ANARTHROUS HEAD NOUN MODIFIED BY AN ANARTHROUS GENITIVE NOUN IN THE GOSPEL OF MARK

by Dominic P. Venuso Box 2713 zdvenuso@tiu.com

A PAPER Submitted to Dr. D. A. Carson in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the course NT 8721 Advanced Greek Grammar at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School

Deerfield, Illinois April 2013

Introduction Does refer to an angel of the Lord or to the angel of the Lord? In Mark 15:39, what did the Centurion mean when he confessed: ? These are some of the exegetical questions that highlight the potential importance of Apollonius Corollary. In this paper, I will be doing an inductive grammatical study to determine the validity of Apollonius Corollary in the Gospel of Mark.1 First, we will define the rule, then we will walk through the various kinds of texts where the rule could potentially apply, and finally, we will draw some conclusions.

The Rule In general, both of the rules tied to Apollonius name recognize a close relationship between a noun and the genitive noun that qualifies it.2 Apollonius Canon holds that the head noun and the genitive noun will generally either be both articular or both anarthrous.3 Apollonius Corollary holds that when both nouns are anarthrous, both will Hedges did his major work in the Pauline literature. According to Daniel Wallace, unpublished research has also been done on the Petrine epistles and in some narrative material. These studies confirmed Hedges original work. To continue this research, in this paper, I will be investigating the rule in the Gospel of Mark (a corpus that, to my knowledge, has not been done yet). Different grammarians label the relationship different ways. When referring to the whole structure, the nouns are said to be in regimen. The noun is variously called: the head noun, the governing noun, or nomen regens. The genitive is called: the genitive noun, the governed noun, or nomen rectum. A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1934), 780782. For exceptions, see Sanford D. Hull, Exceptions to Apollonius Canon in the New Testament: A Grammatical
3 2 1

usually have the same semantic force.4 The semantic force may be definite, qualitative, or indefinite. David Hedges work concluded that Apollonius Corollary, though not an absolute rule, had general validity.5 Specifically, he found: On the average, absolute agreement was observed in 74% of the cases, while 20% of the pairs differed by only one semantic step [e.g., Q-D] and only 6% differed by two steps. It was further determined that in general if the construction involved , the nouns were probably both definite (68%), if the construction involved only a preposition, they were probably both qualitative (52%), and if the construction involved neither proper nouns, , prepositions, nor equative verbs, then the nouns, though agreeing, had about an equal chance of being any of the three definiteness classes.6 The Texts An Accordance search was run to collect all of the instances of an anarthrous head noun modified by an anarthrous genitive noun in the Gospel of Mark.7 This search rendered 47 hits in 40 verses.8 As I work through the texts inductively in this paper, I will first eliminate the false positives. Then, I will group the texts according to Hedges various

Study, Trinity Journal 7, no. 1 (Spr 1986): 316. Daniel B. Wallace, The Basics of New Testament Syntax an Intermediate Greek Grammar (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 250. David William Hedges, Apollonius Canon and Anarthrous Constructions in Pauline Literature: An Hypothesis, 1983.
6 7 5 4

Ibid., 6667.

See Appendix 1 for a diagram of the construct search. It is theoretically possible that this search could have missed a couple of extremely rare cases of nouns in regimen that are greatly spread apart, which could only be found by many years of reading through Mark.
8

See Appendix 2 for a complete list of the results. 2

structural categories.9 Under each heading, I generally will order them first by definiteness and then canonically.

False Positives Cases of apposition were not counted, thus removing three hits (Mark 1:1; Mark 2:26).10 Mark 1:30 had an article that was far enough out of range to not be detected by my parameters. I am also excluding genitives that modify words that follow them (Mark 6:43). With these false positives excluded, this leaves us with 42 hits in 37 verses to investigate.

Texts Containing Proper Nouns Or K There are three occurrences of this category in three verses. Because proper names are always definite, and because the genitive nouns in all three of these instances are proper nouns, the genitive nouns in these passages are all definite. The only question is: what is the definiteness of the head nouns? In Mark 6:3, we find the question, , ;. Here the people are specifically identifying Jesus as (the brother of James)the head noun is definite. In Mark 10:47-48, we find two occurrences of the same phrase: . In this phrase, the head noun is in the vocative, specifically imploring

Hedges, Apollonius Canon and Anarthrous Constructions in Pauline

Literature. Accordance counts Mark 1:1 as 3 hits, even though only one hit ( ) needs to be explained for our purposes. 3
10

Jesus by addressing him as, son of David. They also are both definite. Therefore, all three of these instances are definite-definite.

Texts Containing 11 There are two instances of this category in Mark. In Mark 1:1 (in some manuscripts) Jesus is given the Messianic title, . The monadic nature of this title means that it is definite-definite. In Mark 11:22, we find the abstract (and therefore qualitative-definite) head noun .12 Both of these cases are similar to the previous category in that they essentially use as God the Fathers proper name. This means that the genitive nouns are also definite.

Texts Where The Head Noun Is An Object Of A Preposition There are five cases where it is so clear that they are definite-definite I will not provide arguments, but simply list them. Mark 10:6 appeals to the pattern that God established (from the beginning of the creation). In Mark 12:10, the prophecy is cited which says that Jesus has become (the chief cornerstone). The phrase, in Mark 13:19 (like 10:6), refers to the definite starting point of the creation. Mark 13:27 contains two constructions of nouns in If one was especially interested in this category, it would certainly be necessary to consider a larger corpus since the only instances of texts containing in Mark are referring to God. Technically, the abstract noun could be counted either as definite or qualitative, but there is probably no meaningful difference between the two choices; Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, 794; Basil L Gildersleeve and Charles William Emil Miller, Syntax of Classical Greek from Homer to Demosthenes ... (New York: American Book Company, 1900), 259. 4
12 11

regimen which depict a definite span: (from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven). Beyond these clear cases, I had some difficulty in deciding between qualitative and either definite or indefinite. In Mark 1:4, (for the forgiveness of sins) seems best to be understood as definite-definite, since on the whole it is referring to a definite purpose for the baptism of repentance (although, again, the abstract element certainly admits the qualitative option). The phrase, , in Mark 12:14 is an idiom for you are not swayed by appearances, and should probably be taken as definite-definite (the face of men). While it could be definite-definite, in Mark 9:31 is probably qualitative-qualitative, referring not literally to the hands of men but to human captivity or bondage, emphasizing the quality of each of the nouns. In Mark 5:25, seems most likely to be indefinitequalitative: a discharge of blood. This section showed greater diversity than the previous two structural categories. There were seven that were definite-definite, one qualitative-qualitative, and one indefinite-qualitative.

Texts Where The Head Noun Is The Subject Or Object Of An Equative Verb One instance here is definite-definite (Mark 3:17): Jesus gave James and John the new nickname, (Sons of Thunder). One is qualitative-qualitative (Mark 1:17): Jesus uses the metaphor, (I will make you to become fishers of men). One is indefinite-qualitative (Mark 4:37): (a great windstorm). 5

Texts With Combined Categories One (a case of a preposition and ) is clearly definite-definite (Mark 11:9): (in the name of the Lord). Though Harner has disputed it, I also think that in Mark 12:35 is definite-definite (this is a combination of equative verb and proper noun). Harner argues for a qualitative force to the head noun because of the contextual emphasis on Davidic decadency.13 However, this emphasis is maintained even if we take the head noun as definite. Because of the idea of a monadic son of David, it is best to take it as a definite. In Mark 15:39, we come to the most exegetically significant instance of an anarthrous head noun modified by an anarthrous genitive noun in Mark. This one is a combined category of equative verb and . The centurion, upon seeing how Jesus died, confesses, (Truly this man was the son of God). I agree with those who argue that there is one meaning for the centurion and one for Mark.14 There is a great deal of debate about what the centurion would have meant, though he probably means it in an indefinite or qualitative sense. When one considers the flow of Marks gospel, it is clear that Mark uses it as definite-definite, since it is the climactic Christological confession in his book.15 Note that, assuming the inclusion of in Philip B. Harner, Qualitative anarthrous predicate nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1, Journal of Biblical Literature 92, no. 1 (Mr 1973): 79. Vincent Taylor, The Gospel According to St. Mark: The Greek Text with Introduction, Notes, and Indexes (London: Macmillan, 1952), 597. R. T. France, The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text (The New international Greek Testament commentary; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002), 659 660; Philip G. Davis, Marks Christological Paradox, Journal for the Study of the New Testament, no. 35 (1989): 1112. 6
15 14 13

1:1, Mark starts his gospel by ascribing two titles to Jesus: Christ and Son of God. The book is then divided into two halves where each title is developed. Each half comes to a climax with a human confession (Mark 8:29; 15:39). There is room in either case for the human speakers to not be speaking with the full understanding of their confession (this is clearly what is going in Peters case, Mark 8:3133), while Mark still means the confessions in their fullest sense.

Texts Containing No Special Structural Features Of the texts that have no special structural features, eight are definite-definite. The first is Mark 1:6, where we learn that John the Baptist was clothed with a specific kind of garment: (the hair of the camel). In Mark 4:31, Jesus speaks of (a grain of mustard seed). While the English gloss requires an indefinite article, the construction is definite-definite because the first noun is a generic noun and the second denotes a particular plant. Mark 7:4 mentions a specific tradition, (the washing of the cups). Mark 7:7 condemns teaching as doctrine, (the commandments of men). While this might seem like a rare occurrence of a move from definite to more indefinite (i.e. definite-qualitative), verse 8 reinforces the idea that it is definite-definite, by having the parallel idea of . After the feeding of the four thousand, Mark 8:8 reports that after everyone ate their full, they still took up (the leftover fragments), which amounted to seven basketfuls. Similarly, Mark 8:19-20 twice refers back to these baskets of fragments as, (the baskets full of the

fragments). Finally, Mark 13:8 warns that the signs of verses 6-8 are only (the beginning of the birth pains). There are a number of instances where at least one of the nouns is qualitative. Only one instance in this category is qualitative-qualitative.16 Mark 4:5 warns that the seed sown on the rocky ground sprang up because it had no (depth of soil). Seven instances are indefinite-qualitative. In Mark 1:4, John the Baptist preaches (a baptism of repentance). The genitive noun in this instance is abstract, and functions as an attributive genitive, and so, in terms of definiteness, is qualitative.17 Mark 10:4 alludes to Moses permission of (a certificate of divorce). Mark 11:17 contains two: (a house of prayer) and (a den of robbers).18 In Mark 14:3, we read of (an alabaster jar of ointment). A number of the hits in this paragraph could potentially be understood as indefinite-qualitative (the genitives of content and material, for example, were tempting to handle this way). Ultimately, I decided to count these as indefinite-indefinite thinking of them as basically meaning a cup of some water or a herd of some pigs for example.19 I should say, one clear case. One could argue that some of these indefinitequalitative constructions are better taken as qualitative on the whole. As I will note later, this is one of the most challenging areas to make a distinction. The approach taken in determining the definiteness of the genitive in this case is paradigmatic of how I have handled the genitives in many of the examples in this category. To save space, I have decided not to rehash it all in every instance. One could conceivably identify these as qualitative-qualitative, emphasizing the character of a house or a den, respectively. I went with the more straightforward indefinite. Cf. Harner, Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns, 78.
19 18 17 16

There is a danger in depending too heavily on glosses, however, some 8

Mark 2:21 mentions (a piece of cloth). In Mark 5:11, we read of (a herd of pigs) into which the demons wish to be cast. Mark 9:41 talks of (a cup of water). Mark 13:7 prophecies of (rumors of wars). In Mark 14:13, Jesus tells the disciples to look for a man carrying (a jar of water). Finally, in Mark 15:36, someone fills (a sponge with sour wine). This category showed the greatest diversity. I counted eight that were definitedefinite, one that was qualitative-qualitative, seven that were indefinite-qualitative, and six that were indefinite-indefinite.

proved to be a helpful gloss for me in working through so many examples to test whether or not an indefinite understanding made sense, not only here, but elsewhere in the paper. 9

Conclusions The following table shows the number of hits each level of definiteness received according to the structural categories outlined above:

Proper Noun Preposition Equative Verb Combo None Total

D-D 3 2 7 1 3 8 24

Q-Q 0 0 1 1 0 1 3

I-I 0 0 0 0 0 6 6

One-step 0 0 1 1 0 7 9

Two-steps 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

An inductive study of the construction in Mark confirms Hedges original assessment that though the rule is not absolute, it is generally valid. I found that it held true about 79% of the time (versus Hedges 74%). There are three relatively minor differences between what Hedges found in the Pauline literature and what I have found in the Gospel of Mark. They are easily explainable by small differences in judgment or by the difference in the size of the samples. First, I did not find any examples of two-step difference in definiteness (e.g. definiteindefinite). The choice was always within a one step difference. Second, I found no clear cases where the genitive noun was less definite than the head noun. The only potential ones would be instances where the first is definite and the second could be taken as qualitative (e.g. Mark 7:7). Third, the rule held true in 100% of the cases containing a proper noun or

10

where or essentially functioned as a proper noun (including when additional structural features were present). For Hedges, there were more exceptions. The most notable difference from Hedges is that I found far fewer qualitativequalitative constructions than Hedges. For example, Hedges found that in the case of constructions with no special structural distinctions, the definiteness was usually shared but had about an equal chance of being any of the three classes. In my results, there was only one instance of qualitative-qualitative in that category. There was a roughly equal chance of definite-definite, indefinite-indefinite, and a one step difference. Why such a different result? Honestly, this may be due to my lack of clarity regarding the qualitative class (something I have mentioned before, and that relates to my final point). Another possibility is that it may instead be a result of the different genres. This is something that might be good to do further research on. It is conceivable that in heavily theological discourse you will find more qualitative constructions than in historical narrative. What is the significance of this papers findings? In a traditional or strict understanding of the rule, the exceptions are frequent enough that one must consider deictic and lexical clues to decide the definiteness of either of the nouns in regimen. So, the rule as traditionally stated offers little in terms of exegetical help. Practically, Apollonius corollary is helpful mainly as a working hypothesis for the cases where all else is equal. However, if we broaden our understanding of the rule to distinguish only between two optionsthe two ends of the spectrum (indefinite-qualitative and qualitative-definite)then the rule is helpful. In every example we have surveyed in Mark, the nouns were always within a one step difference of definiteness. In Mark, even the most questionable constructions were always a 11

decision between one-step differences. It is in these instances of potentially two-step differences that exegetically significant questions arise (e.g. the meaning of ). In this broader understanding of the rule, one should only be willing to understand any given instance of the construction as having a two-step difference in definiteness if there are strong reasons to do so. Finally, building on the last point, I want to point out that one of the challenges I often came up against in working through the texts was making a distinction between qualitative and indefinite, and between qualitative and definite. When Wallace defines the three, he rightly points out that there is some overlap in the categories.20 The category of qualitative, in particular, ranges along the spectrum of indefinite to definite. In reading through Harner, I noticed that he would often treat the qualitative as something almost in a different category altogether from the definite and indefinite.21 To illustrate the problems with the qualitative class, note that there are genitives that would seem to be placing the emphasis on the quality of a thing (attributive genitives, genitives of material and content) that in fact can take the article, and so are formally definite (e.g. Jhn 21:8; Col 1:22; 2:3, 9, 11). Furthermore, traditionally, abstract nouns are understood to be qualitative, but they may also take the article and therefore be technically definite (e.g. Acts 11:23). In Mark, the clearest example I found of this sort of thing was in Mark 7:7-8, with and . So, in general, I think more work could be done on investigating how to understand the categories of definite, qualitative, and Wallace, The Basics of New Testament Syntax an Intermediate Greek Grammar, 243244.
21 20

Harner, Qualitative anarthrous predicate nouns, 79. 12

indefinite. Especially, more work could be done on understanding the qualitative category and how it relates to genitive constructions.

13

APPENDIX 1

ACCORDANCE CONSTRUCT WINDOW FOR APOLLONIUS COROLLARY

14

15

APPENDIX 2

ANARTHROUS HEAD NOUNS MODIFIED BY ANARTHROUS GENITIVE NOUNS

IN THE GOSPEL OF MARK

Mark 1:1 [ ]. Mark 1:4 [] . Mark 1:6 . Mark 1:17 , . Mark 1:30 , . Mark 2:21 , . Mark 2:26 , , ; Mark 3:17 [] , 16

Mark 4:5 , Mark 4:31 , , , Mark 4:37 , . Mark 5:11 Mark 5:25 Mark 6:3 , ; ; . Mark 6:43 . Mark 7:4 , , [ ] _ Mark 7:7 . Mark 8:8 , . Mark 8:19 , ; . 20 , ; [] . Mark 9:31 17

 , , . Mark 9:41 , . Mark 10:4 . Mark 10:6 Mark 10:47 , . 48 , . Mark 11:9 Mark 11:17 ; . Mark 11:22 . Mark 12:10 , Mark 12:14 , , ; ; Mark 12:35 ; Mark 13:7 18

 , , . 8 , , . Mark 13:19 . Mark 13:27 [] . Mark 14:3 , , . Mark 14:13 , Mark 15:36 [] . Mark 15:39 .

19

BIBLIOGRAPHY Davis, Philip G. Marks Christological Paradox. Journal for the Study of the New Testament, no. 35 (1989): 318. France, R. T. The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text. The New international Greek Testament commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002. Gildersleeve, Basil L, and Charles William Emil Miller. Syntax of Classical Greek from Homer to Demosthenes ... New York: American Book Company, 1900. Harner, Philip B. Qualitative anarthrous predicate nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1. Journal of Biblical Literature 92, no. 1 (Mr 1973): 7587. Hedges, David William. Apollonius Canon and Anarthrous Constructions in Pauline Literature: An Hypothesis, 1983. Hull, Sanford D. Exceptions to Apollonius Canon in the New Testament: A Grammatical Study. Trinity Journal 7, no. 1 (Spr 1986): 316. Robertson, A. T. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1934. Taylor, Vincent. The Gospel According to St. Mark: The Greek Text with Introduction, Notes, and Indexes. London: Macmillan, 1952. Wallace, Daniel B. The Basics of New Testament Syntax an Intermediate Greek Grammar. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000.

20