Greek Syntax as a Criterion of

Authenticity: A New Discussion

and Proposal

BRIAN J. WRIGHT Dallas Theological Seminary

Dallas, TX 75204

EVIDENCE CONTINUES to mount that Greek was an actively spoken language

in first-century Palestine. This evidence includes coins, inscriptions, epitaphs, mar­

riage contracts, deeds of gifts, registrations of lands, summons, letters, and so on

(all intended for public viewing).1 Every area and socioeconomic stratum attests

Special thanks are due to Drs. Paul Eddy, Darrell Bock, Richard Taylor, and Daniel Wallace for looking at a preliminary draft of this article and making valuable suggestions. Likewise, this article benefited greatly from the keen editorial work of Steven Hellman.

1 Many scholars have adequately shown that Greek was a living language and actively used during the Second Temple period, not to mention the widespread usage of the LXX (or at least the bulk of it). It is also noteworthy that across the Judean Desert Greek texts have been discovered "at all sites in that area," with some locations even having the number of Greek texts equal to or greater than the number of Hebrew/Aramaic texts. See, among others, Emanuel Τον, Hebrew Bible, Greek

Bible, and Qumran: Collected Essays (TSAJ 121; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008) 185-86, 339, 363; John C. Poirier, "The Linguistic Situation in Jewish Palestine in Late Antiquity," Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism 4 (2007) 55-134, esp. 55, 69; Jan Joosten, "The Septuagint as a Source of Information on Egyptian Aramaic in the Hellenistic Period," in Aramaic in Its His­torical and Linguistic Setting (ed. Holger Gzella and Margaretha L. Folmer; Veröffentlichungen der Orientalischen Kommission 50; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2008) 93-105, esp. 94; Catherine Hezser, Jewish Literacy in Roman Palestine (TSAJ 81 ; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001) 90; Stanislav Segert, "The Languages of Historical Jesus," Communio Viatorum 44 (2002) 161-73; James E. Harding, "Paul and First-Century Judaism: Contributions from the Qumran Scrolls," Theoforum 35 (2004) 141-72, esp. 146; Martin Hengel with Christoph Markschies, The "Hellenization " of Judaea in the First Century after Christ (Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1989) 8,10,14,20,44; Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids; Eerdmans, 2009)

84

GREEK SYNTAX AS A CRITERION OF AUTHENTICITY 85

to this fact to some degree.2 It is reasonable, then, that many Jews in Palestine probably had some degree of contact with or working knowledge of Greek, even as a second or third language. This is in part why "[v]ery few scholars would doubt that Jesus probably knew some Greek and he might have conversed in Greek on occasion [e.g., with Pilate, the Centurion, the Syro-Phoenician woman]."3 Where the divide often comes is over the extent of the Jewish people's abilities and under­standings of Greek and what role the language played. Knowledge, contact, and roles varied depending on locality, mobility, social status, educational background, and the like. It is not because of the lack of Greek evidence in first-century Pales­tine that many scholars express some hesitation regarding its preservation in dominical sayings.4 Rather, "[t]he problem lies in demonstrating that it did happen, asserting that these words were preserved in the transmission process, and they are now retrievable from the Gospel manuscripts as they are."5

Given the probability that Jesus was able to speak Greek, the primary objec­tive of this study is to determine whether Greek syntax is a viable criterion for establishing authentic sayings of Jesus. Granted, no publication deals specifically with this hypothesis or syntactical construction.6 Yet, if shown, "the implications would be extraordinarily significant for historical-Jesus studies. If one could detect

29-31 ; Veselin Kesich, Formation and Struggles: The Birth of the Church, A.D. 33-200 (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 2007) 30.

2 Poirier perceptively points out several problems with scholars who limit the use of Greek in Jewish Palestine more than the evidence warrants (Poirier, "Linguistic Situation in Jewish Palestine," 111, 125-26). Likewise, Pieter W. van der Horst (Japheth in the Tents ofShem: Studies on Jewish Hellenism in Antiquity [CBET 32; Sterling, VA: Peeters, 2002] 25-26) believes that "[t]he burden of proof is on the shoulders of those scholars who want to maintain that Greek was not the lingua franca of many Palestinian Jews in the Hellenistic-Roman-Byzantine period."

3 Michael F. Bird, "The Criterion of Greek Language and Context: A Response to Stanley E. Porter," Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 4 (2006) 55-67, here 60. See also J. M. Ross, "Jesus's Knowledge of Greek," IBS 12 (1990) 41-47. Luke 4:18 provides an excellent rejoinder for such questions, since Luke records Jesus as reading the LXX rather than the Hebrew text.

4 Joseph A. Fitzmyer, for example, says, "I am extremely skeptical about the preservation of any Greek sayings of Jesus" ("Aramaic KephaJ and Peter's Name in the New Testament," in To Advance the Gospel: New Testament Studies [2nd ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998] 112-24, here 123).

5 Bird, "Criterion of Greek Language and Context," 60. 6 Stanley Porter did propose three new authenticity criteria (i.e., Greek language and its con­

text, Greek textual variance, and discourse features), but syntax was absent (The Criteria for Authen­ticity in Historical-Jesus Research: Previous Discussion and New Proposals [JSNTSup 191; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000] esp. 126-237). Furthermore, my assessment overlaps with none of the examples (or "episodes") from the Gospels that Porter adduces to show that Jesus may have spoken in Greek (e.g., Matt 8:5-13; Mark 2:13-14; Luke 23:2-5; John 12:20-28). Never­theless, I agree with Porter's presupposition that we may be able to recover the Greek words of Jesus.

86 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 74,2012

and establish authentic Greek sayings of Jesus in the Greek New Testament, . . . [it would potentially open] up a whole new and uncharted field of Jesus research. The teachings of Jesus and the transmission of the tradition would require re­appraisal in light of such a hypothesis."7

In order to begin the pursuit toward this objective, I will examine one syn­tactical construction: the aorist third person negated imperative.81 will first sum­marize the semantic situation involving this construction and then consider the form in five central Greek corpora (Josephus, Philo, the NT, the Apostolic Fathers, and the Gospel of Thomas) in order to determine whether Greek syntax, or at least this construction, is a viable criterion of authenticity.9

I. The Semantic Situation

The Greek language has, as is well known, four moods (also called "modes" or "attitudes"). The imperative, which I examine in this article, is the volitional mood. Many scholars conclude that it was "the last of the moods to develop,"10

and the third person imperative "lost ground before the subjunctive, and eventually disappeared from the common language altogether."11 That is not difficult to imag­ine, since at least six more conventional alternatives existed to express the imper­ative in Greek: future indicative, subjunctive, optative, infinitive, participle, and present indicative with infinitive. In addition, the particle μη negates the impera­tive, and only Greek, Indo-Iranian, and Armenian show the use of the negative particle μη.12

7 Ibid., 56. 8 1 do not here adopt the traditional labels "prohibitive" or "prohibition," since they can

be misleading (see Joseph D. Fantin, "The Greek Imperative Mood in the New Testament: A Cog­nitive and Communicative Approach" [Ph.D. diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 2003] 190-93, 327).

9 I find no examples of this construction in the following texts: the Letter of Peter to Philip,

the First Revelation of James, the Gospel of Judas, A Book of Allogènes, Egerton Papyrus 2: The Unknown Gospel, and Other Unidentified Gospel Fragments (including: P. Vindob.G 2325, PMert. 51, POxy. 2\Q,POxy. 1224, POxy. 840, and P.Berol 11710).

10 James L. Boyer, "The Classification of Imperatives: A Statistical Study," Grace Theological Journal 8 (1987) 35-54, here 46; see also A. T. Robertson, Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (4th ed.; New York: Hodder & Stoughton, 1934) 941.

11 Antonius Ν. Jannaris, An Historical Greek Grammar Chiefly of the Attic Dialect: As Written

and Spoken from Classical Antiquity Down to the Present Time Founded upon the Ancient Texts,

Inscriptions, Papyri and Present Popular Greek (ÌS91; repr., Hildesheim: Olms, 1968) 449. 12 See J. Clackson, "The Genesis of Greek," in A History of Ancient Greek: From the Begin­

nings to Late Antiquity (ed. A.-F. Christidis; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007) 185-92, here 186.

GREEK SYNTAX AS A CRITERION OF AUTHENTICITY 87

When one combines the imperative with the negative particle μη, several other structural details exist. The construction rarely begins or ends a sentence. Other imperatives are always nearby. Seldom does anything separate the negative particle from its verb. If the imperative's subject is expressed, it adds emphasis, specifica­tion, or both (e.g., Matt 6:6; 19:6; Luke 9:60). Moreover, in the NT, prohibitions occur in the subjunctive mood more often than the imperative. James L. Boyer notes that the prohibited subjunctive occurs eighty-eight times, while the negated aorist imperative occurs only eight times, with "no distinguishable difference in meaning."13 Of those eight, four words are unique.14 When they are examined together, there are only two distinct contexts if one accepts some form of literary dependence for the Gospels: the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 6:3) and the Synoptic apocalypse (Matt 24:17-18/Mark 13:15-16/Luke 17:31). Nevertheless, every one of them occurs in a direct speech of Jesus.

When all these details are put together, a noticeable motif is that this con­struction occurred only rarely, especially in comparison to the six other ways of expressing the same idea. Its authenticity, then, is at least more probable. In other words, if the construction were common, conventional, or both, almost any Greek-speaking person could have said it. On the contrary, whenever a syn­tactical expression is not widely attested, is unconventional, or (especially) both, then the probability of authenticity increases.

At first glance, this construction may still appear relatively insignificant; cer­tainly other words, phrases, and/or constructions are also unique or rare (one pos­sible reason this thesis has escaped notice).15 Yet, given all the arguments and evidence put forth in this study, the probability of retrieving a Greek stratum of ipsissima verba of Jesus is significantly increased.16

1 3 Boyer, "Classification of Imperatives," 47. After noting all eight instances in a footnote,

however, he states, "All the NT examples are third person." His final statement needs critiquing (or

a clarification). All the NT examples are third person if one does not include all textual variants

(e.g., Matt 10:26, 28). 1 4 That is, μη γνώτω (Matt 6:3); μη καταβάτω (Matt 24:17; Mark 13:15; Luke 17:31); μη

έπιστρεψάτω (Matt 24:18; Mark 13:16; Luke 17:31); μηδέ είσελθάτω (Mark 13:15). 1 5 Indeed, the NT database for this construction is small (i.e., fifteen times, thirteen verses,

eleven different words) compared to the LXX. Nevertheless, one must not dismiss the discussion,

since (1) as will be demonstrated, it is a substantive database nonetheless; (2) no other alleged ipsis­

sima verba of Jesus feature a large database; and (3) taken as a whole, it does present us with a

coherent possibility. Therefore, I contend that this small, justifiable database can yield legitimate

results and conclusions. 1 6 Regarding the syntactical construction discussed in this article, almost all standard Greek

grammars note that this construction is found only on the lips of Jesus, with one even noting that

such sayings might be authentic by other criteria, that is, multiple attestation and dissimilarity

(Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament

[Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996] 487). It should also be noted that Wallace did suggest that the

88 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 74,2012

II. Examining the Greek Corpora

A. Josephus

Josephus's writings contain no aorist third person negated imperative. To say the least, this helps confirm this syntactical construction's scarcity during this period. In fact, it occurred only in the LXX with any type of notable frequency (see table 1 on p. 90 below), and it eventually disappeared from the language alto­gether, there being at least six other, more conventional ways to render the same idea. The notable importance here is that this syntactical construction does not appear during this era unless under Septuagintal influence and/or reportedly from the lips of Jesus.17

B. Philo

As for Philo, most scholars agree that Hellenistic Judaism found deep root in him. In fact, there are "undeniable parallels" that suggest Philo and the author of the Letter to the Hebrews relied on similar traditions of Greek speech and thought in Judaism.18 With that in mind, one might expect Philo to use the aorist third per­son negated imperative; yet, surprisingly, he does so only three times. What is more, each occurrence is either a direct Septuagintal quotation {Mut. 1.210)19 or in an OT context (Abr. 1.120; Spec. 1.284).20 This assessment not only supports linking Philo with Hellenistic Judaism but also reinforces my more general point that this construction is rare.

C. New Testament

1. Matthew 6:3

σου δε ποιοΰντος έλεημοσύνην μη γνώτω ή αριστερά σου τί ποιεί ή δεξιά σου

But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing.

Jesus Seminar could have possibly utilized syntax as a criterion of authenticity, yet this was per­

taining to the nominativus pendens (p. 53 n. 53). 1 7 Although a study of this construction in the era(s) prior to the NT is outside the scope of

this article (apart from illustrating statistically via table 1 that this construction virtually disappeared

after the LXX), a strong caution exists about merely assuming a Septuagintal influence of each

occurrence subsequent to the LXX. Only four of the eleven different words in the fifteen times this

construction occurs are even attested in the LXX, with two being quoted directly {Mut. 1.210;

1 Clem. 56.5). Thus, the majority of the sayings ascribed to Jesus in this study are completely absent

from the LXX and should not be automatically connected with it. 1 8 See, e.g., Harold W. Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Epistle to

the Hebrews (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989) 29. 1 9 Deuteronomy 33:6: μη αποθανέτω ("let [third person] not die"). 2 0 The latter text (1:284; μη άχαριστησάτω, "let [third person] not be ungrateful") is in a section

specifically on OT commandments relating to the altar, with Lev 6:9 following the verse.

GREEK SYNTAX AS A CRITERION OF AUTHENTICITY 89

TABLE 1

OCCURRENCES OF THIRD PERSON IMPERATIVES21

Total Positive Negated

Present Negated Negated Aorist Perfect

LXX 1,071 919 67 84 1

Pseudepigrapha 54 42 5 7 0

Greek Qumran 1 1 0 0 0

Philo 554 514 36 3 1

Josephus 242 231 10 0 1

New Testament 234 201 25 8 0

Apostolic Fathers 136 118 15 3 0

The Gospel of Matthew uses the third person imperative thirty-three times. Of those, twenty-nine are recorded sayings of Jesus, including all eight aorist third person negated imperatives. The first occurrence of the aorist third person negated imperative is in 6:3.

The textual tradition of Matt 6:3 is consistent, with all viable evidence con­taining this syntactical construction: μη γνώτω ("not let [third person] know"). The Sahidic and Bohairic versions of the NT maintain this construction as well.22

What is more, this passage (and syntactical construction) finds noncanonical attes­tation in the Gospel of Thomas (62.2). April D. DeConick includes this passage

2 1 My statistics are produced using Accordance 8, cross-checked (where possible) with

Bible Works 8. The search included all aorist third person imperatives within two words of the neg­

ative particle μη, excluding the negated indefinite pronoun (μηδείς) and adverb (μηκέτι). Inevitably,

assumptions abound when one cites statistics from an electronic database. Because of text-critical

issues, for example, the database and its statistics do not necessarily correspond to an actual text

(e.g., LXX, Philo, Josephus, Apostolic Fathers, or Hebrew Bible). Likewise, one must be cautious

in basing certain statistics on a particular manuscript (e.g., Codex Β for the LXX or Codex L for the

Hebrew Bible) or on the parsing of another (e.g., μη φοβείσθωσαν in 2 Clem. 5.4 is in the present

tense since the stem did not change and only first principal part verbs contract, not aorist as Bible-

Works suggests [cf. also Ign. Pol. 4.3 in Accordance for similar error]. My thanks go to Dr. Daniel

B. Wallace for pointing this out to me in a preliminary draft, for I initially fell victim to this same

morphological mistake). 2 2 George W. Horner, ed., The Coptic Version of the New Testament in the Northern Dialect,

Otherwise Called Memphitic and Bohairic, with Introduction, Critical Apparatus, and Literal Eng­

lish Translation (4 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1898-1905) 1:36; and idem, ed., The Coptic Version

of the New Testament in the Southern Dialect, Otherwise Called Sahidic and Thebaic, with Critical

Apparatus, Literal English Translation, Register of Fragments and Estimate of the Version (7 vols.;

Oxford: Clarendon, 1911-24) 1:42.

90 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 74,2012

among her "Kernel sayings," which she dates between 30 and 50 CE. 2 3 She believes that these sayings "are among our oldest witnesses to the words of Jesus, perhaps even pre-dating Quelle."24 She also suggests literary independence regard­ing 62.2, which Hans Dieter Betz points out as well, since the saying is unrelated to almsgiving.25 Helmut Koester, on the other hand, suggests "that the Gospel of Thomas rests on an older sayings gospel or wisdom book that was composed essen­tially on the basis of the same traditional sayings that were used by the author of the first version of Q."26 At any rate, whether one accepts or denies literary inde­pendence, this text still fits the criterion of multiple attestation and is consistently given an early date, substantially increasing its potential authenticity.

With that in mind, most scholars support the view that the Gospel of Matthew contains materials that go back to Semitic sources.27 Nevertheless, Aramaic influ­ence or originality seems highly /^probable with this particular syntactical con­struction. Aramaic imperatives are based on corresponding imperfect forms, with the pronominal prefix removed. "The imperative," Franz Rosenthal concisely states, "cannot be used in connection with a negation. In order to express a negated imperative, the jussive (imperfect) must be used."28 Likewise, Alger E Johns notes that the form of the jussive is usually identical to that of the imperfect.29 Its expected Greek replacement, then, would be a present or future tense, not aorist,

23 April D. DeConick, The Original Gospel of Thomas in Translation: With a Commentary and New English Translation of the Complete Gospel (Library of New Testament Studies 287; New York: Clark, 2006) 10.

24 Ibid., 23. This may also strengthen C. Michael Robbins's conclusion that the language of Q was originally Greek (The Testing of Jesus in Q [Studies in Biblical Literature 108; New York: Peter Lang, 2007] 3). In any case, "the image seems to be original with Jesus" (R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew [NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007] 237 n. 38).

25 DeConick, Gospel of Thomas, 206-7. See also Hans Dieter Betz, The Sermon on the Mount: A Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount, Including the Sermon on the Plain (Matthew 5:3-7:27 and Luke 6:20-49) (Hermeneia; Minneapolis; Fortress, 1995) 359.

26 Helmut Koester, From Jesus to the Gospels: Interpreting the New Testament in Its Context (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007) 280.

27 See, e.g., R. T. France, Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher (Exeter: Paternoster, 1989) esp. 53-66 and 102-8. France maintains his view in his most recent commentary on Matthew (see n. 24 above), while pointing the reader back to this earlier work for his fullest arguments. For ten steps that must be wrestled with when determining Hebrew/Aramaic influence, see James R. Davila, "(How) Can We Tell If a Greek Apocryphon or Pseudepigraphon Has Been Translated from Hebrew or Aramaic?" JSP 15 (2005) 3-61.

28 Franz Rosenthal, A Grammar of Biblical Aramaic (1961; repr., Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2006) 49. His assessment holds true also outside "biblical" Aramaic. See, among others, Theodor Nöldeke, Compendious Syriac Grammar (London: Williams & Norgate, 1904) 224; Takamitsu Muraoka and Bezalel Porten, A Grammar of Egyptian Aramaic (2nd rev. ed.; HO, First Series, The Near and Middle East 32; Leiden/New York: Brill, 2003) 322-23.

29 Alger F. Johns, A Short Grammar of Biblical Aramaic (2nd ed.; Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1972) 24.

GREEK SYNTAX AS A CRITERION OF AUTHENTICITY 91

as well as one of the other moods, not imperative.30 Ezra 4:21, which is in one of only five Aramaic sections in the OT,31 attests an example of this. The LXX renders the third person negated jussive in Ezra 4:21 (nroJN *ò, "[third person] will not be built") with a negated third person future indicative (ουκ οίκοδομηθήσεται, "[third person] will not be built"), one of the six more conventional alternatives noted above. In other words, since there is no negated third person imperative in Aramaic, the Greek syntax here cannot possibly go back to a Semitic original that shares the same syntax.32 Thus, two viable options remain: (1) since this saying does not go back to an Aramaic original, it necessarily means that it cannot be the ipsissima verba of Jesus, or (2) this syntactical construction demonstrates a strong(er) pos­sibility of a Greek stratum of authentic Jesus sayings than previously acknowl­edged.

Moreover, Matt 6:3 is parallel to 6:2, which contains one of the more common syntactical constructions, μη with the subjunctive. Why would this rare, uncon­ventional construction in 6:3 (and elsewhere) have been retained through oral and written transmission if it were not authentic? We know that the language of living oral traditions in any era regularly modernizes in order to align itself more or less with the lingua franca of a particular community or culture.33 In fact, "even dead languages, only used in literature, change."34 Likewise, this construction is not rhythmic, repetitive, varied, provocative, aphoristic, chiastic, or symmetrical. Nor does it involve key words, phrases, or constructions. Without any of these, the probability decreases that it was merely formulated via oral tradition. All of this lends more credibility to the thesis of a Greek stratum of Jesus' sayings and could even indicate that (a) historicity was a more prominent oral concern, (b) there was a much earlier written text, and/or (c) Greek authenticity is more probable. I would propose that this saying did not merely escape modification or change, but rather that this Greek construction maintains the ipsissima verba of Jesus.

On the other hand, one could argue that this construction was used merely

3 0 Although the proverb of Matt 6:3 does not appear to parallel any contemporaneous biblical,

Jewish, or Greco-Roman source, it may be noteworthy for our purposes that later Arabic parallels

of Matt 6:3 lack a negated particle (e.g., Ahmad ibn Hanbal, al-Zuhd, 94 [no. 307] and 'Abdallah

ibn al-Mubarak, al-Zuhd, 48-49 [no. 150]). 3 1 Genesis 31:47; Jer 10:11; Ezra 4:8-6:18; 7:12-26; Dan 2:4b-7:28. 3 2 This assessment holds true even if the LXX was deeply impacted by the Aramaic language

(Joosten, "Septuagint," 102). 3 3 See L. Polkas, "Homer: Epic Poetry and Its Characteristics," in History of Ancient Greek

(ed. Christidis), 999-1009, here 1005. See also Harm W. Hollander, "The Words of Jesus in Paul

and Q," in NovT 42 (2000) 340-57, esp. 353. 3 4 Joshua Blau, "A Conservative View of the Language of the Dead Sea Scrolls," in Diggers

at the Well. Proceedings of a Third International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls

and Ben Sira (ed. Takamitsu Muraoka and John F. Elwolde; STDJ 36; Leiden: Brill, 2000) 20-25,

here 20 (emphasis removed).

92 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 74,2012

for stylistic reasons. In fact, over three hundred of the more than nine hundred OT occurrences of the third person imperative in the LXX are found in the poetic sec­tions, providing literary variation, especially parallelism.35 In the Book of Psalms alone, there are 184 third person imperatives. Thus, the author may have varied the form in Matt 6:3 for stylistic reasons (e.g., to avoid monotony). That explana­tion, however, is not highly probable here for at least a few reasons. It is not in a poetic section. We are not dealing with the OT. At least six other, more conven­tional renderings were possible (and more probable) stylistically to provide vari­ation. The broader context (5:3-7:27) permits the probability of "codeswitching."36

Jonathan M. Watt identified several examples of "codeswitching" particularly in the Sermon on the Mount: Semitic words such as Sanhédrin, transliterated Aramaic words such as ρακά ("fool"), the "problematic" Greek vocative μωρέ ("stupid"), and Latin loanwords such as μίλιον ("a thousand paces").

One other factor to consider is ancient literacy rates. Terence C. Mournet's recent examination reveals a strong consensus in both NT and Hebrew Bible schol­arship that the vast majority of people in antiquity were illiterate, with a small percentage of people, at best, being marginally literate (close to 5 percent).37

James D. G. Dunn made the same observation in view of the highly oral society, where even the reading of a Torah scroll would have been heard by the audience.38

Their assessment of this low literacy rate, if accepted, reveals at least two points. (1) If the people in this area and during this era were largely illiterate, how did this rare classical construction remain? (2) If the use of Greek was confined to a limited segment of the population, namely, the educated upper class,39 what explains Jesus'

3 5 Judy Glaze, "The Septuagintal Use of the Third Person Imperative" (M.Th. thesis, Harding Graduate School of Religion, 1979) 18. See also Johannes Friedrich Diehl, Die Fortführung des Imperativs im biblischen Hebräisch (AOAT 286; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2004) 1.

36 Codeswitching is the "alternation of codes (i.e. language, dialect, style, etc.) in a single speech act" (Jonathan M. Watt, "Some Implications of Bilingualism for New Testament Exegesis," in Studies in the Language of the New Testament, vol. 1 [ed. Stanley E. Porter and Andrew W. Pitts; Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2010]).

37 Terence C. Mournet, "The Jesus Tradition as Oral Tradition," in Jesus in Memory: Tradi­tions in Oral and Scribal Perspectives (ed. Werner H. Kelber and Samuel Byrskog; Waco: Baylor University Press, 2009) 39-62, here 50. See also James A. Maxey, From Orality to Orality: A New Paradigm for Contextual Translation of the Bible (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2009) 109.

38 James D. G. Dunn, "All That Glisters Is Not Gold: In Quest of the Right Key to Unlock the Way to the Historical Jesus," m Der historische Jesus: Tendenzen und Perspektiven der gegenwär­tigen Forschung (ed. Jens Schröter and Ralph Brucker; BZNW 114; Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 2002) 131-62, here 150.

39 Lester L. Grabbe, Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian (2 vols.; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992) 1:158. See also Richard A. Horsley and Jonathan A. Draper, "The Oral Communication Environment of Q," in Whoever Hears You Hears Me: Prophets, Performance, and Tradition in Q (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 1999) 123-49, esp. 125.

GREEK SYNTAX AS A CRITERION OF AUTHENTICITY 93

use of it? The evidence we have suggests that Jesus was not upper class.40 On the

other hand, if their evaluation is incorrect and literacy was high, why was this con­

struction not used more often, given that the construction is common in the LXX

and in classical Greek (e.g., Plato)?

In sum, the saying is textually secure, fits the criterion of multiple attestation,

has no Aramaic parallel, appears to have resisted oral and written modification

(i.e., maintained the rarest, most unconventional construction without having an

identifiable oral tradition feature), and goes against the current consensus of low

ancient literacy rates.

2. Matthew 24:17-18/Mark 13:15-16/Luke 17:31

The remaining seven aorist third person negated imperatives in the NT occur

in one eschatological context:

Matthew 24:17-18

ό έπι του δώματος μη καταβάτω άραι τα έκ της οικίας αύτοΰ, και ό έν τω άγρω μη

έπιστρεψάτω οπίσω άραι το ίμάτιον αύτοΰ.

Do not let the one on the rooftop go down to take things from his house, and do not

let the one in the field turn back to get his coat.

Mark 13:15-16

ό [δε] έπ! τοΰ δώματος μη καταβάτω μηδέ είσελθάτω άραί τι έκ της οικίας αύτοΰ, καΐ

ό εις τον άγρον μη έπιστρεψάτω εις τα οπίσω άραι το ίμάτιον αύτοΰ.

Do not let the one on the rooftop go down or enter to take something from his house,

and do not let the one in the field turn back to get his coat.

Luke 17:31

έν εκείνη τη ήμερα ος έσται έπ! τοΰ δώματος και τα σκεύη αύτοΰ έν τη οικία, μη

καταβάτω άραι αυτά, καΐ ό έν άγρω ομοίως μη έπιστρεψάτω εις τα οπίσω.

On that day, anyone who is on the rooftop, with his possessions in his house, do not

let him go down to take them, and likewise do not let the person return back.

Many scholars have already analyzed these passages and noted their parallels with

each other, Q, or both. This same analysis, therefore, will not be repeated here.

Rather, Greek syntax will be the focus.

4 0 After citing a few representative examples from both sides, which he claims "could be mul­tiplied," Chris Keith concludes, "Sometimes, scholars simply assume Jesus' literate status one way or another" ("The Claim of John 7.15 and the Memory of Jesus' Literacy," NTS 56 [2010] 44-63, here 48).

94 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 74,2012

In view of the textual pedigree of these three texts, this construction again proves secure. As in Matt 6:3, every one of these constructions is attested in Sahidic and Bohairic Coptic manuscripts.41 The most common variation involves only spelling (e.g., είσελθετω vs. είσελθάτω, "let [third person] not enter"; έπιστρεψετω vs. έπιστρεψάτω, "let [third person] not turn back"). Besides that, only a few man­uscripts42 contain the present tense as opposed to the aorist, which would be one of the six more natural ways to render the meaning, potentially prompting a scribe to modify it. This variant occurs in three of the seven constructions, with one in each Gospel, and all with μη καταβάτω ("let [third person] not go down"). What­ever one makes of this, and the fact that all modern NT Greek texts agree with this reading, no probable reason exists to support scribes' changing it to the aorist tense. In the end, all four constructions are texrually secure.

Comparatively, "switches" do occur in the NT between second and third per­son in other imperative constructions. Two examples include Matt 27:22-23 (third person)/Mark 15:13-14 (second person)/Luke 23:21,23 (second person) and Matt 15:28 (third person)/Mark 7:29 (second person). R. T. France noticed this variation between the second and third person imperatives specifically regarding Matthew 24, "This variation, which is equally noticeable in Mark 13, perhaps derives from the composite origin of this discourse as a collection of distinct sayings of Jesus, but, if so, the variation has been deliberately maintained in the finished text."43 He continues by pointing out that these variations remain a crux interpretum for this section (i.e., how wide are the perspective and audience intended to be?). Although a full discussion of the issues regarding either discourse is outside the scope of this article, these "switches" never occur with our particular construction. Why did the author/redactor of Matthew or Luke not feel free to change this to the more common second person, especially in light of the absence or omission of μηδέ είσελθάτο in Matt 24:17 and Luke 17:31 (from Mark 13:15)? It is clear that these authors/redactors had no qualms about editing, often significantly, the Jesus tradi­tion^) they inherited (from Mark and/or Q?). At the same time, this is not to say that they were aware of the construction's infrequency, took pains to retain it every time it was found, or even knew it was the ipsissima verba of Jesus. To say the least, "there seems to be significant potential for the study of the historical Jesus," Joseph D. Fantin notes, and this construction "may provide insight into the authen­ticity of the Sermon on the Mount and especially the synoptic apocalypse."44

4 1 Homer ed., Coptic Version of the New Testament in the Northern Dialect, 1:220, 2:234,

436; and idem, Coptic Version of the New Testament in the Southern Dialect, 1:270, 272, 2:332,

and 1:572. 4 2 For example, Δ Κ M U W TR/1/13 2 28 579 1346. 4 3 France, Matthew, 899 (emphasis mine). 4 4 Fantin, "Greek Imperative Mood," 351. Although this is true, both of these sections are

almost certainly directed to a Jewish, not a gentile, audience. One should also consider the Septu-

GREEK SYNTAX AS A CRITERION OF AUTHENTICITY 95

Grammatically, this construction is again against the norm. If there is "no dis­tinguishable difference" between the more common subjunctive prohibition and the negated imperative, as noted above, why would the oral and written transmis­sion maintain the most unconventional, rarest possible construction?45 Certainly the early Christians or tradents had no interest in inserting it into the Jesus tradition, whether or not they assumed or knew of its authenticity. Either way, the evidence continues to point in the direction of Greek ipsissima verba of Jesus.

Furthermore, there are allusions and/or direct references to the OT, Q, and the Gospel of Thomas within the context of these verses (e.g., Gen 19:26). Ulrich Luz specifically identifies an influence of Q in w . 17-18, where Matthew has worked together Mark 13:15 and Q 17:31, attesting again that this construction always appears in/around the earliest form of a particular text.46 This is significant also because it alleviates another problem often raised in the pursuit of Greek idioms of Jesus: the problem of the lack of word-for-word agreement among the Gospels.47 This construction does have word-for-word agreement. Two of the three constructions even have triple attestation: μη καταβάτω and μη έπιστρεψάτω.

To list a few more salient points, this construction exists outside the NT in sayings attributed to Jesus. It is found in a context that fits the criterion of multiple attestation. It fits the criterion of dissimilarity.48 Statistically, it is against the odds. Linguistically, even given the broad range of literary levels between the Synoptic Gospels (vulgar, conversational, and literary),49 every literary level contains this construction (triple literary attestation).

This construction continues to point to the earliest detectable tradition and therefore requires an examination beyond the statistical analyses of shared, chrono­logical, and verbatim sayings, especially since there are no other compelling rea­sons, to my knowledge, for its oral or written retention. This evidence alone increases the probability of Greek authenticity.

agintal influence therein, the eschatological context in which this construction is most often found (e.g., LXX, NT, extrabiblical), and the probability that these discourses were shared more than once with multiple audiences.

4 5 Mark uses the third person only 8.7 percent of the time (13 of 149 instances, not including Mark 16:15), and Luke uses it 8.0 percent (23 of 184 instances).

4 6 Ulrich Luz, Matthew: A Commentary (3 vols.; Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001-7) 3:183.

4 7 See, e.g., Joseph A. Fitzmyer, "Did Jesus Speak Greek?" BAR (1992) 58-77, esp. 62. 4 8 Brian Han Gregg accurately insists that if the probability of a dominical saying increases

when one criterion is met, the probability should "rise proportionally" when more than one criterion is met, "demonstrating a convergence of different lines of evidence" {The Historical Jesus and the

Final Judgment Sayings in Q [WUNT 2/207; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006] 28). See also Darrell L. Bock, "Response to James D. G. Dunn," in The Historical Jesus: Five Views (ed. James K. Beilby and Paul Rhodes Eddy; Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009) 244-48, esp. 247.

49 Wallace, Exegetical Syntax, 20-30; see also Bruce Metzger, "The Language of the New Testament," IB 7:43-59.

96 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 74,2012

D. Apostolic Fathers

1. 1 Clement 56.5

Directly quoting Ps 140:5 from the LXX, 1 Clem. 56.5 contains an aorist third person negated imperative: μη λιπανάτω ("let [third person] not anoint").50

Although there are several other LXX quotations, allusions, and/or parallels around it (e.g., Prov 3:11-12; Job 5:17-26; Sir 40:8-11), one might also recognize that this entire chapter contains NT quotations, allusions, and/or parallels (e.g., Mark 14:3-9; Heb 12:6). This evidence opens up the possibility that Jesus could have spoken Ps 140:5 from the LXX even though there is no explicit introductory state­ment. Most probably, however, a later Christian simply cited the LXX text.

2. Didache 14.2 and 16.1

The Didache is one of the most Jewish of early Christian writings. It should come as no surprise that its closest literary affinities in the NT are to Matthew's Gospel.51 This assessment holds true in our case—Matthew, which contains the highest number of aorist third person negated imperatives, strongly parallels both sections in the Didache where this construction occurs.

Didache 14.2 attests the first of two aorist third person negated imperatives: μη συνελθέτω ("let [third person] not join with"). This passage probably parallels Matt 5:23-24 (cf. Valerius Maximus Fact. Diet 2.1.6). Kurt Niederwimmer explic­itly states that the Didachist recalls the dominical saying in Matt 5:23-24.52

Jonathan A. Draper thinks, however, that the wording is clearly independent.53

Furthermore, chap. 14 (e.g., v. 3) has distinct parallels also with the LXX version of Mai 1:11,14.54 Moreover, the context in Malachi is eschatological (cf. also Matt 24:17-18; Mark 13:15-16; Luke 17:31 ; Did. 16.1). It is likely that these additional

5 0 Interestingly, regarding the textual transmission of Ps 140:5 (MT 141), several modern ver­

sions of the OT (e.g., RSV, NJB) also follow the LXX version here, since the Hebrew of w . 5-7 is

obscure and suggests a damaged text (Derek Kidner, Psalms 73-150: A Commentary on Books III-V

of the Psalms [TynOTC; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1973] 471 n. 2). 5 1 See Jonathan A. Draper, "The Holy Vine of David Made Known to the Gentiles through

God's Servant Jesus: 'Christian Judaism' in the Didache," in Jewish Christianity Reconsidered:

Rethinking Ancient Groups and Texts (ed. Matt Jackson-McCabe; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007)

257-83, here 257. 5 2 Kurt Niederwimmer, The Didache: A Commentary (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress,

1998) 198; cf. France, Matthew, 203. 5 3 Jonathan A. Draper, "Jesus Tradition in the Didache," in The Didache in Modern Research

(ed. Jonathan Draper; AGAJU 37; Leiden/New York: Brill, 1996) 72-91, here 79. 5 4 See Michael W. Holmes, ed. and trans., The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English

Translations (3rd ed.; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007) 367; Bart D. Ehrman, ed. and trans., The Apostolic

Fathers: I Clement, II Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Didache (LCL; Cambridge, MA: Harvard Uni­versity Press, 2005) 439.

GREEK SYNTAX AS A CRITERION OF AUTHENTICITY 97

two points expose fürther consistency when this construction occurs. Given these arguments, and especially those advanced in this article, it is again not difficult to propose that the aorist third person negated imperative preserves the earliest form of each tradition and possibly points to the ipsissima verba of Jesus in Greek, even without some sort of introductory formula (see, e.g., Did. 8.2; 9.5).

Didache 16.1 contains our second construction (μη σβεσθήτωσαν, "let [third person] not go out") and parallels Matt 24:42 (cf. 25:13), another alleged saying of Jesus. Not only does this chapter have many "undeniable" parallels with Matthew 24, but this verse might also align with several other texts (Mark 13:35, 37; Luke 12:35-38, 40; [Q 12:35-38]).55 To say the least, multiple attestation is evident, regardless of whether this verse directly parallels Matt 24:42 or any of the others. Furthermore, even if the Didachist did not explicitly state that the saying in 16:1 came from Jesus, one could reasonably conclude, "he probably understood it to be one (as did his readers)."56

Additionally, chap. 16 is in a section about eschatology, and the sayings appear among the oldest segments of the Didache.51 These two points are espe­cially noteworthy. First, seven of the eight NT examples of this construction occur in eschatological contexts, as does Did. 14.2, and all of them are recorded as com­ing from Jesus. Certainly, more work needs to be done regarding the apparent eschatological connection(s) with this construction. A similar connection is note­worthy in the emphatic negative construction ου μη, which occurs 86 percent of the time in sayings of Jesus in the Gospels (i.e., fifty-four times). The fact that 60 percent of the occurrences of ου μη in the LXX are in the prophetic writings (seventy-four in Isaiah, eighty-eight in Jeremiah, and sixty in Ezekiel) further strengthens these two connections (eschatological context and divine pronounce­ments).58 Second, if Clayton N. Jefford is correct that chap. 16 is among the oldest segments of the Didache, it shows once again that this construction is found in the earliest tradition every time it occurs. Needless to say, the evidence here connects with our overall hypothesis.

5 5 Christopher M. Tuckert, "The Didache and the Writings that Later Formed the New Testa­ment," in The Reception of the New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers (ed. Andrew Gregory and Christopher M. Tuckett; New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005) 83-128, here 114 n. 98. In a different publication, Tuckett even suggests the possibility of using these links as a "test case" when evaluating the Didachist's use of the Synoptic tradition (Christopher M. Tuckett, "Synoptic Tradition in the Didache," in Didache in Modern Research

[ed. Draper], 92-128, here 95). See also William C. Varner, "The Didache 'Apocalypse' and Matthew 24," BSac 165 (2008) 309-22, esp. 315, 320.

5 6 Niederwimmer, Didache, 214. 5 7 Clayton N. Jefford, The Apostolic Fathers and the New Testament (Peabody, MA: Hen­

drickson, 2006) 51. 5 8 Abera Mitiku Mengestu, "The Use of Ou Më in the New Testament: Emphatic Negation or

Mild Negation?" (Th.M. Thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 2005) 32. See also J. A. L. Lee, "Some Features of the Speech of Jesus in Mark's Gospel," NovTll (1985) 1-26, esp. 20.

98 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 74,2012

E. Gospel of Thomas

Several noncanonical writings in general and some specific passages have

already been noted above. One other example of this construction from the Gospel

of Thomas deserves separate mention. Fortunately, there are four extant manu­

scripts of the Gospel of Thomas dating up to the middle of the fourth century C.E.

To put this in perspective, several NT works, for example, 1 and 2 Timothy, do

not have as many manuscripts within this same time frame.59 Furthermore, the

emphasis in the Gospel of Thomas is "exclusively on the Lord's sayings," even in

the discourses.60

With that in mind, Gos. Thorn. 2.1 (P.Oxy. 654) contains one other aorist third

person negated imperative: μη παυσάσθω ("let [third person] not cease").61 Once

again, Jesus is the recorded speaker (nexe I c = λέγει Ιησούς = Jesus said).62 And

once again, it is arguably in the earliest form of the text.63 What is more, even

though logion 2 is unattested identically elsewhere, it parallels the Gospel of the

Hebrews (frag. 4). The Dialogue of the Savior, Thomas the Contender, and the Acts

of Thomas also contain similar references (cf. Matt 7:7-11; Luke 11:9-13; Gos.

Thorn. 92.1; 94).64 Finally, regarding this logion, it is interesting that in the NT

only Jesus uses the construction εως ("until") followed by εϋρη ("[third person]

finds") (Luke 15:4, 8).

The evidence here agrees with what we have seen elsewhere. This construc­

tion continues to point to the earliest form of every tradition where it is found, thus

sustaining the above hypothesis and strongly suggesting that we can recover at

least a few spoken Greek idioms of Jesus.

III. Conclusion

Many interdisciplinary fields in one way or another participate in historical

Jesus studies. Apparently, though, syntactical studies continue to dodge this same

academic participation. If, however, "[a]ll that is known about Jesus of Nazareth

is known through documents written by people,"65 then certainly an investigation

5 9 Uwe-Karsten Plisch, The Gospel of Thomas: Original Text with Commentary (Stuttgart:

Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2008) 12. 6 0 Ibid., 25. 6 1 Andrew E. Bernhard, Other Early Christian Gospels: A Critical Edition of the Surviving

Greek Manuscripts (Library of New Testament Studies 315; London/New York: Clark, 2006) 22-23;

cf. Plisch, Gospel of Thomas, 40-41. 6 2 Plisch, Gospel of Thomas, 25. 6 3 DeConick, Gospel of Thomas, 48. 6 4 Ibid., 49; see also Craig A. Evans, Ancient Texts for New Testament Studies: A Guide to the

Background Literature (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2005) 412. 6 5 Koester, From Jesus to the Gospels, 277.

GREEK SYNTAX AS A CRITERION OF AUTHENTICITY 99

into the use of Greek syntax should explore these same documents. A few areas in which syntax could play a more significant role include authorship, oral tradition, written transmission, textual criticism, mythology, theology, linguistics, and his­torical Jesus studies. This article primarily explored the last of these, historical Jesus studies. In doing so, one syntactical construction was examined in five central Greek corpora: Josephus, Philo, the NT, the Apostolic Fathers, and the Gospel of Thomas. My examination supports the hypothesis that Greek syntax is a viable criterion of authenticity by yielding the following conclusions:

1. The main database reveals that few aorist third person negated imperatives are used (or survived) after the LXX (i.e., fifteen times, thirteen verses, eleven dif­ferent words).

2. The semantic situation reveals that this syntactical construction is always the least likely option statistically, grammatically, and literarily, eventually disap­pearing from the language altogether.

3. Every time this construction occurs, the evidence points to one of Jesus' alleged sayings and/or some degree of Septuagintal influence.

4. Every time this construction occurs, canonically or noncanonically, it is arguably in the earliest form of the particular tradition (e.g., Greek manuscripts of the Gospel of Thomas; Did. 16.1).

5. Every NT verse containing this construction has a direct noncanonical par­allel (e.g., Matt 6:3), multiple attestation (e.g., Luke 17:31), or both (e.g., Matt 6:3).

6. This construction often occurs in passages where the attributed saying of Jesus would fit the criterion of dissimilarity (e.g., Mark 13:15-16).

7. This rare construction resisted contemporary modification and normally would have been replaced were it not for some "inertia" behind its preservation (which might also suggest a more stable oral transmission, an earlier written tra­dition, or both).

8. This rare literary construction appears to have withstood the low literacy rate during the NT age and the lower-class status of Jesus (assuming both that the literacy rate was low and that he did use the construction). If, however, the literacy rate was high, one might expect this construction to appear more frequently, given its high Septuagintal usage.

Centuries of tradition overlay the words of antiquity. As a result, much debate today continues to take place around the literary parallels of such words and the interpretation(s) of them. The present study, therefore, seeks to bring into the con­versation a criterion that does not need to be interpreted in order to contribute in some significant ways. Granted, even with the strong evidence given above, this hypothesis needs further scrutiny and academic work. Regardless of whether this construction demonstrates the ability to uncover ipsissima verba of Jesus in Greek,

100 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 74,2012

the overall hypothesis of using Greek syntax as a criterion should not be automat­ically dismissed. If one merely looks at the evangelist's style, vocabulary, grammar, or theology, or is willing to accept only an Aramaic stratum of ipsissima verba, then one might miss certain connections in historical Jesus studies. Robert H. Gundry voiced this concern almost five decades ago:

We cannot naively work on the assumption that everything was originally in Aramaic, that we should seek Aramaic equivalents wherever possible, and that wherever Ara­maic equivalents cannot be traced we must reject authenticity.... many of the domini­cal sayings in the present Greek text of the gospels may be closer to the ipsissima verba of Jesus than has been supposed. Many may, in fact, be identical with the dominical sayings originally spoken in Greek.66

It is hoped that this new hypothesis of using Greek syntax as a criterion of authenticity will in fact open up "a whole new and uncharted field of Jesus research" as we continue to examine the evidence.

66Robert H. Gundry, "The Language Milieu of First-Century Palestine: Its Bearing on the Authenticity of the Gospel Tradition," JBL 83 (1964) 404-8, here 405,408.

^ s

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.