Grace Theological Journal 4.2 (1983) 173-188.
[Copyright © 1983 Grace
Theological Seminary; cited with permission;
digitally prepared for use at
OTHER CONDITIONAL ELEMENTS
IN NEW TESTAMENT
GREEK1
JAMES
L. BOYER
To conclude the series of studies on conditional
sentences, some
conditional elements which do not constitute complete conditional
sentences or which present some irregularity or peculiarity of form or
meaning are considered.
*
* *
MIXED CONDITIONS
THERE
is nothing inherently surprising or improper that in actual
usage the recognized patterns for conditional
sentences should
sometimes become mixed. There are few of these,
perhaps only three
or four; each of these is doubtful to some degree.
Luke 17:6 shows the first-class pattern in the protasis, ei]
with the
present indicative. The apodosis is usually
identified as a second-class
pattern, a@n with a secondary
indicative, perhaps indicating that Jesus
courteously avoided using the full second-class
condition, which
would have stated very harshly "If you had faith,
which you haven't
.
. . ," then continued with the contrary-to-fact result. Although this is
plausible and possible explanation, the present
writer prefers2 to
consider this a simple first-class condition,
stating a logical connec-
tion between the protasis and apodosis without any indication of
censure or praise. The imperfect indicative with
a@n then is understood
as a potential indicative which states the result
which might be
expected to follow: "If you have faith you
can expect impossible
things."
John
indicative, is mixed with a second-class apodosis
using a second-
ary indicative. The early
textual tradition is somewhat confused, part
1 See James L. Boyer, "First-Class
Conditions: What Do They Mean?" GTJ 2
I81)
74-1:4, "Second-Class Conditions in New Testament Greek," GTJ 3
(1982)
88, "Third (and Fourth) Class
Conditions," GTJ 3 (1982) 163-75.
2 See my discussion of this verse in
"Second Class Conditions," 86-87.
174
GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
of it supporting a first-class apodosis. If the
imperfect e]poiei?te
is
accepted, with or without the particle a@n, it clearly is a second-class
apodosis. In this instance the explanations
suggested for the previous
example will hardly work; a courteous softening
of the rebuke can
hardly be applicable in the light of the following
verses, and the
apodosis is not easily understood as a potential
indicative. Rather, it
seems better to understand that when Jesus said,
"If you are
Abraham's
seed" (first-class), he was not rendering or implying a
judgment of their spiritual relationship, but he
was letting that
judgment proceed from their own conscience when
they compared
their actions to those of their father.
Acts
may be taken as a first-class condition since the
mood is indicative, or
as a third-class since the particle is e]a<n and since future
indicatives
frequently function as subjunctives in NT Greek.3
On the other hand,
the apodosis shows an optative
verb with a@n, which on the surface
suggests a fourth-class condition. However, on
second look the
apodosis can also be a rhetorical question
involving a potential
optative ("How could I, if
someone doesn't teach me?"--the obvious
answer is "Of course I can't. . . ."). Thus
it is a proper construction
for a first-class condition. In view of the virtual
non-existence of
fourth-class conditions in NT Greek,
the latter option is preferable.
Acts 24:19 is a fourth-class protasis,
ei] with the optative, and
possibly a second-class apodosis, a secondary
indicative verb. The
situation is complicated by the formal court
setting (perhaps explain-
ing the rare use of the optative) and the emotionally charged atmo-
sphere (evidenced by the broken construction), as well
as by the
structure which makes the apodosis a subordinate
clause of the
sentence. This last factor makes the identification
of the apodosis as
contrary to fact uncertain; it could be the
normal tense structure of
the relative clause.
Not to be cited as examples of mixed conditions
are Acts 11:17
and I Cor
apodosis in the form of a rhetorical question
using a potential
imperfect indicative. I Cor
third-class condition. The aorist in the apodosis is
not improper,
since it expresses the situation at that future time:
"You will be in a
position at that time of 'not having sinned.’"4
3 Cf. A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of
Historical Research (Nashville: Broadman, 1934) 924-25; J. H. Moulton, A Grammar
of New Testament Greek. Vol. 1: Prolegomena (Edinburgh: T. & T.
Clark, 1906) 149.
Another
illustration of this ambivalence is the use of the future indicative in i!na clauses
(15 examples).
4 Cf. Boyer, "Third
(and Fourth) Class Conditions."
BOYER:
OTHER CONDITIONAL ELEMENTS IN NT GREEK 175
Also not to be considered as mixed conditions
are those in-
stances of two protases
with one apodosis. Whether they are of the
same (e.g., 1 Cor
part retains its own force.
IRREGULARITIES IN THE CONDITIONAL PARTICLES
The almost universal pattern shows Ei with an indicative verb
and e]a<n with a subjunctive
verb, but there are rare exceptions. UBS(3)
shows four examples of ei] with the subjunctives
and four examples of
e]a<n with the indicative.6 Several factors may
contribute to this
situation or help to understand it.
(1) Historical evidence shows a changing idiom
in the use of
these particles. "The difference between ei] and e]a<n is considerably
lessened in the koinh<, though it must be
remembered that e]a<n was
never
confined to the subj. nor ei] to the ind. and opt."7
(2) In almost every instance there is evidence
of textual varia-
tions. This is not surprising
in the light of the changing patterns of
usage during the period of manuscript production.
(3) Many places where this confusion occurs,
including two
where the UBS text shows e]a<n with the indicative,
involve the future
tense. Since the future indicative often functions as
the equivalent of
an aorist subjunctive (see n. 3) and at times is
indistinguishable from
it even in form, these examples should probably be
classed as simple
third-class
conditions with e]a<n and [the equivalent of]
the subjunc-
tive.
(4) In two of the examples of ei] with the subjunctive the particle
is not the simple ei] (1 Cor
14:5 e]kto>j ei] mh<; 1 Thess
and
to have used e]a<n might have been
awkward; neither e]kto>j
e]a<n
nor e]a<nte
ever occurs elsewhere in the NT.
(5) The difference between the classes is
determined, as Robertson
has pointed out, "by the mode, not by ei] or e]a<n."8
5 1 Cor 14:5,
Phil
other passages (Luke
after ei]. Luke
deliberative question in the
compressed structure. There are examples where the form-
could be either indicative or subjunctive; in these
the use of ei] would presume the
indicative identification.
6 Luke
eight passages where textual variants show the
indicative after e]a<n (Matt
the form is ambiguous, the use of e]a<n would presume the
subjunctive identification.
7 Robertson, Grammar, 1009-10; cf. also N. Turner, A Grammar of New Testa-
ment Greek. Vol. 3: Syntax (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1963)
107, 113, 115-16.
8 Ibid., 1007.
176
GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
ELLIPTICAL CONDITIONAL
SENTENCES
Protasis Unexpressed
Strictly speaking there are no "missing protases," since without a
protasis a sentence simply is
not a conditional sentence. Sentences in
which a participle or an imperative or other
structure functions
semantically as a conditional
element is discussed below under "Im-
plied Protases." The
special case of implied protases of fourth-class
conditions is also discussed there.
Apodosis Unexpressed
There is nothing irregular or unusual in those
many instances
where the connective verb (ei]mi<,
gi<nomai) is not. expressed. In con-
ditional sentences this occurs
about 33 times in the protasis and about
48
times in the apodosis, including about 12 examples where it is
missing in both. Neither does this section of
our study include the
approximately 22 instances where the
verb to be supplied is the same
verb already occurring or implied in the context
(e.g., I Cor
"For
if I do this willingly I have a reward; if [I do it] unwillingly, I
have been entrusted with a stewardship"). Such
abbreviated expres-
sions are common in all types
of sentences.
However, there are about 12 instances in which
the entire
apodosis is omitted, or in which there is a protasis without an
apodosis. Whether for deliberate dramatic effect
or by an in-course
change of sentence structure, the original
construction is left uncom-
pleted. Examples are: Luke
13:9, "and if it bears fruit ["that will be
well; we've accomplished our purpose; let it
grow"], but if not. . .";
Luke
19:42, "If only you had known. . . [things might
have been
different]"; Acts 23:9, "We find nothing
evil in this man; but if a spirit
has spoken to him, or an angel, [we had better not
take any
chances!]"; and Rom
the form of knowledge and truth in the law, you who
teach another,
don't you teach yourself?"
In others, the unexpressed apodosis can be
supplied by the
context. In John 6:61, 62 Jesus says, "Does
this offend you? [Would
you
not be offended even more] if you should see. . . ?"
In Eph 4:29,
Paul
admonishes, "Let no evil word go forth out of your mouth; but
if there is any good word [let it be spoken], in
order that. . . ." In
2
Thess 2:3 Paul warns,
"Let no one deceive you in any way; because
[that situation (namely, that the Day of the Lord be present)
cannot
be
true] if the apostasy does not come first. . . ."
Another type of ellipsis is found in a group of
passages where the
Hebrew
idiom used an abbreviated form of the oath formula which
BOYER:
OTHER CONDITIONAL ELEMENTS IN NT GREEK 177
only suggested the penalty involved. Thayer says,
"Contrary to Greek
usage, in imitation of the Hebrew Mx, ei] with the Indic. is so
used in
oaths and asseverations that by aposiopesis the formula
of imprecation
[constituting the apodosis] is suppressed.”9 The
NT passages involved
are Mark
unabbreviated form of the oath would
be something like "may the
Lord
do . . . [something terrible] . . . , if. . . ,"
or "may I no longer be
Jehovah,
if. . . ." Thus, the conditional clause becomes a strong, oath-
supported assertion or denial.
In some instances the conditional clause fits
into a subordinate
clause of a sentence in such a way that the full apodosis
cannot be
expressed (except perhaps by a parenthesis), but
is implied in another
part of the sentence. Two examples of a protasis without an explicit
apodosis show the ei]
mh< clause functioning as a dissimilar element in
a series, as a paraphrastic
descriptive identification of an additional
item in the series. Thus they are practically the
equivalent of a relative
clause. The conditional element is there, but it
identifies some hypo-
thetical example of the class.
In I Tim I: 10 Paul lists a long series of
things for which the law is intended, and concludes
the list, "and if
there is anything else contrary to sound teaching [it
is for them too],"
or practically, "anything else which is
contrary. . . ." Similarly in Rev
who worship the beast. . . and anyone who
(literally, 'and if anyone')
receives the mark. . . . “
Two more examples express what seems to be an
assumed
situation. Perhaps a free paraphrase will help to
bring out the sense
of 2 Cor 5:2-3: "In
the body we groan, looking forward to the
heavenly dwelling with which we shall be clothed,
if indeed, as I
assume to be the case, when we put off this dwelling
we shall be
found not to be naked." Similarly in Eph 3:2, as
Paul starts speaking
of the mystery revealed to him, he assumes that
his readers have
already heard about it. In both these instances
he uses the particle ge<
with ei], expressing confidence
that the assumed situation is true. Note
that this certainty is conveyed by the particle ge< and by the context,
not by his use of the first-class form of
condition.
9 J. H. Thayer, A Greek Lexicon of the New Testament (
1899) 170.
10 Three of these, Heb 3:11, 4:4, 5, are a
direct quote from Ps 95:11 (Ps 94 LXX).
Other
OT examples of the abbreviated form are Gen 14:23, Num 14:30, I Sam 3:17,
Jer 29:22.
Mark
LXX,
Gen 22:17. If the reading adopted by the
UBS(3) text is used, it is
simply another
example of this idiom. If the alternate reading
is followed, the h# mh<n is a particle of
confirmation or assertion common in
Greek from earliest times.
178
GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
Ei] mh< = 'except'
A special class of elliptical conditional
clauses which occurs
frequently and needs particular consideration
involves the use of ei]
mh< in the sense of
'except.' It was common also in classical Greek and
probably arose as an unconscious abbreviation of
the conditional
clause because its verb was the same as the main verb.11
It belongs to
the first class or simple conditions. Its
stereotyped form, in which ei]
mh< becomes almost one
word, accounts for the use of mh< as the
negative particle, thus preserving the classical
pattern where all
protases used mh< as the negative, even
though in Hellenistic Greek ou]
has become the negative for first-class conditions.
The idiom ex-
presses ". . . not a condition of fulfillment
of which the apodosis is
true or its action takes place, but a limitation of
the principal
statement.”12
The idiom shows three characteristic features.
First, there is an
ellipsis of the verb in the protasis
which is supplied from the principal
clause, often the same verb. Second, there is a
negative comparison
between the two clauses. And third, the protasis always13 follows the
apodosis.
The idiom appears in three forms or patterns,
differing in the
way the negative comparison is expressed.
Ou]dei<j
. . . ei] mh< . . . . The most characteristic form of the idiom,
about 31 instances,14 uses the negative
pronominal adjective ou]dei<j or
mhdei<j (in the case appropriate to its
function) in the apodosis,
followed by a protasis
introduced by ei]
mh<, and names the exception
(also in its appropriate grammatical form) with no verb
stated. An
illustration
is Matt 17:8, . . . ou]de<na ei#don ei]
mh> au]to>n
]Ihsou?n
mo<non, "they saw no one
except Jesus himself alone"; or in un-
abbreviated form, "they saw no one if [they
did] not [see] Jesus."
Both
ou]de<na
and ]Ihsou?n are objects of the verb
ei#don (expressed in
11 E.
(Chicago:
Chicago University, 1897) 111.
12 Ibid., 111.
13 There are a couple of apparent
exceptions, but fuller consideration shows that
they are not the same semantically. Several are
negative second-class conditions (Matt
24:22,
Mark
of ei]
mh< = 'except' (see below). Several are cases of ei] de> mh<, where the negative
contrast has already been mentioned in the
preceding context; the apodosis is actually
missing. One (1 Cor
conjunction (see below). The only instance which
might be a valid exception is Mark
14 Matt 5:13, 11:27 (first occurrence),
17:8, 21:19, 24:36, Mark 5:37, 6:5, 9:9, 29,
Rom
13:8,
14:3,
BOYER:
OTHER CONDITIONAL ELEMENTS IN NT GREEK
179
the apodosis, omitted in the protasis)
and are in the accusative case.
The
parallelism may be in sense rather than in form, as in Matt 5:13:
“salt
that has lost its saltiness. . . ei]j ou]de>n
i]sxu<ei e@ti ei]
mh> blhqe>n
e@cw
katapatei?sqai . . . it is sufficient
(fit for) nothing except [it is fit]
to be trampled. . . ." Ei]j ou]de<n is parallel with the
infinitive
katapatei?sqai. The dissimilarity in
form sometimes makes it appear
that there is no ellipsis of the verb. In Mark 6:5 (ou]k
e]du<nato e]kei?
poih?sai ou]demi<an du<namin, ei] mh>
o]li<goij a]rrw<stoij e]piqei>j ta>j
xei?raj e]qera<peusen), e]qera<peusen is not the verb of a
clause intro-
duced by ei]
mh<; rather it is a clausal parallel to ou]demi<an du<namin.
The
sense is "he was not able there to perform a single miracle except
[the
miracles in which] he healed a few."
Ou]
(or ou]de<) . . . ei] mh< . . . This pattern
closely resembles the
first and is almost as frequent, about 30 instances.15
The specific
ou]dei<j
is
represented by a simple negative particle;16 the rest of the
construction is the same. This
pattern permits even more flexibility of
expression. For example, in Mark 6:4 Jesus says,
"a prophet is not
without honor [anywhere] if [he is] not [without
honor] in his own
country."
Ti<j . . . ei] mh<
. . . A
third variation of this pattern, about 10
examples,17 uses interrogative ti<j to introduce the
apodosis as a
rhetorical question, the obvious answer to which is
"no one." Thus
the expression is fully equivalent to the others.
For illustration, in
Mark
2:7 the scribes ask, "Who is able to forgive sins except [literally,
‘if
not'] one, namely God?" Again dissimilarity in structural form of
the items compared may seem to obscure the ellipsis
of the verb. In
2
Cor
katena<rkhsa clause in the protasis: "In what respect were you
treated worse than other churches, except [you
were treated worse in
respect]
that (o!ti) I did not burden
you?" So also Eph 4:9 in
expanded form becomes, "What is the meaning
of the expression 'he
ascended' except [its meaning is] that he
descended. . . ?"
Ei] mh< = 'instead, only'
Included in the preceding category are a few
examples which are
not strictly exceptive. The ei] mh< protasis
does not name the only
15 Matt
2:26,
6:4, 8, 8:14, Luke 6:4, 8:51, 11:29, 11:18, John 6:22, 46,10:10, 13:10, 19:15,
Rom
13:1., I Cor 2:2,
16 Usually ou] or its strengthened
form ou]de<. Where the grammatical
structure of
the apodosis calls for a subjunctive verb, the
negative may be mh< or mhde<.
17 Mark 2:1, Luke
Eph
4:9, Heb 3:18, I John 2:22, 5:5.
180
GRACE THEOLOGICAL
JOURNAL
exception to the negation of the apodosis, but
rather it names the
only alternative to the apodosis. For example, in
Rev 9:4 ei]
mh> tou>j
a]nqrw<pouj does not name the
exceptions among to>n xo<rton
k. t. l.
who were not hurt, but rather states another class
who, in contrast,
were to be hurt.
after ei]
mh< it describes a different group who will enter.
So also
probably Matt 12:4, unless we make the unlikely
assumption that the
priests mentioned were those who were present in
David's company.
There
is no difference in the idiom used, and the difference in sense is
so obvious18 that it is almost
unnoticed.
Ei] mh< = adversative conjunction 'but'
It is readily admitted that ei] mh> may often be translated
'but' or
'but only' in English, particularly in those instances
belonging to the
last-mentioned category.19
However, there is another group of
examples in which there seems to be no ellipsis
of the verb and ei]
mh<
introduces a clause with its own verb, where the
sense seems to call
for an adversative conjunction, 'but.' Grammarians
have debated
whether
ei] mh< is ever the equivalent of a]lla<;20 their
claim is evaluated
in the following examples.
Rom
logizome<n& ti
koino>n ei#nai, e]kei<n& koino<n. “I know. . . that
nothing
is unclean by itself; but to the one who considers
anything to be
unclean, to that one it is unclean." This
manner of punctuating the
verse makes good sense using the ei] mh< as an adversative
conjunction
introducing another clause, but it ignores the
obvious similarity to the
simple exceptive formulas (ou]de<n
. . . ei] mh<) which is common else-
where. If we follow the lead of the idiom, the sense
becomes, "I know
that nothing is unclean except to the one who thinks
it is. To him it is
unclean." The sense is good, and any
tautology involved in the last
clause is not uncommon.
I Cor 7:17: Ei] mh>
e[ka<st& w[j
e]me<risen o[ ku<rioj,
e!kaston w[j
ke<klhken
o[ qeo<j, ou!twj peripatei<tw.
"But let each one walk in such
manner as the Lord has apportioned to each, as God has
called
18 Gal
issue must be settled on other considerations than
the meaning of ei]
mh<.
19 For example, the NASB in all but three
of this last group, translates by 'but.'
Even
in the first group 'but' is sometimes used, e.g., Matt 24:36.
20 Cf. G. B. Winer,
A Treatise on the Grammar of New Testament
Greek
(Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1870) 566; A. T.
Robertson, Grammar, 1187; J. H.
Moulton,
Grammar, 291. In the lexicon, W. F.
Arndt and F. W. Gingrich, A Greek-
English Lexicon of the
New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (
University
Press, 1957) 219 (section VI:8b) this meaning is
listed with one passage
(Gal
1:7) cited as an example, but with a cross-reference to a contrary explanation
of
that passage.
BOYER:
OTHER CONDITIONAL ELEMENTS IN NT GREEK 181
each." The ei]
mh< stands at the beginning of a sentence and at
the
beginning of a paragraph. The adversative
conjunction makes
tolerable sense, and there is no apodosis with a
negative comparison.
The
meaning 'except' seems totally out of the question. Conceivably
we might take it as a case of extreme ellipsis of
a negative first-class
condition: "If (this does not happen [cf. v
16]) then let each walk. . . ."
Gal 1:6-7: ei]j e!teron
eu]agge<lion, o{ ou]k e@stin a@llo:
ei] mh< tine<j
ei]sin oi[
but there are some who are troubling you. . . ."
Again the meaning
'except' is difficult and the adversative 'but' makes good
sense.
However,
it is again possible to see here another case of extreme
ellipsis of a negative first-class condition:
". . . not another [and I
would not speak of it as such] if (it were not for
the fact that) some
are troubling you. . . ."
If such explanations seem extreme, they must be
weighed against
the fact that the adversative 'but' is otherwise
unsupported for ei]
mh<.
Perhaps
the stereotyped formula has evolved from 'except,' to 'but
only,' then to 'but' as a full-fledged conjunction
governing its own
verb, but in the NT there are only these rare
examples to support it.21
Ei] mh< = negative second-class conditions
Not all occurrences of ei] mh< are exceptive; they may
also be
simply 'if not,' negative second-class condition.22
Of the 13 instances
of ei]
mh< which could be negative second-class protases23
only one,
Rom
7:7 (first occurrence), shows the three characteristic features of
the ei]
mh< = 'except' idiom, and the sense is agreeable:
"I would not
have known sin except [I had known it] through
law." Even here the
negative sense 'if not' is appropriate. All the
other instances are not
elliptical and are not involved in this study.
]Ea<n mh< = 'except'(?)
The vast majority, if not all, of the
occurrences of e]a<n mh< are
simply negative protases in
third-class conditions and hence are not a
part of this study. Mh< is the normal negative,
both from the historical
pattern which used mh< as the negative in all protases, and from the
appropriateness of its contingent
character to the subjunctive mood.
21 For a similar problem with e]a<n mh< see below.
22 Negative first-class conditions in NT
Greek use the negative particle ou] except in
the stereotyped formula ei]
mh< under consideration. For negative third-class
conditions,
see below. There are not negative fourth-class protases.
23 Matt 24:22, Mark
bis), 9:29.
182
GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
The question here raised is whether e]a>n mh< is ever used in a
third-class
version of the idiom ei]
mh< = 'except.' The question
is not
whether e]a>n mh< can be translated 'except.' It can, and is frequently
translated this way in English version, for in
English 'except' can
mean simply 'if not.' But, does e]a>n mh< ever occur in the
exceptive
sense of ei]
mh<?
One of the characteristics of the exceptive
idiom was seen to be
the ellipsis of the verb in the protasis.
This almost never happens with
e]a>n
mh<. One apparent exception is John 5:19 where ou]de>n
e]a>n mh< ti
looks much like "nothing except something. . . ,"
but that would
require a relative in place of, or in addition
to, ti. It should rather be
read, "the Son cannot do anything himself if he
does not see the
Father doing something," with no ellipsis
of the verb.
Mark
outcome of hiding something. The form is in part
like the ei]
mh<
construction, but the sense is not.
Perhaps it is a case where e]a>n
mh<,
like ei]
mh<, can be considered an adversative conjunction
(note the
parallel
a]ll ] in the next clause) but
that gives a different sense. It
seems easier to consider it a simple negative
second-class condition:
"There
is no such thing as a hidden thing if it is not destined to be
revealed.”
Mark
opposite of 'except,' and states that it is
always true without excep-
tion: "There is no one
who forsakes. . . , if he does not also
receive. . . .”
A theologically important passage involving e]a>n mh< is Gal
.
. . ou] dikaiou?tai a@nqrwpoj
e]c e@rgwn no<mou
e]a>n mh> dia>
pi<stewj
]Ihsou? Xristou?. It follows the exceptive
pattern completely, yet it
clearly is not the exceptive sense: "the
only one who is justified by
works is the one who is justified by faith."
Rather it is the alternative
sense: "no one is justified by works, but [the
only one justified at all is
justified] only by faith."
Ei]
de> mh<, ei] de> mh<ge
The idiom ei]
de> mh< occurs 6 times24 and the strengthened
form ei]
de>
mh<ge 8 times.25
In each case it is a compressed negative conditional
clause; the verb of the protasis
is left unexpressed but may be
supplied from the preceding context. It is used
to express an opposite
alternative to the one in the preceding clause:
"If you don't do that
.
. ." or "If that is not the case. . . ." 'Otherwise' is a good English
rendering.
24 Mark 2:21, 22; John 14:2, 11; Rev 2:5,
16.
25 Matt 6:1,
between mh<
ge (e.g., UBS(3)) and mh<ge (e.g., UB(2)).
BOYER:
OTHE,R CONDITIONAL ELEMENTS IN NT GREEK 183
It, may seem strange, but the idiom is unchanged
whether the
preceding alternative is stated positively (8 times
in the NT) or
negatively (6 times). As an example of the
positive, Rev 2:5 has
“Remember
. . . and repent. . .ei]
de> mh< . . .but if [you do not do so
I
will come. . . .” An example of the negative alternative preceding is
Matt
.
. . , but if [they do not follow that course (of not putting)], the
bottles are bursted,"
where we would have said, "But if they do. . . .”
The
translation 'otherwise' will fit either situation.
Ei]
mh<ti
This occurs 3 times in the NT.26 Its sense seems to be 'unless
indeed' or 'unless perhaps.' Mh<ti by itself occurs 14
times and is a
negative interrogative particle used with ques.tions expecting a nega-
tive or doubtful answer. In
Luke
good sense to the ei]
mh<ti construction and explains
the use of a
subjunctive verb. Taking it as a doubtfully stated deliberative ques-
tion, the meaning is
"We have no more than five loaves and two
fishes,
unless [ei]
mh<ti]--shall we go and buy. . . ?" The interrogative
idea is not so easily applied to the other two
examples except in the
sense that there is an affinity between
"doubtful" and "questionable.
@Ekto>j ei] mh>
]Ekto>j
occurs once
as a simple adverb, 4 times as an improper
preposition governing the genitive case, and 3 times27
it is combined
with
ei] mh>, apparently as a post-classical strengthening of the ei] mh< =
‘except' idiom. Its root meaning fits this sense well; 'outside
of,’ or
beside suggests an alternative or an exception.
INDEFINITE
RELATIVE AND TEMPORAL CLAUSES
This term is applied to those clauses which are
expressed in
English
by adding '-ever' to the relative word: 'whoever,' 'whatever,’
‘whenever,'
'wherever.' The Greek idiom uses with the relative word
the indefinite particle a@n or e]a<n and the subjunctive
mood of the
verb. They
are common m the Greek NT--about 320 examples.
26 Luke 9:13. I Cor
7:5; 2 Cor 13:5. In I Cor
7:5 it is augmented by adding the
particle a@n.
27 1 Cor 14:5 with
subjunctive verb following; 15:2 with indicative verb following;
1 Tim
28 The indefinite particle a@n is by far most frequent, about 238 times. ]Ea<n, which is
combination of the conditional ei] with a@n, is used about 63 times.
There are about 19
where the subjunctive verb is used in such clauses without
either of these
particles. In Hellenistic Greek e]a<n and a@n even h@n,
where sometimes interchanged, so
that either form could function for either the
conditional or the indefinite sense. See
n.7 above.
184
GRACE
THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
The propriety of including these constructions
under a discussion
of "other conditional elements" is
suggested in two ways. First, there
is the fact that they use the same basic formula
as third-class
conditional protases (e]a<n or a@n with the subjunctive) which suggests a
relationship between indefiniteness
and supposition or condition.
Second,
there is the almost unanimous judgment of grammarians29
that such is the situation. There is not much
difference in actual sense
between o!j
a@n, 'whoever,' and e]a<n tij,
'if anyone.' But this word of
caution from A. T. Robertson is needed to avoid
over-zealous appli-
cation: "But after all,
it is not a conditional sentence any more than
the so-called causal, final consecutive relative
clauses are really so. It
is only by the context that one inferentially gets
any of these ideas out
of the relative.”30
IMPLIED CONDITIONS
This category should not be confused with that
discussed above
under "elliptical conditions." By
"elliptical" we refer to conditional
sentences which have some part unexpressed but the
conditional form
of the sentence remains intact. By "implied
conditions" we refer to
sentences or elements which are not in form or
fact conditional, but
which are judged from context to imply a conditional
sense.
These are hard to deal with specifically. One
cannot go through
and count, for example, all the conditional
participles in the NT; one
must first study every participle in the NT, then
decide which are
adverbial, that is, are modifying the verb of the
sentence in some way,
then decide in what way it is affecting the verb
(conditional is only
one of many possibilities, and the decision is
purely an interpretive
one). Only then can one study conditional
participles. The same is
true of the other types to be mentioned in this
section. Our present
purpose will be served by illustrating from
examples.
29 All the grammars examined which dealt
with this construction agreed that it was
conditional. Following Goodwin's complex system of
classifying conditional sentences
based on time and particularity, many classical
grammarians develop in detail this
same scheme in analyzing the "conditional
relative clauses." Many NT grammarians
who do not follow that system still identify these
indefinite relative clauses as forms of
the third-class future condition. See W. W.
Goodwin, Greek Grammar (
1930)
303-6; H. W. Smyth, A Greek Grammar
(New York: American, 1916) 361;
Robertson,
Grammar, 961, 956; F. Blass and A. Debrunner, A Grammar of the New
Testament and Other
Early Christian Literature (trans. and rev. by R. Funk;
“A
relative clause may be used to indicate contingency by the use of one of the
conditional participles [sic particles] in
conjunction with the relative pronoun. Such a
relative clause is actually a type of conditional
clause" (A Handbook of New Testament
Greek [
30 Robertson, Grammar, 961-2.
BOYER:
OTHER CONDITIONAL ELEMENTS IN NT GREEK 185
Conditional Participles
That participles do sometimes bear a conditional
relationship to
the governing verb is undoubted. In Matt
e]a>n
to>n ko<smon o!lon kerdh<s^ is paralleled in Luke
participial phrase kerdh<saj to>n ko<smon o!lon. Heb 2:3 literally
says,
"How
shall we escape, having neglected. . . ." The participle a]melh<-
santej could possibly mean
"since we have neglected," but that does
not fit the sense as well as "if we
neglect." It is not necessary to
multiply examples, but compare also Acts
I
Cor
menon).
Conditional Imperatives
This is more rare and
less obvious, but a few cases seem clear. In
John
him,
Lu<sate to>n nao>n tou?ton kai>
e]n trisi>n h[me<raij
e]geirei?j au]to<n;
“Destroy
this temple and in three days I will raise it." He was not
commanding or requesting that they kill him, or
even that they tear
down the building. Rather, he was challenging them:
"You do that
and I'll do this!" or "If you. . . , I
will. . . ." So in Eph 4:26 it is
difficult to understand "Be angry and sin
not" as a command or even
a permission, especially in light of the context
(see v 31). It is much
easier to take it as a condition, "If you are
angry, do not sin."
Perhaps
also this may apply to passages like Matt 7:7, Mark 1:17,
sense. Even less likely is its use in Matt
Conditional Questions
A couple of passages have been used to show that
an independent
interrogative sentence may function
as the protasis of an implied
condition. I Cor 7:21:
"Were you called as a slave? Let it not be a
concern to you" is understood to say,
"If you were. . . let it not. . . ."
James
5:13: "Is there anyone sick among you? Let him pray" becomes
“If
anyone is sick. . . ." Such an expression is possible and permis-
sible; whether it was
actually so intended by the author is a matter of
interpretive judgment or stylistic
preference on the part of the reader,
not a matter of grammar.
Other grammatical structures may also be treated
in this manner.
Mark
4:9 for example, the relative clause "He who has ears to
hear, let him hear" may be called an implied
conditional clause, since
may be understood as equivalent to "If anyone
has ears. . ."
particularly in the light of the
parallel in v 23. Here also may be
placed the so-called "conditional participle"
in Heb 6:6. Since
186
GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
parapeso<ntaj
is one of a
series of 5 participles governed by the article
tou<j, it is adjectival and not
circumstantial. Therefore, it is not an
example of what is usually called a conditional
participle.31 As
adjectival all 5 are most readily translated by a
relative clause which
itself may be conditional in character if the context
suggests it: "It is
impossible to renew to repentance those who do
these five things."
The
statement seems to be speaking of a hypothetical situation rather
than an actual instance. The sharp contrast with the
four preceding
descriptions (which are all
favorable) with the last (which is drasti-
cally unfavorable), serves to
heighten the hypothetical nature of the
whole.
Implied Protases of Fourth-Class Conditions
A few of the optative
verbs in the NT are called by some
grammarians "potential optatives,"
and as such are sometimes de-
scribed as apodoses of fourth-class conditional
sentences with implied
protases. Chamberlain lists 5 of
these constructions: "These are the
potential optative,
practically the apodosis of an unexpressed
protasis.”32
Such terminology comes from grammarians of classical
Greek,
such as Goodwin,33 who says, "The optative with a@n expresses
a future action as dependent on circumstances or
conditions," and
This optative is
usually called potential, and corresponds generally to
the English potential forms
with may, can, might, could, would,
etc. . . . The limiting
condition is generally too indefinite to be dis-
tinctly present to the mind,
and can be expressed only by words like
perhaps, possibly, or probably,
or by such vague forms as "if he
pleased, if he should try, if
he could, if there should be an opportunity,"
etc.
In view of this admission that the implied
condition is "generally too
indefinite to be distinctly present to the
mind" of the speaker, it seems
better to recognize that the potential optative is a construction which
stands alone without an implied protasis.
All the NT examples are
questions, either direct or indirect, except one.34
In none of them is
there a clearly implied protasis.
CONCESSIVE SENTENCES
A special category of conditional sentences is
marked by an
adverbial use of kai< in association with the
conditional conjunction,
31 J. A. Sproule, "parapeso<ntej
in Hebrews 6:6," GTJ 2 (1981)
327-32.
32 W. D. Chamberlain, An Exegetical Grammar of the Greek New Testament
(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1941) 85.
33 Goodwin, Grammar, 281.
34 Acts 26:29. See Robertson, Grammar, 938, where he speaks of the
construction
as a "softened assertion."
BOYER:
OTHER CONDITIONAL ELEMENTS IN NT GREEK 187
ei]
or e]a<n. These are called
concessive. They are in no way distin-
guished in form from other
conditional sentences and are best
thought of as a variety of them rather than as a
separate classifica-
tion.35 They have been
included, though not called attention to, in the
previous treatment of conditional sentences.
When the kai< precedes the
conditional conjunction (kai>
ei] or kai>
e]a>n) the sense is
climactic, 'even if.' "The supposition is considered
improbable. ..the truth of
the principal sentence is stoutly affirmed
in the face of this one exception. It is
rhetorically an extreme case.”36
The
idea is ". . . improbable in itself, or especially unfavorable to the
fulfillment of the apodosis.”37 An
example is Gal 1:8, "But even if
(kai> e]a<n) we or an angel from
heaven should preach a gospel other
than what we preached, let him be anathema.”38
When kai< follows the conditional
conjunction (ei]
kai< or e]a>n
kai<)
the sense is 'if also,' 'although,' 'even though.'
"Here the protasis is
treated as a matter of indifference. . . sometimes
a note of contempt
is
in ei] kai<.”39 The protasis is
". . . conceived of as actually fulfilled or
likely to be fulfilled",40 ". . .
fulfilled in spite of the fulfillment of the
protasis.”41
An example is
absent in flesh, yet I am with you in spirit."
This type is more
common in the NT than the other.42
Conditional sentences may be concessive even
without the kai<.
For
example, Matt 26:33 uses simply ei], where the parallel
passage in
Mark
parallel Matt 26:35 has ka@n [= kai>
e]a<n].
Other passages where the
sense seems to be concessive without kai< are Rom 3:3,
On the other hand, kai< in conjunction with ei] or e]a<n most
frequently43 does not involve the
concessive idea at all. It may simply
be a connective conjunction, 'and if,' as in the
series of conditional
sentences
in 1 Cor 13:1-3: ]Ea>n
. . . kai> e]a>n . . . kai<
e]a>n . . . ka}n
35
between the two, but then admits that sometimes
"to make distinction between them is
difficult. "
36 Robertson, Grammar, 1026.
37
38 The passages so identified in this study
are (1) first-class with kai>
ei] (2
occurrences):
I Cor 8:5, I Pet 3:1; (2) third-class, with kai> e]a<n
or ka@n (6 occurrences):
Matt
26:35, Mark
39 Robertson, Grammar, 1026.
40
41 Ibid., 112.
42 The passages so identified are (I)
first-class with ei]
kai< (16 occurrences): Mark
14:29,
Luke 11:8, 18:4, I Cor 7:21, 2 Cor
4:3, 16, 5:16, 7:8 (three times), 12, 11:6, 12:11,
Phil
2: 17,
43 66 times, as compared
with 29 where kai< is concessive.
188
GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
[=
kai>
e]a<n]. Or the kai<
may go with
some specific word or part of the
sentence, not with the protasis
as a whole, as in 2 Cor
kai< goes with oi[ dia<konoi au]tou? and means 'also.'
Concessive conditions are usually of the first
class (21 times),
also frequently of the third class (14 times). Kai>
ei] appears three
times with second-class conditions, only one of which
could be
concessive.44 The one possible
example of a fourth-class condition,
1
Pet
44 Heb 11:15. In the other two (Matt 24:22
and its parallel in Mark
must be taken as a simple continuative conjunction;
the concessive 'even if' cannot be
the sense of the statement.
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