Grace
Theological Journal 11.1 (1991) 71-96.
[Copyright © 1991 Grace
Theological Seminary; cited with permission;
digitally prepared for use at
ADVERBIAL CLAUSES:
STATISTICAL STUDIES
JAMES L. BOYER
This third article in a series of studies dealing with
subordinate
clauses in the Greek NT will be concerned with the adverbial
clauses.
The over-all
classification is functional, based on the kinds of adverbial
modification made by the clauses. Only in the case of the conditional
clauses is it necessary to carry the classification further.
Attention will
be given to the conjunctions or conjunctive relative phrases
used to
introduce the clauses, to the moods used, and to the clause order. A
special feature of this series of studies is the attempt to give
statistical
information at every level, so that the student may begin to appreciate
the relative magnitude of each structure.
*
* *
JUST
as adjectives modify nouns so adverbs modify verbs, limiting
and defining the circumstances under which the
action of the verb
is to be understood. As adjectives answer the
questions "who?" "what?"
"what kind?" so adverbs answer such questions as
"when?" "where?"
"why?" "how?" "under what circumstances?" They may be single words
(as nu?n), or phrases (as dia< tou?to), or full clauses. The
clauses are the
subject of our present study.
They will be taken primarily in the
order of frequency of occur-
rence in the NT, except that
in a couple of instances similarity or
relationship between classes will
bring two together out of the numeri-
cal order.
CAUSAL
CLAUSES
Meaning
As the name adequately indicates,
causal clauses modify the main
verb of a sentence by stating the cause or reason
for that main asser-
tion. Their meaning is
reflected in the way they are translated into
72
GRACE THEOLOGICAL
JOURNAL
English. Using the NASB1 as point of
comparison these clauses are
introduced by "for" (473 times),
"because" (224), "since" (26) and a
variety of at least 16 other ways, each
occurring less than six times.
No attempt is made in this study to
refine the classification further,
no sub-classification will be attempted.
One problem of identification needs
to be considered; the distinc-
tion between coordinate
(main clause) and subordinate clauses. For
example, it is not always easy, or even
possible, to decide whether ga<r
or even o!ti is introducing a
subordinate or a main clause. Actually
GRAMCORD
has listed 800 occurrences of ga<r as introducing main
clauses (CX)2 and only 241 with
subordinate clauses (SC). The reverse
is the case with o!ti, 1291 are connected
with subordinate clauses
(SN,SC,SR) and only 10 with main clauses (CG,CX).
Ordinarily one would expect that a
causal clause at the beginning
of a sentence would be either (1) subordinate to a
main clause which
comes later, or (2) the explanation of something that
is present in the
preceding context or to the mind. Unfortunately it
cannot always be
known where a sentence begins. The lack of
punctuation in the original
manuscripts and the tendency to hook long sentences
together with
many subordinate clauses, complicates the problem,
particularly in the
light of our precisely opposite modern preference.
In a few instances in this study
such ambiguous identifications are
called to attention, but usually a choice is made and
that is followed.
Structure
Conjunctions
Used
These may best be shown in table
form.
Causal
Conjunctions, NT Mood Before
or After Main Verb
Conjunctive
Phrases Count Used >
before < after ?
o!ti 439
dio<ti
21
kaqo<ti 4
ga<r 243
e]
e]peidh< 9 Ind.
4 5
e]peidh<per 1
1 Unless otherwise
indicated all formal translations of the Bible text will be given
from the NASB version.
2 These letters in
parenthesis are coded tags used by GRAMCORD to identify the
various functional classifications of
conjunctions. The first letter in the code indicates
whether the clause is coordinate (C) or
subordinate (S). The second letter designates the
function: CG for interroGative,
CX for eXplanatory, SC for Causal, SN for Nominal,
SR for Result. Others will be
identified as they occur.
BOYER: ADVERBIAL CLAUSES
73
Causal
Conjunctions, NT Mood Before
or After Main Verb
Conjunctive
Phrases Count Used >
before < after ?
di
] h!n [ai]ti<an] 7
a]nq ] w$n 5
e]f
] &$ 2
ou$ ei!neken 1
ou$ xa<rin l Ind. 1
!Oti and ga<r account for 93% of all
the subordinate causal clauses.
e]
attention to the relative phrases which by
antecedent or by context
become in effect causal conjunctions.3
Mood
In every instance the mood of the verbs within
the causal clause is
indicative. This is to be expected, since causes
and explanations are
characteristically simple statements.
Clause
Order
The causal clause follows the main verb in 97%
of the instances.
Even
the e]
clause, are still 74% following. Again, it is more
logical that causes and
explanations should follow that which
is being explained.
Ga<r, here as elsewhere, is
post-positive; it never stands as the first
word in its clause. Usually it is second or third in
sequence, in three
instances4 it stands as the fourth
word in its clause.
Other Causal
Constructions
Beside these conjunctive and relative clauses
there are other ways
of expressing what amounts to a causal clause in
the Greek NT.
Adverbial
Participles
The anarthrous
participle very frequently functions as an adverb
in the sentence. While it may not technically be
called a clause (there is
no finite verb in the construction) yet it clearly
functions as one; in
most instances the best way to translate it is by an
English clause. Of
these adverbial or circumstantial participles, 303
are causal in sense,
including 35 genitive absolutes.5
3 See my article, "Relative Clauses
in the Greek New Testament: A Statistical
Study," GTJ
9 (1988) 233-56.
4 Luke
5 See my article, "The Classification
of Participles: A Statistical Study," GTJ
5
(1984) 163-79. At the time that
article was prepared I did not have the computer facilities
now available for tabulating and collecting
information, so the identification of the
adverbial functions expressed by the participles
was not included. Later this inadequacy
74
GRACE THEOLOGICAL
JOURNAL
Articular Infinitives with the Preposition Dia<
The articular
infinitive after prepositions, while no finite verb is
involved, is so completely clausal in character
that it is impossible to
translate into English without converting it into
a full clause. Those
which as causal in sense are dia< with the neuter
accusative article and
an infinitive (32 examples); also, e!neken tou?
and e]k tou? + an
infinitive
(one each).6
CONDITIONAL CLAUSES
An extensive and detailed consideration of the
conditional sen-
tences has previously been
published by this writer7 so this section will
be primarily a summary and collection of
statistics. For a fuller dis-
cussion and support for some
statements made here the reader is
referred to these article's.
The conditional sentences proper are composed of
four classes.
First Class Conditions
Significance,
Meaning
Its meaning is very simple: "If this. . . then that . . ." It indicates
nothing as to the actual situation, whether the
condition is true or
false; in fact it is frequently used for both sides
of a true / false
condition. Its use of the indicative does not in
any way indicate that the
protasis is true, or even that
it is "assumed for the sake of argument."
Sometimes
it may be true that the English word since
is a possible
translation, but it is never a "proper"
translation. Since carries an
implication that the condition is true; the Greek
first class condition
does not. If used to translate a statement which is
actually true then the
translation would not be "wrong" or
"untrue," but it would not be a
correct translation in that it would be saying
something more than the
Greek
says.
was met by my Supplementary
Manual of Information: Participles. This is now available
by inter-library loan from the Morgan Library,
Grace Theological Seminary, 200
Seminary Dr.,
6 See my article, "The Classification
of Infinitives: A Statistical Study," GTJ
6 (1985)
29-48.
Complete listings are available in the Supplemental Manual on Infinitives (see
previous footnote).
7 There are four articles in the series:
James L. Boyer, "First Class Conditions: What
Do
They Mean?" GTJ 2 (1981) 74-114;
"Second Class Conditions in NT Greek," GTJ 3
(1982)
81-88; "Third (and Fourth) Class Conditions," GTJ 3 (1982) 163-75; and "Other
Conditional Elements in NT Greek," GTJ 4(1983) 173-88. No supplemental manuals
are
available for these studies.
BOYER: ADVERBIAL CLAUSES 75
Structure
First Class conditions use ei] with an indicative verb in the protasis;
the apodosis may be of any type.
Statistics
*** Protasis
Apodosis ***
Conjunctions
Count Mood Order Sentence Type
ei] 302 ALL S --Statement 138
M --Command 76
ei@ ge
5 I
Prot. RQ --Rhetorical
quest. 52
N before MR
--Request 11
ei] mh< D Apod. PR --Promise 11
I AS --In subordinate cl. 5
ei] mh<ti 1 C
>267 O --Oath
5
A P --Potential 5
ei@ pwj 1 T TH
--Threat 4
I Prot. X --Exclamation
3
ei@per 6 V
after CH --Challenge
2
ei@te 1 S
Q --Question 2
< 43 RC --Rel. Clause equiv. 2
MN --Emphatic negative 1
e]a<n 2 MP --Prohibition 1
( ) --(No apodosis)
1
It will be noted that all except the last are
introduced by the
conjunction ei] or a combination of ei] with another particle. Even e]a<n
is, of course, a combination of ei] + a@n, an indefinite
particle.
The mood in every instance is indicative, even
with e]a<n. The two
instances where e]a<n has the indicative, Rom
to be first class in sense, even though e]a<n normally is used in
third class
conditions, sometimes there with the indicative.
The protasis precedes
the apodosis in 267 out of 310 examples
(86%). There are 13 instances where the apodosis is
missing.
A great variety of sentence types form the
apodosis of first class
conditions.
Second Class Conditions
Significance,
Meaning
Probably the least controversial, its
significance is clear: The
protasis sets forth a condition
which is not true or is thought to be not
76
GRACE THEOLOGICAL
JOURNAL
true, and the apodosis states the potential
consequence if it had been
true. "If this were the case (which is not),
then that would be. . . . "
Structure
Second Class conditions use ei] with a secondary (past) tense of the
indicative verb in the protasis;
the apodosis characteristically is some
potential construction such as a secondary tense
indicative, usually but
not always with a@n.
The conjunction used is always ei], sometimes with the negative mh<
added (10 times); once it also has de<, in ei] de> mh<.
Analysis
of Verb Forms: Statistics8
Protasis: Apodosis:
Tense:
Order Tense:
Imperfect 21
Proto before Imperfect 21
Aorist 14
> = 42 Aorist
18
Pluperfect 6 Proto after Pluperfect
3
[. . . ] 7 < = 6 [.
. . ] 5
Total 48
---- 1
The mood of the protasis
is always indicative. The apodosis is
always some potential construction, almost always a
secondary tense
of the indicative, usually with a@n (31 times).
Third Class Conditions
Significance,
Meaning
This is properly labelled
the Future Condition. It always deals
with a future potential, uncertain (subjunctive)
because it hasn't hap-
pened yet.9 The
subjunctive does not indicate the degree of uncertainty,
only the fact of uncertainty by reason of futurity.
8 Some symbols appearing
in this and following charts are codes I have used for
abbreviation and convenience:
[. . . ] = Verb is not present; left
to be supplied
---- = There is no apodosis present
> = Protasis
precedes the apodosis
< = Protasis
follows the apodosis
9 This statement seems to
ignore a large number of condition sentences which use
e]a<n with subjunctive, the
so-called "present general conditions". I have already given
extensive treatment of these elsewhere in my
article on Third Class Conditions, GTJ
3
(1982) 172-75. The "general"
or "whenever" idea always introduces potentiality or fu-
turity, and to the Greek mind
was expressed naturally by this construction.
BOYER: ADVERBIAL CLAUSES
77
Structure
Third Class conditions use e]a<n with a subjunctive verb in the
protasis, the apodosis may be of
any type, usually future in its time-
reference.
Conjunctions
Used
Almost always it is some form or
combination of e]a<n; the simple
e]a<n (213 times), a@n (a contracted form, 3) ka@n (by crasis
for kai>
e]a<n,
14),
e]a<nper
3; it has
the negative added (e]a>n mh< 52); total e]a<n, 286
times. Ei] is used 5 times; simple
ei] once, ei] pwj; once, ei@te (twice, in
correlative
clauses), and e]kto>j
ei] mh< once.
Analysis
of Verb Forms: Statistics
Verb in the Protasis:
Tense: Mood:
Present 105 Indicative
2
Future 2 Subjunctive
284
Aorist 177
Perfect 2
[. . . ] 4 [.
. .] 4
Present. (1?3) 1* Indicative
1*
Perfect (1?3) 1* Indicative
1*
Verb
in the Apodosis:
Tense:
Mood:
Present 129 Indicative
218
Future
97 Subjunctive
21
Aorist 42 Optative 1
Perfect 7 Imperative
33
Infinitive
2
[. . .] 12 [.
. .] 12
---- 3 ---- 3
Present (1?3) 1*
Indicative 1*
Perfect (1?3) 1*
Indicative 1*
[Explanation:
* = Double or doubtful entry; also counted elsewhere
Order
of Clauses:
> = Protasis
precedes Apodosis 241
< = Protasis
follows Apodosis 48
-= No apodosis 3
78
GRACE THEOLOGICAL
JOURNAL
Sentence
type of Apodosis:
> AS 8 Within
a subordinate clause
> M 42 Command
> MN 11 Emphatic
Negation
> MP 2 Prohibition
> MR 1 Request
> P 3 Potential
> PR 22 Promise
> RQ 32 Rhetorical
question
> S 158 Statement
> TH 11 Threat
Fourth Class Conditions
Fourth Class conditions use ei] with an optative
verb in the protasis
and supposedly (from the ancient pattern) a@n with an optative verb in
the apodosis. But there are no complete examples in
the NT, only a few
(9)
protases. It has the same
significance as the Third Class, only stated
a bit less dramatically.
Conjunctions
Used
The conjunction is always ei], once with the indefinite particle pw<j
added.
Verb
Forms in the Protasis
The protasis
in all 9 instances is regular, with an optative verb,
six
are present tense, 3 are aorist.
Verb
Forms in the Apodosis
In every instance the apodosis is
either incomplete, irregular, or
missing. In four the apodosis is an infinitive
in the predicate of the
main clause (Acts
effect a single word, a parenthetic expression
adverbially attached to
the verb of the main sentence (1 Cor
turn out so"; translated in NASB by
"perhaps"). In only three in-
stances is there an actual apodosis present. Two
of these leave the verb
unexpressed so it is not possible to tell mood and
tense (1 Pet
Conceivably
an optative (ei@hte v 14, ei@h v 17) might be supplied in
conformity with the normal fourth class pattern,
but the sense is not
right for that. Probably it is better to supply the
indicative, as this
makes good sense. The third does have a complete
apodosis (Acts
24:19).
The verb is imperfect indicative, not the optative expected in
BOYER: ADVERBIAL CLAUSES
79
fourth class conditions, but possibly it may be taken
as a potential
indicative equivalent to an optative.
The absence of a@n is not a problem.
Clause
Order
In the seven examples where an
apodosis can be identified it
stands after the protasis twice,
before it five times.
EXCEPTIVE CLAUSES
Exceptive clauses are a form of
conditional clause. They use the
conditional conjunctions, particularly the
combination ei]
mh<, and in-
volve a special kind of
conditional situation. They are treated separately
here because they represent a sizable group in
themselves and have
several distinctive features.
The name reflects the fact that
these clauses usually are translated
into English by the word "except." They
point to a general situation
which is not true (the apodosis) except for (ei] mh< = "if not")
some
specific case (the protasis).
Usually the exception is a part of the
general, but the parallelism is not always
precise.
The conjunction used is ei] mh<, so in form they are
first or second
class conditions. Ei]
mh< is not always exceptive; in 10 instances it is
simply a negative second class condition. There are
two of the first
class passages which are extremely elliptical and the
construction is
unsure.10
Is e]a>n mh< ever exceptive? There
are 43 third class conditions which
use ei]
mh<. Only one of these shows the structural pattern
of exceptive
clauses.11 All the rest are simply
negative third class conditions.
Structural
Classification
In Greek, these clauses may be
grouped into four classes on the
basis of their structure.
Adverbial
I have used this term to describe
the first group because the
conditional phrase used becomes in effect an
adverbial introduction to
the "apodosis" or main clause of the
sentence. Example: Matt 6:1 ei]
de>
mh<
ge, misqo>n ou]k e@xete para>
t&? patri> u[mw?n t&? e]n toi?j ou]ranoi?j
"otherwise you have no reward with your Father who is in
heaven."
There
is an extreme ellipsis involved. Starting with ei]
mh< if not,
the
10 1 Cor
11 Mark
80
GRACE THEOLOGICAL
JOURNAL
sense expanded may be "if the situation is not
the one stated in the
context" then this is the result," or
simply, "otherwise." I have listed 14
examples in this class.12
The conditional phrases involved in
this construction are ei]
de> mh<
ge, (8 times), ei] de> mh< (3), and ei]
mh<ti (1). There is never a
verb in the
protasis; in fact, there is no protasis at all except this phrase. The rest
of the sentence is the apodosis.
"No
One. . . Except"
The second group, 31 examples, shows
a regular pattern. The
conditional conjunction is ei] mh<. The apodosis always
stands before
the protasis. It uses the
word ou]dei<j or mhdei<j and makes a statement
about "no one" or "nothing." Then
in the following protasis it states
the exception to that blanket statement. Example:
Phil
moi
e]kklhsi<a e]koinw<nhsin ei]j lo<gon do<sewj kai> lh<myewj ei] mh>
u[mei?j mo<noi. "no church shared with me in the matter of giving and
receiving but you alone." The protasis is ei]
mh> u[mei?j
mo<noi; the verb is
always omitted, left to be supplied mentally: "if
you [did] not."
"Not.
. . Except"
The third group, 33 examples, shows
almost the same pattern,
except that the negative in the apodosis is a simple
negation of the verb
rather than a negative pronoun. The negative particle ou in one of its
forms is usually used, once it is ou]de<. Mh< is used 4 times, once
in ou] mh<.
Again
the protasis uses ei]
mh<, it always follows the apodosis and there
is no verb stated in the protasis.
Example: John
basile<a ei]
mh> Kaisara. "We have no king
but Caesar," or more
precisely, "We do not have a king if [we do]
not [have] Caesar."
"Who
. . . Except?"
The fourth group, 10 examples,
follows the same pattern except
that the apodosis is stated as a rhetorical
question: "Who fits this
situation except . . .?" Example: Luke
a]fei?nai
ei] mh> mo<noj o[ qeo<j; "Who can forgive
sins, but God alone?"
Note
again that ei]
mh< is the conjunction, the protasis
follows the
apodosis, the verb is omitted in the protasis, and the negative is implied
by the rhetorical question.
12 This and all other
listings referred to in this paper are available through a
Supplemental Manual of
Information: Adverbial Clauses, by inter-library loan from
Morgan
Library, Grace Theological Seminary,
46590.
BOYER: ADVERBIAL CLAUSES
81
CONCESSIVE
CLAUSES
A Class of Conditional
Sentences
There are two groups of concessive
clauses. Some (3l) are a
special group of conditional clauses. They are
to be distinguished from
other conditional sentences by their use of the
conjunction kai< in
combination
with the conditional conjunctions ei] and e]a<n, and by their
distinctive meaning.
Usually translated
"though," "although," "even if," these clauses
state a conclusion which is affirmed in spite of the
condition stated:
"even if this is the case, the result follows".
Sometimes the condition is
considered as an extreme, unlikely case; an
objection in spite of which
the conclusion is affirmed. Sometimes the condition
is treated as a
matter of little consequence (like our English
"So what?”).13 These
clauses may be First Class (20 examples), Third
Class (10), even one
Fourth
Class.
Structurally the only signal that a
clause is concessive is the use of
kai< in association with the
ei] or e]a<n. But it is not a clear signal. Kai<
occurs frequently in conditional clauses when it is
not concessive (104
out of 746, 14%). Here is a summary of my
conclusions after tabulating
the information.
(1) Ei]
kai< is clearly concessive (18 times). There are a
very few
exceptions (4),14 but they each involve another
particle along with the
kai<
(ei]
de< kai< 3 times, ei@
ge kai< once).
(2) Kai> ei] is
rarely concessive (3 times15 out of 22); it is usually
simply "and if."
(3) Kai< with e]a<n, whether it stands before or after, does not signal
concession. Out of 45 examples only three16
are concessive. With ka@n
(=
kai>
e]a<n) 517 of the 14 occurrences are concessive.
(4) Sometimes the sense is
concessive when the form does not
signal it.18
13 These two concepts are
not mutually exclusive. It is the judgment of this writer
that A. T. Robertson's strong distinction between
the two, particularly his association of
it with the position of kai< before and after the
conjunction, breaks down when the actual
examples are studied. See his A Historical Grammar of New Testament Greek
in the
Light of Historical
Research
(Nashville: Broadman, 1934) 1026.
14 For full lists, see
footnote 12 above. The exceptions are ei]
de> kai< Luke
1
Cor 4:7, Gal 3:4; ei@
ge kai< 2 Cor
5:3.
15 1 Cor
8:5, Heb 11:5, 1 Pet 3:1.
16 With e]a>n kai<: 1 Cor
17 Matt 26:35, Mark
18 A very interesting
situation occurs in the parallel accounts of Peter's dual remon-
strance to Jesus' announcement
of his denial (Matt 26:33, 35 and Mark
four statements are clearly concessive in sense. In
both accounts the first statement uses
82
GRACE THEOLOGICAL
JOURNAL
Conjunctive Concessive
Clauses
The second group
of concessive clauses19 are introduced by con-
cessive subordinate
conjunctions, kai<per
(5), kai<toi (2), and kaitoige
(1);
translated in NASB by "although," "though," "and
yet." They are
not conditional, and are included in this place
because they are equiva-
lent in sense to those which use the conditional
conjunctions. As a
possible link between the two, note that they
both to some extent
involve the use of kai<; in these the kai< is compounded with
other
particles.
The verb in these clauses is
indicative (3 times), a participle (4),
and once it is elliptical. Half of them are found
in the book of Hebrews.
COMPARATIVE
CLAUSES
Meaning
Comparative clauses are quite common
in the Greek NT, 331
examples. They augment the statement by comparing
it to something
which presumably is understood. Often they come in
pairs, as in
English
''as. . . so. . . . " the
comparative clause is introduced by a
comparative conjunction, the one to which it is
compared may open
with a correlative adverb.
These clauses either describe or emphasize20 the thought expressed
in the principal clause. Following this lead I
have attempted to assign
each comparative clause to one of these categories.
The result was:
descriptive, 253 or 76%, emphatic, 78 or 24%. But
there were many
where the choice was arbitrary.
I have attempted another approach to
classification which I believe
is more helpful in understanding the possible
significances of these
clauses. It is based on an attempt to discern
what was the point or
reason for the particular comparison chosen; the
primary element of
that comparison which the writer wanted to call to
attention. For
example, in Matt 6:2, "When therefore you
give alms, do not sound a
trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the
synagogue and in the
streets, that they may be honored by men,"
it does not appear that
Jesus
was warning against the manner, or the place, in which they blew
their trumpets, but in the fact that they did so at
all.
ei] and the second e]a<n. But in Matthew's account kai< is added to the first
statement and
not to the second. In Mark's account the reverse is
true, kai< is used with the second
and
not with the first. In both instances the presence
or absence of kai< makes no difference in
the concessive nature of the statement.
19 There are eight; John
4:2, Acts 14:17, Phil 3:4, Heb 4:3, 5:8, 7:5, 12:7, 2 Pet 1:12.
20 H. Dana and J. Mantey, A Manual
Grammar of the
Greek New Testament (New
BOYER: ADVERBIAL CLAUSES
83
In studying the comparative clauses
from this point of view, I have
chosen five categories into which these "main point
concepts" seem to
fit. The first is the one just illustrated; the
action or fact or situation
itself. The comparison points to a similar or parallel
situation "in
accord with which" the other is to be seen; a
frequent example is the
comparative clause which says, " . . . as the
Scripture says. . ." This is
by far the type found most frequently, 199 out of
331, or 60%.
The others are more specific in
their thrust and more easily de-
scribed. The second is a comparison in the
manner of doing something
(75
examples); the third, a comparison in quality or character (37); the
fourth, a comparison in degree (17); and fifth, a
"parable-type" com-
parison, amounting in effect to
a short parable (only 3 such).21
Structure
Conjunctions
Used
The most frequently occurring
subordinating comparative con-
junction is kaqw<j (175 times, plus one
compounded with the particle
per,
kaqw<sper. It is translated by
the NASB as "just as'' (91), ''as''
(64),
"even as'' (14) and by a few other phrases.
The word w[j appears in the NT much
more frequently than
kaqw<j, but often in relations other than the
one we are presently
considering. As a comparative conjunction it occurs
108 times, plus 29
times compounded with the particle per,
w!sper. To translate it the
NASB
uses ''as'' (93), "just as'' (16), "even as'' (6), "like"
or "just like"
(10)
and several other phrases.
Kaqa< occurs in this
construction 11 times, plus once as kaqa<per.
It
is from kaq ] a!, the neuter plural
accusative of the relative pronoun
o!j ("according to
which things," or "after the pattern of these things").
Kaqo< is found 4 times. It is
from kaq ] o!, the neuter singular
accusative of the relative, with meaning similar to
kaqa<. Once it is used
along with the indefinite particle e]a<n.
Kaqo<ti
(from kaq ] o! ti, neuter of the
indefinite relative) occurs
twice as a comparative conjunction, both times with
the indefinite
particle a@n.
Correlative
adverbs used
In 66 instances (20%) the
comparative clause is countered in the
main clause by the use of a correlative adverb (cf.
English ''as. . .
so . . ."). They occur in many combinations
and in either sequence. The
list of correlatives, with counts and clause order
noted, is as follows:
21 Matt 25:14, Mark
84
GRACE THEOLOGICAL
JOURNAL
Before
the Comparative After
ou!twj 16 31
kai> ou!twj 1 1
kai< 1 12
ou!tw 1 1
o[moi<wj 1 1
It should be noted that kai< occurs many more times
than appears
in this list, and is used not only with the
correlative but also with the
comparative. However, it usually is simply the
adverbial kai<. Only
when it appears to be a part of a pair has it been
tabulated as
correlative.
Mood
of the Verb in Comparative Clauses
The mood is almost always
indicative. There are four exceptions.
Three
are subjunctives; in each the sense is indefinite, the indefinite
particle e]a<n is present in one. The
other (Heb 7:9) is an infinitive, and
the whole expression is an old classical idiom,
"w[j e@poj ei]
in a word or if one may say so, used to soften a
statement.”22
Clause
Order
The comparative clause usually
follows the main clause (241, or
73% of the time). It precedes the main
clause (76, or 23%). The other 14
are instances where there is no main clause
expressed.
Other Comparative
Constructions
Our present study is limited to
clauses, so such structures as the
use of comparative particles with single words and
phrases are ex-
cluded. But it is not always
easy to decide whether a particular expres-
sion is a clause or not. If
a verb is present, that decides it as a clause;
but if there is no verb it may be questionable. For
example, Acts
[Wj pro<baton e]pi> sfagh>n h@xqh, kai> w[j a]mno>j e]nanti<on tou? kei<rantoj
au]to>n a@fwnoj, ou!twj ou]k a]noi<gei
to> sto<ma au]tou?. "He was led as a
sheep to slaughter; and as a lamb before its shearer
is silent, so He does
not open His mouth." The first w[j stands with the noun pro<baton,
there is no need to supply a verb, and the w[j is probably a
comparative
particle; there is no comparative clause. But the
second w[j while there
is no actual verb present, clearly introduces a
statement and needs a
verb to be supplied; it is a comparative clause.
Another example may
22 W. W. Goodwin, Greek Grammar, rev. C. B. Gulick (Boston: Ginn, 1930) 323.
BOYER: ADVERBIAL CLAUSES
85
not be so easy to decide. Matt 6:5 ou]k
e@sesqe w[j oi[ u[pokritai<. "You
are not to be as the hypocrites;" Is w[j a particle? or is it a
conjunction
introducing a clause, ''as the hypocrites
(are)"? Perhaps the question is
as insignificant in Greek as it is in English.
A group of relative clauses functioning
adverbially and expressing
degree or measure need also to be listed here, since
they involve a
comparative sense. They are introduced by the
relative o!soj (some-
times correlative with tosou?toj, they all use a verb in
the indicative
mood. There are 10 examples.23
FINAL CLAUSES (PURPOSE
AND RESULT)
Meaning
Final clauses, sometimes called telic (Gr. te<loj, end), point to the
"end" of the sentence action, the direction toward which
the action is
directed. They involve the two closely related
concepts of purpose and
result. Purpose is intended result; result is
accomplished purpose.
Unfortunately
for NT exegetes neither NT Greek nor modern English
is careful to distinguish between them. In the
vast majority of cases
there is no clue in the Greek text to differentiate
between them. Usually
the sense of the context will decide rather
clearly; when that is incon-
clusive or controversial it
will be so noted. There are some grammatical
structures which identify some result clauses, they
will be indicated.
In this study 597 clauses have been identified
as final; 521 are
classified as purpose clauses, 65 as result
clauses, and 11 have been
listed as doubtful.
Conjunctions Used
!Ina (398),
i!na
mh< (81), i!na mh<pote
(1)
More than 8 out of 10 times (80.2%) the final
conjunction is i!na or
i!na
mh<. It is used in clauses classified as purpose
(460), as result (10),
and as doubtful (9). Its normal construction uses
the subjunctive mood
(464),
but it occurs also with the indicative (11 times, 9 future and
2
present). In 4 cases the verb is omitted, hence the mood is not
discernible. It is translated as "that"
(206), "in older that" (66), "so
that" (64), and by an infinitive (65). With the
negative particle mh< or
mh<pote it is translated
"in order that. . . not" (10), "that. . . not" (26),
"so that. . . not" (15), or by "lest" (18).
23 See my article on "Relative
Clauses," 240.
86
GRACE THEOLOGICAL
JOURNAL
!Opwj (38)
This conjunction is very similar to i!na in usage and meaning,
but
much less common. It is used almost totally in
clearly purpose clauses,
only twice in doubtful passages. It always has the
subjunctive mood, ex-
cept once the verb is
omitted. The same translations are used for o!pwj
as listed above for i!na, even approximately in
the same proportion.
Mh<
(8), mh<pote (15)
The use of the negative particle mh< as a conjunction
equivalent to
i!na
mh< in negative purpose clauses is rare (8
examples), only slightly
more frequent when strengthened to mh<pote (15 examples). They all
show the subjunctive mood, and the translations are
simply the trans-
lations given for i!na mh< above. Neither of these
occur in clauses that
have been classified as result clauses.
!Wste (53)
This conjunction is the only one that is
specifically associated with
result clauses. In classical Greek it was "used
with the infinitive and
with the indicative to express result. With the
infinitive (the negative
being mh<, the result is stated
as one which the action of the verb
tends to produce; with the indicative (the negative
is ou]), as one which
that action actually does produce.”24
Both constructions are found
in the NT, although the difference between them is
no longer strictly
observed.25
There are 53 clauses introduced by w!ste in the NT. All but two
have an infinitive verb. The two exceptions have an
indicative verb.
They
are most frequently translated by "so that" or "so as to"
plus an
infinitive.
[Wj (4)
[Wj
is a word with many and varied uses in the NT; its use in final
clauses is rare. Twice with an infinitive it is
a purpose clause, twice with
the indicative it is a result clause.
24 Goodwin and Gulick,
Grammar, 308.
25 The difference should not be construed
as a complete change of the sense, but
rather as a weakening of the distinction between them.
A result actually produced would
also be one tending to be produced, so w!ste with infinitive would be possible in every
case. In the NT the use of w!ste with the indicative has
almost disappeared, and the sense
of actual results is taken over by the infinitive
construction, which it could properly do.
But
w!ste with infinitive still
can express the result which tends to follow. It is not correct.
to insist that result clauses are always actually
realized. This insight can help in the
understanding of such passages as
Mark
13:2.
BOYER: ADVERBIAL CLAUSES 87
!Oti (1)
!Oti introducing a result clause is surprising, and very rare;
only
one is so identified in this study (John
and there seems to be evidence of other such uses.26
Moods Used
The mood in final clauses is almost always subjunctive,
as is to be
expected in a clause which speaks of purpose,
intent, of future out-
come. But there are some which do not use the
subjunctive. The largest
group consists of 52 result clauses which show an
infinitive as verb, a
normal construction from classical times and in no
sense an exception.
The seeming exceptions are 18 examples which use
an indicative
verb. Of these, 11 are future indicatives. Elsewhere27
I have shown that
the future indicative is very frequently in the NT
a practical substitute
for the aorist subjunctive. It is identical in form
in many instances, and
differs only in spelling in many others. Its
sense is basically the same,
expressing the potentiality that always is
associated with the future. In
the NT it is actually used in almost every
syntactical construction that
ordinarily uses the subjunctive. In the light of
these facts it should not
be considered strange or exceptional when a future
indicative is used in
a final clause.
Five indicatives are used with conjunctions
which properly use the
indicative. !Wste occurs twice with the
indicative, a normal usage from
classical times, and both expressing actual
result. !Wj occurs twice with
the indicative, again classical usage in result
clauses. !Wj universally
uses the indicative, and while its use for a final
clause is very unusual,
its use of the indicative is not.
There remain two28 indicatives which
are significantly unusual.
They
are 1 Cor 4:6 i!na
mh< . . . fusiou?sqe "in order that no
one of you
might become arrogant in behalf of one against the
other," and Gal
Grammarians suggest several explanations. A. T.
Robertson29
discusses the orthography and the possibility that
by NT times the
26 BAGD, 589; John
bring it about that) . . . ?" They suggest that
this may possibly be the explanation also of
1
Tim 6:7 and Heb 2:6.
27 See my article, "The Classification
of Subjunctives: A Statistical Study," GTJ
7
(1986)
16-19.
28 A third example is often listed, 1 John
variance in this case, and the NA26 and UBS3
texts have decided for the subjunctive
ginw<skwmen.
29 A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the
Light of
Historical Research (Nashville: Broadman, 1934) 203, 325.
88
GRACE THEOLOGICAL
JOURNAL
indicative and subjunctive of -ow verbs have become alike as they are
in -aw verbs. Blass-Debrunner suggest the same; "fusiou?sqe 1 Cor
4:6
and zhlou?te Gal
speaking more generally, they say "The
present indicative after i!na is;
of course, only a corruption of the text.”31
No one suggests that there is
a difference in meaning intended by the use of
the indicative after i!na.
Clause Order
Final clauses normally follow the main clause.
This is true in all of
the result clauses, and in all but 15 of the
purpose clauses (97%). In 4
instances there is no main clause.
Other Final Constructions
Relatively infrequent is the use of the
adverbial or circumstantial
participle to express purpose. According to my
count there are about
56
examples, five with the future participle which in classical was
generally used in this way, but 48 with the present
participle. Only
three aorist participles are used thus in the NT.
Articular infinitives with
certain prepositions are used to express
purpose; ei]j
to< (73)
and pro>j to< (11).32 At least one of these is
understood to be expressing result in the NASB (1 Thess
a]naplhrw?sai
au]tw?n ta>j a[marti<aj pa<ntote.
"with the result that they
always fill up the measure of their sins."
Another structure indirectly expressing purpose
is a substantive or
noun clause which structurally stands in apposition
to a pronoun
whose antecedent refers to a purpose. Example: Eph
pro>j u[ma?j
ei]j au]to> tou?to i!na gnw?te ta>
peri> h[ma?j "I have sent him
to
you for this very purpose, so that you may know
about us . . ." If the
words ei]j
au]to> tou?to were not present, the i!na clause would be a
purpose clause; as it stands it is a noun clause
in apposition to that
phrase, stating the content of that purpose.33
TEMPORAL CLAUSES
Meaning
Temporal Clauses are those which modify the main
clause by
relating it in some manner to the concept of
time, answering such
30 F. Blass and A. Debrunner,
A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and
Other
Early Christian
Literature,
trans. and rev. by Robert Punk (
1961) 188.
31 Ibid., 187.
32 See footnote 6.
33 See my article "Noun Clauses in the
Greek NT: A Statistical Study," GTJ
10 (1990)
225-39.
BOYER: ADVERBIAL CLAUSES 89
questions as "when?," "how
often?," "how long?," "before?," "after?,"
"until?," "while?," etc. A variety of conjunctions
and conjunctive rela-
tive phrases occur, also
more variety in the moods used.
Conjunctions Used
The subordinate temporal clauses
included in this study are of two
kinds. Most (360 or 86%) are introduced by proper
conjunctions. The
rest are introduced, not by conjunctions per se, but
by relative phrases
which function as temporal conjunctions, wither with
or without the
antecedent (h[me<raj
or xro<nou)
of the relative being actually expressed.
If
the antecedent is present the clause can of course be considered a
simple adjectival relative clause modifying a noun
which is functioning
as a temporal adverb. But they seem by their
number and frequency to
have become fixed expressions, virtual conjunctions.34
Sixty such
clauses are included in this list, and the
relative phrase is listed as a
conjunction.
!Otan (123), !Ote
(102)
!Ote alone, and o!tan, which is o!te + a@n, comprise 54% of all
temporal clauses. They are the less explicit in
time relation, expressing
simple concurrence. Most often they are translated by
the NASB as
"when" (197 times); o!tan, reflecting the
particle a@n, is also translated
"whenever" (10 times). Rarely they are
translated more specifically as
"after"
(o!te 5, o!tan 2), "while" (o!te 3, o!tan 2), ''as'' (o!te once), and ''as
soon as'' (once each), even "until" (o!tan 2). These more specific render-
ings apparently are derived
from the context rather than from the
conjunction itself.
!Ote normally is followed by
the indicative mood, only twice does
the subjunctive appear; once the verb is left
unexpressed. !Otan, as is
expected with a@n, normally uses the
subjunctive (5 with indicative).
[Wj (69), [Wj a@n (3)
[Wj has many other uses, but
as a temporal conjunction it occurs
72 times. These are translated with almost
identical expressions as were
o!te and o!tan, most frequently "when" (w[j; 50, w[j
a@n 1), also "while"
(10),
"after" (2), "whenever" and ''as soon as'' (once each).
Renderings
other than those used for o!te are ''as'' (5) and
"since" (2).
With w[j the mood is indicative.
When it is used with the indefinite
particle a@n the mood is
subjunctive.
34 As we have already
seen, they are not limited to temporal clauses. Similar phrases
are found introducing causal clauses, and clauses
expressing manner, degree or measure,
a total of 90 NT examples. See my article. "Relative Clauses," 238-40.
90
GRACE THEOLOGICAL
JOURNAL
!Ewj (18), !Ewj a@n
(20), !Ewj
ou$ (17), !Ewj o!tou
(5)
The conjunction e!wj occurs alone or with
the indefinite particle a@n
38 times. As a relative phrase which functions as
a temporal conjunc-
tion it is found 22 times.
They are translated "until" (54), "while" (4),
and ''as long as'' (once). The basic meaning seems
to refer to a period of
time up to a designated point.
The mood is indicative 13 times, and
subjunctive 45 times, once
the verb is unexpressed. This is one of a group of
words with the
meaning "until" which involve some
special rules regarding mood, and
will be discussed separately below, under
"Moods Used."
@Axri (5), @Axri h$j
(4), @Axri
ou$ (4), @Axrij ou$
(4), @Axrij ou$ a@n (1)
As a conjunction a@xri appears 5 times. More commonly (13) it
appears in a conjunctive relative phrase. It is
translated "until" in every
instance except one, where ''as long as'' is
used.
The mood is indicative 7 times and
subjunctive 11 times. For the
use of moods with words meaning "until"
see below.
Pri<n (8), Pri>n h@ (4), Pri>n
h@ a@n (1)
This is the only conjunction in the
NT translated "before."
The
usual construction with pri<n is with an infinitive
following (11
times). Once it is followed by a subjunctive and once
by an optative.
]Af ] h$j (6), ]Af ] ou$ (3), ]Af ] ou$ a@n (1)
These are all relative phrases
functioning as temporal conjunc-
tions. Literally translated,
the meaning would be "from which day, or
time." The NASB translates them, 6 of the 10
times, by "since" (the
others are freer, paraphrastic
renderings: "once," "ago," even "for" and
"that"). In every instance it is used in measuring time
starting from a
specific point; when that starting point is in
the past the mood is
indicative (9 times), when it is in the future the
mood is subjunctive (1).
]Ef ] o!son (5), !Oson xro<non (1)
Again this is a relative phrase
functioning as a conjunction. @Osoj
is a correlative expressing a quantitative concept
"how much"; the
phrase thus means "for how much time." It is
translated in every
instance by ''as long as'' (5) or "so long
as'' (once), and it always uses
the indicative mood.
]En &$ (4)
Another relative phrase in which the
time word xro<n& is to be
supplied, it carries the meaning "in (or
during) which time." It is
BOYER: ADVERBIAL CLAUSES
91
translated "while" (3 times) and
"until" (once). The mood is always
indicative.
Me<xri (1), Me<xri
ou$ (2)
Once it is a conjunction, twice it
is in a relative phrase. Like its
synonym a@xri it is translated
"until." The mood is always subjunctive.
[Osa<kij e]a<n (3)
[Osa<kij
is made up of the correlative o!soj, "how much," and the
adverbial ending -kij, "times";
thus "how many times." It is translated
''as often as.'' It always has the indefinite
particle e]a<n and is followed
by the subjunctive mood.
]Epa<n (3)
Arising from e]
conjunction seems to be a full synonym of o!tan (twice, in Luke
22
and 11:34, they are used interchangeably in parallel sentences). Like
o!tan it is translated
"when." It is indefinite and takes the subjunctive
mood.
[Hni<ka a@n (1), [Hni<ka e]a<n (1)
Both forms are identical, differing
only in the spelling of the
indefinite particle a@n. Translated
"whenever," it is indefinite and takes
the subjunctive mood.
]Epeidh< (1)
This
conjunction is more frequently causal, but once it is temporal
(Luke 7:1), translated "when." The mood is indicative.
Kaqw<j (1)
Kaqw<j is usually comparative
or causal, but in one place it seems
to be temporal (Acts
indicative.
Moods Used
Basic
Principles
In the review of conjunctions we
have already given statistics of
the moods used with each. Unlike the causal and
comparative clauses
which were predominantly indicative, and the final
which were subjunc-
tive, these like the
relative and conditional clauses freely use both
moods. Here we shall discuss the basic distinctions
which govern the
92
GRACE THEOLOGICAL
JOURNAL
moods used, giving special attention to the seeming
"exceptions" to
those principles.
The choice between indicative and
subjunctive in temporal clauses
is determined by the distinction between actual
and potential, and
between specific and indefinite. If it speaks of
a specific time past or
present the indicative is the natural choice. If
the time is future and
thus unknown and doubtful, or if it is indefinite,
the mood expected is
subjunctive. These same factors also control the
conjunctions used, so
that there is a close correlation between the
conjunction and the mood;
we expect, for example, that o!te will use an indicative verb and that
o!tan will use a subjunctive.
Since these two conjunctions account
for more than half of all the
temporal clauses in the NT, we will use them as
examples to illustrate
the distinction between the moods. !Ote is followed by an
indicative
verb 102 times out of 104; once it introduces a
clause which has no verb
so the mood is not indicated, once it occurs with
a subjunctive verb.
Examining
the indicatives, 92 times it is used of an actual historically
past event, in four instances it speaks of actual
contemporary time.35
The
other five are future in time (either a future indicative or a
futuristic present indicative), but in every case
they are specific (several
have the form, "the hour is coming when. . . “).
In just one passage the NA26 text
shows a possible place where
o!te may be found with a
subjunctive verb; in Luke
discussed later, in the section on "Until
Clauses."
!Otan, which is simply the
same o!te with the indefinite
particle a@n,
is almost as exclusively followed by the
subjunctive. There are 5 in-
stances of o!tan with the indicative.
Three occur with statements of a
general truth, "whenever," which
usually (44 times) is expressed with
the subjunctive. One of these (Rev 4:9) has the
future indicative, which
as we have seen is practically synonymous with the
subjunctive. The
other two (Mark
happened repeatedly in past time, hence the
indicative is appropriate.
That leaves two instances of o!tan with the indicative
which are
more difficult to account for. Mark
and future, so that a subjunctive would be
expected. There are textual
variants showing a subjunctive form. Rev 8:1,
after six times stating
the same fact using o!te with the indicative, on
the seventh of the series
changes to o!tan with the indicative. It
is simple description of an actual
event, past from the vantage-point of the writer, and
with the same
35 In Mark
sacrificed," (my rendering) seems to be the
imperfect of customary action. The NASB
rendering, "When the Passover lamb was being
sacrificed" is grammatically possible, but
it seems impossible that the actual sacrificing
was going on at the time when the disciples
inquired about "preparing" for it.
BOYER: ADVERBIAL CLAUSES 93
sense as the first six. It clearly calls for a verb
in the indicative.
Apparently
the problem is with the conjunction, and some texts read
o!te.
With several other of the
conjunctions the addition of the in-
definite particle a@n or e]a<n means a change from
indicative to subjunc-
tive, and for the same
reasons. When the temporal clause is definite the
mood is indicative, when the a@n changes it to indefinite the mood
changes to subjunctive. This is true with w[j and w[j a@n,
e]peidh< and
e]pa<n,
a]f ] ou$ and a]f
] ou$ a@n. Kaqw<j, e]f ] o@son,
and e]n &# do not use a@n
and are always indicative; h[ni<ka and o[sa<kij
always have a@n, and
always use subjunctive.
"Until" Clauses.
From classical times some special
consideration was given to
those temporal clauses which express the notion of
"until." The con-
junctions involved were e@nj, e@ste (not found in NT), a@xri and me<xri.
When
they meant "while, so long as'' they were regular in construction.
But
when they meant "until" they showed many peculiarities,
The same situation is mostly true of
their NT use, but without
some of the rather complicated "rules."
The list of conjunctions include
some of the relative phrases we have described
already, and the in-
definite particle a@n is not so strictly
required, but the use is basically
unchanged. When these words mean "until"
two constructions occur.
If
the clause is referring to a definite past action the mood used is
indicative. If they refer to an indefinite future
action the mood is
subjunctive. This statement of the case is probably
over-simplified for
the classical, but it will serve quite well for the
NT pattern.
I have taken these conjunctions
which are translated "until”36 and
in every instance evaluated the "point until
which" intended, whether it
is definite and past to the outlook of the speaker
or writer, or potential
(i.e., general or indefinite) future. The results were then
compared with
the actual structure used. These observations are
the result.
(1) There are 76 passages in the
list. Eighteen are indicative, and
58
subjunctive.
(2) In 12 instances the "time
until" has been judged to be actually
past. In every instance the mood used is indicative,
and proper,
(3) The indicative is used in one
passage (
"time until" seems to be future from the standpoint of
the persons
involved, which might suggest a subjunctive verb.
Two explanations
36 For the most part I
have followed the NASB. In some instances they have used
"until" where in my judgment the sense should be
"while." (For the lists in this section,
see footnote 12 above.)
94
GRACE THEOLOGICAL
JOURNAL
may be suggested. The time may be considered from
the vantage of the
One
whose purpose was being executed and that purpose was a past
reality. Or, it should be noted that the verb
used is future indicative,
which is often in Greek a substitute for the
subjunctive. My preference
is for this last explanation.
(4) In 63 instances the temporal
clause has been judged to be
future or indefinite, indicating the subjunctive
should be expected. 58
of them are actually subjunctive, leaving 5
examples where the verb is
indicative when we might expect the subjunctive.
Most difficult is Luke
"you shall not see Me until the time comes when you say. . ."
A textual
problem is apparent; does the verb ei@phte go with e!wj or o!te? If the
bracketed words are omitted it goes with e!wj and the subjunctive is
proper (the time is indefinite future). If the
bracketed words are left in
ei@phte must be construed with o!te and an indicative is
indicated. Also,
in that case e!wj governs h!cei and that verb should be subjunctive. The
NA26
edition puts the words in the text, but in brackets; the UBS3
edition gives the same text but gives the extra
words a D (poor) rating.
Westcott
and Hort rejected them. The principle that the more
difficult
reading is more apt to be the correct one would
argue for their
inclusion, but perhaps that principle is not 100%
correct.
The other four (Luke
a similar nature. All are examples of the
futuristic use of the present
indicative of e@rxomai, "I am
coming." In each case the sense is future
and the time is indefinite, indicating that a
subjunctive verb should be
expected. The nature of this particular verb may
help to explain the
indicative.
But there may be more than this
involved. The first of these four
has the conjunctive phrase e]n
&$,
which nowhere else means "until."
Even
the NASB has in the margin the rendering, "while I am coming."
If
we follow this meaning, it suggests that these present indicatives may
be placing the emphasis on the meantime activity
("while") rather than
on the future point of termination
("until"). The last three examples use
a different conjunction, e!wj, but e!wj too frequently means
"while.”37 If
that is the case here, it makes the special
"until" rule inapplicable and
the present indicative are natural and proper.
Clause Order
Temporal clauses precede the main
clause 267 times, or 63%, they
follow the main clause 155 times.
37 Robertson, Grammar, 975, says, "When the
present
notion is while, not 'until.'" He lists another
example, Mark 6:45.
BOYER: ADVERBIAL CLAUSES
95
Other Temporal
Constructions
By far the most frequently used
temporal construction in the NT is
not the conjunctive clause, rather it is the
adverbial or circumstantial
participle. At least 765 participles function as the
equivalent of a
temporal clause. Of course these participles do
not constitute "clauses"
in the technical sense, but they contain every
element of a clause: --the
participle itself is a verb form, the subject of
the clause is always the
word with which the participle is in agreement. In
most cases it is best
to translate them by temporal clauses, in many
cases it is impossible to
do it any other way.38 The precise
temporal significance is not explicit
and must be gathered from the tense used and the
context.
Another prominent substitute for a temporal
clause in the NT is
the use of the articular
infinitive with a proposition. Four prepositions
are used in the temporal sense in this
construction. ]En t&? + infinitive
is the most common (56 examples). It is always
used of concurrent time
("in,
or during, the time when," and is usually translated "while."
to< + infinitive occurs 15
times, translated "after." Pro>
tou? + infinitive
is found 9 times, translated "before." !Ewj
tou? + infinitive, once only
in this construction, is translated
"until." Again, while these may not fit
the definition of a clause, they function in every
respect like a clause.
Indeed,
it is impossible to translate them into understandable English
except by converting them into a clause.
LOCAL CLAUSES
Meaning
Local clauses, or locational
to use a term parallel with temporal,
are those which tell where the action of the main
clause is located. It
answers the question "where?" They are
the fewest in number of all the
kinds of clauses in the NT, but they still number
112.
Conjunctions Used
!Opou (72), !Opou a@n / e]a<n (10)
The most frequent of the local conjunctions, it
is translated
"where"
(61) and with e]a<n "wherever"
(11), plus a variety of renderings
once each, such as "from which," "in
which, " "on which," "there," even
"since" and "whenever." The last two are
unusual departures from the
normal sense, and to me seem unnecessary. In both
instances (Mark
even in English.
38 Listings of these temporal participles
are available from the library at Grace
Theological Seminary, in my Supplemental Manual, Participles.
96 GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
Ou$
(22), ou$ e]a<n (1)
Ou$, originally the
genitive singular of the relative pronoun, came
to be used as a conjunction of place,
"where," and with the indefinite
particle e]a<n, "wherever."
!Oqen (7)
With the adverbial suffix -qen, place "whence" or "from which,"
o!qen
is the
equivalent of e]kei<qen o!pou "from the place
where" or "from
which." It is translated "from which"
(4), "from there" (1), and simply
"there" (2).
Moods Used
When these clauses are without the indefinite
particle a@n or e]a<n
the mood is always indicative. When the indefinite
particle is present
the mood is subjunctive with one exception. Mark
with an imperfect indicative. The sense seems
clearly to be indefinite or
general, the use of the imperfect with a@n for a potential or iterative
sense is classical.39
Clause Order
Local clauses follow the main clause 75% of the
time. The count is
84 following and 28 preceding.
39 Goodwin and Gulick,
Grammar, 275-76.
This
material is cited with gracious permission from:
Grace
Theological Seminary
www.grace.edu
Please
report any errors to Ted Hildebrandt at:
thildebrandt@gordon.edu