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 , Hebrew Bible, Greek
Bible, and Qumran: Collected Essays (TSAJ 121; Tbingen: 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; Verffentlichungen der
Orientalischen Kommission 50; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2008) 93-105, esp. 94; Catherine Hezser,
Jewish Literacy in Roman Palestine (TSAJ 81 ; Tbingen: 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 context, 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 re
appraisal in light of such a hypothesis."7
In order to begin the pursuit toward this objective, I will examine one syn
tactical construction: the aorist third person negated imperative.81 will first sum
marize 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 imag
ine, since at least six more conventional alternatives existed to express the imper
ative in Greek: future indicative, subjunctive, optative, infinitive, participle, and
present indicative with infinitive. In addition, the particle negates the impera
tive, and only Greek, Indo-Iranian, and Armenian show the use of the negative
particle . 12

Ibid., 56.
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 Cog
nitive 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 Allognes, 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 . 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 (S91; repr., Hildesheim: Olms, 1968) 449.
12
See J. Clackson, "The Genesis of Greek," in A History of Ancient Greek: From the Beginnings to Late Antiquity (ed. A.-F. Christidis; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007) 18592, here 186.
8

GREEK SYNTAX AS A CRITERION OF AUTHENTICITY

87

When one combines the imperative with the negative particle , 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, specifica
tion, 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 con
struction 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 syn
tactical 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; cer
tainly other words, phrases, and/or constructions are also unique or rare (one pos
sible 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
13

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).
14
That is, (Matt 6:3); (Matt 24:17; Mark 13:15; Luke 17:31);
(Matt 24:18; Mark 13:16; Luke 17:31); (Mark 13:15).
15
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.
16
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 alto
gether, 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 per
son 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

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).
17
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.
18
See, e.g., Harold W. Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Epistle to
the Hebrews (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989) 29.
19
Deuteronomy 33:6: ("let [third person] not die").
20
The latter text (1:284; , "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 IMPERATIVES 2 1

Total

Positive

Negated
Present

1,071

919

67

84

Pseudepigrapha

54

42

Greek Qumran

Philo

554

514

36

Josephus

242

231

10

New Testament

234

201

25

Apostolic Fathers

136

118

15

LXX

Negated Negated
Aorist Perfect

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 con
taining this syntactical construction: ("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 attes
tation in the Gospel of Thomas (62.2). April D. DeConick includes this passage

21
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 , excluding the negated indefinite pronoun () and adverb (). 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 for the LXX or Codex L for the
Hebrew Bible) or on the parsing of another (e.g., 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 BibleWorks 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).
22
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
Nldeke, 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 *, "[third person] will not be
built") with a negated third person future indicative ( , "[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) pos
sibility of a Greek stratum of authentic Jesus sayings than previously acknowl
edged.
Moreover, Matt 6:3 is parallel to 6:2, which contains one of the more common
syntactical constructions, with the subjunctive. Why would this rare, uncon
ventional 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

30

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]).
31
Genesis 31:47; Jer 10:11; Ezra 4:8-6:18; 7:12-26; Dan 2:4b-7:28.
32
This assessment holds true even if the LXX was deeply impacted by the Aramaic language
(Joosten, "Septuagint," 102).
33
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.
34
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 Sanhdrin, transliterated Aramaic
words such as ("fool"), the "problematic" Greek vocative ("stupid"),
and Latin loanwords such as ("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 schol
arship 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'
35

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 Fortfhrung des
Imperativs im biblischen Hebrisch (AOAT 286; Mnster: 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 gegenwrtigen Forschung (ed. Jens Schrter 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
40

use of it? The evidence we have suggests that Jesus was not upper class. 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
,
.
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
[] ! ,
.
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
! ,
, .
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.
40
After citing a few representative examples from both sides, which he claims "could be mul
tiplied," 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., vs. , "let [third person] not enter";
vs. , "let [third person] not turn back"). Besides that, only a few man
uscripts42 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 ("let [third person] not go down"). What
ever 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 per
son 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
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 tradi
tion^) 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 authen
44
ticity of the Sermon on the Mount and especially the synoptic apocalypse."

41
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.
42
For example, M U W TR/1/13 2 28 579 1346.
43
France, Matthew, 899 (emphasis mine).
44
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 dis
tinguishable difference" between the more common subjunctive prohibition and
the negated imperative, as noted above, why would the oral and written transmis
sion 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: and .
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, chrono
logical, and verbatim sayings, especially since there are no other compelling rea
sons, 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.
45
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).
46
Ulrich Luz, Matthew: A Commentary (3 vols.; Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001-7)
3:183.
47
See, e.g., Joseph A. Fitzmyer, "Did Jesus Speak Greek?" BAR (1992) 58-77, esp. 62.
48
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; Tbingen: 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: ("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 state
ment. 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 caseMatthew, 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:
("let [third person] not join with"). This passage probably parallels
Matt 5:23-24 (cf. Valerius Maximus Fact. Diet 2.1.6). Kurt Niederwimmer explic
itly 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

50

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).
51
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.
52
Kurt Niederwimmer, The Didache: A Commentary (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress,
1998) 198; cf. France, Matthew, 203.
53
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.
54
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 Uni
versity Press, 2005) 439.

GREEK SYNTAX AS A CRITERION OF AUTHENTICITY

97

two points expose frther 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 ( , "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 espe
cially 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 com
ing from Jesus. Certainly, more work needs to be done regarding the apparent
eschatological connection(s) with this construction. A similar connection is note
worthy in the emphatic negative construction , 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 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 pronounce
ments). 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.
55
Christopher M. Tuckert, "The Didache and the Writings that Later Formed the New Testa
ment," 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.
56
Niederwimmer, Didache, 214.
57
Clayton N. Jefford, The Apostolic Fathers and the New Testament (Peabody, MA: Hen
drickson, 2006) 51.
58
Abera Mitiku Mengestu, "The Use of Ou M 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 constructionfromthe 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: ("let [third person] not cease").61 Once
again, Jesus is the recorded speaker (nexe I c = = 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 ("until") followed by ("[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
59
Uwe-Karsten Plisch, The Gospel of Thomas: Original Text with Commentary (Stuttgart:
Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2008) 12.
60
Ibid., 25.
61
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.
62
Plisch, Gospel of Thomas, 25.
63
DeConick, Gospel of Thomas, 48.
64
Ibid., 49; see also Craig A. Evans, Ancient Texts for New Testament Studies: A Guide to the
Background Literature (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2005) 412.
65
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.

66
Robert 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.