Writing in Greek But Thinking in Aramaic: A Study of Vestigial Verbal Coordination in the Gospels 0773440623, 9780773440623, 2012036429

Table of contents :
WRITING IN GREEK BUT THINKING IN ARAMAIC: A Study of Vestigial Verbal Coordination in the Gospels
Copyright Page
Dedication
Table of Contents
Foreword
Acknowledgments
Abbreviations and Signa
Chapter 1 - Introduction
Chapter 2 - The Grammatical Structure of Verbal Coordination
Chapter 3 - Verbal Coordination in Late B.C.E.—Early C.E. Texts
Chapter 4 - Vestigial Verbal Coordination
Chapter 5 - Concluding Remarks
Appendices
Appendix A - Answered and Said in KJV of the Bible
Appendix B - Verbal Coordination in the Hebrew Bible
Appendix C - Comparison of Syriac Versions with the Hebrew and Greek Text for the Words Answered and Said in the KJV
Appendix D - Indicative Vestigial Verbal Coordination in the Gospels
Appendix E - Participial Vestigial Verbal Coordination in the Gospels
Appendix F - Imperative Vestigial Verbal Coordinated in the Gospels
Bibliography
Indices
Modern Authors
Persons
Subjects
Versions and Editions
Scriptures
Ancient Manuscripts and Codices
Greek Words
Hebrew and Aramaic Words Including Syriac
Transliterated Terms

Citation preview

WRITING IN GREEK BUT TEINEING IN A MAIC

A Study of Vestigial Verbal Coordination in the Gospels

C. Leslie Reiter

With a Foreword by Bruce Chilton

The Edwin Mellen Press Lewiston•Queenston.Lampeter

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Reiter, C. Leslie. Writing in Greek but thinking in Aramaic : a study of vestigial verbal coordination in the Gospels / C. Leslie Reiter ; with a foreword by Bruce Chilton, pages cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN-13: 978-0-7734-4062-3 (hardcover) ISBN-10: 0-7734-4062-3 (hardcover) I. Hebrew language--Verb. 2. Bible. N.T. Gospels--Language, style. 3. Bible. N. T. Gospels--Criticism, interpretation, etc. 4. Bible. 0. T.--Criticism, interpretation, etc. I. Title. PJ4660.R45 2013 226'.048--dc23 2012036429 hors serie.

A OP catalog record for this book is available from the British Library. Author photograph by Lee Lana, Beverly Hills, Florida

Copyright

2013 C. Leslie Reiter

All rights reserved. For information contact The Edwin Mellen Press Box 450 Lewiston, New York USA 14092-0450

The Edwin Mellen Press Box 67 Queenston, Ontario CANADA LOS ILO

The Edwin Mellen Press, Ltd. Lampeter, Ceredigion, Wales UNITED KINGDOM SA48 8LT Printed in the United States of America

To my wife Ruth Ann and our four daughters Tamera Lee. Tiara Lynn, Lesli Anne, and Lani Rae, without whose understanding, patience, and sacrifice this work would not have seen fruition.

vii

Table of Contents Foreword

xi

Acknowledgements

xiii

Abbreviations

xvii

Chapter

1. Introduction 1.1 Answered and Said

3

1.2 Preliminary Observations

4

1.2.1 Verbal Coordination 1.2.2 Grammaticalization: Changes in Grammar

2. The Grammatical Structure of Verbal Coordination

5 10

13

2.1 Scholarly Notice of Verbal Coordination in Hebrew

13

2.2 Scholarly Notice of Verbal Coordination in Aramaic

22

2.3 Scholarly Notice of Semitisms in the Greek New Testament

26

2.4 Scholarly Notice of Verbal Coordination in the Commentaries

43

2.5 Grammaticalization and Verbal Coordination

48

2.5.1 Definitions and Concepts of Grammaticalization

48

2.5.2 Semitic Grammaticalization

52

2.5.3 Verbal Coordination as an Example of Grammaticalization

52

3 Verbal Coordination in Late B.C.E.—Early C.E. Texts 3.1 Translations of Citations from Appendix A and B 3.1.1 The Septuagint and Vulgate

57 61 61

3.1.2 The Targumim

64

3.1.2.1 Targum Ongelos

64

3.1.2.2 Targum Nebi 'im (Targum Jonathan)

67

3.1.3 Aramaic Translations from Qumran

70

3.1.4 The Old Syriac Gospels

71

3.1.5 The Peshitta

72

3.2 Documents Other Than Translations of the Hebrew Bible 3.2.1 Additions to the Hebrew Bible Found in the Targumim

73 73

3.2.1.1 Targum Onaelos

73

3.2.1.2 Targum Nebi'im (Targum Jonathan)

74

3.2.2 Aramaic Documents from Qumran

4. Vestigial Verbal Coordination 4.1 Indicative Mood 4.1.1 Verbs of Speaking

77

79 79 80

4.1.1.1 Two verbs of utterance used in coordination

81

4.1.1.2 Verbs of action coordinated with verbs of speech

86

4.1.2 Verbs of Motion

91

4.1.2.1 Verbs meaning come or go coordinated with another verb

92

4.1.2.2 Verbs meaning rising coordinated with verbs of action

96

4.1.2.3 Other verbs of motion in coordination

98

4.1.3 Other Types of Verbs in Coordination

102

4.1.3.1 Verbs of seeing coordinated with verbs of action

102

4.1.3.2 Other verbs of action coordinated

103

4.1.4 Verbs Read Either as Separate Actions or Coordinated

107

4.1.5 Verbs Expressing Emotion

109

4.1.6 Verbs Used in a Special Sense

111

4.2 Imperative Mood 4.2.1 Syndetic Construction

113 113

ix 4.2.2 Asyndetic Construction

117

4.3 Participle Plus Verb

118

5. Concluding Remarks

121

5.1 Summary and Recapitulation

121

5.1.1 Significance of Aramaic

121

5.1.2 Verbal Coordination

122

5.1.3 Grammaticalization and Verbal Coordination

123

5.2 Implications for Biblical Studies

124

5.2.1 Verbal Coordination and Translating

124

5.2.2 Theological Implications of Verbal Coordination

124

5.3 Implications for the Life and Teachings of Jesus

125

5.4 Possible Objections to This Investigation

126

Appendices

131

A. Answered and Said in KJV of Bible

131

B. Verbal Coordination in the Hebrew Bible

134

C. Comparison of Syriac Versions with the Hebrew and Greek Text for the Words Answered and Said in the KJV

136

D. Indicative Vestigial Verbal Coordination in the Gospels

140

E. Participial Vestigial Verbal Coordination in the Gospels

146

F. Imperative Vestigial Verbal Coordinated in the Gospels

148

Bibliography

151

x

Indices

163

Modem Authors

163

Persons

165

Subjects

166

Versions and Editions

171

Scriptures

172

Ancient Manuscripts and Codices

176

Greek Words

177

Hebrew and Aramaic Words

179

Transliterated Terms

182

Foreword In this monograph, C. Leslie Reiter develops an approach to the study of the Gospels based upon the transition from Aramaic to Greek in the case of the some of the materials related to Jesus. His particular focus is the usage of the construction rendered "And he answered and said" in the King James Version, and how that Semitic idiom was conveyed in Greek. By a careful coordination of texts, it becomes possible to appreciate how translations were generated from the point of view of their underlying grammar, rather than only episodic matters of particular words. Two strengths set this apart from previous work within the field of the Aramaic background of the New Testament. First and foremost, the consideration is grammatical in the proper sense, so that the reader is exposed to issues of comparative syntax and construction within the task of translation. That focus is especially pertinent to the philology of ancient texts, where it is all too often lacking, and is of continuing interest to translators more generally. Second, Leslie Reiter has honed his consideration to take account of recent study of the development of Aramaic dialects. To this day, the field as a whole has been seriously weakened by studies that treat very late forms of Aramaic (and even Syriac) as if they were examples of usage during the first century of the Common Era. By basing his work upon a serious engagement with issues of historical as well as comparative grammar, Leslie Reiter has made an enduring contribution to a field that, with the proper evaluation of the evidence from Qumran, is just coming into its own. THE REVEREND DR BRUCE CHILTON Bernard Iddings Bell Professor of Religion Bard College, Annandale, New York 12504

Acknowledgments I am indebted to many people for this study, first to my numerous teachers over the years: Miss Emma Kleppinger (later married William Thurston) for allowing my second-year high school Latin class read in the Vulgate, which sparked my love for the languages of the Scriptures; Rev. Herbert Dongell, instructor at the Eastern Pilgrim College, for teaching me to read the Greek New Testament; Martin Rist, for instilling in me a love for the Gospels and the life and teachings of Jesus and Walter G. Williams for his inspiring classes on the Prophets and the Psalms and for challenging me to read the Hebrew text of the Dead Sea Scrolls, both former professors of mine at the Iliff School of Theology; and especially my Vanderbilt professors, J. Philip Hyatt, for his strictness in reading the Hebrew Scriptures with his oft repeated admonition, "But what does the text say?" and Lou Silverman, of blessed memory, for his instruction in Semitic languages, along with James Crenshaw for his Aramaic class, where the seed of this work was planted, and Leander Keck for challenging my thinking concerning Jesus and his teachings. Also of Vanderbilt, Jack Sasson, Mary Jane Werthan Professor of Jewish Studies and Hebrew Bible, has proffered some valuable insights concerning Semitic grammar. Professor Peter J. Williams, Faculty of Divinity, Cambridge University, has offered valuable criticisms after reading a draft of my mss. I owe especial gratitude to Bruce D. Chilton, the Bernard Iddings Bell Professor of Religion, Bard College, who so graciously read the original draft of this manuscript and offered numerous suggestions, many of which are reflected in this final version.. Also I am grateful to Dr Siam Bhayro, Lecturer in Early Jewish Studies, Department of Theology and Religion, University of Exeter, for his valuable criticisms. All of these molded and guided my thinking, yet I am solely responsible for this work.

xiv

I acknowledge various other people for assisting me during the processes of this investigation: the kind, generous, and competent services of Ms. Katie Fisher, inter-loan librarian, and Ms. Laura Harris, research librarian, both of the Iliff School of Theology Ira J. Taylor Library; and to the staff at the Eastern Shore Public Library, Accomac, Va., with special gratitude to Ms. Charles Ricci, for all her research and assistance in obtaining references for me via the Inter Library Loan system. For technological assistance in the preparation of the manuscript I used the software program Bible Works° and appreciate the kind permission of Bible Works, LLC, to use their fonts in accordance with their policy concerning their copyright, quoted as follows: BWHEBB, BWHEBL, BWTRANSH [Hebrew]; BWGRKL, BWGRKN, and BWGRKI [Greek] Postscripts Type 1 and TrueTypeT fonts Copyright° 1994-2006 Bible Works, LLC. All rights reserved. These Biblical Greek and Hebrew fonts are used with permission and are from Bible Works, software for Biblical exegesis and research. This copyright notice must be displayed in any distributed works using the fonts, along with a note asking others to comply with displaying and preserving the copyright, if they also distribute any derived publications. For the use of the Syriac scripts I am beholden to Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute, who has so freely granted permission to use their work, provided the following notice is published: Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of these Fonts and associated documentation file (the "Font Software"), to deal in the Font Software, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Font Software, and to permit persons to whom the Font Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: The above copyright and trademark notices and this permission notice shall be included in all copies of one or more of the Font Software. The Font Software may not be modified, altered, or added to, and in particular the designs of glyphs or characters in the Fonts may not be modified nor may additional glyphs or characters be added to the Fonts.

XV

This License becomes null and void when the Fonts or Font Software have been modified. The Masoretic text of the Hebrew Scriptures is from the BHS 481 edition. The Syriac text of the Scriptures utilized is that of the United Bible Societies edition of 1979. References to the LXX are from Rahlfs' 1935 ed. The Greek text of the New Testament is taken from the Nestle-Aland 271h edition, except where noted. For the Vulgate, I have referred to the German Bible Society 1983 ed. The texts that I used of the Aramaic portions of the Dead Sea Scrolls were published digitally by Prof. Martin G. Abegg of Trinity Western University. The on-line edition of the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon under the auspices of Prof. Stephen A. Kaufmann of the Hebrew Union College has been especially helpful and is the source of the texts of the Old Syriac Gospels I have referenced. Other references are noted where used. Of course, I owe great thanks for Ms. Patricia Schultz, production editor for The Edwin Mellen Press, for her guidance, kindness, and understanding in the preparation of the manuscript. In referring to the King James Version of Bible throughout this study, I am by no means implying any preference for this traditional version, except that I do admire its beauty above all other English translations. I have used it so often herein because of its rather literal translation into good English. Other modern versions, because they are less literal, do not illustrate the vestiges of the underlying Aramaic grammatical construction so clearly. On the other hand, after years of study, both of the original languages and the modern English versions, I am of the opinion that the best English version for study purposes remains the Revised Standard Version. Grateful as I am for all the assistance I have received in preparing for this work, I take full responsibility for the final results. I send it forth in hopes of generating discussion leading to a greater appreciation and understanding of the Scriptures.

xvii

Abbreviations and Signa AB ABD

Anchor Bible

ABM, ANTC AUM AUMS AV BAG

Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by D. N. Freedman. 6 vols. New York, 1992 Anchor Bible Reference Library Abingdon New Testament Commentaries Andrew University Monographs Andrew University Monograph Series Authorized Version (KJV) Bauer, W., W. F. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich. A Greek-English

BAR

Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago, 1957 Biblical Archaeology Review

B.C.E. BDB BDF

BH

BHS cent. C.E. cf. chichs. col(s). COT.

CSL CTL CG DDS Eng. ed(s). et al. f(0. GKC FIB HSM

Before Common Era (B.C.) Brown, F., S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Oxford, 1907 Blass, F., A. Debrunner, and R. W. Funk. A Greek Grammar of the NewTestament and Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago, 1961 Biblical Hebrew Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, 4th ed. century Common Era (A.D.) confer, compare chapter/chapters column(s) corrected Cambridge Studies in Linguistics Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics Cairo Geniza Dead Sea scrolls English edition, editor(s), edited by et alii, and others And the following one(s) Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar. Edited by E. Kautzsch. Translated by A. E. Cowley, 2nd ed. Oxford Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) Harvard Semitic Monographs

HSS

Harvard Semitic Studies

IBHS

An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. B. K Waltke.

indic.

and M. O'Connor. Winona Lake, Ind. 1990. International Critical Commentary The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by G. A. Buttrick. 4 vols. Nashville, 1962 indicative

IDBSup

Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible: Supplementary Volume.

JAOS

Journal of the American Oriental Society Journal of Biblical Literature Joi1on, P. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Trans. and rev. by

ICC IDB

Edited by K. Crim. Nashville, 1976 . JBL

Joiion JSOTSup KJV LSJ LXX MM(S) MajT MT NA" NAB n.d. NIV n(n). NovTSup n.p. NRSV NT NTM OSG OT per.

p1. ptc. repr. RSL RSV RT SBLDS SBLMS

T. Muraoka. 2 vols. Subsidia biblica 14/1-2. Rome, 1991 Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series King James Version (AV) Liddell, H. G., R. Scott, and H. S. Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon, with supplement. Oxford, 1968 Septuagint (Old Greek versions of HB and Apocrypha) manuscript(s) Majority Text of the NT (a compilation of readings that appear in the majority of ancient NT manuscripts) Masoretic Text (the normally published text of HB) Novum Testamentum Graece, Nestle-Aland, 27' ed. New American Bible no date New International Version Note(s) Novum Testamentum Supplements no place; no publisher; no page number New Revised Standard Version New Testament New Testament Message: A Biblical-Theological Commentary Old Syriac Gospels Old Testament person (grammatical) plural Participle reprinted Recent Studies in Linguistics Revised Standard Version Received Text (Greek text of the NT published by Robert Estiene, the basis of the KJV of the NT) Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series

xix

sg. SNTSMS SUNT s.v. Syr. trans. TS UCOP Vulg. v./vv. YHWH YY

singular Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series Studien zur Urnwelt des Neuen Testaments sub verba, under the word Syriac translator, translated by Texts and Studies University of Cambridge Oriental Publications Vulgate (Latin Version of the Scriptures) verse/verses Divine name, Hebrew Divine name. Aramaic Equals Similar to

Biblical and Ancient Texts Hebrew Bible

Gen Exod Lev Num Deut Josh Judg Ruth 1-2 Sam 1-2 Kgs 1-2 Chr Ezra Neh Esth Job Ps/Pss Prov Qoh

Genesis Exodus Leviticus Numbers Deuteronomy Joshua Judges Ruth 1-2 Samuel 1-2 Kings 1-2 Chronicles Ezra Nehemiah Esther Job Psalms Proverbs Qoheleth

Song Isa Jer Lam Ezek Dan Hos Joel Amos Obad Jonah Mic Nah Hab Zeph Hag Zech Mal

Song of Songs Isaiah Jeremiah Lamentations Ezekiel Daniel Hosea Joel Amos Obadiah Jonah Micah Nahum Habakkuk Zephaniah Haggai Zechariah Malachi

1-2 Esdras Judith

1-2 Mace Tob

1-2 Maccabees Tobit

Apocrypha

1-2 Esd Jdt

New Testament Matt Mark Luke John Acts Rom 1-2 Cor Gal Eph Phil Col 1-2 Thess 1-2 Tim Titus Phlm Heb Jas 1-2 Pet 1-2-3 John Jude Rev

Matthew Mark Luke John Acts Romans 1-2 Corintians Galatians Ephesians Philippians Colosians 1-2 Thessalonians 1-2 Timothy Titus Philemon Hebrews James 1-2 Peter 1-2-3-John Jude Revelation

Aramaic Texts 1Qap Gen CG Tg. Ong. Tg. Neb.

Genesis Apocryphon Cairo Geniza fragments of the Palestinian Targum Targum Ongelos Targum of the Prophets (Targum Jonathan)

1

Chapter 1 Introduction In reading the King James Version of the Gospels, one is struck by the widespread occurrence of the clause Jesus answered and said. Careful reading of the Gospels also reveals that other characters besides Jesus answered and said. Yet, the Gospels are not alone in employing this peculiar construction; instances abound in the Hebrew Scriptures. Although the KJV phrase, answered and said, occurs very frequently throughout the Bible, especially in the narrative sections, one finds this phrase only seven times in RSV, all in the Hebrew Bible (FIB), five times in NRSV, one of which occurs in the New Testament; 36 times in NAB, 28 of them in Gospel of John, and none in NIV. Given the paucity of the phrase answered and said in the modem translations, this strange style might appear as a peculiarity of the Elizabethan language of the Authorized Version. Yet the truth of the matter is that this construction stands not only in the Greek of the Gospels, where it seems as clumsy as it is strange in English, but also in many passages in the Masoretic Text (MT). As will be demonstrated, this is a common expression in Hebrew and other Semitic languages. It is the thesis of this study that an Aramaic construction, common in various Semitic languages and called verbal coordination by some Hebrew grammarians, lies behind certain 'barbaric' constructions in the Greek text of the Gospels and that this construction must be given its due for the proper understanding, interpretation, and translation of those passages where it is found. Briefly stated, verbal coordination is a syntactical construction that employs two coordinated verbs, usually linked syndetically, in a compact clause, in which the first verb functions as an adverb of manner describing the action of the second, or

2

main, verb. A more detailed discussion, along with copious examples is given in Chapter 2. Citations of the KJV phrase answer and said are tabulated in Appendix A, along with the wording of the original languages. Examples of other possible instances of verbal coordination in the HB are listed in Appendix B. Appendices D, E, and F contain a listing of verses in the Gospels that appear to have this construction underlying them. After taking scholarly notice of the treatment of this syntactical expression and considering how changes occur in syntax to offer a possible provenance for this peculiar construction, I will examine the translations of some of these clauses in the earliest ancient versions in order to make clear the usage and to demonstrate how this construction has often been misunderstood. Then I will look at various Aramaic texts composed in the period from around the time of Jesus and the writing of the Gospels for instances of this construction, following which I will consider the possibility that traces of this Aramaic syntax explains certain peculiar constructions in the Gospels. These traces I call vestigial verbal coordination. A detailed analysis of several examples of the Greek text I find exhibiting vestigial verbal coordination will be undertaken. The import of this will be considered and some conclusions drawn. Finally, I will sum up these observations and explore ways in which due attention to this phenomenon will enhance the understanding of the Scriptures and facilitate in the translating of the Bible and what it may offer on the understanding of the life and teachings of Jesus.

1.1 Answered and Said The search for answered and said in the rather literal KJV reveals some interesting data. Looking at Appendix A, which includes the citations of the complete Authorized Version, including the deuterocanonical literature, one can see the underlying Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek wording. The phrase -4mil (and answered and said) in the Hebrew Scriptures tends to appear more frequently, in proportion to the length of the book, in the later writings. This most likely is the result of the Aramaic influence on late classical Hebrew, where the Aramaic equivalent clause, -41.,t1 rov, answered and said, had become so common place, that it was nearly a hackneyed expression.' Note especially how often the phrase answered and said occurs in Daniel, all being in the Aramaic section. A curious phenomenon is seen in the Gospels, where more frequently the Greek behind the KJV answered and said is the participle diroripck (answering)

with

eIrrEP

(said) instead of the indicative dlreKpi'017 Kai

617TEP

(answered and

said), the former being better Greek. Aside from one instance in Mark and two in Luke, all the occurrences of direKplOn Kai duel/ are found in John. I will demonstrate, that even though th7oKinOck eirrep is a different Greek grammatical construction from drreKpiOn Kal direr', it nevertheless displays the marks of the same underlying syntactical usage of verbal coordination, elevated to more colloquial Greek—even in the Gospel of Mark! One might ask why the use of iirroKatecic, except in those few citations in which the speaker is truly responding to a question? Why did not the authors just write Elm)? I will deal with these and other interesting phenomena and questions in this study. Appendix B is a list of phrases found in the HB that appear, grammatically speaking, to be similar to answered and said, i.e. verbal coordination. Appendix James L. Crenshaw, asst. prof. Old Testament, Aramaic class discussion (Vanderbilt lJniversity, 1963); so also Alger F. Johns, A Short Grammar of Biblical Aramaic (rev. ed.; AUM I; Berrien Springs, Mich.: Andrews University Press, 1972), 25-26.

4

D contains a listing of such constructions in the Greek of Gospels, for which I will demonstrate indicate the underlying Aramaic construction designated verbal coordination. This reflects the search of the text of NA", limited to two indicative verbs, agreeing in person and number, connected with Kai (and), with up to six intervening words between the first verb and the Kai immediately preceding the second verb, and eliminating those verbs that obviously describe discrete, consecutive actions. The search for verbs in the subjunctive mood would very likely yield a few more examples, but confining the listing to the indicative demonstrates sufficiently clear the widespread use and the nature of the function of the construction. Appendix F is the identical type of search conducted for uses of the imperative mood. Appendix E lists examples of a participle followed by a finite verb, which will be seen is a functional equivalent to verbal coordination. Appendix A, mentioned above, is as complete as possible, but the other appendices, although full of examples, are by no means complete, due to the constraints of the search and the complexities of contexts; they do contain sufficient citations to give a good overall picture, not only of the nature of the construction, but also of the pervasiveness of the phenomenon.

1.2 Preliminary Observations To provide an overview of verbal coordination, first I will look at the definition and usage of this Semitic construction as given by the few grammarians who recognize it as such. Then I will see how the theory and practice of grammaticalization could account for this rather unusual grammatical phenomenon.

5

1.2.1 Verbal Coordination This peculiar feature of Hebrew syntax known as verbal coordination is given scant coverage in the grammars. When two finite verbs with the same morphology, in either the indicative or imperative mood, occur within a sentence, they often represent, not sequential or discrete activities, but one action.' Usually the two verbs are connected by 1, (waw, and). However, they can be found asyndetically, especially in poetry, giving a heightened sense of style, but the lack of the copula also in prose. (Synchronous or simultaneous action is indicated by different constructions?) In verbal coordination, the second verb conveys the main idea, while the first verb describes the manner of that action. Gesenius gives exceptions to the forms of this basic rule. Sometimes the agreement between the verbs is not exact, e.g., a verb in the imperfect aspect may be coupled with a verb in the perfect, and the order of verbs may be reversed, with the one carrying the main idea coming first. There is a paucity of true adverbs in classical Hebrew,' and verbal coordination is one of various constructions compensating for this lack. Other constructions noted in the following paragraphs are not the concern of this study. Gesenius describes different constructions that also function as an adverb of manner, i.e., a verb with the infinitive construct, or less often, the absolute infinitive, or occasionally a participle and even the imperfect without 1. In these constructions, the main idea is carried by the compliment, e.g., the infinitive, while the principle (finite) verb functions as an adverb of manner? 'Wilhelm Gesenius. Hebrew Grammar (ed. E. Kautzsch; trans. A. E. Cowley; 2' ed.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1910; cor. ed., 1966) 386-87; and Ronald J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax: An Outline (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1967), 43-44. 3GKC,

453, 501; and Williams, Syntax (1967), 45-46.

'Williams, Syntax (1967), 65; and B. K. Waltke and M. O'Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eiserthrauns, 1990), 656. 3GKC,

385.

6

In addition to these verbal constructions, serving as an adverb of manner, Gesenius, followed by Williams, and Waltke and O'Connor, cite different alternatives to express adverbial meanings, e.g., substances with an old accusative ending.6 I will not be concerned with these other methods of expressing adverbial ideas in this study of verbal coordination, except in the discussion of grammaticalization below, as they have been well discussed in the scholarly literature. On the other hand, scholars generally have overlooked the construction of verbal coordination in the sense defined by Gesenius. This is unfortunate, since Gesenius has made it clear that this is a unique construction and, it seems to me, attention needs to be paid to the constructions and its implications, as will be shown in this study. The rendering of this Semitic grammatical construction of verbal coordination into non-Semitic languages requires some discussion. The first verb can be translated by an adverb or an adverbial phrase modifying the second (the main) verb. Although a participial phrase may have the seeming effect of an adverb, in reality it modifies a noun with which it is in agreement. While an adverb of manner would be the natural translation, often one must resort to an adverbial phrase, or even a clause, to translate this construction adequately. Thus, ip,r1 (and he answered and said) could then be translated 'and he said in the manner of answering'; there are different manners of speaking, e.g., conversation, preaching, teaching, shouting, etc.. Some examples taken from Gesenius will illustrate this construction of verbal coordination, e.g -ann.

Gen 26:18; instead of the literal he returned

and dug, which could be appropriate in certain contexts, the meaning here is clear; he dug again. Another example is Gen 25:1: rp ripn orrFrt rion, and Abraham added and took a wife, or Abraham married again. 6GKC,

Song 2:3

294-97; Williams, Syntax, (1967) 65; and IBHS, 656.

,nno:i yri,r.rr, I

delighted greatly and sat, is another example of verbal coordination, translated by KJV "I sat down with great delight," quite properly; the first verb, delighted greatly, describes the manner in which the lover sat under the tree, with great delight. In rare cases, the principal verb may come first, Jer. 4:5 n41:,p ^tilp cry, fill, i.e. cry with a full (loud) voice; note the absence of wmv (and). Here KJV misses the translation completely in translating this "cry, gather together." (On the other hand, RSV and NRSV do get it right.) This is an asyndeton construction, noted by Gesenius as being common with verbs expressing motion, but otherwise more frequent in poetry. This example is one of the unusual ones where the principle verb comes first.7 Davidson confuses the issue by including his discussion of verbal coordination under heading "Subordination of one verb to another," where he groups together the two methods of employing two verbals with the first modifying the second, i.e., the infinitive construct and verbal coordination.8 One, therefore, looking for a discussion of verbal coordination might overlook it, its being under the rubric subordination. He may have employed this format mistakenly following Gesenius, who treats both constructions in the same section, albeit each under a different subheading.' Davidson's arrangement might account for the fact that the infinitive construct is well covered in subsequent Hebrew grammars, whereas verbal coordination receives little notice, but this is mere speculation. Some of the citations that Davidson offers in support of verbal coordination are: Gen 24:18, ni; 11m -1mm she hastened and let down her jar, i.e., she let her jar down quickly; Hos 2:11 (Eng 2:9); ,nrIp'pi midi. I will return and GKC, 386-87.

7

8A. B. Davidson, Introductory Hebrew Grammar: Hebrew Syntax, (3d ed.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1900,113-14.

9

GKC, 385-86.

8

take away, i.e., I will take away again; Ps 106:13 inpv nrip, they hastened, they forgot, i.e., they forgot quickly. It is interesting that Davidson does not consider in to be an example of verbal coordination, but rather, an expression of a single idea.' Other examples can he found in Williams' Hebrew Syntax. There we find 1 Kgs 19:6 z7.s!1 nin, he returned and lay down, i.e., he lay down again. Illustrating this concept more subtly is Josh 8:10 o;;;;1-nri 7pen npz; v_ann! anion literally, and Joshua rose up early in the morning and mustered the people, but the meaning is that Joshua mustered the people first thing in the morning. The statement is not about Joshua's arising early, but his mustering the people." Additional examples are tabulated in Appendix B. This is by no means a complete list; rather, it is an attempt to indicate how pervasively this construction occurs in the Scriptures. In many cases, it is difficult to decide whether or not two disparate or successive actions are indicated. In the Psalms and other poetic passages, this is further complicated in having to distinguish between verbal coordination and poetic parallelism. I have not included those verses where it appears clear the construction is in parallel. I have included those that give clear indication of verbal coordination and perhaps some that are doubtful. Worth mentioning is Ps 45:4 (HB 45:5), npl r Trim, literally, and (in) your splendor prosper (or be successful), ride. KJV translates it correctly, "And in thy majesty ride prosperously," using an adverb to translate the first verb of the verbs in coordination. Here is a clear example of the first verb modifying the second; it can be no other. This example illustrates quite clearly the importance of considering the grammatical construction of verbal coordination for the understanding, interpreting, and translating the text.

nbavidson, Hebrew Syntax, 115-16.

"Williams, Syntax (1967), 44.

9

So also, Ps. 69:18, 71‘71$

:1;7p; here KJV translates it literally,

"Draw nigh unto my soul, and redeem it." The impact of the adverbial function of verbal coordination would yield 'by coming near to my soul, redeem it.' The difference is freighted with theological implications. Verbal coordination occurs also in Aramaic, for, as in Hebrew, there is a scarcity of natural adverbs.12 For example, the references to Daniel listed in Appendices A and B are all in the Aramaic section of Daniel, which are, interestingly, participles. However, Franz Rosenthal noted that in Aramaic the participle came to be used as a narrative tense.13 Wm. B. Stevenson observes the Palestinian Talmud and Midrashim characteristically use the participle in place of the perfect tense in narratives of past events and the Targumim of Onqelos and Jonathan often use the participle to translate the Hebrew imperfect and perfect consecutive." Klaus Beyer has pointed out that the participle can function as the main verb in Aramaic15 and Alger F. Johns clearly states "the use of the participle instead of the imperfect is commonly found in all the Aramaic languages and dialects."I6 It follows then, that two participles in Aramaic can perform the same function as two finite verbs in Hebrew i.e., verbal coordination. This is confirmed by the Aramaic portions of Daniel and in other Aramaic dialects which we will explore in Chapter 3, where we will consider some documents from the Middle Aramaic period, variously dated from ca. 300 B.C.E. to ca. 250 C.E.

' 2E. Kautzsch, Grammatik des Biblisch-Aramdischen mit einer Kritischen Erorterung des Ararndischen WOrten in NeunTestament (Leipzig: F. C. W. Vogel, 1884), 123-26.

"Franz Rosenthal, A Grammar of Biblical Aramaic (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1960), 55. See also, E. Kautzsch, Biblisch-Aramdischen, 140. "Wm. B. Stevenson Grammar of Palestinian Jewish Aramaic (2"d with an Appendix by J. A. Emerton; Oxford: Clarendon, 1962), 56. 15 Klaus Beyer,. Semitische Syntax im Neuen Testament.(Band I, Satzlehre Tell 1, 2'1 ed.; SUNT I; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Buprecht, 1968), 197.

16

Johns, Short Grammar, 25.

10

In the Synoptic Gospels the participle followed by a finite verb is common. This could come from LXX, where lgtol

in (and answered and said) is

sometimes translated ciffacp/Ocic Erna/ (answering, said). Some examples are tabulated in Appendices A and E. The use of the participle coupled to the main verb in the LXX reflects those translators' attempts at rendering a non-IndoEuropean grammatical construction into Greek. This attempt does not reflect the Semitic thinking accurately, as will be seen in the course of this study, and has resulted at times in poor Greek grammar, leaving traces in various passages in the Gospels, and, as I will argue, should be understood from a Semitic viewpoint, not the Greek.

1.2.2 Grammaticalization: Changes in Grammar

We tend to think that learning a language is primarily learning vocabulary and denigrating the grammatical aspects. This is because grammar is a basic aspect of language that is quite generally fixed, which we learn as we first acquire a language, almost universally at mother's knee; we build our language skills primarily by adding to our vocabulary. "We understand sentences because we know two things: (1) the structure signals and the way they operate, and (2) the meanings of the remaining words."17 The idea of the influence of grammar, as opposed to vocabulary, in the development of languages has received attention in recent studies in linguistics. Words move from one language to another, directly or through modification, often to fit the grammar of the new language, but grammar is more persistent. The basic grammar of English is Teutonic, coming from the Anglo-Saxon, while about half of the vocabulary comes from Latin. The grammar, of course, has

"H. A. Gleason, Jr., Linguistics and English Grammar (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1965), 97-99.

11

changed over time, but not nearly so much as the vocabulary. 's I suspect one of the differences between the various Romance languages is the result of the Latin vocabulary, modified by the grammar of the indigenous languages, imposed upon the local languages, the Latin vocabulary dominating. Since grammar does not change so easily, it would be interesting to see how and why it does change when it does. Grammaticalization is a branch of linguistics that describes a certain kind of change.

A cursory look at

grammaticalization will inform this study of the Semitic grammatical structure of verbal coordination. Briefly, grammaticalization is the process whereby lexical items—words—become grammatical items. This will be examined in more detail in the following chapter. We will see how grammaticalization can shed some light on the development of the Semitic construction of verbal coordination. Grammar being so basic to a language, it is a common tendency for translators to follow the grammar of the source language, despite total dissimilarities, while they employ greater freedom and flexibility in the use of vocabulary. It is far easier to translate words per se than to translate the meaning implied by the grammar. This will become clear as we examine various verses from the Bible.

isSee J. A. Haywood and H. M. Nahmad, A New Arabic Grammar of the Written Language, (2'd ed., Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1965), 501 for changes in Arabic.

13

Chapter 2 The Grammatical Structure of Verbal Coordination The construction designated verbal coordination has received scant notice in scholarly works. Aside from Gesenius, Davidson, and Williams, little attention is paid to the peculiarity of the construction. Waltke and O'Connor do correctly identify the construction, without giving it a specific name.' Elsewhere, where it is discussed, it is most often considered as something other than verbal coordination. A look at some definitive works will illustrate this observation.

2.1 Scholarly Notice of Verbal Coordination in Hebrew In addition to Gesenius, Davidson, and Williams, T. J. Meek has added to the discussion of adverbial usages in Hebrew.2° Making the observation that the common Hebrew conjunctive 1, worn, (and) is often not a conjunctive at all, but merely a determinative, i.e., an untranslatable grammatical particle that indicates a new clause, much like the use of a capital letter in English to introduce a new sentence, he suggests it should be let untranslated. On the other hand, wow frequently introduces a clause grammatically coordinated, which in actuality is logically subordinated.

Of importance for the understanding of verbal

coordination as it is considered in this study, he identifies four clauses used in the accusative: "the accusative as the direct object of a verb, the appositional

191131.1S,

656. For a fuller discussion of their views see below.

Theophile James Meek, "The Syntax of the Sentence in Hebrew," JBL 64 (March 1945): 1-13.

14

accusative, the accusative of manner, and the accusative of specification.' The first and third are germane to this study. As an example of the accusative clause as a direct object of a verb, Meek cites Deut 16.12, 7* mup (and you shall observe and do, i.e., the statues). Although it is clearly verbal coordination, as defined by Gesenius" (meaning observe by doing), he argues it is in reality an example of an accusative clause, after the analogy of Deut 6:3 nip nip (observe to do)." This is an interesting argument. To see an infinitive clause as the object of a verb may be valid; on the other hand it may be reading Indo-European grammatical ideas into Hebrew. It would seem simpler to follow Gesenius, in seeing both the verb plus infinitive and coordinated verbs as unique Semitic constructions, utilizing a verb modified by another verb as an example of a construction to express a verb modified in manner, rather than trying to prove by analogy that verbal coordination is really verbal subordination. Considering the accusative adverbial clause of manner, Meek maintains this construction usually is without the', maw, but when it occurs, i must be the determinative. He gives Amos 7:12 144-1

any or /77K1 (and eat bread there and

prophesy there) as an example. Meek's translation is to be accepted, "and there earn your living by prophesying there," as capturing the meaning of the Hebrew." However, again, this is a clear example of verbal coordination, if one accepts Gesenius. In an earlier article Meek discusses the grammatical construction of verbal coordination without naming it as such, rather designating it a subordinate

Meek, "Syntax Sentence," 7.

2t

GKC, 386-87.

22

23

Meek, "Syntax Sentence," 7-8.

24

Meek, "Syntax Sentence," 8.

15

clause.25 This is the same construction that I consider to be verbal coordination, following Gesenius and Williams. There he notes that this grammatical feature has been overlooked, despite its great frequency in the Hebrew Scriptures, as I have drawn attention to in the appendices. He gives some examples and demonstrates how they have been so often mistranslated.26 Meek finds this construction in most, if not all, Semitic languages,27 which translators need to recognize in order to render the Hebrew [and other Semitic languages] expression justly into English.28 A recent complete grammar of Biblical Hebrew, that of Jotion-Muraoka, has a detailed part on syntax, yet barely mentions the phenomenon called verbal coordination by Gesenius. One short sub-paragraph deals with two verbs, nld, return, and

add, each of which we have seen is of prime significance for

verbal coordination; another deals with asyndetic constructions where the first verb acts adverbially29 The more recent work of Horsnell claims to draw heavily on Gesenius, Williams, Davidson, and Waltke and O'Connor39 (He even recommends using Williams Syntax alongside his own work.3I ), yet fails utterly to identify verbal coordination. Indeed, in the one place where he describes two verbs functioning

25 Theophile James Meek, "The Co-Ordinate Adverbial Clause in Hebrew," JAOS 49 (1929):156.

Meek, "Adverbial Clause," 156-59.

26

27See, also Haywood and Nahmad, Arabic Grammar, 426-27, 436-38; and John Huehnergard, A Grammar of Akkadian (HSS 45, Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997), 125-26.

Meek, "Adverbial Clause," 159.

28

"Paul Marin, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (trans. T. Muroaka; Rome: Editrice Pontifico Instituto Biblicao, 1991), 650-61; for Gesenius' notice of this, see GKC, 386-87.

"Malcolm J. A. Horsnell, A Review and Reference Grammar for Biblical Hebrew, (rev. ed. Hamilton, Ont.; McMaster University Press, 1999), 285. 3

'Horsnell, Hebrew Review Grammar, iv.

16

in an adverbial construction, he labels it hendiadys32 and draws exclusively on Lamlxlin's introductory grammar,33 which he does not even list under his recommended guides, although he does refer to this work passim. On the other hand, it is passing strange that he completely overlooks Williams's discussion of verbal coordination on pages 434434, yet cites Williams on the very same and following pages concerning different grammatical points." Such an oversight requires an explanation. If Horsnell does not agree with Williams at this point, he should say so, giving an explanation, since he recommends Williams so highly. It would also be appropriate for Horsnell to state why he follows Lambdin here, instead of the authorities he has recommended. Published in the same year as Horsnell's grammar, is another Hebrew reference grammar by three South African scholars, Christo H. J. van der Merwe, Jackie A. Naude, and Jan H. Kroeze. They utilize the grammars of Gesenius, Richter, Waltke and O'Connor, and Joilon-Muraoka extensively, even acknowledging Gesenius to be "[o]ne of the most highly esteemed and most authoritative BH grammar.' Yet, again, the subject of verbal coordination is left untreated, although they mention the infinitive construct used as an adverb." They mention "verbal chains" as being two finite verbs joined with a simple wow (and)," which would fit the description verbal coordination well, but give only "Horsnell, Hebrew Review Grammar, 335. "Horsnell, Hebrew Review Grammar, 335, n. 124. 3d

Williams, Syntax (1967), 43-44 [40-41 in 2" ed.].

"Horsnell, Hebrew Review Grammar, 332. 36

Christo H. J. van der Merwe, Jackie A. Naude, and Jan H. Kroeze, A Bilbical Hebrew Reference Grammar (Biblical Languages: Hebrew 3; Sheffield, England: Shefield Academic, 1999), 11, 19. "Merwe, Naude, and Kroeze, Reference Grammar, 19. "Merwe, Naude, and Kroeze, Reference Grammar, 164.

examples that could be considered imperatives. They treat wow consecutive plus the perfect as progression, or a series of directives, where the execution of one is dependent upon the execution of the other, or where there is no temporal sequence. Note, however, that the examples they give are imperative. They do indeed give examples of imperative under the heading Wm:' copulative plus imperative, but they describe these as special usage of the imperative. They note the use of the verbs oip (rise, stand) and

(walk, go) as exhortations." In spite

of their deference to Gesenius, van der Merwe, Naude, and Kroeze have completely overlooked or ignored his treatment of the syntactical construction of verbal coordination. If they disagree with Gesenius, after having placed his work on such a high level of authority, they need to explain why and give an adequate explanation of the examples of verbal coordination listed in Gesenius. In summary of these works, one of the ways the various scholars avoid the construction of verbal coordination is to see the first verb in a lexical sense rather than part of the grammatical construction which it is. Even Waltke and O'Connor seem to tend in this direction." The problem with that is that every verb coming first in the construction of verbal coordination must have an entry in the lexicon that when coupled with verb so-and-so means thus-and-so. The task of listing such verbs would be insignificant were it not for the sheer number of them. It would be more feasible instead—and more comprehensible—to give the construction its due and not having to list the adverbial function under each entry of every verb so used. Indeed, the lexicon is inconsistent in listing the usages of Hebrew verbs when used in other than their lexical meanings. In the standard Hebrew lexicon, under -15ri (go, walk) there are seven-and-a-half pages of definitions of various "Merwe, Naude, and Kroeze, Reference Grammar, 169-72. °See discussion below.

18

meanings of the verb. There is a column giving uses of the verb with other verbal forms, with seven lines listing the use of this verb following other finite verbs without giving any meanings of that usage, other than 'go and do'.41 So much for having the use listed in a lexicon! The grammatical impact is not mentioned. On the other hand, under np (return) there is a little more than three pages of definitions, with fifteen lines devoted to the meaning of repetitious action or to repeat an action, when used with another verb.42 Here we find a lexical entry, not just a listing of indeterminate grammatical items. The two-page listings for the (rise, stand up) come close to having its various entries being truly

verb lexical."

The two columns defining rp, (add)" variously give the meaning of 'do again' when followed by an infinitive and in six lines when followed by the imperfect, where a reference is made to Gesenius' description of verbal coordination!" An example of a verb listed in the lexicon that does not even acknowledge the usage with another verb is n5* (prosper)", where it is used in Ps 45:4 (Heb. 45:5), mentioned above.' Various shades of meaning are given, but no indication at all that it can be used in an adverbial manner, so a translator unaware of verbal coordination would be at a loss in translating this verse, unless the construction of verbal coordination be taken into account. Another example of the same problem 41 Francis Brown, S.R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1968), s.v. -I'm, 5. 42 BDB,

s.v. ma, 8.

BDB, s.v. nrp. 44 BDB,

s.v. 96`.

45BDB,

s.v.

44BDB,

s.v. nin 11.

47See

§1.2.1.

Hiph. 2.c.

19

is Exod 40:13 irk r,c,17, irk rriop, (and anoint him and sanctify him). Moses is to sanctify Aaron by anointing him. It is clearly a case of verbal coordination, as I have rendered TO with the prepositional phrase, by anointing him. Clearly these are not two distinct acts; it was by anointing him that he was sanctified. Commentators overlook this; William H. C. Propp, e.g., fails to recognize verbal coordination here either in his general or textual notes.48 Yet in the lexicon, there is not hint of rim being considered an adverbial modifier.49 Most worthy of note, however, is one sentence under the entry in BDB for 1, waw, giving examples of, used in the manner of verbal coordination, with some examples that we have noted, and making reference to Gesenius and Noldeke.89 Thus, I make my case. The lexicon is not a suitable reference to bring out the meaning inherent in verbal coordination. It would be better to see it as a grammatical construction, so clearly laid out in Gesenius and Williams. These examples of lexical entries show the futility of attempting to define grammatical matters lexically. To list all the words that have been used in this matter in the Hebrew Scriptures is a Herculean task, not just for the lexicographer but, even more painstakingly so, for the reader to wade through. How much more efficient it would be to acknowledge the grammatical construction of verbal coordination to explain and understand the meaning of this Semitic usage. Three modem works deal specifically with Hebrew syntax. Niccacci is interested in text linguists and views the function of the verbs in the context larger than the sentence. He therefore does not follow the traditional grammars, which place more emphasis on semantics.'

He provides detailed analyses of

45William H. C. Propp, Exodus 19-40: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary( The Anchor Bible 2A; William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman, eds.; New York: Doubleday, 2006), 657, 672. 4913DB,

s.v.

m BDB,

s.v. 1, 2(a).

SI

Alviero Niccacci, The Syntax of the Verb in Classical Hebrew Prose (trans. W. G. E. Watson; JSOTSup 86; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990), 21.

20

WAYYIQTOL and YIQTOL throughout his study, yet never acknowledging an adverbial clause of manner, i.e., verbal coordination. He gives one example as expressing antecedent circumstance in the larger context (Gen 31:33-34)52, which is quite clear, in that the verbal sequence is interrupted by the attached to the noun Rachel, rather than to the verb. Yet that clause in Gen 31:34a, an interruption of the narrative sequence, could be seen as an example of verbal coordination: tryLpp .7. dm r;Fi

etzvn] rn.lrirrm 71:7`? ',rim (And Rachel took the

teraphim and set them in the camel saddle and sat on them). The coordination of the two verbs anurn (set them) and oplorri (sat) describes the manner in which she sat on them, i.e., by placing them in the saddle. While Niccacci makes a major contribution to the function of the Hebrew verb in the larger text of the narrative, this is not a complete syntax of the verb in classical Hebrew, as his title would suggest. A most recent work on Hebrew syntax is the joint adventure of two professors at Asbury Theological Seminary, Bill T. Arnold and John H. Choi. Under the heading of verbal clauses, they do not discuss coordinated clauses, only subordinate clauses. They discuss two types of subordinate clauses, complement and supplement, the latter being used adverbially53 In the discussion of the various clauses they do not include any adverbial clauses of manner.54 They do, however, discuss adverbial clauses of manner under a different heading, that of hendiadys. In that section, hendiadys is described as two nouns or two verbs, joined by waw, and considered as one word. Admitting verbal hendiadys sometimes is considered as an adverbial use of certain finite verbs, they refer to Gesenius'

52Niccacci,

Syntax, 63.

"Bill T. Arnold and John H. Choi, A Guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 171. 54

Arnold and Choi, Guide, 174-192.

21

description and examples of verbal coordination,'" although Gesenius does not limit verbal coordination to certain verbs.56 It seems passing strange that they would refer to Gesenius without explaining why they adopt a different terminology for the construction. Since they do not consider anywhere verbs being coordinated, there would be no need to reclassify the syntactical construction verbal coordination under hendiadys, as if they were reserving the term verbal coordination for some other use. Moreover, although it could conceivably be subsumed under it, hendiadys is a much broader classification than that of verbal coordination described by Gesenius and Williams. In verbal coordination, two verbs—not nouns or other parts of speech—used together, one modifying the other as to manner, is a specific grammatical construction with a specific grammatical meaning. To include it under hendiadys without that constraint is to overlook the point that verbal coordination is a unique construction for a specific purpose. Like so many other scholars acknowledging Gesenius, Arnold and Choi ignore his observation that verbal coordination is a specific construction for the adverbial description of manner, without giving a reason for not considering his insight. This is no mere semantic problem; it goes to the fundamental use and meaning of this peculiar construction. In failing to join the discussion with Gesenius, they overlook the significance for understanding and translating this Semitic syntactical usage. It matters not what they call it, although they should offer some reason if they choose to designate it in some other manner; what is of import is that it be considered. If they find a problem with Gesenius, they should explain why they disagree and offer a reasonable alternative provided. Since that has not been done here or elsewhere in the literature, it seems Gesenius—and Williams—should stand.

"Arnold and Choi, Guide, 148. mGKC,

386.

22

Among modern grammarians, the work of Waltke and O'Connor is more fruitful for the purpose of the present study. They distinguish between a lexicon's giving the various meanings of a word and a grammar's pointing out the various meanings of grammatical structures, although the can two overlap.57 They point out that grammatical forms have a multiplicity of meanings and note that verbs function in more ways than any other class of words." An essential observation they make, which supports the concept of verbal coordination, is that the usual word order is determined by the governing component preceding that which is governed.59 This fits well with the definition of verbal coordination, in that the first verb in the construction governs, or modifies, the second—the main verb—as to the manner of its action. Waltke and O'Connor discuss in less than a single paragraph the use of two verbs in sequence as being an alternative for an adverbial construction. They note only its adverbial function, not mentioning it is specifically an expression of an adverb of manner. Having given a very brief description of it, with no examples, they virtually dismiss it by saying it is a matter for the lexicon, requiring little grammatical notice!60 And so indeed, the scholars have taken little grammatical notice of this very significant phenomenon.

2.2 Scholarly Notice of Verbal Coordination in Aramaic Aramaic is important for considering vestigial verbal coordination in the Gospels, for it is most likely the language in which Jesus spoke and taught and in 57 IBHS,

48.

58/BHS,

344.

59

IBHS, 53.

°51BHS, 656.

23

which his disciples handed down the traditions about him. S. R. Driver contends that the Aramaic of Daniel is closely aligned with that spoken in Palestine from the 2nd century B.C.E. through the 2" century c.E.6I H. H. Rowley takes the same position62 and more recently Stephen A. Kaufman, having the advantages of the discoveries in the Judean desert.63 This is generally considered the Middle Aramaic Period. In his grammar on Palestinian Jewish Aramaic, Wm. B. Stevenson notes that instead of an infinitive, some verbs are complemented by a participle, giving as examples e7, stand up; ,71e begin, dwell;, ^,, do, make,61 words that are common in the verbal coordination construction. Rosenthal observes in Biblical Aramaic, there is "the widespread use of the participle to indicate an action that is simultaneous with the main action."65 We have seen that various Hebrew grammarians have used the concept of simultaneous action in places where Gesenius and Williams have indicated verbal coordination, so the Aramaic participle could be used as a functional equivalent to Hebrew verbal coordination. This will be explored further. E. Y. Kutscher examines afresh some aspects of Galilean Aramaic in the Hebrew periodical Tarbiz in four installments from 1950-1952, subsequently published as a separate volume.66 He holds that the Cairo fragments of the Palestinian Targum are the most reliable texts for Aramaic spoken at the turn of 61S. R. Driver, An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament (Meridian Books; MG29; Cleveland: World, 1956; repr., 1965), 502-8. 62H. H. Rowley, The Aramaic of the Old Testament: A Grammatical and Textual Study of Its Relations with Other Early Aramaic Dialects (London: Oxford University Press, 1929), vii,

15-16,37-39. °Kaufman, "Aramaic," in ABD 4:173-75. °Stevenson, Palestinian Aramaic, 57. 65 Rosenthal, Grammar of Biblical Aramaic, 55. 66 E. Y. Kutscher, Studies in Galilean Aramaic (reprinted from Tarbiz 21,22, and 23 (1950-52); trans. Michael Sokoloff; Ramat Gan, Israel: Bar Ilan Press, 1969), vii.

24

the era,67 although, of course, he wrote that before texts from Qumran were available. He notes, however, it is a type of Aramaic slightly different from Galilean." Although he treats many points of vocabulary and grammar, he does not mention anything connected with the construction of verbal coordination in any manner. Two grammars dealing with Targums have little to say about syntax. David Golomb promises to deal with "in-depth analyses of a variety of problematic questions in Aramaic syntax (notably lacking in all Aramaic grammars),1,69 yet covers only four aspects of Aramaic syntax, two verbal, two nominal.70 Granting that the syntax of Targum Neophyli resembles that of other Middle Aramaic texts and therefore electing not to discuss features covered in other grammars," nevertheless, he does not mention verbal coordination, which, as we have seen is not covered, at least adequately, in other grammars. Steven Fassberg states that his objective is to present a complete analysis of the forms of the language of the Cairo Genizah fragments and to take "note of some syntactic features," comparing these with other documents in the various Aramaic dialects.72 While his coverage of the orthography, phonology, and morphology is thorough and detailed, Fassberg considers only two syntactical features, both nominal."

"Kutscher, Studies in Galilean Aramaic, 3. "Kutscher, Studies in Galilean Aramaic, 4. 69David M. Golomb, A Grammar of Targum Neofiti ( ed. Frank Moore Cross; HSM 34; Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1985), I I .

Golomb, Grammar Neofiti, 187.

70

71

Golomb, Grammar Neofiti, 9.

?''Steven E. Fassberg, A Grammar of the Palestinian Targum Fragments from the Cairo Genizah (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990), 4-5, 251, 253.

73

Fassberg, Palestinian Fragments, 251-53.

25

It is quite disappointing that these two excellent grammars dealing with the language most likely similar to that which Jesus spoke and taught and in which the traditions about Jesus were first circulated give such short shrift to the matter of syntax. Syriac is an eastern group of Aramaic dialects that arose rather late in the development of Semitic languages. Literary Syriac can be placed in the Late Aramaic period,74 with early Syriac showing up in the Middle phase of Aramaic, 200 B.c. to 200 A.D.75 Although literary Syriac comes from a period somewhat after Jesus lived, it might be fruitful to look at some aspects of Syriac, since there is a great resemblance of Syriac to Hebrew, especially in syntax.76 Theodor Noldeke in discussing the uses of the participle states it is scarcely used as historical present except for i=0,- (said), which is very common.77 He comes close to describing verbal coordination, talking about two members joined with 0 (and) and in saying, "The connection of sentences, even with two verbs, is often very intimate, when, for instance, both verbs have the same subject and object, and perhaps even the same adverbial qualifications."78 This is made even clearer. "Some verbs, which express a quality, very often join the specific verb to themselves in this way, by means of o." In Syriac two verbs may follow each other without the copula, when one modifies the other.8°

74Joseph A. Fitzmyer, A Wandering Aramean: Collected Aramaic Essays (SBLMS 25; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press), 62. 75Fitzmyer,

Wandering Aramean, 71.

76 Theodor Noldeke, Compendious Syriac Grammar (trans. James A. Crichton; London: Williams & Norgate, 1904; repr., in Israel, 1970), x.

”Noldeke, Syriac Grammar, 215. 76Noldeke,

Syriac Grammar, 269.

79Noldeke,

Syriac Grammar, 272.

'GN01deke, Syriac Grammar, 274.

26

Thus Noldeke describes grammatical usages of Syriac, which Gesenius designates as verbal coordination for Hebrew, functioning in the same manner as in Hebrew, without giving it a specific grammatical name. It is not so important to name the usage as it is to recognize it as such. Since Old Syriac stood midway in the line of development from Old Aramaic to literary Syriac,81 and since Syriac developed out of older Aramaic,82 then we may justly conclude that the construction of verbal coordination has a common usage in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Syriac from before the turn of Common Era and for some time thereafter. Thus it follows that Jesus and his first followers had at their disposal the Northwest Semitic grammatical construction of verbal coordination and it would be reasonable that they used such construction when appropriate. It would also seem probable that traces of that unique construction were left in the Greek renderings of the tradition about Jesus' words and deeds, which was handed down at first in Aramaic. This study follows the implication that it is probable that some of these traces can explain some of the awkward Greek of the Gospels, especially Mark, which presents the least felicitous Greek, and to a lesser extent John. Matthew, and to a greater extent Luke, rewrites much of Mark to a more acceptable Koine Greek.

2.3 Scholarly Notice of Semitisms in the Greek New Testament The New Testament documents that have come down to us were written in Greek. The Greek of these documents is not classical Greek, but Koine, the Greek commonly spoken in the eastern Mediterranean basin at the turn of the Common Era, following the conquest of Alexander the Great and the ensuing cultural change. In addition to the New Testament writings, a vast number of Fitzmyer, Wandering Aramean, 42, n. 25. 82Aaron D. Rubin, Studies in Semitic Grammaticalization (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2005), 15.

27

documents, both literary and non-literary, have survived. Although the New Testament was written in this common language, there are numerous anomalies, especially in the Gospels. Over the past few centuries numerous attempts have been made to explain this. Today, most scholars would agree there has been some kind of Semitic influence on the Greek of the Gospels. It is to the investigation of this phenomenon we now turn, with an especial eye out for any influence of the Hebrew and Aramaic construction of verbal coordination might have on the Koine Greek of the Gospels. Gustaf Dalman published one of the first major works on the possibility of an Aramaic background to the Gospels. He pointed out the common use of in Into) (and answered and said) in Hebrew and the Gospels use a similar style, usually throKpt8Eic Etna, in the Synoptic Gospels, but occasionally cinch-pith? Kai

eln-ev, the latter appearing most often in the Gospel of John. Admitting the use of the idiom in both the Aramaic sections of Daniel and in the Targumim, he declares it is not found in late Jewish Aramaic, without defining what late Jewish Aramaic is. One could read that as including the times of Jesus, and often has been read that way, but more probably he means the rabbinic writings. However, it needs to be observed, Dalman did not have access to the Dead Sea Scrolls and other manuscripts representing the use of the language at the turn of the Era. He goes on to cite -Ibt6 -in-n (and spoke, saying; technically the second word is a construct infinitive, to say) as being foreign in Aramaic, but includes examples of its occurrence in Aramaic. Finally, he cites several examples of words of utterance in Aramaic followed by -113101.83 He gives no grammatical explanation for these uses, although he surely was aware of Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar and the discussion of verbal coordination there.

"Gustav Dalrnan, The Words of Jesus Considered in the Light of Post-Biblical Jewish and the Aramaic Language: I introduction and Fundamental Ideas. (D. M. Kay, trans; foreword by Cyril J. Barber; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1902; repr., Minneapolis: Klock & Klock Christian, 1981), 24-26.

28

Commenting that icrroKotOri; in Luke most likely stems from his use of LXX, Dalman concludes Luke did not know Hebrew. This point is well made, but Dalman himself fails to note that the Hebrew npitn, which LXX often translates with the participle eirroorpteric- , is in the indicative. Thus LXX droKptOcic eke'', answering, said, translates the Hebrew 1PK.1

, and answered

and said. Therefore, dimA-pt064- Eln-cii is as clearly a translation of verbal coordination as the exact (grammatically speaking) translation threKpl'On Kai threy. Again, Dalman overlooks the basic Hebrew grammatical construction of

verbal coordination84 as so clearly detailed by Gesenius. Professor Moulton called throKpi8Eic- elm, a pure Hebraism.85 Later he states it "denoted coincident or identical action." In the footnote he observes that this expression occurs in a Semitic context so we should consider underlying LXX drroKplOcic Elno,86 As with Dalman, he does not see that the underlying Hebrew is not a participle with an indicative, but two indicative verbs coordinated in a special syntactical construction, i.e., the adverbial function of the verbal coordination. This, in my opinion, is a gross oversight. In the appendix of volume 2, the discussion of diroKptOcir dire/ is taken up again, since it occurs so frequently in the Synoptics Here it is acknowledged that it resembles [italics mine] the Hebrew npx,1 v.m, and is copied in LXX throKpiOcic dre) and the Targumim [no Aramaic example given] and appears in

the Biblical Aramaic -ti mii,r81 We will see later that drroKptOcic dm) is only one way that the LXX renders -17,-in

. Furthermore, I have difficulty with his

Dalman, Words ofiesus, 38-42. "James Hope Moulton, Prolegomena, (Vol. 1 of A Grammar of New Testament Greek, 3'd. ed.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1985). 14. '6191oulton, Grammar 1,131. "James Hope Moulton and Wilbert Francis Howard, Accidence and Word-Formation with an Appendix on Semitisnts in the New Testament (Vol. 2 of A Grammar of New Testament Greek, 3. ed; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1986), 453-54.

29

use of the word resembles; although dn-oK-piecic ET7TEP is often the translation of the Hebrew, it does not resemble the construction. The Hebrew has two indicative verbs, joined together in verbal coordination, while the LXX drroicpi8fic dm, is a particple, followed by an indicative verb.

Still, Moulton and Howard make no reference to verbal coordination, identifying the participle as the equivalent of the adverbial phrase. Even in the section on adverbs and adverbial locutions there are no examples of verbal coordination given. Under the subheading of the adverbial use of an auxiliary verb, there are given three examples from LXX, but the comparable citations from the New Testament do not represent verbal coordination." Given the examples in Appendices A, D, E, and F, this would appear to be an oversight. In the volume on syntax, published much later than the first two volumes of Moulton's A Grammar of New Testament Greek, Nigel Turner characterizes the excessive use of Kai (and) as appearing vulgar to the normal reader, belonging to uncultivated Koine, although admitting the possibility of Aramaic influence. In the discussion of what that influence might be, Turner lists several possibilities of Hebrew or Aramaic influence underlying the use of Kai, but does not mention verbal coordination." In the section on adverbial verbs, he states that certain verbs in Greek came to be used as adverbs, although they could also stand alone as verbs, which, as we have seen, is characteristic of verbs that are found in verbal coordination.90 However, Turner does not describe why that occurs, completely overlooking Gesenius' insight of the adverbial use of verbal coordination. In addition he states that "in Heb. answered is followed by ltpel and so, besides ciirocpcOri .U.Auni, the NT and LXX also have riff. Kai Elven (often Jn, not Mt,

"Moulton and Howard, Grammar 2, 443-47. "Nigel Turner, Syntax (Vol. 3 of A Grammar of New Testament Greek, by James Hope Moulton; Edinburgh: T & T. Clark, 1963), 334-35. "Turner, Grammar 3,226-27.

30

rarely Mk Lk), the participial construction thus giving way in Bibl. Greek to the paratactic dircKpigq Kai throf."91 He seems to have placed the cart before the horse, so to speak. The normal Hebrew has `answered' followed by 'said', both verbs in the indicative. It is the LXX that often translates this as 'answering, said' not the other way around. To find the Hebrew underlying the Greek of the Scriptures, one must go back to the Hebrew text and see how in each instance it is translated. By failing to observe the Hebrew behind the LXX, he draws an unwarranted conclusion. Reading the LXX, he eliminates the possibility of seeing the syntactical verbal coordination that ultimately lies behind the Greek. Because he does not recognize the Semitic construction of these phrases, he gives them a mixed category—temporal-modal. While this may well be true of Koine per se, he is here discussing the Semitic influence and that needs to be borne in mind. He does concede that in the Gospel of John, arrercp9n Hywp may be Aramaic.92 The reasoning for this is not given, unless he is following Burney.93 In discussing the use of tenses in participles, Turner holds that while the use of the aorist came to indicate action antecedent to the main verb, there are numerous examples of the aorist participle denoting coincident action. He equates the common phrase diroKpi8fic elm) with threKpieg Einziv, 94 not recognizing underlying each is the same construction in the Hebrew or Aramaic verbal coordination. In the introduction to his work on style, Nigel Turner doubts there were written sources in either Hebrew or Aramaic from which the gospel writers drew, although not denying the probability of Aramaic or Hebrew sources circulating

91

Tumer, Grammar 3, 156 .

92

Turner, Grammar 3, 155.

93

See below.

94

Tumer, Grammar 3, 79-80.

31

for the teachings of Jesus. He bases his arguments on various aspects of style,95 which, although quite convincing, fly in the face of other scholars looking at the problem. Discussing the sources behind the Gospels, he raises the question whether any part might be written in a Semitic language or of the influence of Semitic languages on the Greek of the New Testament. More fundamental to this present study is the question of whether or not Jesus and his disciples used Hebrew or Aramaic.' While it is beyond the scope of this present work to explore all the interesting ramifications of these questions, notice will have to be taken of the use of Hebrew, and, especially, Aramaic in Palestine and, particularly, Galilee during the first century of the Common Era. Turner pushes for the prevalence of a trilingual population. He considers various aspects of the problem, but draws inferences from specific data and extends to the whole. He relies heavily on word usages, but word usages do not necessitate the conclusion that a specific language was used by the general population. He suggests Hebrew may have been a spoken language, noting that most of the Qumran texts are in Hebrew." Turner is quite confusing, first suggesting a bilingual population, then trilingual. He over-estimates the influence of different languages in producing a multilingual population. Merchants can sell their wares with a few words of the target language, without being really bilingual, as any English-speaking traveler to the Middle East can testify. As for social intercourse with the gentiles, it is unlikely that am ha-aretz (common people, literally, people of the land) would have had much such exchange with gentiles, certainly, not to the extent that would require them to be indeed bilingual.

93Nigel Turner, Style, (Vol. 4 of A Grammar of New Testament Greek, by James Hope Moulton; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1967), 2.

Tumer, Grammar 4-5.

99

Tumer, Grammar 4, 6-7.

99

32

As for most of the Qumran scrolls being in Hebrew, that would be expected if the scribes were indeed a pious, recluse, Jewish sect; that Targumim and other Aramaic literature were found at a community where Hebrew obviously was well-know, indicates there were those in the general population who could not read Hebrew, needing a translation into the language they knew. Such a translation would have been made by scribes fluent in both languages." Turner pushes for the widespread use of Greek. Citing various data as evidence, that Palestine was Hellenized by the successors of Alexander, that Greek has been found among the documents at Qumran, that Greek papyri have been found in the Judean desert, he concludes it is probable that Jesus normally spoke a Semitic Greek, employing Aramaic occasionally.99 Fitzmyer, however, is quite adamant that Jesus normally spoke and taught in Aramaic, although he admits the possibility that he also knew Hebrew and possibly a little Greek.I9° I do find quite probable Turner's statement that Semitic idioms influenced the Gospel writers.101 Noting sometimes it is difficult to know whether the influence is Hebraic or Aramaic he holds that such influence should be labeled Semitic.I92 However, Burney says if one cannot tell whether the influence is Hebraic or Aramaic, one should conclude it is Aramaic. I93 Turner concludes that Mark wrote in a peculiar style of Greek, Matthew's Greek is not translation Greek, Luke writes in Semitic Greek, and John's style betrays Semitic Greek of a

"Maurice Casey, Aramaic Sources of Mares Gospel (SNTSMS 102; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 33-34. "T

umer, Grammar 4, 8-9.

lwFitzmyer,

Wandering Aramean, 6-9, 24, 85-86, and passim.

"ilTurner, Grammar 4, 9. tuTumer,

Grammar 4, 19.

m3C. F. Burney, The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1922), 16-17.

33

a simple, dignified style.w4 In all of these, Turner maintains that the gospel writers wrote in a peculiar Jewish-style Greek and were not translating from Hebrew or Aramaic sources. I find his various and sundry arguments diverse, inconsistent, and intent on minimizing any specific Aramaic background to the Gospels. A. T. Robertson produced a meticulous, detailed grammar of New Testament Greek. His bias is in favor of those earlier scholars, who claimed that Jesus was trilingual, teaching in Greek, and occasionally Aramaic, and reading Hebrew,'" so one could expect he would have little interest in the Aramaic background of the New Testament. We have seen considerable scholar discussion on what language Jesus spoke, but there is a trend toward greater acceptance that Jesus spoke and taught in Aramaic. Part of the problem with the scholarly disagreement is that the conflicting data has not always been viewed with the proper perspective. Data from different times and places have been presented in piecemeal bits, so that one had to resort to scholarly opinion. If one considers the data from Galilee a clearer picture emerges. Previous assumptions were made as if all of Palestine were homogeneous, that what was true of Judea was true of Galilee in the time of Jesus. Recent studies have shown that although gentile cities and culture surrounded Galilee, and some even being within its boundaries,106 at the time of Jesus the population was mostly Jewish, following Jewish customs. Only later would emerge a more Hellenized population)" From this we may fairly conclude that Jesus both spoke and taught in Aramaic.

104Turner,

Grammar 4, 28, 37, 51, 78.

105 A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (Nashville: Broadman, 1934), 26-29. 1°6 Mark A. Chancey, "How Jewish Was Jesus' Galilee?" BAR 33, no. 4 (July/August 2007): 43-49. 1wChancey,

"Jesus' Galilee," 50, 76.

34

Setting forth the proposition that the Greek of LXX was neither spoken nor an example of literary usage, either before or after it was produced, Robertson maintains although the KJV of the Bible has greatly affected modern English, like Shakespeare, it too, was never a language actually spoken. But, he avers that the New Testament writers used Koine, the everyday language of the time.1°8 Here is an implied contradiction. Since KJV and Shakespeare wrote in early modern English, the everyday language of their day, to follow the argument through, then the Koine of NT would not have been actually spoken. But Robertson contends the language of the New Testament was the ordinary language of the day, implying that people spoke that language. In saying NT uses everyday Koine, Robertson attempts to minimize whatever influence the Semitic language might have had on the Greek text. Robertson distinguishes between the supplementary and circumstantial participle in that the latter makes an additional statement and is not an integral part of the function of the main verb and can be used in a variety of ways, including time, manner, and mode. . Discussing manner, he gives as examples the participles curgaac,

ruxeni, peUirovrcc, irpoOdc, dim', and

avapANtac dire), and the participle 'filmic-pc9Etc- as being temporal, modal, or adverbia1.109 (To illustrate his category of modall I° he gives Kpr EpircyotirEc, instructing, Acts 5:30, and auvlitiki(cov, instructing, Acts 9:20) Robertson fails to note that air Eixac, making haste, is LXX translation of 7rn, made haste; 13,2,Trovrec, seeing, translation of triin, seeing; ir poaeac, adding, translation of ricr,i, added; eniaP,I4rac, looking up, translation of mon, looked up; except for 13ThrovrEc, each is used in verbal coordinated constructions.

1°8Robertson, Grammar Greek New Testament, 91-92.

'89Robertson, Grammar Greek New Testament, 1124-28. "°Robertson's discussion of the modal category (Robertson, Grammar Greek New Testament, 320-30) does not cover the use here.

35

(There is no equivalent usage in LXX of rilfitz,1.651,, or ruz6v.) While it is true that these participles virtually function as defining the manner of the verb, by not observing a common LXX pattern of translating the first verb, which describes the manner of the functioning of the second verb in the Hebraic verbal coordination construction, with a participle, Robertson overlooks an important point of grammar. And in doing so, he misses the nuances and implication of verbal coordination. Enough has been said in discussions concerning earorcpakic (answering) in the authors looked at above to eliminate the necessity to elaborate further on this common expression. Blass and Debrunner in their Greek Grammar take note of the excessive use of Kai, making the narrative style unpleasing and colloquial. They give many examples that might indicate a possible Hebrew or Aramaic influence, but they make no mention of the possibility that verbal coordination could be underlying these various examples111, which is unfortunate. It is not enough to observe that Semitic influence may lie behind the Greek of the Gospels; it is incumbent upon the observer to indicate what that influence is, else it is a mere exercise in pedantry. C. F. Burney, an Aramaic scholar, defines Hebraism as "a construction or word usage found in Biblical Hebrew which has been copied in translation by LXX, and has come through LXX influence into N. T. Greek""2 He cites the Hebrew usage of the verb =loin followed by 'and' with a finite verb, e.g., rlp'1

nox rip21 oFFinK (literally, and Abraham added and took a wife ['again took' or `took a second']) and gives two examples from Luke and one from Acts, then states the construction appears nowhere else in New Testament. He is interested

"'F. Blass and A. Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (trans. and rev. Robert W. Funk: Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961), 227-29. "'Burney, Aramaic Origin, 11.

36

in showing that the Semitisms in Luke-Acts come from LXX. I 13 Granted that those same words as found in LXX may not occur elsewhere in the NT, he overlooks the frequency of the phrase verb-plus-and-plus-verb occurring in the Gospels. Thus he misses a golden opportunity to discuss the evidence for the possibility of verbal coordination lying behind the Gospels. To have considered that would have added tremendous weight to his argument for an Aramaic source of the Gospels. Burney considers the Aramaisms in Mark to be different. Unlike Luke where Hebraisms can be seen as coming from LXX, he maintains Mark's Gospel exhibits indications of Semitic style, clearly Aramaic. "Here we have the work, not of a Hellenist who studies the LXX, but of a Palestinian Jew who either actually wrote in Aramaic, or whose mind was so molded by the Aramaic idiom that his Greek perforce reflected it."While I find that Burney fails to make his case that the author of Mark was a Palestinian Jew, his distinction between the examples from Luke and Mark makes a cogent argument that Marcan Greek reflects an Aramaic background. In a previous work, Burney describes the probable language of Jesus as Aramaic;115 yet, he fails to take notice of verbal coordination as being a part of the language he finds most likely that Jesus used. His list of examples of Aramaisms in Mark and John does not include anything that might be construed as reflecting verbal coordination. )16 In the chapter on verbs Burney does discuss the Aramaic phrase -nip rop answering and saying, noting only that they are participles. He is attempting to

'"Burney, Aramaic Origin, 14. "'Burney, Aramaic Origin, 15-17. ° C. F. Barney, The Poetry of Our Lord: An Examination of the Formal Elements of Hebrew Poetry in the Discourse ofJesus Christ (Oxford: Clarendon, 1925), 9. "6Bumey, Aramaic Origin, 18-19.

37

establish that Aramaic participles serve as the basis for the historical present in Mark and John,'" but we have seen that Aramaic participles functioned as the perfect tense in narrative.118 We will explore this usage in more detail in Chapter 3. By failing to take notice of the concept of the Hebrew construction of verbal coordination, Burney again misses an opportunity to establish a more firm point for Aramaic lying behind the Gospels. Matthew Black has rendered an invaluable service in correcting the excesses and errors of those who attempted to see Aramaic as behind the Greek of the Gospels. Yet he fails to take into account the work of Gesenius. Black considers the Semitic inchoative and auxiliary verbs as lying behind the Greek of the Gospels, but dismisses their significance as verbs and warns against giving too much attention to their Greek meanings. The common meaning of ,10651, (coming) often shifts to an auxiliary use, and it is difficult to tell the difference. He considers rrpi? (came) lying behind ,1.61651/ as an auxiliary, without the concept of 'going'. So he sees also zln (turn, return), which he admits is adverbial, underlying the use of araktv.119 Rather than seeing such verbs as inchoative or auxiliary, and hence carrying no real meaning, if he had considered the grammatical construction of verbal coordination so clearly pointed out by Gesenius, and, to a degree, Davidson—Williams' Outline was written after Black's work was published—he would not have had to consider those verbs as rather insignificant, nor to fit them into different functions. This would be a good example for the wisdom of applying Occam's razor. Black approaches the subject of verbal coordination in his discussion of hypotactic constructions being characteristic of Aramaic, but fails to follow

trBurney, Aramaic Origin, 88. ilaSee

nn. 13-16.

19 Matthew Black„4n Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (3rd ed.; afterword by Geza Vermes; Oxford 7 Clarendon, 1967), 125-26.

38

through. He discusses the parataxis of two indicatives together as being very characteristic of Aramaic, yet giving only a few, diverse examples. Again, he misses a significant aspect of Aramaic grammar. Instead of seeing two Aramaic participles, one as a present tense verb, the other as a participle, as held by Wellhausen, he sees that as a 'participial present indicative,"20 despite the fact that Stevenson, Rosenthal, and Johns declare that the participle in Aramaic was commonly used as a past tense.121 How much simpler it is to view it as an example of vestigial verbal coordination, i.e., traces of the underlying Aramaic construction of verbal coordination, which appear as poor Greek in the texts of the Gospels Without calling it by name, Black comes close to understanding the function of verbal coordination in his discussion of Matt 27:41(=Mark 15.31) in preferring the 'Western' text. Quoting D (Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis) "Ouoicoc SE Kal of cipv.epEic

Ep.TECtiCOPTEc IAETa TC5V

ypaif1.iathM)

KCC1

(Dapwaikw )4yoirrEc"

(and likewise the chief priests mocking [him] with the scribes and Pharisees, saying,) he points out they were mocking, saying, emphasizing mocking, and not .1,xlai4otnEc aeyov 'mocking, said,' as the modern editons of the Greek text read. I22 (Note: The KJV translates the RT (here in agreement with MajT) correctly with this meaning; RSV follows the text of Nestle.) If the concept of vestigial verbal coordination is valid, as I hold it is, then the 'Western' text better represents what probably was the underlying Aramaic tradition. And yet Black fails to recognize that the Semitic construction of verbal coordination would account for the 'Western' reading. Black takes note of the possibility that the writers of the Gospel may have been thinking in a Semitic language while writing in Greek. He recognizes we do

131ack, Aramaic Approach, 64-65.

120

12I

See nn. 13-14, 16.

1ilack, Aramaic Approach, 131.

122

39

not have a literal translation from Aramaic of any of the phrases, just odd Greek ones that points back to Semitic thinking.123 In this, he presages Casey.t24 Elliot C. Maloney, a former student of Joseph Fitzmyer, presents a detailed account of Semitic interference on the syntax of Mark. In determining what language Jesus might have spoken after considering written documents that could have come from that era, he acknowledges the difficulty in establishing the language that was actually spoken from ancient written documents:25 Maloney maintains an influence for the interference of Hebrew or Aramaic on the Gospel of Mark might have been LXX.I26 It is possible this may have been an attempt, either consciously or unconsciously, of Mark's adding solemnity to his work, 127 much as some today often use the language of the KJV for such a purpose. Maloney considers the high percentage of Mark's use of Kai (and) to introduce new paragraphs compared to the usage in the ordinary documents of the day as revealed in the papyri, would seem to indicate he was copying the style of LXX, especially since its use in Aramaic for such purpose is less common than in LXX.I28 After considering many issues, Maloney then concludes "syntactical Semitic interference permeates every page of the gospel."129 Discussing the use of Kai to couple what appear to be subordinate clauses, he acknowledges it is difficult to capture the nuance of the construction, so that

123131ack,

Aramaic Approach, 92.

'24See below. 123 Elliort C. Maloney, Semitic Interference in Alarcon Syntax (SBLDS 51; Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1981), 43. I26Maloney,

Semitic Interference, 44.

I27Maloney,

Semitic Interference, 4l

125IvIaloney,

Semitic Interference, 67-68.

° Maloney,

Semitic Interference, 245.

40

scholars disagree on the interpretation.130 We have seen how scholars often labeled certain constructions as subordinate clauses which could be considered better as examples of verbal coordination, if they had followed the analysis of Gesenius. Maloney does not see these constructions as examples of verbal coordination, i.e., the first verb as an adverb modifying the principle verb as to the manner of its function. Some of the examples he lists, (Mark 4:20: 8:25, 34; 9:39; 10:21; 12:14131 appear to me to be instances of vestigial verbal coordination and will be examined in detail in Chapter 4. The examples he gives from Genesis Apocryphon are not verbal coordination,132 but there are many instances of verbal coordination in Middle Aramaic i.e., the Aramaic used when the Gospels were written. I will explore some verbs that are so coordinated in Genesis Apocryphon in Chapter 3. Maurice Casey has done recent work in seeing Aramaic lying behind the Gospels. His thorough, critical analysis of previous scholars' attempting to translate from the Greek into the Aramaic is most helpful. His criticism is that they were translating from Greek into Aramaic, rather than trying to reconstruct a possible Aramaic that would explain the Greek text.133 His praise of Black is extremely high, with little negative criticism, noting mostly that he wrote before most of the Dead Sea Scrolls and other recent discoveries had been thoroughly analyzed.134 The result of these discoveries is that Jesus taught in Aramaic and his teachings were first handed down in Aramaic, and that has left its mark in

13°Maloney,

Semitic Interference, 68.

131 Maloney,

Semitic Interference, 69.

132 Maioney,

Semitic Interference, 7 I.

133Casey,

Aramaic Sources, 22,27, and passim.

I34Casey,

Aramaic Sources, 29-33.

41

Mark's Gospe1,135 and that they have shown that dialectal difference, both diachronically and synchronically, are not so important as once thought.I36 Another important contribution Casey has made is the import of bilingualism on an author's writing. Thinking in one language, one often uses a word in the target language that has different connotations in the other language or using a grammatical construction from one language which would be inappropriate in the other.137 People may know two languages without being proficient in both. They may learn a second language and forget words of the first, grammar being more persistent. Along with bilingual speaking people's tending to forget words of the language less used, they experience interference of one language with the other. This is especially true of bilingual translators, who tend to be overly literalistic. The result of such translations is that the language produced is not the language spoken by those of the target language."8 After outlining seven stages for reconstructing an Aramaic text underlying the Greek, Casey argues that such procedures are necessary in attempting to recover the Jesus of history. i39 One point he makes pertinent to our study is that one must not translate from the Greek into Aramaic, but try to understand what the Aramaic expression was that was translated a certain way into Greek. Thus, one must take seriously the probability that the gospel tradition in Aramaic was well understood by native speakers of Aramaic and that, therefore, they understood the meaning of grammatical construction of verbal coordination, i.e.,

135Casey,

Aramaic Sources, 86,255,260.

' 36Casey, Aramaic Sources, 36. See also the discussion in Black, Aramaic Approach, 28, 137Casey, Aramaic Sources, 85-86. Cf. Jan Joosten, "Western Aramaic Elements in the Old Syriac and Peshitta Gospels," JBL 110 (1991): 271-89, especially 283. In Casey,

Aramaic Sources, 93-99.

t "Casey,

Aramaic Sources, 107-10.

42

the first verb in the sequence functioned as an adverb of manner of the action stated in the second verb. If one were to object that most of the native speakers of Aramaic in Palestine of the Is` cent. were scarcely educated and therefore would have not understood the subtleties of such grammatical construction, one has only to observe how native speakers of any language often use grammatical constructions properly, even complex ones, but may be at a loss to define or describe such usage. In his monograph on Q, Casey summarizes his discussion in general about Semitic interference in the gospels, advancing nothing new from his former work, which is quite appropriate. However a few things are a little more explicit in the summary he gives there. The gospels, written in Greek for Christians who spoke Greek, have features that can be understood only if they are seen as translations from Aramaic,14° although the translations need not to have done by the gospel writers themselves. As in his work on Mark, his main concentration is on Aramaic words, not grammar.141 This does not disparage the excellent work that he has done, only that there is little else there that would enhance this study. It is that void that this study attempts to fill. He emphasizes again the importance of using Aramaic as an essential tool for recovering the Jesus of history, yet rightfully cautions it cannot be used alone, but in conjunction with other disciplines.142 Unfortunately, too many good scholars have overlooked using Aramaic for recovering the teachings of Jesus.143 As will be seen, this applies especially to the grammatical construction of verbal coordination.

14°Maurice Casey, An Aramaic Approach to Q: Sources for the Gospels of Matthew and Luke (SNTSMS 122; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 52.

"'Casey, Aramaic Approach to Q, 54-60. 142 Casey,

Aramaic Approach to Q, 188-89.

143Casey,

Aramaic Approach to Q, 22, 42, 44, 46.

43

2.4 Scholarly Notice of Verbal Coordination in the Commentaries Having examined scholarly notice of verbal coordination in grammars and monographs relating thereto, I turn now to some of the commentaries which consider in some detail matters of grammar. The concentration is on Mark, since Matthew and Luke tend to smooth out the more obvious Semiticisms in Mark, replacing them with better Greek. In the International Critical Commentary on Mark, Ezra P. Gould observed that the oral traditions of Jesus and his teachings were in Aramaic, but in translating into Greek the verbal resemblances disappeared. Then he goes on to say oral tradition does not fix the language firmly,144 thereby discounting any Semitic influence. Unfortunately for a critical commentary, nowhere in the text does he comment on any possible Semitic influence, although he gives critical notes on the Greek wording. Vincent Taylor in his monumental commentary of Mark notes that a characteristic of Mark's Gospel is the frequent use of pleonasms. He lists several, many which are repetitive clauses, but he includes some which might well be considered as vestigial verbal coordination.145 They include Mark 4:39 and 5:39, which contain what I consider clear indications of vestigial verbal coordination. In his comments on Mark 1:35; 5:19; and 14:61, Taylor does not take note of those phrases which exhibit characteristics of verbal coordination. We have seen that some grammarians list instances of what are clearly verbal coordination under the grouping of pleonasms. That Vincent Taylor overlooked the possibility of considering verbal coordination behind certain phrases could be attributed to the scant attention paid thereto by grammarians.

"'Ezra P. Gould, Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St. Mark (ICC; T & T. Clark, 1896), x-xi. 143 Vincent Taylor, The Gospel According to St. Mark: The Greek Text with Introduction, Notes, and Indexes (2nd ed.; New York: St Martin's, 1966), 50-52.

44

Taylor does note the adverbial use of TrpoariOrika, add, in Mark as a Semitic usage,'" but gives no other instance of a verb being used as an adverb reflecting a Semitic background.I47 In the first commentary on Mark in the Anchor Bible series, C. S. Mann nowhere mentions the possibility of Aramaic grammatical constructions underlying the Geek text, but he does point out six Aramaic words or sentences that Mark has written into his gospel.'" More recently, in the second AB Commentary on Mark, which incidentally carries the same volume number as the first by Mann, Joel Marcus states that Mark's clumsy construction is from his preserving the tradition he received and further notes that Mark uses awkward Greek."He does not make any connection between the clumsy construction of the tradition and Mark's awkward Greek, and yet that seems so obvious and calling for an explanation. He makes no mention of any direct Semitic influence, aside from acknowledging Mark's use of the Hebrew Bible, presumably LXX. Taking a look at what are clearly vestiges of verbal coordination, i.e., answered and said, we find the comment on Mark 3:33, earoKpaitric ttyet, which Marcus states, is literally 'having answering, he said (sic).'

He avers it is a

common Old Testament idiom, from which he gives some examples, and then says Mark uses it elsewhere.15° At Mark 7:28 he translates eis-orpie9ii Kai AyEL. 1 [she]

answered and said,' I51 [literally, answered and says]. It is curious that "Taylor, Mark, 61. "'Taylor, Mark, 59-64.

148C. S. Mann, Mark: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 27; Garden City, N. Y.: Doubleday, 1986), 170.

"8.1oel Marcus, Mark 1-8: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 272; New York: Doubleday, 2000), 60. . 188Marcus,

AB 272, 277.

181 Marcus,

AB 272, 464.

45

Marcus would use this archaic traditional English phrase, 'answered and said' here; he even uses it where the Greek here has evroKpLecic cerrev (answering, said), Mark 6:37,152 yet in most places he uses the current modern English that other modern translations use. In their handbook on translating the Gospel of Mark, Bratcher and Nida acknowledge the prevalence of &rox-pceetc Ettrev (answering, said) in the Gospel, but say it should be translated simply `answer.'153 That would make for good English style, but it ignores the real meaning of the Aramaic phrase employing verbal coordination, which underlies the Greek translation. Commenting on Mark 1:7, they say that kiipucfacv ,lywr, (preached, saying) need only be translated as preached, since both verbs are practically synonymous and there is no need to translate both verbs (sic—strictly a participle is not a verb]) into English.154 I think many people would take umbrage at that statement—say and preach are hardly synonymous! Again, at Mark 1:23-24 civ6.cpcce) lt.yoa, (cried out, saying) they make the same comments, saying it is not necessary to employ the style of Mark,I55 completely overlooking the Aramaic background. Although they acknowledge Semitic influence, it is obvious these two writers of a translation guide fail to understand the import of the verbal coordination construction. W. C. Allen notes in the ICC commentary on the Gospel of Matthew that Matthew does not employ as many of the Aramaisms as Mark or as many of the LXX Hebraisms as Luke.I56 In the one instance where he cites throKpL86i5,157 he defers to Dalman.158 '32Marcus, AB 272, 405. "'Robert G. Bratcher and Eugene A. Nida, A Translator's Handbook on the Gospel of Mark (H elps for Translators Series; New York: United Bible Societies, 1961), 126. "tratcher and Nida, Translators Handbook, 22. 152Bratcher

and Nida, Translators Handbook, 49.

"6Willoughby C. Allen, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to S. Matthew (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1912), lxxxv-Ixxxvi.

46

Joseph A. Fitzmyer looks with great detail at examples of Semitic influence on the Greek of the Gospel of Luke, despite Luke's generally good Greek. While he notes the difficulty in determining the source of that Semitic interference on the Greek of Luke's Gospel, he cautions those occurrences that cannot clearly be shown to be due to [contemporary] Hebrew or Aramaic should be considered to have come from his acquaintance with and use of LXX. Of those not clearly from LXX, he maintains it is easier to find Aramaic influence than Hebrew.I69 Yet in all his investigation, he does not note any constructions that could be considered vestigial verbal coordination. Fitzmyer seems to sum up the consensus of scholarly opinion when he says, "Whatever one wants to say about the alleged Semitisms in Luke's Greek, one has in the long run to reckon with a great deal of influence from LXX."166 This would hold true just as validly for both Matthew and Mark, at least, for answering and said, as a glance at Appendix A would reveal. In the Introduction to his magisterial work on the Gospel of John, Raymond E. Brown appears more interested in discussing whether or not the original text of the Gospel was written in Aramaic, than in discussing the implications of the influence of Aramaic on the text.16I He does discuss the possibility of the influence of the Targumim (Aramaic translations of the Hebrew Scriptures) on John's thought.I62 Turning to the notes he has on Aramaic usages 137A1len,

Matthew, 184.

"'See n. 82. 139Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke (AB 28; Garden City, N.Y.: Doublday, 1981), 112-25.

'6°Fitzmyer, AB 28, 125. '61 Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John (i-xii): Introduction, Translation and Notes (AB 29; Garden City, N. Y.: Doubleday, 1966), cxxix-cxxx. 162 Brown,

AB 29, lix-Ixi.

47

in individual verses,163 one finds his comments dwell on vocabulary, not grammar. Of particular note is his translation of John 1:48, the first place dr6Kpleq Kai Erre, (answered and said) appears in John, "Jesus answered". He offers no

comment on why he translated 1in-6-K111617 Kai

E[ITEP

simply as answered,164 yet this

is one phrase that distinguishes John from the Synoptic Gospels.165 All told, he appears to be uninterested in any actual influence of Aramaic on the Greek text of John. This is surprising, since in a later work he finds Jesus probably used Aramaic for speaking and teaching, and that some of the tradition from which John drew may have been transmitted, both orally and written, in Aramaic.' 66 In summary, modern scholars dealing with the grammar of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, with few exceptions, have given scant attention to the Semitic syntactical construction of verbal coordination, nor have those commentators dealing with the critical matters of the text paid attention to the peculiar Semitic construction of verbal coordination. This is an oversight, for understanding that would aid in the understanding, interpretation, and translation of many Biblical texts, which I will illustrate in Chapter 4. Before I look at specific texts that display evidence of verbal of verbal coordination, I will take a look at the concept of grammaticalization to gain an insight to the appearance of verbal coordination in certain Semitic languages.

163 Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John (xiii-xxi): Introduction, Translation and Notes (AB 29A ; Garden City, N. Y.: Doubleday, 1970), 1190-1207. ibtrown, m See

AB 29, 81, 83.

Appendix A.3.1.

166 Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the Gospel of John (ABRL; ed. Francis J. Moloney; New York: Doubleday, 2003), 281.

48

2.5 Grammaticalization and Verbal Coordination 2.5.1 Definitions and Concepts of Grammaticalization

A useful tool for understanding the development and use of the Hebrew syntactical construction of verbal coordination is grammaticalization. The term was first coined in 1912 by Antoinet Meillet,I67 but has come to the fore in linguistics only in recent decades.I68 It has been described as the process whereby lexical items (words) evolve into grammatical items and from grammatical forms to more developed grammatical fonns.169 Or, to express this more formally, "Grammaticalization is the change whereby lexical items and constructions come in certain linguistic contexts to loose their lexical meaning and serve grammatical functions,"I7° and is considered as a subset of linguistic changes.I71 A lexical item belongs in a lexicon, referring to items that belong to an inventory, having a specific concrete meaning. A grammatical item has an abstract, functional meaning, conforming to rules of grammar. It is this distinction that Waltke and O'Connor fail to make.I72 The concrete meaning of a lexical item may, of course, refer to an abstract idea. Grammatical items are

'67Ian G. Roberts and Anna Roussou, Syntactic Change: A Minimalist Approach to Grammaticalization (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 100; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 1. 168Hans Lindquist and Christian Mair, eds., Corpus Approaches to Grammaticalization in English, (Studies in Corpus Linguistics 13; Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2004), 7. 169Benld Heine and Tania Kuteva, World Lexicon of Grammaticalization (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 2.

170

Rubin, Semitic Grammaticalization, 2.

71 Paul J. Hopper and Elizabeth Closs Traugott, Grammaticalization (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 28; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 2.

'72See n. 59.

49

relational:73 Lexical items belong to a major, or open, class, meaning more items can be added easily, whereas grammatical items form a minor, or closed, class, in that there are a rather restricted possible number of items:74

The process of grammaticalization involves four mechanisms. (a) desemanticization (or "semantic bleaching")—lose in meaning content. (b) extension (or context generalization)—use in new contexts. (c) decatergorialzation —loss in morphosyntactic properties characteristic of lexical or other less grammaticalized forms, and (d) erosion (or "phonetic reduction")—loss in phonetic substance:75 These processes are not independent, but one follows upon the other. Once a lexical item has been grammaticalized, it becomes increasingly divergent from its older uses. In grammaticalization the lexical forms become increasingly less semantic and ideally end with no semantic content.176 However, a lexical form which has become grammaticalized may still function as a lexical item in a different context. "Since the context of incipient grammaticalization is only one of the many contexts in which the lexical form may appear, when the form undergoes grammaticalization, it behaves just like any other autonomous form in its other, lexical contexts."177 This describes well the concept of verbal coordination, where the development of the construction stops at serving as an adverbial function. Grarnmaticalization forms a cline, a gradient of change along a line of transition, from a lexical item to a grammatical one or from a grammatical item to "'laurel J. Brinton and Elizabeth Closs Traugott, Lexicalization and Language Change (RSL 4: Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 9-11. "'Lindquist and Mair, Corpus Approaches, 3; Brinton and Traugott, Language Change, 14; and 1BHS, 46.

"'Heine and Kuteva, World Lexicon, 2. "6Heine and Kuteva, World Lexicon, 3-5. "'Hopper and Traugott, Granmiaticalization, 116-17.

50

a more grammatical one.118 The metaphor of cline indicates grammaticalization is a process along a certain course.179 The difference between a lexical item and a grammatical is a cline.18° The process of grammaticalization need not go to completion, but can stop anywhere along the path.181 "Synchronically a cline can be thought of as a 'continuum' [from] content item>grammatical word>clitic> inflectional affix"182 A clitic is a word that occurs adjacent to the autonomous word and "may be thought of as forms that are half-way between autonomous words and affixes."183 Grammaticalization is unidirectional. Lexical items become grammatical, grammatical items become more grammatical, and not vice versa. The process is gradual, but the grammatical item becomes more frequent over time.'" Grammaticalized forms may exist alongside the original lexical one.185 Some observations might help clarify a bit the concept of grammaticalization. That languages change is a universal phenomenon. But the change is neither inevitable nor necessarily continuous. Consider for example the Great Vowel Shift in the transition from Middle English to Early Modern English. As a result, the vowels in English, which were once were pronounced similarly to various languages in Europe are now pronounced differently from those on the Continent. Speculation aside, why or how this occurred is unknown, but that it 178Lindquist

and Mair, Corpus Approaches, 2.

179Rubin, Semitic 1"Lindquist

and Mair, Corpus Approaches, 5.

ni

Hopper and Traugott, Grammaticalization, 32,95.

182

Hopper and Traugott, Grammaticalization, 7.

wHopper

and Traugott, Grammaticalization, 5-6.

31Brinton

and Traugott, Language Change, 25-29.

IssRubin,

116-17.

Grammaticalization, 3.

Semitic Grammaticalization, 5; and Hopper and Traugott, Grammaticalization,

51

did is well known. Equally inexplicable is why the vowels of the other European languages did not change in such a fashion, nor why the change in English stopped where it did. Another example of certain changes in English grammar that have not occurred in related languages, or, at least, have not proceeded as far, is the use of the 2"d per. pl. accusative pronoun, you, for all numbers and cases of the 2"d per. pronoun. Other European languages have not done so, although in some a special pronoun may be used as polite form of address, e.g., French vous (pl. you) and German Sein (form of 3rd per. pl.), for 2"d per., both sg. and pl. A third example illustrating this phenomenon is the dropping of all endings of the regular, present tense verb, except for the third person singular. Why not drop the ending of that, too? Why have not other Indo-European languages done the same thing? Grammatical change is neither inevitable nor continuous. Keeping these matters in mind will aid in understanding the grammaticalization of the Semitic verbal coordination. Important for the concept of verbal coordination is that verbs do not go from being two separate verbs to becoming a grammatical item in one clear step, but there is a gradience within the grammatical category.186 The first verb of the verbal coordination construction can function as an adverb of manner, while still maintaining its lexical meaning in different contexts. In verbal coordination the grammatical expression is a phrase and could be said to be expressed phrasally.187 Although grammaticalization is usually thought of as taking certain words and giving them functions capable of expressing new linguistic concepts, the concept can also be applied to phrases.I88

1s6Lindquist and Mar, Corpus Approaches, 9. trHopper and Traugott, Gram,naticalization, 8. InHopper and Traugott, Grammaticalization, 27.

52

2.5.2 Semitic Grammaticalization Few works have dealt with grammaticalization in the Semitic languages,I89 yet it is quite prevalent in those languages.19° Aaron Rubin goes a long way in correcting this deficiency. In discussing verbal systems,I91 Rubin deals mainly with ways in which tense markers have arisen to compensate for their lack in Proto-Semitic. He does deal briefly with auxiliary verbs and the copula, but nowhere here does he discuss anything that might be considered verbal coordination. This is not completely surprising, given the scant coverage of it in the total literature. Nor in his chapter on grammaticalization in Semitic does he deal with adverbs, which seems to me to be somewhat of an oversight. Stating the examples he has given should convince one of the extent of grammaticalization in Semitic languages, lie expresses a hope that the importance of grammaticalization in accounting for changes in language be recognized. "When one seeks out the origins of a new grammatical form, grammaticalization should come to mind."I92 I agree wholeheartedly.

2.5.3 Verbal Coordination as an Example of Grammaticalization. Considering all of the descriptions and explanations in this subsection on grammaticalization, it can be seen how the syntactical construction of verbal coordination can well be understood as an example of grammaticalization. Here, then, is the rationale for considering understanding verbal coordination in terms of grammaticalization. The scarcity of natural adverbs in Hebrew and Aramaic set mRubin, Semitic Grammaticalization, 7-8. Rubin, Semitic Grammaticalization, 17.

194

191

Rubin, Semitic Grammaticalization, 24-46.

192Rubin,

Semitic Grammaticalization, 65-64.

53

the need for new forms. Verbal coordination, i.e., the use of two verbs, which have the same subject and most often the same form, the first acting as an adverb describing the manner of action of the second verb, is one of the ways that fulfilled that need.

In most cases it did not progress farther on the cline of

grammaticalization. One reason for this could be that, if verbal coordination had become more grammaticalized, e.g., combining into a single form, the addition of clitics, or dropping the identity of verbs as verbs, than those verbs would soon have lost their lexical meanings and new words would have had to have taken their place. Of course, that would have been possible, but not expeditious. It is much simpler to recognize a certain order of words under set conditions, i.e. two verbs with identical subject having similar forms, as a grammatical construction serving a specific purpose, i.e. functioning as an adverbial phrase of manner. One, then, would not have to look up a definition of any of the several verbs used as the modify adverb in verbal coordination, since the grammatical structure carries the meaning. Any number of verbs could be used in this manner. Gesenius cites more than 70 verses as examples of verbal coordination,I93 and Davidson nearly as many, I91 while Williams in his brief Outline gives nearly a dozen different instances.I95 It is possible to consider certain expressions, such as the Hebrew nniel IT] or the Aramaic -anrt, mF, (and) answered and said, as progressing along the cline of grammaticalization to the stage of practically becoming a clitic, where the words becoming a standard expression meaning 'said', especially in Aramaic, where, as has been noted, it had become almost a hackneyed expression. But in other cases, the frequency of use is not so common, so one would not think of other examples of verbal coordination as being hackneyed.

m See n. 7.

'" See n. 10. 19S

See n. 11.

54

It is clear to see the use of verbal coordination developing throughout the time of the writing of the Hebrew Bible. Why such a development took place is only a matter of speculation, as is so often the case with changes in language. Since there were other constructions available that could be used to express the adverbial of manner, why did this peculiar syntactical develop? Perhaps there was felt a need to have a dedicated expression to describe manner. Perhaps the use of a combination of certain verbs, once understood as describing discrete actions came to be seen as one modifying the other. Perhaps it was an easier, more natural expression—using two verbs with the same morphology coupled together with a simple 'and' in distinction to using an infinitive with a finite verb or one of the other construction noted by Gesenius.I96 Perhaps it was something else, maybe even pure chance. Nevertheless, a look at the Hebrew constructions behind the KJV 'answered and said' compared with other Hebrew uses of `answer' in Appendix A shows a greater usage of 'answered and said' in the later writings and a higher percentage of usage of either 'answered saying' (verb plus infinitive construct) or simply 'answered' in the earlier writings. Note, especially, the use of only verbal coordination, in distinction to other, apparently older, syntactical constructions of nig, answer,' in Daniel and the far greater percent of its occurring in Zechariah over the other forms. 197 This greater frequency of 'answered and said' in the later writings is in keeping with the observations of grammaticalization in that a grammaticalized form tends to become the norm, replacing an earlier usage. Another interesting observation is the number of appearances of `answered and said' where there is no contextual need for a response, either to a question or some other statement that might reasonably expect a response.198 This

196

I

GKC, 385

"See Appendix A.4. xsSee Appendix A.I verses marked with ".

55

indicates the construction itself had acquired a life of its own, or, as has been noted, it had become almost a hackneyed expression in the later Aramaic usage. However, Cythia L. Miller asserts 3rn) in certain contexts does not mean answer at al1.199 She sees it as a grammatical feature pointing out the most part of the conversation,200 referring only to the act of speech.20I Her detailed analysis of the representation of speech in Biblical Hebrew is interesting and innovative and throws a different light on various constructions of words of utterance. However, I will argue in this study that verbal coordination offers a different meaning to those constructions, however useful Miller's analysis may be.

199Cynthia L. Miller, The Representation of Speech in Biblical Hebrew Narrative: A Linguistic Analysis (I-ISM 55; Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1996). 324.

"tynthia L. Miller, Speech in Biblical Hebrew, 321. "'Cynthia L. Miller, Speech in Biblical Hebrew, 52.

57

Chapter 3 Verbal Coordination in Late B.C.E.—Early C.E. Texts Before we consider the import of verbal coordination in the language of Jesus and the Gospels, it would do well to look at the use of verbal coordination in documents written in the period preceding and in the beginning of the Common Era. First, looking at the translations of the HB in handling the peculiar Semitic grammatical phenomenon of verbal coordination will give some idea how it was understood, both in Greek and Aramaic, during this period of time. This dual consideration is necessary, for the Gospels as we have them were written Greek, but the teachings and traditions about Jesus were originally transmitted in Aramaic, the language of Jesus and his first followers. Seeing how the earliest Greek translations we have—LXX—translated occurrences of verbal coordination will offer some clues how the first translators of the Aramaic traditions of Jesus into Greek dealt with a construction uncommon in Greek except for LXX, for the grammar of Hebrew and Aramaic are quite similar. More importantly for the thesis developed here is the question whether or not the construction was common, or sufficiently available, in the language spoken by Jesus and his Galilean followers to have been used by him and those who first passed on the tradition in Aramaic. Since translations of sacred scriptures everywhere having the tendency to be rather literal because the words of the original are held in such respect, one would expect such translations to be somewhat "wooden," especially in regards to grammar. So the rendering of HB in LXX has often been called translation Greek. A check against this would be to view documents in Aramaic in the period roughly contemporary with or somewhat prior to the time of Jesus to determine whether or not there are examples of verbal coordination in material

58

more freely written than actual translation. I employ the constraint "more freely written" because of the tendency of writers to imitate the language of sacred writings when composing religious or quasi-religious texts; nonetheless, keeping this in mind, it still would be helpful to look for the construction in passages that are not translations. Aramaic includes a wide variety of dialects varying over time and place. For convenience scholars have assigned the various dialects to different periods. For our purposes we are interested in three general periods: Imperial or Official, ca. 612 B.C.E. to ca. 200 B.C.E.; Middle Aramaic, ca. 200 B.C.E. to ca. 250 C.E.; Late Aramaic, ca. 250 C.E. to 1200 c.E.2°2 J. Greenfield reckons the beginning of the Middle Aramaic Period starting from 300 B.c.E.203 Bruce Chilton has a more refined schema for roughly the same periods of time.204 He divides the periods as Achaemenid, 500 B.C.E.-200 B.C.E.; Transitional, 200 B.C.E.-200 C.E.; Regional, 200 C.E.-700 C.E. and Revival, 700 c.E.-1500 c.E.205 Klaus Beyer indicates there were seven different dialects spoken in SyroPalestine at the time of Jesus, yet they were mutually understood. The traditions handed down by the first followers of Jesus were in the Judean dialect, the dialect of Jerusalem and Judea, as evidenced by the Aramaic words in the Gospels. If there were an early Christian community in Galilee it did not send out

202Stephen 203J.

A. Kaufman, "Aramaic," ABD 4:174.

Greenfield, "Aramaic," IDBSup: 40.

26m Bruce Chilton, "Aramaic, Jesus, and the Targumim," Bard College, N.Y., 2008; Revised as "The Aramaic Lord's Prayer" in Judaism, Jewish Identities and the Gospels Tradition: Essays in Honor of Maurice Casey (ed. James G. Crossley; Bible World; London: Equinox, 2010), 62-82. mChilton,

"Aramaic, Jesus, and the Targumim," n.p.

59

missionaries.206 The dialect that Jesus spoke was Galilean and is best preserved in the Targum fragments from the Cairo Geniza.2°2 These scholars assign various Aramaic documents to these periods in a slightly different mariner. Chilton considers the Aramaic portions of both Ezra and Daniel to belong to the Achaemend Period, while Greenfield and Kaufman put only Ezra so early, placing the Aramaic portions of Daniel in the Middle Aramaic Period. All three agree that Aramaic texts from the Dead Sea Caves, Targum Owelos, and Targum Jonathan belong to the Middle Aramaic (Transitional) Period. Chilton places Targum Neophyti I, Targum PseudoJonathan, Targum of the Writings in his Regional Period and the Cairo Geniza fragments and the Fragments Targum in his Revival Period, while Greenfield and Kaufman combine all these in the Late Aramaic Period. It seems obvious to me Chilton's more refined schema allows grouping documents more similar in linguistic characteristics into similar groups, which then affords more critical comparison within each group. This is an advantage, as the dialects of Aramaic have changed over time in the larger Late Aramaic Period. Concerning the Syriac versions, Chilton assigns the Old Syriac Gospels to his Transitional Period and the Peshitta of the NT to his Regional Period. Because he does not differentiate, I am assuming he includes the Peshitta translation of both the HB and NT. This is most likely, but S. P. Brock places the Peshitta before the OSG, maintaining the OSG adapt some quotations from the HB to agree with the Peshitta text of the HB, suggesting the translations of most of the books date from the 1st-26d cent. c.E.208 On the other hand. I would consider it possible that this could have been done by some later copyists

2°6Klaus Beyer, The Aramaic Language: Its Distribution and Subdivisions (trans. John F. Healey; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck Ruprecht, 1986), 38. 2°7 Beyer, Aramaic Language, 39, 47. 2"S. P. Brock, "Syriac Versions," ABD 6:794. See also Jan Joosten, "Tatian's Diatessaron and the Old Testament Peshitta," JBL 120 (2001): 501-23, especially 504-5.

60

attempting to make the agreement between the two texts. Indicating that the Peshitta is not a translpation per, but a revision of an Old Syriac Version of the HB, A. Vt56bus states it could have been translated from the HB in the 15` cent. C.E. by a convert to Judaism or just as likely by Christians neither from the HB nor LXX, but from a Palestinian Targum 209 He indicates the OSG were developed from the Diatessaron, a Syriac harmony of the Gospels, generally held to come from a later period. More recently, M. P. Weitzman shows convincingly that the Peshitta is a direct translation of the HB by a Jewish community in Edessa, the earlier books c. 150 c.c., later books somewhat later.210 He dates the OSG c. 200 c.E.211 Weitzman's dating of OSG fall within Chilton's period, but Weitzman dates the Peshitta earlier than Chilton. Thus the scholarly opinion varies. I choose, for the most part, to follow the lead of Professor Chilton, although I am inclined to follow Beyer on the Cairo Geniza Targum fragments and Weitzman on the Peshitta. Yet, as we shall see, it is not imperative for the purpose of this study to date precisely the origin of each version, only that we have some idea about when any particular version was written. My seemingly cavalier attitude toward the serious work done by many Aramaists in attempting to locate accurately the dating of the plethora of the ancient texts warrants an explanation. The rationale behind my not being concerned with the precise dating of a particular text is that the grammatical construction of verbal coordination seen in the various versions and MMS is found in continuous use from the HB (including the Aramaic sections of Dan), through the Targumim, the Aramaic mss. from the Dead Sea Caves, the OSG, the Peshitta, and to the Targum fragments from the Cairo Genizah, in aggregate

Arthur VIKSbus, "Syriac Versions," IDBSup: 848-49.

209

210M. P. Weitzman, The Syriac Version of the Old Testament: An Introduction (UCOP 56; Cambridge, U.K.: University of Cambridge, 1999), 252

211

Weitzman, Syriac Version, 17.

61

spanning several centuries. We will illustrate this widespread usage in the present chapter

3.1 Translations of Citations from Appendices A and B A look at some ancient translations of the Hebrew of the citations in Appendices A and B will prove instructive in our quest for understanding the syntactical construction of verbal coordination, in that they show how the HB was understood and translated by those closer to the text in time and culture than we are today.

3.1.1 The Septuagint and Vulgate

The LXX, a term referring to a collection of Old Greek versions, are among the first translations made of the HB. Probably parts were translated into Greek before the LXX texts we have today, but we have no manuscript evidence for such, just a legendary mentioning.212 The various books most certainly were translated at different times, by different translators, with varying degrees of accuracy. The books of the Pentateuch, probably translated first, are the best of the Old Greek translations. The other books are poorer translations, the Prophets inferior to the books of Moses, although better than the remaining Writings. The LXX being older, I will consider them before the Aramaic translations. 1 have included Vulg. here, even though it appears several centuries later, because the basic grammar of Latin and Greek are similar to each other and quite distinct from both Hebrew and Aramaic. Neither LXX nor the Vulg. is a strictly literal translation of the HB, but comparing their differences is interesting.

201-lenry Barclay Swete, An Intorduction to the Old Testament in Greek (rev. Richard Ruden Paley; Peabody: Hendrickson, 1989), l

62

The LXX and Vulg. translate the Heb. phrase innh lye,, and answered and said, in a variety of ways, differing in the various books. In the LXX of Genesis the overwhelming number of the translations of this clause is the participle plus verb, duoKpiGeic dire, or some variation thereof. The scholarly consensus suggests that this is the usual LXX translation.213 While this is true of Genesis, it does not pan out for even the rest of the Pentateuch, where the translation there employs the participle plus verb, as in Genesis, slightly less than the literal translation of verb plus verb, direKpi6"77 Kai Ebro).

Even once in Genesis it is

translated thus. It is important for this discussion to remember that the Pentateuch is considered the best translation of the HB into Greek compared to the remaining books. In the books of Samuel and Kings,

is translated literally,

answered and said, approximately forty times, and a half-a-dozen tunes with a single verb, with no examples of the participle plus verb, which we have seen sometimes it is used in the Pentateuch, more so in Genesis. The remaining books of the Hebrew Scriptures, except for Job and Daniel, employ the literal translation roughly three times as often as using just a single verb, and only twice, by my count, of participle plus verb. The books of Job and Daniel are anomalies in this regard. Perhaps this is because of the poetic structure of the book of Job. Daniel is different in that the passages all occur in the Aramaic sections of the book, where the Aramaic construction is participle plus participle a characteristic function of that language.214 We will revisit this observation when looking at the Targumim and the Aramaic documents for Qumran. All told, of the one-hundred-and-forty-some occurrences of linx,1 wri in the HB, the LXX translates this phrase some sixty times literally, verb plus verb, 213 Dalman, Words of Jesus, 24-25; Moulton and Howard, Grammar 2, 453-54; BDF, 217; Mann, Mark, 259; and, Marcus, Mark 1-8, 277.

214

See nn. 13-14.

63

sixteen or so times with the participle plus verb, and a dozen times with a single verb, excluding Job and Daniel for reasons noted above, which make up the remaining occurrences. One sees, then, that LXX translates nnyn pin only one time out of nine with the participle plus verb. Scholars need to reexamine their acceptance that LXX routinely translates this phrase with the participle followed by the verb. Such uncritical reliance on earlier scholarly assertions can lead to false conclusions, questionable deductions, or inappropriate use of data.215 The rendering of the HB in Vulg., on the other hand, translated directly from the Hebrew, prefers a single verb for the translation of intAil pin, employing the participle plus verb only once in Genesis. For some inexplicable reason in the books of Samuel, the Vulg. does not translate the phrase -iptoi wn consistently with a single verb, but employs a variety of usages. The Vulg. generally follows the LXX in translating Job and Daniel. This subsection has looked only at Appendix A in determining how LXX handled the phenomenon of verbal coordination in the example of -Inxn wn. A detailed look at Appendix B would shed no new light on the subject, for there we would see the same variety of translations in LXX as we saw in its translating 1Ptol 13In • That DOC translates npxn prn in a variety of ways and that the Vulg. most often employs a standard single verb construction would raise some question about how these two similar, yet different, Indo-European language translations represent the import of the Hebrew text. This, in turn, raises the question of understanding the significance of verbal coordination in Semitic languages, the burden of this study.

2"For instance see Dalman, Words, 24-25; Moulton and Howard, Grammar 2, 453-54; and Fitzmyer, Luke 1-9, 114, 125,

64

3.1.2 The Targumim

The Targumim are translations of the HB into Aramaic. Such translations were necessary, since after the fall of Babylon to the Persians, Hebrew as a living language began to be displaced by Aramaic, the lingua franca of the Persian Empire, and used among the Jews in the Middle East, including Syro-Palestine. Probably before the 2nd cent. B.C.E., portions of the FIB were translated orally into Aramaic during the services in the synagogues. Not until later were these translations written down. The two accepted versions are Targurn Onqelos (Tg. Ong.) and Targum Jonathan, hereafter referred to as Tg. Neb. (Targum Nebi'imTargum of the Prophets) to avoid confusion with the officially unrecognized Pseudo-Jonathan (Targum Yerusalmi or Targum Eretz Yisrael). Other Targumim existed, those also without official rabbinic recognition. Until the discoveries of the DSS in the mid-20th cent., the manuscripts of the Targumim available to us were dated several centuries into the Common Era. Although those mss. show signs of revision during the later rabbinic period, evidence in light of DSS indicates these Targumim were composed earlier, representing a dialect of Aramaic from the Middle Aramaic period216 (ca. 200 B.C.E. to ca. 250 C.E.)217

3.1.2.1 Targum Onqelos

Targum Onqelos is a rather literal translation of the Hebrew text, although there are some emendations and additions. Note, in this study, I am interested primarily and almost exclusively in the grammatical phenomenon of verbal coordination and its implications for understanding and translation, not in vocabulary or meaning, apart from that inherent in the construction, since other

216

2

Philip S. Alexander, "Targuim Targumim" in ABD 6:320-31.

"Stephen A. Kaufman, "Aramaic" in ABD 6:173-78.

65

scholarly works deal with the semantic problems of an Aramaic Ursprung (source, provenance) of the Gospels. There is a major exception to my not being concerned with vocabulary in this study and that is this: the verb

meaning literally, to go from one place to

another,218 is found in either its indicative or imperative forms, some 20 times in

Tg. Onq. (and 50-some times in Tg. Neb.), coupled with another verb. In Exod 4:18a Tg. Onq. has

rr`, nplei :rrmo no: ol`p z-,11 neln .,w, "And Moses went and

returned to Jethro his father-in-law and said unto him, (KJV)," or by going and returning to Jethro, he said to him—he had to go from where he was to where his father-in-law was in order to speak to him. The significance of this will be noted when we examine certain passages of the Gospels.

Targum Ongelos translates -420) in (and answered and said) literally throughout. So, in this clause, at least, Tg. Onq. employs the construction called verbal coordination by Gesenius, et al. A look at a few verses listed in Appendix B reveals Tg. Onq. also used the same construction with other verbs. Gen 32:1 (Eng. 31:55) n,not07 i?`? zol

and Laban went [from that place] and returned to

his [own] place, clearly one action, not simultaneous—he returned to his own place by leaving where he had been, the first verb acting as an adverb of manner, showing how he got home, i.e., by leaving where he had been. Gen 31:33 Linni x47Ira '7.1.n

*77

t41:-.tgm ppn. and he went out from the tent of Leah and

entered the tent of Rachel. 1 Sam 17:8 ,(nt41 c?i, he stood and shouted; although this could be seen as two discrete actions. I read it as verbal coordination, in that, in order to be heard better—suggested by shouting—he stood up; the implications for a different understanding of certain passages in the Gospels, e.g., John 7:37; 8:7, will be seen clearly when we look at them. So it is not just a matter of repeating the possibly hackneyed expression answered and said in Tg. Ong., but translating a variety of phrases that represent verbal coordination.

ZiBStephen A. Kaufman, ed., The Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon. Online: hup://call.cn.huc.edu.

66

In general then, Tg. Onq. translates the verses cited in Appendix B as verbal coordination. Note, however, wmv imperfect consecutive of the HB is translated as perfect and the wow consecutive as imperfect. This should cause no surprise, as wow consecutive, a syntactical construction that appears to change the tense of a verb but in reality is a representation of an older form of the verb, "is almost unique to Biblical Hebrew."219 In a similar vein, Tg. Onq. does not always translate strictly literally. In Gen 24:26 is an example of the participle being used as a finite verb in the past,22° where MT clearly expresses verbal coordination. Two participles in Gen 32:7, rye ',Tim (feared and distressed) present a different phenomenon.

Since these two participles translate two wow imperfect

consecutive verbs, it would be most likely here again the translator intended the same function as MT, i.e., verbal coordination, but used the participles as imperfect.22 I Interestingly, where the HB employs two verbs in verbal coordination, Tg.

Onq. frequently translates them with a participle plus verb, but only where the HB has 3r° person masculine singular. In most cases the participle comes first, followed by the verb, but occasionally the verb appears first, e.g., Gen 28:10: ppn 1715 5rxl v;arittaP ZpL' and Jacob departed (participle used as past indicative) Beersheba and went to Haran; Gen 9:1

-am.] .nnn ro,1 m ro -19 -pal, and YY

blessed (participle) Noah and his sons and said to them.... One will observe the participle followed by a verb also occurs frequently in LXX, raising the question of the possibility of an influence of LXX on the Targumim—examples also can be found in Tg. Neb

but more than likely this is

coincidental, the translators acting independently, happening upon what seem best to them. This phenomenon, translating Hebrew verbal coordination with a Yitzbak Frank, Grammar for Gemara and Targum Onkelos: An Introduction to Ariel, 2003), 7, n. 12.

2I9

Aramaic (Jerusalem: 22°Johns,

Short Grammar, 25.

Johns, Short Grammar, 25.

221

67

participle plus verb, will be taken up again when we examine some passages from the Gospels. Imperatives, per se, are usually translated quite literally, but in Exod 40:10 the imperfect in the sense of an imperative, is used to translate the MT perfect consecutive, which follows in a long string of such verbs, looking back to an imperfect used as imperative. This indicates the translator clearly understood the Hebrew construction of the sequences of tenses, which had no parallel in Aramaic.2 This is also seen in Num 4:9; Deut 4:6; 6:3; 26:16; and 31:1. Likewise, where MT uses the chain waw imperfect followed by several verbs in the perfect to express (future) imperative, Tg. Onq. employs perfect followed by imperfect in the chain, e.g., Lev 22:31; Num 4:9; 5:16; et al. 3.1.2.2 Targum Nebi'im (Targum Jonathan)

Targum Nebrim is a fairly literal translation of the HB, but not quite so as Tg. Onq., appearing to have a little more paraphrase and haggadah than Tg. Ong.223

Paraphrase often adds words to the text that make clear

something that apparently was obscure. Haggaddah is the addition to the text that adds folklore to the text. Like Tg. Onq., Tg. Neb. has perfect where MT has imperfect for nr:1101

A notable exception, where a periphrastic construction

appears, is I Sam 23:4. Tg. Neb. reads -inKI 7 7rni17s 174;71 : "And receiving his prayer, YY said" where the literal translation of MT is "And YHVIH answered him and said." This may be because of the translator's tendency to reduce anthropomorphic representations of the divine, perhaps, in this case, not to answer David, as if he were an equal; accepting David's prayer seems less personal than answering him. This particular phenomenon appears frequently in Tg. Neb., e.g.

222 Frank,

Grammar Onkelos, 7, n.12.

22'Alexander,

ABD 6:324-25.

68

Josh 18:1; 1 Sam 19:18; 2 Sam 22:7; 1 Kgs 8:30, 48, et al. Other examples of Tg.

Neb's avoiding anthropomorphic references to God can be found. Likewise in verses listed in Appendix B, Tg. Neb., like Tg. Onq., routinely has the perfect where MT has imperfect. An example of this is Josh 4:10 lrFritii n;;/2 )91, literally, "and the people hastened and crossed over," meaning, they crossed over quickly. Again, 1 Sam 1:19 rpm tilas? wript.1 literally, "and they arose early in the morning and worshipped," meaning, they worshipped first thing in the moming.224 Another example is 1 Sam 4:12: rti7tml K-1-19n trryi .6,7)5, a man ran from the troops and came to Shiloh. Clearly the running tells how the man came to Shiloh. This is not two separate actions; rather, he came in the manner of running. The clause in 1 Sam 18:27 (7);) (m) tnl, and (David) arose and went, is a very common construction. All of these are translations of verbal coordination. We shall see examples of these in various verses from the Gospels considered in Chapter 4. There are several places where Tg. Neb., like Tg. Ong., uses the participle plus the perfect where MT has two imperfects, but restricted to 3rd person, masculine singular, e.g., 1 Sam3:5; 2 Sam 1:2. But sometimes the participle comes second, e.g. 1 Sam 17:34 tr,intt z.val ty, n:31 :471.1 mr6x1, a lion and also a bear came and took a lamb; the participle is used for indicative past. So also, Tg. Neb. translates the MT imperative straightforward, both syndetic and asyndetic, except in four instances where the MT has been reworked to avoid anthropomorphisms or to avoid imputing evil to YY, i.e., 2 Kgs 19:16; Ezek 39:17; Hos 1:2; 3:1. Just as Tg. Onq. utilizes various means of translating the MT verbal coordination, so does Tg. Neb., each utilizing constructions other than verb plus verb to translate the construction verbal coordination. Occasionally Tg. Neb. translates imperfect plus imperfect of MT with participle plus participle, which, as

224

CE Williams, Syntax (1967), 44.

69

we have seen, is characteristic of Aramaic,225 e.g., 2 Sam 14:22; 15:2. It also occasionally employs the participle plus verb to translate the HB verbal coordination, which technique the LXX sometimes use. This latter use should act as a caution against an unqualified assertion that where the participle plus verb appears in the Greek text of the Gospels, the writers were following the LXX, as it could just as likely represent Aramaic. This construction, found also in Tg.

Onq., would appear to be grounds for claiming a possible provenance of its being in the Gospels, either as an influence from LXX, which is often claimed to be the case for Luke, or, as I think, more likely, particularly in Mark, from Aramaic, either the Targumim or spoken Aramaic. It would appear that the two Targumim, Tg. Onq. and Tg. Neb., understood the principle of verbal coordination used in the HB where it was used to express an adverbial modifier to the principle verb. In most instances they translated this quite literally, wherever the grammar permitted. In some places they employed participles to translate verbal coordination used in the HB. Given the use of participles to indicate past time being corrimon in Aramaic, that would not necessarily indicate that verbal coordination was not understood, since they usually translated that construction literally. Had they not understood the Hebrew syntax, or, more compellingly, understanding it and not finding the construction common in their Aramaic, one would expect them to have used a different construction, since the purpose of the Targumim was to present the Scriptures in language the people could understand. One could argue they did not employ a different construction out of respect for the text, yet that argument falls flat when one considers they had no compunction about changing the text in other instances, as noted in several places previously. Since LXX sometimes translated two coordinated verbs with participle plus perfect—but not always nor even mostly so

to give a "better" Greek reading, so also these Targumim may have used a

participle plus participle to make "better" Aramaic. Note this usage was n'See on. 13-16.

70

employed, as also in Tg. Ong., for only the 3"I person, masculine singular, suggesting it was a stylistic variation driven by neither syntax nor meaning. (Compare this with the OSG, noted below, where the participle was used only in the case of 3"1 person masculine plural.) From this we may conclude Aramaic-speaking inhabitants of SyroPalestine understood at least the meaning and function of verbal coordination. Whether they employed such constructions in everyday speech is much harder to discern. However, when we look at other Aramaic writings of the period that are not translations of the HB, it will become clearer that the construction may have been current in poplar speech.

3.1.3 Aramaic Translations from Qumran

Aramaic translations of Leviticus and Job found at Qumran are fragmentary. These translations are sometimes referred to as Targumim, yet that is not quite accurate. Targumim serve a different purpose and function in different ways, whereas the Aramaic of Leviticus and Job are simple, straightforward translations.226 Considering that and the fact neither Biblical book has much narrative— where most examples of verbal coordination can be found—one would expect to find few instances of the construction in these Aramaic fragments. The next to last fragment of Job (11Q10 7a:1) contains the words -u so era

K337,

Job answered

and said (Job 42:1), the quintessential verbal coordination. The fragments of Leviticus are just too small to offer anything to this discussion.

226Siam

Bhayro brought this to my attention in an e-mail, March 2011.

71

3.1.4 The Old Syriac Gospels

The Old Syriac Gospels come from the Transitional Period of the Middle Aramaic period,227 represented in two 59' cent. mms, the Curetonianus and the Sinaiticus, a palimpsest overwritten by a Syriac biography, Lives of Women Saints,.228 But they were written much earlier, probably dating from sometime in the 2" cent. C.E.229 These gospels represent a Syriac dialect resembling the Aramaic Jesus spoke. The MSS were written in the Estrangelo script, an older form of Syriac writing, without vowel signs. I have read it using the pointing (markings for vowels) followed in the Peshitta, although that is usually considered as having been written somewhat later. Critical to this study would be the pointing of 3rd person masculine singular verbs, which have the same consonants of the active participle, but different vowels. However, we have seen the participle is often used as a past indicative and TAX frequently translates verbal coordination from the HB with participle plus indicative. In the listings of citations from the OSG in Appendices C.2 and C.3, I have included contextual wording only when the two MMS disagree, in order to account for the differences, or where needed for clarification. When compared with the list in Appendix C.4, one readily sees there is far greater variation from the Greek text in OSG than in the Peshitta. The plural participle does appear for the indicative 3r9 person masculine plural, as noted in the Appendices C.2 and C.3. Note this distinction from the Targumim, where they translate the 3'9 person masculine singular of HB with the participle. I have considered only the two

uliCun Aland and Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament (trans. Erroll F. Rhodes; Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1987), 189-90; and Chilton, "Aramaic, Jesus, and the Targumim," n.p. 228 S.

229

P. Brock, "Syriac Versions" in ADB 6:794-99.

Weitzman, Syriac Version, 17.

72

clauses citroxpt0Eic

ETTFEV

and arrexpiB,l Kai ?Lucy as sufficient to establish the

usage of verbal coordination in the translation in the OSG. 3.1.5 The Peshitta The Peshitta translation of the HB is from 150 C.E. to a little later.23° That puts it outside the time of Jesus and the writing of the Gospels, yet its clear usage of verbal coordination, illustrated below, indicates the phenomenon of verbal coordination was quite widespread, both in time and geography, Syriac being spoken in the eastern geographical range of the Aramaic dialects. The Peshitta differs little from the MT of the HB as indicated in Appendix C.1., perhaps due the translator(s) making a literal translation or copyists correcting the Peshitta to agree with the Hebrew text. Most of the translations of the Heb.

ikm (and [he] answered and said) and its plural equivalents are

translated literally word for word, vorCo re,_,0. There are three variations to the literal translation, most commonly dropping the connective from the first verb, so that it reads irlo re.t.s.., [he] answered and said. Found a few times is the simple word with the connective

and [he] said. There is one instance where the

whole Heb. clause is found simply

[he] answered.

Curiously, the Peshitta of the NT has barv'o ,d.. (answered and said) nearly everywhere KJV has answered and said in the Gospels, even where the Greek has drtoKptOcic Ebro, (or equivalent),' which could be due to the copyist correcting the Peshitta to agree with the Greek text.

230 Weitzinan„ 231See

Syriac Version, 252.

Appendix CA.

73

3.2 Documents Other Than Translations of the Hebrew Bible 3.2,1 Additions to the Hebrew Bible Found in the Targumim

It would fruitful to see if any citations of additions to HB in the Targumim might yield examples of verbal coordination in the current vernacular aside from the translation of the Hebrew text.

3.2.1.1 Targum Ongelos

Targum Ongelos is a rather straightforward, literal translation of the HB. There are few changes made in translating the text. For the most part it is change of a single word.232 There are a few changes in grammar, some of which we noted in the translations of the examples above (3.1.2.1). Additions to the text are even rarer. One is in the expansion to the Song of the Sea, traditionally the Song of Moses, celebrating the crossing of the Reed Sea.

Tg. Ong. Exod 15:21 reads i-nxi lr‘i;c1 (they sang and gave thanks) for the MT imt (sing [imperative]). While the change of mood is interesting, it is the addition of the word itrti, and gave thanks, that is germane to this study. Clearly, the translator has employed verbal coordination here. He says that they [the people of Israel] gave thanks by singing; singing was the manner in which they gave thanks. In verse 14 a waw (and) has been added in Tg. Ong. to the two asyndetic verbs mn, 0,03.; limy (the people heard, they trembled) of the MT, so we read 1:,,r:c1 wn m:nn;1 (the people heard and trembled). Although two asyndetic verbs are not

uncommon in poetry, the translator added the wow to make the passage clearer, yet in doing so he emphasized the verbal coordination: by hearing, the people "'Israel Drazin Targum Onkelos to Deuteronomy (n.p.: KTAV, 1982), 1-2, 8; Targum Onkelos to Exodus (n.p.: KTAV, 1990), 1, 3- 22; and Targum Onkelos to Leviticus (n.p.; KTAV, 1994), 1-2.

74

trembled, which not only describes the manner of trembling, it also fits nicely into the context.

3.2.1.2 Targum Nebi'im (Targum Jonathan)

Targum Nebi'im is freer in translating than Tg. Onq. and elaborates a little on the text, adding or substituting other words and phrases. There are few examples of the construction of verbal coordination in the additions to the HB found in Tg. Neb. Yet these few examples are telling. Joshua chapter 4 relates the Israelites' crossing the Jordan, while the priests bearing the ark in the midst of the Jordan held back the waters. When all the people had passed over, Joshua commanded the priests to come up out of the river (vs.17). When the priests' feet were drawn up to dry ground, the waters of the Jordan returned (vs. 18). In vs. 18 Tg. Neb. adds Iti:m (and rested) before the phrase on dry ground. Reading this as verbal coordination, we see the priests, by drawing their feet out of the river, they rested them on dry ground. This fits the story well; it was not the drawing of [lifting up] their feet out of the water, but being on land, i.e., in resting their feet on dry ground, that allowed the waters of the Jordan to flow again. Here the translator by using the construction of verbal coordination makes explicit what the MT implies; when the priests got out of the water and on dry land, the waters returned. Most of the expansions to the Tg. Neb. are in the poetic sections of the HB, e.g., the songs and prayers of noteworthy individuals. The Song of Deborah celebrating the victory of the Israelites over the Canaanites contains a line that can be considered as verbal coordination. Judg 5:2 is greatly expanded from the MT, adding to the deeds of YY. At the end of the verse in the MT there is an exhortation to bless YHWH, to which Tg. Neb. adds rim (and give thanks). Although one could maintain blessing and giving thanks are two distinct actions, I think it is better understood as verbal coordination; one blesses the Lord by giving

75

thanks. In the victory song God is credited with giving the victory. The response evoked is thankfulness. In the Gospel of Luke we will see where one blessed the Lord by giving thanks. Farther down in the chapter in the same song is an addition to vs. 19, inserted in the middle of the verse after the phrase they fought the kings of Canaan in Taanach, iv?-1 by (they arrived and camped) by the waters of Megiddo. Here we have in the translator's own words, i.e., not translating from the MT, an example of verbal coordination. Although the construction employs two participles and the modifying verb comes second, we have seen this does occur in Aramaic in other examples of verbal coordination. In Gesenius' classic description, the modifying verb may be in the second place.233 It was by arriving at the waters of Megiddo they pitched camp. This is the clear meaning of the phrase. Likewise in Hannah's prayer of thanksgiving over the birth of her son Samuel, there are many additions to the text of the MT, 1 Sam 2:1-10. Each of the verses 2-5 begin with rlInt41 nrzzra...517 (concerning [so and so—a king or group of people] she prophesied and said). Here is a prima facie case of verbal coordination freely composed by the turgeman (oral translator of the oral reading of the Hebrew text into Aramaic in the synagogue service). [For the context, here I am making the assumption that what was written reflected what the turgeman had acturally spoken, but, of course, we cannot be certain of that, either here or elsewhere; otherwise I use translator.] She prophesied and said; she said in the manner of prophesying. The turgeman adds she said something, but she said it in the manner of prophesying. The emphasis is not on her prophesying, but that she said something about someone. The text does not describe the manner her of prophesying: ecstatic movements and utterances? or calm, deliberate pronouncements? or enthusiastic prognostications? or dreamy-eyed ramblings? or predictions made with eyes closed? Whatever the manner, the turgeman and his GKC, 386.

233

76

audience understood what was expected of a prophetic utterance of their time. The implication of verbal coordination is that the importance was not her prophesying, rather that she said certain things in the manner of prophet. Note, the verb '12 means to act like a prophet as well as speak as a prophet (Cf. Tg. Neb. Hos 3.1). When we look at the Gospels, we will find this usage in Luke. A classic example of verbal coordination of an addition to the HB is found in the latter prophets of Tg. Neb., but is lacking in MT. The rendering of Isa 40:6 is n.inx xr?

Trvn

-int$-1 5p, "A voice of one who says, 'Prophesy!' And

he answered and said, 'What shall I prophesy?' (trans. B.D.C.234). The word 'r:Itn (and answering) is an addition to the text of HB, which Chilton, rightly, translates "answered". the translator here employs two participles, which we have seen, is common in Aramaic to express past time. In the apparatus Chilton notes "The present, participliar idiom corresponds partially to the usage of the phrase arroicptectc

Et7TEV

in the New Testament...."235 [I see that it corresponds partially

because the Aramaic has two participles while the Greek employs a past (aorist) participle with a past (aorist) indicative.] We have noted that LXX sometimes translates the HB n xsl pal, and answered and said, as throtcpakic EltreP, answering, said, and Appendix A shows this occurs frequently in the Gospels. Here is a definitive example of the translator employing verbal coordination when not expressly translating it from the text of HB, but in his own addition to the text. Tg Neb. translates Isa 5:26 ri,5

=pm, and he will raise an ensign

[KJV, signal] and call to him236—he will call to him by raising a signal; the manner of calling him [the people] is raising a signal. (The MT cannot be read as verbal coordination because of the words used, rip or litn?,1, raise an ensign and

234 Bruce D. Chilton, The Isaiah Targum: Introduction, Translation, Apparatus and Notes (The Aramaic Bible 11; Wilmington, Del.: Michael Glazier, 1987), 77. 23s13ruce

D. Chilton, Isaiah Targutn, 76.

236Bruce

D. Chilton, Isaiah Targum, 13.

77

hiss, two separate, different actions.) The translator used verbal coordination to make clear a difficult text. We need bear in mind the text of MT may not have been the one the translator had before him and he could have been translating accurately from the text he had. 3.2.2 Aramaic Documents from Qumran There are several instances of -mill ;iv found in various Aramaic texts from Qumran. I list some of these without other details of the texts: 4Q197 frag. 4 2:7 (Tobit 6:14); 4Q530 6:15 (Book of Giants); 4Q544 frag. 3:2 (Visions of Amram); 4Q550c frag. 1 2:8 (Proto-Esters); 6Q8 frag. 1:2 (Book of Giants). Two different examples of verbs of speaking coordinated are found in Genesis Apocryphon, 1Qap Gen (I Q20). The clause in 20:26 reads 14p.f5[n] Knpi nt:t0 05 the king called (out in a loud voice) to me and said. Pharaoh was angry when he found out that Abram had tricked him about Sari's being his sister—I cannot image he called to Abram in a normal tone. The second example is more straightforward: vrin 54 nrax 713.-n-Into...r5n, I prayed...and I said..."Blessed art thou 0 El Elyon (God Most High)." (20:12) He said in the manner of praying. When we look at the Gospels, we will sect this construction with the meaning indicated here. 1Qap Gen 20.16 reads rom r.-.;m1 I wept and was distressed, meaning, I wept in the manner of being distressed. There are different manners of weeping—for joy, sadness, regret, etc.; here it is being distressed. This construction is used in the Gospels to indicate different manners of weeping in the Gospels. A classic example of verbal coordination is the use of the verb for return (Heb. :iv; Aram. xn) in the sense of doing something again or repeating an action.237 We find a clear instance in IQap Gen 11 where Noah is walking around

GKC, 386.

78

the earth after the flood. Seeing how beautiful the earth had become, Noah blessed (ro-o) the Lord, 11:12. In the next verse we read na-al ram, and he returned and blessed—and he blessed again, rci.ni L;;) unn

because of his [the

Lord's] love of the earth. In the same work is the story about the separation of Abram from his nephew, concluding with ann, ra,pn ri ami 'nal, and he [Lot] went from that place [Bethel] and dwelt in the Jordan valley (21:5). Verbal coordination is clear here. Lot settled down in the Jordan valley by leaving Bethel. Continuing the story, God told Abram

'71K1 X50

cip arise, walk, and get away, (21:13), and so

Abram encompassed a large area of the Middle East which was to be his possession. Here we see the imperative employed in verbal coordination. It is not about Abram's arising the story is concerned with, but with his going out and walking around the area which his progeny were to occupy. Continuing in 21:19, we read oinn ,r'a5 5 rrrisi ram, and I returned and came to my house in peace. In context, it is not about returning and then coming to his home, but that at the end of his travels he came home again. A use of an expression meaning doing something by coming somewhere, which we have seen in the Targumim, is found in 1Qap Gen 19:9-10: vi[n him 1rnr1 nnrrl

...Mnal

and I came...to Hebron... and dwelt there two years,

or, by coming to Hebron I dwelt there two years. In order to dwell in Hebron, he had to leave the place where he was to come to Hebron; the import is not his going to Hebron, but his dwelling there. In Proto-Esther (4Q550c, iii: 1) is another example of verbal coordination, 1,r,$cori r`ml, you fear and worship. One worships by fearing, standing in awe, before the deity. I discuss this below, commenting on on Matt 9.8 in §4.1.5. Summing up, the evidence is clear that verbal coordination was used and understood over a long period of time from the Imperial period well into the Common Era. This includes the time of Jesus and the writing of the Gospels.

79

Chapter 4 Vestigial Verbal Coordination Having seen the prevalence of verbal coordination in Hebrew and Aramaic, we are now ready to examine examples of possible verbal coordination lying behind the Greek of the Gospels, which I call vestigial verbal coordination, as tabulated in Appendices D, E, and F. First I will look at verbs in the indicative mood, followed by imperative mood, concluding with a look at the present participle followed by an indicative verb. The Greek of the text will not normally be repeated in dealing with these phrases. This can be found in the appendices. For the most part. I will render my own, quite literal translation, which will often be similar to the KJV, because the KJV tends to be a rather literal translation of the Greek. Where I quote KJV precisely, I will so indicate. Although I refer frequently to Bauer's lexicon of the NT, I have relied somewhat more on Liddell and Scotts' Greek lexicon, because, covering the whole range of Greek literature, it is less theologically weighted and often brings out nuances that fit better into the context.

4.1 Indicative Mood In examining specific instances of verbal coordination, I will deal first with verbs in the indicative mood, since this is the natural mode of narrative discourse, where one would most likely expect to find verbs modified adverbially. I have grouped together those verses that share a similar theme or type of action, in order to show the idea of verbal coordination and its implications more clearly.

80

4.1.1 Verbs of Speaking

Turning to the list of coordinated indicatives, I will analyze some of the clauses to demonstrate how the concept of verbal coordination works. First, consider the common titrapi017 Kai Ebro), answered and said. As mentioned before, NRSV usually translates this as 'said', but that misses the nuance. In keeping with the purport of verbal coordination, it means, said in an answering manner, or said by way of response. To translate it simply as answered or responded, again misses the point of the main verb, said. It is one's saying that is important, but the saying in a certain manner, i.e., respondingly. One might view this as straining at a gnat, but it gives an insight into how other instances of vestigial verbal coordination can give valuable information about the text. It is as if the writer has given a written clue of how something was said, a stage direction, if you will.238 In all likelihood, the stories of Jesus first circulated orally, and the first writer would often need to clarify something that was said, how the oral performer performed. Instructive in this regard is Professor Shiner's Proclaiming the Gospel.

239

Granting that the stories of Jesus were circulated orally, at least in

the beginning, we should note that each retelling would be different, however slight. Some would be closer to the early traditions than others.24° The oral performers memorized their material, if not word for word, at least in outline.241 238 Whitney Shiner, Proclaiming the Gospel: First-Century Performance of Mark (Continuum Imprint; Harrisburg: Trinity Press International 2003), 4, 68; see also David Rhoads, "Performing the Gospel of Mark," in Body and Bible: Interpreting and Experiencing Biblical Narratives (ed. 13,115n Krondorfer; Philadelphia: Trinity International, 1992), 104-6. 239Shiner,

Proclaiming, 1, 46-52, and passim.

24°Rhoads,

"Performing Mark," 107.

211Shiner, Proclaiming, 104, 111-12; and Chrsitopher D. Marshall, Faith as a Theme in Mark's Narrative (NTSMS 64; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 10.

81

4.1.1.1 Two verbs of utterance used in coordination

Next, I will consider those instances where both verbs are words of utterance, which are similar to 'answered and said.' The phrase 'called and said' appears in Matt 20:32, "Jesus stopped and called them [in a loud voice] and said, 'What do you want me to do for you?'(RSV)" The bracketed words do not appear in the Greek text, but the primary meaning of 06)144) is to utter a sound loudly, to cry out. By extension it came to be used in the meaning of summoning; hence them appears in the accusative case, rather than in the dative, so it would not be translated accurately, 'he cried out to them.' But one can easily see how summoning would be in a loud voice. In its various uses, the idea conveyed by Oci)v&ii is a loud utterance, be it of man or beast. Here, the text indicates a stage direction, if you will. Jesus was quite annoyed, either by the blind men, or more likely, by the crowd's attempting to silence them, so by calling them [the two blind men] loudly, he said, "What do you want me to do for you?" This nuance is conveyed by the Aramaic construction underlying the Greek text. The main idea is Jesus' speaking, yet he did it in the manner of calling out loud. Compare Tg. Onq. Exod 10:24; Lev 10:4; Tg. Neb. Josh 6:6; 1 Sam 17:8 et al. where the verbal construction 11;til

rpi (called [out] ... and said) appears; in each case, one

called out—raised his voice in order to be heard—and said something to someone. John 12:44 has "Jesus cried out and said...." Certainly, these are not to be understood as two discrete actions, nor is it simply hendiadys. Jesus is saying something in a loud voice. It is his saying that is important; crying out in a loud voice tells the manner of his saying it. Similar is Luke 13:12, "Jesus, seeing her, cried out and said to her, `Woman, you are free from your infirmity.'" Here Luke uses a more specific word for addressing, or calling to someone, 7 rpoccPwl4w.

Did Luke have before

him the more basic word, cPwvho, that he elevated to the more Specivic? Even if

82

not the basic cpwr4w, it would still elicit images of crying out to those at home in the Koine dialect of Greek. To summon someone often requires raising the voice. Did Jesus merely use a loud voice? Did He see her afar, and having pity, called loudly to her? Or was he perturbed because the woman had suffered so long, and no one could cure her? The answer to these questions might be clearer as Mark 7:34 is discussed below. The context of a legal proceeding is found in John 18:33, "Then Pilate reentered the Praetorium and summoned [loudly] Jesus and said to him, 'Are you the king of the Jews?" I do not see this as a private conversation between equals, but that of a governor, whose primary function was that of the head of the legal system,242 looking down upon a man accused of a capital crime. Clearly, I hear him shouting in a loud voice, "Are you the king of the Jews?" This interpretation is enhanced by seeing behind this the construction verbal coordination, where the first verb, called or summoned, if you will, modifies the main verb, said. He said in the manner of shouting; again, one can see this as a stage direction for the oral presentation of the Gospel. Before leaving verses containing cficoveco,

I will consider one more

example of its use. John 9:24 reads, "Then they called [loudly] for the second time the man who was blind and said to him, 'Give God the glory; we know that this man is a sinner." Again, whether one would translate the first verb as simply called or summoned—either one would fit the context—one must bear in mind the meaning of the verb is a loud utterance. If one chooses the word summon, one must not think of a modem legal summons, but a loud calling. Colloquially, then one may render the words of the Pharisees, spoken loudly, shouting, "Hey, you! Come back here! We have something to say to you," for that is the meaning conveyed by the first verb functioning as an adverb. An example of how verbal coordination conveyes its meaning is the verbal

Daniel R. Schwartz, "Pontius Pilate," in ABD 5:395-401.

242

83

combination taught and said. (Mark 4:2; 9:31; 11:17; Luke 20:21243) This is not reporting two distinct, separate actions. Rather, it is that Jesus said something in a teaching manner. Again, the emphasis is on Jesus' saying something, but he said it in the manner of teaching. He did not say something in a conversational manner, or a preaching style, or that of a town crier.

Peter J. Williams sees a

Syriac translation puting the emphasis on the act of teaching.244 To translate I simply as said misses the nuance of Jesus' teaching. To translate it simply as taught tends to de-emphasize the oral nature of Jesus' teachings. One might take Luke 2:28-29 as being two separate, discrete actions, "And he [Simeon] blessed God and said, "Now, 0 Lord, let your servant depart [i.e., die] in peace according to your word." Yet I think we can take the words of the text, "Now, 0 Lord, let your servant die in peace" as his blessing God; he blessed God by saying, "-Now, 0 Lord..." Seeing verbal coordination as lying behind the text would suggest this interpretation. We have seen a similar usage in

Tg. Ong., where the Israelites sang and gave thanks (Exod 15:21) and also in Tg. Neb., where Deborah exhorts the Israelites to bless and thank the Lord (Judg 5:2). Quite illustrative is Mark 14:61b, "Again the high priest was questioning him and says to him, 'You, are you the christ [anointed one], the son of the Blessed One?'" I have translated this quite literally to bring out all the nuances. The second personal pronoun is repeated (oii .4i), as I have translated it, for it is quite unusual for the pronoun to be expressed in Greek, unless it is for emphasis, its being implicit in the conjugation of the verb. Seeing verbal coordination lying beneath the words 'questioned and said' makes the scene more vivid. The high priest is not really questioning Jesus, he is mocking him; he says to him, in the manner of asking a question, "You're not really the anointed one of God!" The 245 1n Luke the usual order of the verbs are reversed, but the meaning is the same. See GKC, 386-87; and Williams, Syntax- (1967). 43. 244 Peter J. Williams, Early Syriac Translation Technique and Textual Criticism of the Greek Gospels (TS 2; Piscataway, N.J.: Gorgias Press, 2004), 279

84

high priest is making a statement, as if he were asking a question.245 It is difficult to imagine that the high priest at that time would seriously have asked the question whether someone were the son of God. Later, a Christian apologist might picture the high priest actually asking the question seriously--perhaps even Matthew?—but I doubt if that would be true in the earliest tradition. If one accepts that there are clues in Mark's Gospel that amount to stage directions, then here it says to the narrator, speak in a sneering tone of voice. John 9:28 is similar, even strengthening my interpretation. Speaking to the blind man that Jesus has cured, the Pharisees "reviled him and said 'You are disciple of that one; we are Moses' disciples.'" The Pharisees reviled the blind man, using words that put him down by boasting of who they were. One would rightly perform the Pharisees response orally in a sneering tone. In John 13:21—Mark 14:18—Matt 26:21 is another example of one word of speaking modifying the manner of a different word of speaking. "Having said these things, Jesus was troubled in [his] spirit and he testified and said, 'Truly, solemniy24, 6 I say to you, that one of you shall betray me."' 247 Jesus truly [or, said one of his disciples would betray him, but he said it in a very solemn manner, i.e., in the manner of one giving a testimony. (Cf. Matt 5:37) A different situation is seen in John 18:25c. When Simon Peter had been accused of being one of Jesus' disciples by those gather around the fire warming themselves, "He denied that and said, 'I am not!'" This is not two separate actions, one of denial and one of speaking. What Peter said was the denial, but by employing the verbal coordination construction, Peter is portrayed as making the denial emphatic—"I am not!" Turning now from considering two verbs that convey the idea of speaking 245

Marcus, AB 272, 1015-16.

246

BAG, s.v. awn', 2.

242 Bruce D. Chilton, A Galilean Rabbi and His Bible: Jesus' Use of the Interpreted Scripture of His Time (Good News Studies 8; Wilmington, Del.: Michael Glazier, 1984), 202; and "'Amen': an Approach through Syriac Gospels," ZNIV 69 (1978): 205.

85

to those constructions where one verb is properly that of speaking and the first a different verb of utterance modifying the speaking, a transition example would be Mark 7:34, "And looking up to heaven he [Jesus] groaned and says to him [the deaf man], Tphphatha, which is "Be opened." It is not that the groaning is a separate action, but the manner in which Jesus spoke to the deaf man with a speech impediment. To translate it as Jesus' sighing is rather weak; it may be translated as sighing deeply, but groan gives the more dramatic picture. Why did Jesus utter the command 'Be opened' with a groan? One could say it took a great effort of the part of Jesus to perform this wonder, but that would not be in keeping with the overall picture of Jesus presented in the Gospels. Or was he bothered that the crowd again interrupted his mission to stop and heal an infirm man? Or was he really perturbed that here was another person afflicted with an ailment that others, presumably, could not cure, or that there were so many afflicted people around? Perhaps the best explanation for Jesus' groaning here is as if he were practicing mimetic magic. He groaned as a deaf man, than spoke in clear Aramaic, imitating the process of healing, the inarticulate man speaks clearly. The writer does not explicitly tell us that. He says only that Jesus groaned in speaking to the deaf man with a speech impediment; not being able to hear, the deaf man could not speak normally. This could be an example of stage directions, but, more importantly, this is a clear instance of verbal coordination that throws a different meaning on a text otherwise translated literally into a non-Semitic language ignoring the difference in grammar. Somewhat similar is John 20:22: "Having said this, he [Jesus] breathed on and says to them, 'Receive the holy spirit.— The Greek work, 410vociw, is comprised of the word cpucthro, puff, blow out, with the proclitic i , meaning in or on. Understanding verbal coordination lying behind 'breathed and says,' one can see this as Jesus with a very breathy voice saying. "Receive the holy spirit." This becomes even clearer when we understand the primary meaning of the Greek word for spirit, 7vEDpce, like the Hebrew rtr—which LXX usually translates as

86

rwebpa — and the Aramaic nrn, means a blast, wind, breeze, breath, and by

extension, spirit. When Jesus says, "Receive the holy spirit," the connotation of breath is apparent. He breathes the holy spirit into the disciples as he speaks. Here is another stage direction to the oral reader, speak with a breathy voice.

4.1.1.2 Verbs of action coordinated with verbs of speech

Mark 4:38, "They wake him up and say to him 'Master! Don't you care that we are going to die!'" becomes more dramatic when we understand that what the disciples said to Jesus was said in such a way so as to awaken him. I do not picture one of them going back and gently tapping him to wake him up in order to speak to him; no, they spoke in a manner that would awaken him. Here the manner of speaking awakens Jesus, who was lying asleep in the stern of the boat, most likely a loud voice fill with fright. Another example of speech being modified by a word of action is Matt 12:23: "And all the crowds were amazed and said, 'Is this not the Son of David?'" All the crowds said in the manner of being amazed, or all the crowds said with amazement, "Is this [really] the Son of David?" The import is not that the crowds were amazed; it is what they said that is important for the narrator, but his remark about the amazement of the crowd tells the reader how they said it, which adds to the meaning of the statement. It is not that they were making a thought-out political—or theological—statement; they were speaking out of the experience of the moment. Can you see the picture? Without the modifying verb, were amazed—one word in the Greek, in the passive voice—the scene is entirely different and offers a different interpretation of the exclamation. If one reads John 7:31 in terms verbal coordination, it would give a different sense than what is usually taken from it. "But many out of the crowd gave him credence and said, 'Whenever the messiah comes, he will not do more signs (or wonders [miracles]) than this one, will he?'" As usual translating this as

87

literally as possible into acceptable English, I employ the pleonastic form of the question to make clear that the Greek construction looks for a negative answer; the common English versions do not do so. I have chosen the more neutral 'give credence,' which is quite accurate, especially in this context—the crowd had heard him teaching and seen the futile efforts of the authorities to arrest him— rather than the theological freighted 'believe in. The Gospel does not say many of the crowd believed in Jesus and then said, "When the messiah comes..."; rather, in the manner of giving credence to Jesus, they made the statement—for a question expecting a negative answer often is rhetorical, hence a statement—that when the messiah comes he will not do more miracles than Jesus. (Miracle proper means a wonder, something unexpected or unexplainable; in later Christian thinking it came to mean a suspension of the laws of nature by divine intervention, and so is the common connotation today.) The writer is not highlighting the believing of the crowd, rather, that they said the messiah would do no more than what Jesus has done. Another example of an action defining the manner of speech is John 11:41b, "And Jesus lifted up his eyes and said, Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me." (KJV) It is not that Jesus lifted up his eyes and then said...; rather, it is in lifting up his eyes, he said something, or in the posture of prayer, he spoke. In Mark 3:11 we read, "Whenever the unclean spirits beheld him [Jesus], they fell prostrate before him and shouted, 'You are the son of God." The spirits were uttering a confession of worship, i.e., recognizing either the supernatural power or the divine status of Jesus. To emphasize their confession, they fell prostrate at his feet. Commentators often overlook this aspect of demonic spirits' worshipping Jesus, e.g., Broadhead.248 In the manner of worshiping, falling prostrate, they said to Jesus, "You are the son of God." One, especially one whose native tongue is not Semitic, could naturally see this as two separate actions, but verbal 24s Edwin

K. Broadhead, Mark (Sheffield, U.K.:Sheffield Accademic, 2001), 40.

88

coordination would indicate to the Semitic mind that this is to be considered a single act, the first verb modifying the manner of the saying. In a similar vein is Mark 14:35: "And proceeding a little farther, [Jesus] fell on the ground and prayed that, if it be possible, the hour might pass from him." Obviously, Jesus prayed, but he did so in the manner of falling to the ground, revealing the intensity of his prayer and his subjection to God. If my analysis of the preceding example seem a bit strained, consider John 7:37: "In the last great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, 'If anyone thirsts, let [that person] come to me and drink.'" Obviously, the main thing the narrator is relating is that Jesus cried out his proclamation. But why did the author say Jesus stood? The context is Jesus' teaching (John 7:28). It was the custom of Jewish teachers to sit while they taught. Wanting as many people as possible to hear him, he shouted his message. In order to be heard better, he stood. This same usage is found in Tg. Neb. of I Sam 17:8 and 1Qap Gen 20:12. Similar, but dramatically effective, is a verse from the eighth chapter of the Gospel of John. This story, John 7:53-8:11, nearly got lost in the transmission of the gospel tradition, yet it does appear in more than 900 manuscripts or fragmentsmof the approximately 1500 Greek texts of the Gospels250. Most of the ancient manuscripts of John do not have this pericope here. Some do not have it at all, while others place it after 7:36 or 7:44 or at the end of the Gospel. Demonstrating that this story floated free in the tradition is its being found in one manuscript, not in John at all, but after Luke 21:38.251 Fortunately for us, some copyists, aware of the tradition, set it down where they thought best, or we would not have this charming episode of Jesus that revels so much about him. One 249Zane C. Hodges and Arthur L Farstad, eds., The Greek New Testament according to the Majority Text, (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1982), xxiii. 25°Price,

English Bible, 161.

25 Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament: A Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament, 3d ed. (London: United Bible Societies, 1971; corrected ed; 1975), 219-22; and Brown, AB 29, 335-36.

89

could speculate why this story nearly got lost252, but speculation would not enhance our understanding of the story in any way. Consider the story. Jesus was teaching in the Temple, sitting down, as was the custom for teachers.253 While he was teaching, whether the subject was relevant or not to their action, the scribes and Pharisees led in a woman, apprehended because of adultery, and stood her in the midst of the crowd and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was apprehended in the act of committing adultery. Moses commanded that such a person should be stoned. So what do you say?" They said this to trap him. But Jesus, ignoring them, bent down and scratched on the ground with his finger. (The Greek word here, KarOpacpcv, which is not the normal word for writing, implies incising, scribbling, etc.254 Indeed, some ancient texts add 'pretending,' not really writing. The usual word for write, gypa4Ev, does, however, appear in verse 8.) As they continued asking him, Jesus stood erect and said to them, "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone at her." Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground. Several ancient manuscripts add that he wrote down "the sins of every one of them."255 Hearing this, they went out, one by one, beginning with the eldest, leaving the woman alone in the midst of the crowd. Straightening up, Jesus said to the woman, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?" She said, "No one, sir." And Jesus said, "Neither do I condemn you. Go, and from now on, sin no longer." Note, Jesus did not base his forgiveness on any confession of her guilt. I have repeated the entire story, along with its variants, to set the stage to demonstrate the effectiveness of verse 7. While the antagonists of Jesus continued to press him for an answer, Jesus, who had been pretending to write on

252Brown,

AB 29, 335.

253Brown,

AB 29, 232

2s4 Broi,vn,

AB 29, 333-34.

m Metzger,

Textual Commentary, 222.

90

the ground, suddenly bolted upright and said (etv6