Greek Grammar question: Jn 5:36
Disclaimer: I would hope that Logos would be the place to ask this kind of question. There are times when I wonder about grammatical points [and where to look to get at an answer] and would like to confirm my "best guess" with someone whose grasp of Greek / Hebrew I could trust more than my own. I don't want to violate forum rules with a discussion / debate about Scripture. I don't think that this does so I will try this and see. If if it does, forgive this and it will be my last question of this kind. I am asking 1] if I am correct in my understanding of a point of grammar and 2] how others might confirm such conclusions using Logos resources. [There is a resource I would use, (Exegetical Summaries) but it is not yet available for John]. I did check WBC, Robertson, Zerwick, etc.
"the very works (pl.) - which I am doing - testify (actually sg.) of Me" [The English translations do not bring this out; they seem to all congugate 'testify' in the plural form to harmonize with 'works'.]
In the beginning of vs. 36, Jesus says, "I have a (sg.) testimony (sg.) greater than John's - the (pl.) works (pl.)" (also the same pattern occurs in Jn 10:25 )
My guess is that this is an example of a whole entity (pl.) standing for a singular. ie- the sum total of all His works = a witness (sg.). And if this is the case (which does fit the context), is there a Logos resource that might bring this out?
Lastly: is this the kind of question that one might be able to bring to the forums or is it not the appropriate place?
Comments
-
Ron,
I think it is an appropriate question (just my opinion). Unfortunately I don't have Dan Wallace's Greek Grammer Beyond the basic in Logos, but it would be a great resource to consult. In it he says:
II.
NumberðA. Neuter
Plural Subject with Singular VerbAlthough there is a lack of concord
in such constructions, they are not infrequent. Indeed, a neuter plural subject
normally takes a singular verb. It is an example of constructio ad
sensum (construction according to sense, rather than according to strict
grammatical concord). Since the neuter usually refers to impersonal things
(including animals), the singular verb regards the plural subject as a
collective whole. It is appropriate to translate the subject as a plural
as well as the verb, rather than translate both as singulars.I have that resource in another software, but it is available in Logos and worth the investment.
0 -
Ron Corbett said:
"the very works (pl.) - which I am doing - testify (actually sg.) of Me" [The English translations do not bring this out; they seem to all congugate 'testify' in the plural form to harmonize with 'works'.]
This is a very common occurence, though not invariable, not only in Koine Greek but sometimes in classical as well.
ἀπεκρίθη αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς· εἶπον ὑμῖν καὶ οὐ πιστεύετε· τὰ ἔργα ἃ ἐγὼ ποιῶ ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ πατρός μου ταῦτα μαρτυρεῖ περὶ ἐμοῦ·Note that ἔργα here is a neuter plural noun functioning as the subject of the singular verb. The singular of ἔργα is ἔργον, ·ου, τό. The practice is to use a singular verb with neuter plural. Note what Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament …, has to say
2. Neuter Plural and Singular Verb. But theYou might try running a search for "concord" in any Greek grammars you may have.
κοινή fails to respond to the Attic rule that a neuter plural inanimate subject takes a singular verb. Homer indeed was not so insistent and the "modern Greek has gone back completely and exclusively to the use of the plural verb in this instance as in others." The N. T., like the κοινή in general, has broken away from the Attic rule and responds more to the sense, and also more often regards a neuter plural as really plural. It never was a binding rule, though more so in Attic than in Homer. In the vernacular κοινή the people treated the neuter plural like other plurals. (Radermacher, N. T. Gr., p. 96.) Usually a neuter plural in the N. T. that has a personal or collective meaning has a plural verb. So ἐπαναστήσονται τέκνα (Mt. 10:21), p 404 τὰ δαιμόνια πιστεύουσιν (Jas. 2:19), ἔθνη ἐπιζητοῦσιν (Mt. 6:32), τὰ πνεύματα προσέπιπτον (Mk. 3:11). But the only rule on the matter that is true for N. T. Greek is the rule of liberty. The papyri show the same variety of usage. So does the LXX. In the examples given above the MSS. often vary sharply and examples of the singular verb occur with all of them, δαιμόνια more frequently with the singular verb, as εἰσῆλθεν δαιμόνια πολλά (Lu. 8:30), but παρεκάλουν in next verse. So in Lu. 4:41 we have δαιμόνια ἐξήρχετο and a little further on ὅτι ᾔδεισαν. In Jo. 10:4 we see a similar change in the same sentence, τὰ πρόβατα αὐτῷ ἀκολουθεῖ ὅτι οἴδασιν. The same indifference to the Attic rule appears about things as about persons. Thus ἵνα φανερωθῇ τὰ ἔργα τοῦ θεοῦ (Jo. 9:3) and ἐφάνησαν τὰ ῥήματα (Lu. 24:11). In Rev. 1:19 we find ἃ εἰσὶν καὶ ἃ μέλλει γενέσθαι. The predicate adjective will, of course, be plural, even if the verb is singular, as φανερά ἐστιν τὰ τέκνα (1 Jo. 3:10). Cf. Gal. 5:19. Winer2 and (to some extent) Blass feel called on to explain in detail these variations, but one has to confess that the success is not brilliant. It is better to regard this indifference to congruity as chiefly an historical movement characteristic of the κοινή as shown above. Even the Attic did not insist on a singular verb with a neuter plural of animate objects when the number of individuals was in mind. The neuter plural was in origin a collective singular. In 1 Cor. 10:11 the MSS. differ much between συνέβαινεν and –ον.george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
Thanks Nord and George,
I do have Wallace's Grammar (and several others) but I didn't think I would find the answer to my question in these.The reason being that I wanted to know what this relationship (bet. plural noun and singular verb) meant in this passage. What does: "the neuter plural was in origin the collective singular" mean for this text? I like this and am glad to discover this. Before I wrote, I checked Word Pictures in the Greek NT and several other places but was coming up dry. I think I DO have my answer now, but am I right to assert that "the works He does stand as A witness to him" (one of four in this passage)?
0 -
Ron Corbett said:
Thanks Nord and George,
I do have Wallace's Grammar (and several others) but I didn't think I would find the answer to my question in these.The reason being that I wanted to know what this relationship (bet. plural noun and singular verb) meant in this passage. What does: "the neuter plural was in origin the collective singular" mean for this text? I like this and am glad to discover this. Before I wrote, I checked Word Pictures in the Greek NT and several other places but was coming up dry. I think I DO have my answer now, but am I right to assert that "the works He does stand as A witness to him" (one of four in this passage)?
Now you're talking about how you would translate this. Whether you were to say "the works he does stand as a witness to him" or whether you were to say "the works he does stand as witnesses to him" is really immaterial. What is important to understand is that "works (ἔργα)" is the subject of the singular verb and that there is no funny business going on that isn't immediately apparent.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
George Somsel said:
Whether you were to say "the works he does stand as a witness to him" or whether you were to say "the works he does stand as witnesses to him" is really immaterial.
I get you. So it would not be valid to over emphasize this grammatical construction as though it yielded any more meaning to the text. Thanks, George.
0 -
Ron Corbett said:George Somsel said:
Whether you were to say "the works he does stand as a witness to him" or whether you were to say "the works he does stand as witnesses to him" is really immaterial.
I get you. So it would not be valid to over emphasize this grammatical construction as though it yielded any more meaning to the text. Thanks, George.
The most that I would be willing to say is that in the translation as "a witness" what is being emphasized is that the combined works are viewed as one body while with "witnesses" it is viewing the works on an individual basis -- one by one.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0
