Some Greek words are described not with a simple tag but with a combination of simple tags that we call complex tags. These can best be introduced by the symbols that join their constituent simple parts.
The slash (/) is to be read "or". It joins alternatives between which the reader must choose for himself. Even when resorting to the larger discourse, one finds that a number of ambiguities persist. In a number of cases, for example,ka° must be tagged ab/cc; the context allows one to interpret ka° as either an adverb ("even, also, indeed") or a conjunction ("and"). Similarly, the slash is used where the case or gender of a noun is ambiguous and there is no contextual way to resolve the ambiguity. (See examples and discussion concerning gender at 4.4.)
The slash is also used when editorial bracketing within a word results in differing tags. The tag for the full word (including the bracketed letters) is given first, followed by the tag for the word excluding the bracketed letters; that is, full form first, then partial form. Examples follow:[d]dwkav, vira--2s/viaa--2s (Revelation 16.6); noig[Ðs]etai,vifp--3s/vipp--3s (Luke 11.10); and aÇtç[n], npam3s/npan3s (Matthew 14.12).
The exclamation mark, also to be read "or", is used in that very small number of cases where a difference of accent would produce another contextually acceptable tag or where a change of punctuation calls for a different tag. In both cases the tag that goes with the accenting or punctuation as supplied by the editors occurs first, followed by the exclamation mark and then the tag permitted by the change of accent or punctuation. As an example of the former, some contexts would permitkrinw to be either present (kr°nw) or future tense (krinò). If krinò is the editors choice, the tag reads vifa--1s!vipa--1s (see Luke 19.22). An example of the latter case is napaÀesqe (vmpm--2p!vipm--2p) in Matthew 26.45. The editorial choice of statement punctuation makes one tag appropriate (vmpm--2p); question punctuation would make another tag appropriate (vipm--2p). One other situation in which the exclamation mark belongs involves the few cases where convention has the word written together when taken as a conjunction (e.g. êti) but separated when taken as a relative pronoun (ê ti). As an example of this, see Mark 6.23. Should both be possible in a given context, the editors choice again precedes the exclamation mark.
A caret (or "up-arrow") is to be read "used as" or "functions as." It is a frequent connector in complex tags. Some grammarians may say that any word must always be used as only one part of speech, but speakers of natural languages do otherwise, whether they know it or not. This symbol allows for an analysis in these cases. Some may question why, if grammatical form X functions as grammatical form Y, we do not simply call it Y? The reason is this: some argue that form is more important than function. In solving this problem we have not imposed one solution on all the Greek New Testament vocabulary, nor have we generally decided the matter item by item. We have instead made most of our choices class by class. If there is any rule of thumb, it is this: if a use is exceptional, it receives a complex tag with the caret symbol (x^y); if regular, a simple tag. The examples that follow will clarify this point.
A number of Greek words sometimes serve to relate a noun phrase to the rest of the sentence, at other times seem to stand alone as modifiers of the verb. In the former case they are traditionally called prepositions; in the latter, adverbs. We accept this distinction. Whenxw is followed by tÒv pçlewv (Matthew 21.17), it is a preposition and therefore tagged pg; when it stands alone, it is an adverb of place (as in Acts 5.34) and is tagged ab. This is a systematic difference and thus receives systematic treatment. Either ab^pg or pg^ab would be inappropriate. On the other hand, a word like rti (e.g. John 5.17), though normally ab, receives the complex tag ab^ap-gF-s in its anarthrous substantival adjectival usage following a preposition.
The caret symbol may infrequently be read as "irregularly used as." One example is wheneµv is used indeclinably following kat, a preposition governing the accusative case, e.g. Romans 12.5. In this situation, kaq' is tagged pa, eµv apcnm-s^apcam-s.
As the analysis of each part of speech is introduced below, the more important instances of the caret symbol will be explained and illustrated.
The ampersand joins simple tags in cases of crasis and analogous instances requiring two simple tags.Kgð (for ka° and gð) can be analyzed as ab&npn-1s (Revelation 3.21) if the ka° element is taken as an adverb: or as cc&npn-1s (Revelation 22.8) if taken as a conjunction. ToÈnoma similarly is tagged dans&n-an-s (Matthew 27.57). In some cases analogous to crasis two simple tags best describe a single Greek word: oÇkoÂn is tagged as qn&ch in John 18.37.
In addition to complex tags consisting of two simple tags, there are analyses consisting of more than two. Two examples follow: (1)Mçnon (Matthew 10.42) may be taken as modifying na ("only one"), potÐrion ("only a cup"), or even the verb pot°sÛ ("only gives to drink"). Thus the tag ab/a--am-s/a--an-s. (2) plÐrjv (John 1.14) is indeclinable here and gets the tag a--am-s/a--gm-s/a--nm-s.
There is a precedence of tag binders. The symbols & and ^ have equal precedence (since they never occur together), both of which have precedence over ! and /. These latter two are also of equal precedence, since they never occur together. This is to say, by example, that x/y^z is really x/(y^z). Similarly, a&b/c&d is (a&b)/(c&d). The tag aprdn-s+/aprdn-s^npdn3s in Hebrews 6.17 is to be read aprdn-s+/(aprdn-s^npdn3s).
The order of complex tags with ^ is fixed: the analysis of the form precedes that of function. Tags with & reflect the order of the Greek words joined by crasis. Tags with ! begin with the form represented in the text, then proceed to the variant. The general rule for tags with / is to alphabetize the tags. (The hyphen [-] used as a place marker is alphabetized following z. The tag numbers 1, 2, 3 are ordered as if they were x, y, z, respectively.)
There are, however, exceptions to this order. If two words each permit two analyses, and if alternative A for word 1 agrees with alternative X for word 2, and alternative B only with alternative Y, then the analyses are paired accordingly, the alphabetical rule notwithstanding. For example, the tag forglukÁ in James 3.12 is a--an-s/ap-an-s. The context, with tags, is: lukèn (ap-nn-s/a--nn-s) glukÁ (a--an-s/ap-an-s) poiÒsai (vnaa) Ädwr (n-an-s/n-nn-s). Either lukèn stands alone as a nominative substantive and glukÁ modifies Ädwr, or lukèn modifies Ädwr and glukÁ stands alone as an accusative substantive.
In a few situations a slash is warranted in the tag but is only implied; that is, the tag is x^y when x/x^y might be expected.
The first of these situations is when the future form of a verb is used as an imperative. Probably the least controversial of these is in the frequent command, "Love your neighbor as yourself." The verb isgapÐseiv, vifa--2s^vmpa--2s (Mark 12.30). Few would argue that this is a simple future, predicting that you will love your neighbor at some future time. It is a command the mood and tense of which reflect Hebrew influence. We have analyzed scores of second- and third-person future verbs as having an imperatival function. If these verbs were placed in a continuum from those most certain to have imperatival force (gapÐseiv above) to those least certain to have such force (possibly Colossians 4.9: gnwr°sousin (vifa--3p^vmaa--3p)), each reader would undoubtedly draw the dividing line between acceptable and unacceptable cases at a different point. Rather than add the future alternative (e.g. vifa--2s/vifa--2s^vmpa--2s), we announce our practice and urge the reader to make his own judgments. (See discussion below on verbs for further comments.)
A second situation in which a slash is implied in the tag is the negative subjunctive used as imperative. The aorist subjunctive followingmÐ is widely taken as the aorist imperative of prohibition. A few of these can be taken as simple subjunctives. We have left the ambiguous cases as subjunctive used as imperative, leaving the slash implicit (e.g. vsaa--2s^vmaa--2s). The many negative subjunctives that cannot be taken as direct prohibitions, including many indirect prohibitions following ´na, we have left as simple subjunctives (e.g. Mark 3.9). In addition to the aorist subjunctive following mÐ is the subjunctive that follows oÇ mÐ. These are usually taken as strong future denials. In a number of instances (e.g. Luke 1.15), we analyze the construction as an imperative, and leave the slash implicit.
There is also a continuum of acceptance for "imperatival participles," the tags for which begin with vr. Few disagree that Acts 22.10 should be read as two commands, "Get up and go," even though the first word is a participle. But there are less certain cases that we leave to the reader to find and evaluate. Many vr tags may be read vp/vr. Imperative participles are discussed further in 5.1.3 below.
The periphrastic is the last kind of construction that we do not mark with an overt slash but with which we urge the reader to infer a slash according to his understanding of the construction. There is little doubt that Koine Greek used a colorless finite verb plus participle to express meanings that otherwise could be expressed by a single finite verb carrying its own content. Again it is the degree of acceptance of this or that construction as periphrastic that has guided us in presenting such constructions here as implied choices. We leave the reader to draw his own line between acceptable and unacceptable cases. (See the discussion in 5.6 below for more on periphrastics.)
We must include a few comments on some things we do not include. First, we do not allow expression of intermediate function, which would require a tag of this sort: x^y^z. In Hebrews 10.32, there is reason to support a working analysis ofprçteron as apman-s^abm^a-maf-p. That is, it is formally a substantival adjective generally used as an adverb and in this particular context acting as an adjective modifying the feminine "days." We have rather given it a simplified analysis as abm. Second, we do not try to improve an authors grammar. Except for the few types noted above, we do not try to say how it should have been. With relative pronouns, however, after showing the actual (formal) grammatical case, we show the case that would have been without the attraction. This is limited to case and does not include gender or number attraction or anticipation.
The limitation of our analysis to individual words (with a few phrase exceptions to be noted below) may leave the impression of inconsistent analyses of recurring forms. But the impression is false. For instance, John 6.62:tè (dans) prçteron (apman-s). This two-word phrase functions adverbially. The tags, however, are given to individual words, neither of which functions, by itself, as an adverb. Elsewhere prçteron as a single unit without article appropriately receives the tag abm (e.g. Hebrews 4.6), the comparative form of ab.
The plus symbol is used, not to connect simple tags for individual words, but as a modifier of simple tags to show a close relationship between words in a sentence. The first of these cases involves verbal periphrastics, an example of which is John 1.28:Ún (viia--3s+) bapt°zwn (+vppanm-s). The pluses are placed on the side of the tag on which the pairing occurs. If two participles are involved, both receive pluses to show their relationship with the finite form.
The plus sign is also used to indicate the unexpected location (always on the right side) of an antecedent incorporated into a relative clause, as in this example from Luke 1.4:per± (pg) ö n (aprgm-p+^apram-p) katjcÐqjv (viap--2s) lçgwn (n-gm-p). The plus shows that the antecedent, lçgwn, follows the relative pronoun. This will be elaborated in 7.6 below on relative pronouns. (The functional tag apram-p on the relative pronoun shows that the expected accusative-case object of the verb has been attracted to the case governed by the preposition.)
Third, the plus sign is used to show that two adjacent words may also be taken as a single word analyzed by a single tag, as in this example from John 8.25:ê (-apran-s!abt+) ti (a-ian-s!+abt). This indicates that the adjacent words may be taken as separate wordsanalyzed -apran-s and a-ian-s respectivelyor they may be taken as a single word, êti, analyzed abt.
Fourth, the plus is used on the right side of all definite articles that do not have an overt headnoun or pronoun (whether preceding or following). Where the masculine or feminine nominative article is followed by d (or m n ), the plus sign shows that the article is used as a subject pronoun pronoun (see 8.2). Elsewhere this covers most articular participial phrases (e.g. Mark 9.23:tþ (ddms+) pisteÀonti). It also covers places where the article governs an adverb (for example, Colossians 3.1: t (danp+) nw), a prepositional phrase (2 Corinthians 5.10: t (danp+) di toÂ sðmatov), or a noncongruent noun (Luke 20.25: t (danp+) Ka°sarov) or pronominal adjective (2 Timothy 3.9b: Ó ( dnfs+) ke°nwn). See also 4.6 below.
Fifth, in the few cases where an article governs both a noun or a pronominal adjective and at the same time a participle or other construction lacking a head substantive the determiner tag followed by a + will be used, rather than a simple determiner tag or a complex tag d ^(d +/d ). It is to be understood as d with respect to the noun or pronominal adjective and as d+ with respect to the participle or other construction. (See 1 Timothy 4.3 and Titus 1.15.)
Finally, correlative conjunctions (either/or; both/and) are marked with a plus on the right side of the first conjunction in the pair, pointing in the direction of the second (without a corresponding plus pointing backwards). For example, Matthew 27.48:te (cc+) íxouv (n-gn-s) ka± (cc) .
The minus sign is used before the tag of a relative pronoun that has no antecedent. See 7.6.2 for a full discussion.
After analyzing each word of the Greek New Testament in its own right, according to its use in context and according to our underlying assumptions, we checked parallel passages against each other. The high degree of consistency that we found demonstrated that the analysis had been based on principle rather than changing intuitions. Parallels found to be inconsistent were harmonized, a process that impressed on us the important conclusion that parallel passages differing in just one or two words may require different analyses. One illustration is the four quotations of Isaiah 6.9 in Matthew 13.14, Mark 4.12, Luke 8.10, and Acts 28.26. Mark and Luke begin with´na, which throws the quotation into an altogether different light from that in Matthew and Acts. The accompanying analyses reflect these differences.