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'