy Scriptures as their one and only book and it is a sin and a shame not to know our own book or to understand the speech and words of our God, it is a still greater sin and loss that we do not study languages, especially in these days when God is giving us men and books and every facility and inducement to this study, and desires his Bible to be an open book. . . . The preacher or teacher can expound the Bible from beginning to end as he pleases, accurately or inaccurately, if there is no one there to judge whether he is doing it right or wrong. But in order to judge, one must have a knowledge of the languages; it cannot be done any other way.13
We believe Martin Luther’s words need to be heard again in our seminaries, colleges, and Christian universities today!