Reflexive Pronouns in the New Testament (Patrick a. Tiller)

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

  • 8/20/2019 Reflexive Pronouns in the New Testament (Patrick a. Tiller)

    1/21

    REFLEXIVE PRONOUNSIN THE NEW TESTAMENT

    PATRICK A. TILLER The purpose of this study is to answer two basic questions con-

    cerning reflexive and reciprocal pronouns in the New Testament: (1) What are the syntactic constraints on reflexives, that determine whenthey may be used? (2) What are the semantic constraints that deter-mine when in fact they are used? In answering the first question theauthor considers both reflexives and reciprocals and discuss the wholeNT; for the second, the author attempts to suggest answers for thirdperson reflexives and based only on the Pauline Epistles commonly rec-ognized as authentic.

    Introduction

    The purpose of this study is to answer two basic questions concerning reflexive and reciprocal pronouns in the New Testament. (1) What arethe syntactic constraints on reflexives, that determine when they may beused? (2) What are the semantic constraints that determine when in factthey are used? In answering the first question, I will consider both reflex-

    ives and reciprocals and discuss the whole NT. The answer to the secondquestion differs depending on (1) whether the pronoun is third person orone of the first two persons; (2) whether it is a reflexive or reciprocal thatis being used; and (3) who the author is. Therefore, I will only attemptto suggest answers to the second question for third person reflexives andbased only on the Pauline Epistles commonly recognized as authentic1.This has the advantage that it gives a body of literature with a singleauthor (and therefore a single ideolect) and minimal interference fromSemitic syntax.

    In this study I will assume a crude, undemonstrated transformationalmodel of grammar 2. I will not argue for or even explain the modelassumed except where necessary for the argument. In addition, for con-venience, I will use the language of more traditional grammars to refer tothe various parts of speech.

    1 The epistles that I will include are Romans, 1,2 Corinthians, Galatians,Philippians, 1Thessalonians, and Philemon.

    2 The following abbreviations will be used: NP for noun phrase, VP for verb phrase,and PP for prepositional phrase. In addition, I will use the term «matrix clause» to referto a main clause and «embedded clause» to refer to a subordinate clause.

    Filología Neotestamentaria - Vol. XIV - 2001, pp. 43-63Facultad de Filosofía y Letras de Córdoba (España)

  • 8/20/2019 Reflexive Pronouns in the New Testament (Patrick a. Tiller)

    2/21

    The Problem Defined

    The following words function as reflexives: eJautou'

    (‘himself’),i[dio~

    (‘one’s own’),ajllhvlwn (‘each other’), and ei|" to; n e{ na (‘one the other’). eJautou' is the normal reflexive form. i[dio" is a possessive adjective( eJautou' which has other functions as well)ajllhvlwn is a reciprocal andstresses the mutual relations involved. ei|" to; n e{ na may be more proper-ly called a «distributive» but functions something like a reciprocal.Occasionally eJautou` is reciprocal as well, but Phil 2:3 (see p. 53, below)shows that the two (ajllhvlwn and eJautou' may retain their distinctiveuses. A question that I will not try to answer is under what conditions

    eJautou` may be used as a reciprocal. eJautou` has separate forms for the first and second persons singular

    ( ejmautou`and seautou\ but all three persons have a common plural( eJautw' n). Occasionally the third person singular form may be used forthe second person (manuscripts of Mark 12:31; John 18:34; Gal 5:14;and Rom 13:9) but probably never in the oldest available text3.

    It has been claimed that the first and second person personal pronounstogether with auj tov" may also be reflexive pronouns but normally in thatcombination auj tov" is intensive. The only certain cases are 1 Cor 5:13

    which is a quotation and 1 Cor 11:13. In Acts 20:30, where the phrase isalso used, a reflexive would be out of place, and uJmw' n auj tw' n probably means ‘you yourselves’. th; n yuchv n (‘the soul’) occasionally seems to func-tion as a reflexive under the influence of Semitic use ofnephesh(‘soul’) forself. In Acts 2:12a[llo~ pro; ~ a[llon seems to be a reciprocal. For the pur-poses of this study I will only consider the pronouns eJautou`and ajllhvlwn.

    An additional problem, which I am not able to discuss, is the question whether auj tou`in the NT should not sometimes be read as auJ tou ,̀ i.e. thereflexive ( eJautou'. For the present, I will assume that the answer is no.

    According to Gignac,

    When auj tov~ is used in reference to the subject of the phrase or sen-tence, it probably represents the personal pronoun (with a smooth breath-ing) rather than the Attic contracted form of the reflexive pronoun(auJ tou`for eJautou ̀with a rough breathing) even when used reflexively inthe attributive position,… or in contexts in which a form of eJautou` isused elsewhere… The contracted forms do not seem to have survivedelsewhere in the Koine4.

    3 See Roger D. Woodard, On Interpreting Morphological Change: The Greek Reflexive Pronoun(Amsterdam: Gieben, 1990), for a detailed account of the evolving morpholo-gy of the reflexive pronoun.

    4 Francis Thomas Gignac, A Grammar of the Greek Papyri of the Roman and Byzantine Periods , vol. 2 Morphology , (Testi e Documenti per lo Studio dell ‘Antichita’, LV - 2;Milano: Istituto Editoriale Cisalpino - La Goliardica, 1981) 170.

    44 Patrick A. Tiller

  • 8/20/2019 Reflexive Pronouns in the New Testament (Patrick a. Tiller)

    3/21

    Moulton agrees that «These statistics suffice to show thatauJ t . wasvery near extinction before A.D.» But he also insists that «Against Blass’s

    denial, we must leave room for the possibility of very occasional retentionof the dissyllabic form5.»There are two points of view from which one must consider the syntax

    of reflexives: the syntax of the antecedent or trigger and the syntax of thereflexive itself. The trigger is the NP that is co-referent with the reflexiveand «triggers» the pronoun to be a reflexive rather than the simple person-al pronoun. By the syntax of the trigger, I mean the syntactic and seman-tic relation of the trigger to the reflexive. By the syntax of the reflexive, Imean the syntactic and semantic relation of the reflexive to the trigger.

    The Syntax of the TriggerThere are two kinds of reflexives, depending on whether the trigger is

    in the same clause as the reflexive or in a «higher» clause which governsthe reflexive’s clause. In the first case, the reflexive is said to be a «directreflexive» and in the second, an «indirect reflexive.» According to Smyth,«The reflexive pronouns are useddirectly when they refer to the chief

    word (usually the subject) of the sentence or clause in which they stand.» And «The reflexive pronouns are usedindirectly when, in a dependentclause, they refer to the subject of the main clause6.»

    Unfortunately, the matter is not quite as simple as that. Turner seemsto define a direct reflexive as «a direct complement of the verb … refer-ring back to the subject, …» and an indirect reflexive as «the use of thereflexive pronoun where there is little or no dependence on the verb,because of the intervention of a noun or a phrase7…» As his examplesmake clear, he means that an indirect reflexive is one that is governed by a NP which is in turn governed by the VP. Turner has made a useful dis-tinction but he has confused the issue by using terminology that is nor-mally used for something else altogether.

    Robertson does not define the indirect reflexive but his examples show that he understands it much like Smyth. All of his examples (except one)

    are pronouns occurring in an infinitive clause and referring to the subjectof the main clause 8. The exception is:

    5 James Hope Moulton and Wilbert Francis Howard, A Grammar of New Testament Greek , vol. 2, Accidence and Word-Formation(Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1929) 181.

    6 Herbert Weir Smyth, Greek Grammar (revised by Gordon M. Messing; Cambridge:Harvard University Press, 1920, 1956) 304.

    7 Nigel Turner, A Grammar of New Testament Greek by James Hope Moulton, vol. 3,Syntax (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1963) 41, 43

    8 Archibald Thomas Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research(4th ed.; New York: Hodder & Stoughton, 1914, 1923) 688

    Reflexive Pronouns in New Testament 45

  • 8/20/2019 Reflexive Pronouns in the New Testament (Patrick a. Tiller)

    4/21

    1 Cor 10:29 suneivdhsin de; le; gw ouj ci; th; n eJautou ̀ ajlla; th; n tou ̀ eJ tevrou.conscience but I-say not the of-yourself but the of-the other.Now I do not mean your own conscience but that of the other.

    However the problem with this sentence is not that the antecedent isin a governing clause but that the antecedent is not in the sentence at all.This verse is a special case that must be dealt with only after some gener-al rules have been demonstrated.

    Direct Reflexives

    After I have established some general principles, I will return to theattempt to define indirect reflexives in a way that is useful for the NT. Thequestion now is whether the trigger is best defined as the subject of theclause (syntactic constraint) or as the agent of the action which the reflex-ive receives (semantic constraint) or as something else.

    The trigger of the direct reflexive (or reciprocal) is nearly always both thesubject of the clause (whether expressed or implied in the verbal inflection)in which the reflexive is found and the agent of the action of the clause.

    Word order is not decisive; the reflexive may follow or precede its trigger.

    Gal 2:12 uJ pevstellen kai; aj fwvrizen eJauto; n(he)-withdrew and separated himself

    Rom 14:7 oujdei;~ ga;r hJmw' n eJautw' / zh`no-one for of-us to-himself livesFor none of us lives to himself.

    2 Cor 13:5 eJautou;~ peiravzeteyourselves test (imperative)

    Rom 5:8 sunivsthsin de; th; n eJautou ̀ aj gav phn eij~ hJma~̀ oJ qeov~demonstrates but the of-himself love for us [the] GodBut God demonstrates his love for us.

    But the trigger is not always directly the agent of the action, especial-ly in the case of passive verbs.

    Gal 5:15 blev pete mh; uJ p ’ ajllhvlwn aj nalwqh` te.See lest by one-another you-be-consumed.

    Matt 12:25 pa s̀a basileiv a merisqei s̀a kaq ’ eJauth`~ ejrhmou` tai ...every kingdom divided against itself is-depopulated ...9

    9 Some would consider this to be an example of an indirect reflexive. I have includ-ed it here because of the amazing scarcity of reflexives with a passive verb. My discussionof indirect reflexives will show that I am correct in listing it here as a direct reflexive.

    46 Patrick A. Tiller

  • 8/20/2019 Reflexive Pronouns in the New Testament (Patrick a. Tiller)

    5/21

    But in both of these cases, it turns out that in fact although the verb istruly passive, the object and agent of the action are the same.

    In the following examples the trigger is the subject of the verb, but notthe agent of the action.

    1 Cor 6:19 oujk ejste; eJautw' n.not you-are of-yourselves.

    You are not your own.

    Heb 12:3 aj nalogivsasqe ga; r to; n toiauv thn uJ pomemenhkov taconsider for the (masc. acc.) such (fem. acc.) one-who-endured(masc. acc.)

    uJ po; tw' n aJmartwlw' n eij~ eJauto; n aj ntilogivan.by the sinners against himself hostility (fem. acc.).For consider the one who endured such hostility by sinnersagainst himself.10

    In this last example the semantic agent of action upon the reflexive isnot the trigger of the reflexive. Rather the trigger is the surface structuresubject of the clause. We may therefore provisionally conclude that thetrigger of a reflexive pronoun must be the surface structure subject of theclause regardless of the agent.

    Reciprocal pronouns behave slightly differently. In most cases theirtrigger is the subject of their clause. But in one case the trigger of thereciprocal is the direct object of the clause in sentence initial position andsemantically the agent of the action reciprocated.

    1 Thess 3:12 uJma~̀ de; oJ kuvrio~ pleonavsai kai; perisseuvsai th' / aj gav phyou but the Lord cause-to-increase and cause-to-abound in-thelove

    eij~ ajllhvlou~ kai; eij~ pav nta~ ...for one-another and for all ...But may the Lord cause you to increase and abound in love forone another and for all.

    This seems to suggest that being the agent may increase the capaci-

    ty of a NP to trigger a reciprocal. In this context uJma`~(‘you’) seems tobe fronted because it is mildly contrasted with hJmw'n(‘of us’) in thepreceding sentence. Paul has stated a wish for himself, and here hestates a wish for the Thessalonians. Therefore, the trigger is also thetopic of the sentence. Once, the genitive pronoun is the trigger of a reciprocal.

    10 This example might also be called an indirect reflexive. Again my later discussion will show that this is not the case.

    Reflexive Pronouns in New Testament 47

  • 8/20/2019 Reflexive Pronouns in the New Testament (Patrick a. Tiller)

    6/21

    2 Thess 1:3 pleonavzei hJ agav ph eJ no;~ eJkavstou pav ntwn uJmw' n eij~ ajllhvlou~increases the love of-one of-each of-all of-you toward one-anotherThe love of each and every one of you is increasing toward oneanother.

    Here the genitive uJmw' n (‘of you’) is semantically the agent of the recip-rocated action, love, but not of the main verb, (‘increases’). It is thus pos-sible that the subjective genitive may function as the trigger for the reflex-ive, even though in surface structure it is not the subject of a VP. In anoth-er illuminating case, the trigger for the reciprocal is neither agent nor sub-

    ject but the object of the action reciprocated.

    Matt 25:32 aj forivsei auj tou;~ aj p ’ ajllhvlwnhe-will-separate them from one-another

    Possibly the phrase «them from one another» is thought of as seman-tically an embedded clause.

    Since all of the exceptions are with the reciprocal pronoun, it seems thatthe rules for triggers of both reflexives and reciprocals are basically syntac-tic but that the rules for reciprocals are more sensitive to the semantics of the reciprocating agent or object. That is, the trigger of the reciprocal isusually the subject of the clause, but it may be any clause-mate NP thateither affects or is affected by the reciprocated action. In the few examples

    where the trigger of the reciprocal is not the subject, it precedes the recip-

    rocal in surface structure (word order), but there does not seem to be any other common syntactic relationship. On the other hand, the trigger of thereflexive is always the subject of the clause. Since in the vast majority of cases, the trigger of reflexives also seems to be the agent, and if not, at leastthe experiencer, of the action, it may be that reflexives are also somewhatsensitive to the same semantic constraints as reciprocals, but not enough toviolate the syntactic rule that the trigger must be the subject of the clause.

    We may now set forth the following rules for the syntactic and seman-tic constraints on reflexives and reciprocals.

    Rule 1 The trigger of a reflexive pronoun must be the subject of the clause in which the reflexive appears.

    Rule 2 The trigger of a reciprocal pronoun is usually the subjectof the clause in which the reciprocal appears.

    Rule 3 The trigger of a reflexive pronoun should also be eitherthe agent or the experiencer of the action of the clause.This should never violate Rule 1.

    Rule 4 The trigger of a reciprocal pronoun must be the agent orexperiencer of the reciprocated action, even if that meansthat Rule 2 will be violated.

    48 Patrick A. Tiller

  • 8/20/2019 Reflexive Pronouns in the New Testament (Patrick a. Tiller)

    7/21

    We may now return to the problem above (p. 46) with the reflexive whose trigger is not even in the same sentence as the reflexive. In order to

    understand this sentence, the previous context must be cited.1 Cor 10:28 eja; n dev ti~ uJmi` n ei] ph/ tou ̀to iJ erovqutov n ejstin, mh;

    if but someone to-you says, «This sacrificed-to-a-divinity is,» not ejsqiv ete di ’ ejkei` non to; n mhnuvsanta kai; th; neat on-account-of that-one the one-who-informed and thesuneivdhsin.conscience;

    1 Cor 10:29 suneivdhsin de; le; gw ouj ci; th; n eJautou ̀ ajlla; th; n tou ̀ eJ tevrou.conscience but I-say not the of-yourself but the of-the other.Now I do not mean your own conscience but that of the other.

    What is happening here is that what followslev gw (‘I mean’) «parrots»the previous sentence and even assumes its syntax. So that the reflexive inthe «parrotted» clause has as its trigger the subject of the sentence being parrotted. Therefore this sentence should be considered a special kind of direct reflexive in which the trigger of the reflexive is elided.

    Direct Reflexives in Subordinate Clauses

    In the NT when reflexives are used in infinitival or participial clauses,

    with one class of exceptions11

    , the reflexive is co-referent with the unex-pressed or underlying subject of the infinitive or participle12. And as suchit behaves in exactly the same way as the reflexive in a main clause with a finite verb. Frequently it will also be co-referent with the subject of thematrix clause that governs the embedded clause. But this is not always so.Especially in the case of participles, it is clear that the trigger is not the sub-

    ject of the main clause but the underlying subject of the participial clause.

    2 Cor 5:18 ta; de; pav nta ejk tou ̀qeou ̀tou`the (nom.) but all-things (nom.) from the God thekatallav xanto~

    one-who-reconciles hJma~̀ eJautw' / dia; Cristou` ...us to-himself through Christ ...But all things are from God who reconciles us to himself through Christ ....

    11 See below under «Indirect reflexives ,» pp. 51-56.12 I am assuming that all infinitival clauses and participial clauses had a subject in

    deep structure. In the case of participles this has been deleted in surface structure (exceptfor genitive absolutes) and in the case of infinitives the subject has either been deleted orput into the accusative case.

    Reflexive Pronouns in New Testament 49

  • 8/20/2019 Reflexive Pronouns in the New Testament (Patrick a. Tiller)

    8/21

    Here, the trigger for the reflexive is God, the underlying subject of theparticiple and agent of the action of the participle. The syntax of the

    matrix clause is irrelevant. Even when a participle is the subject of thematrix clause, the trigger of the reflexive is the underlying subject of theparticiple, not the participle itself.

    Gal 6:8 oJ speivrwn eij~ th; n savrka eJautou ̀ ejk th ~̀ sarko;~ qerivseithe one-who-sows to the flesh of-himself from the flesh he-shall-reap

    fqorav n, ...corruption, ...He who sows to his flesh shall reap corruption from the flesh, ....

    Similar examples can be given for infinitives. In each of the following examples, the trigger is the subject of the infinitive but not the subject of the matrix clause.

    Matt 8:22 a[ fe~ tou; ~ nekrou;~ qav yai tou; ~ eJautw' n nekrouv~.let the dead bury the of-themselves dead.

    Acts 26:1 ej pitrev petaiv soi peri; seautou` lev gein.it-is-permitted to-you about yourself to-speak.

    Jn 5:26 ou{ tw~ kai; tw' / uJiw' / e[dwken zwh; n e[ cein ej n eJautw' /.so also to-the son he-gave life to-have in himself.

    Acts 15:39 ej gev neto de; paroxusmo;~ w{ste aj pocwrisqh ̀nai auj tou;~ aj p ’there-was but a-sharp-dispute so-that to-be-divided them fromajllhvlwn ...one-another ...But there arose a sharp dispute, so that they were divided fromone another ...

    Especially in the last example, it is clear that the trigger is the subjectof the infinitive and not anything in the matrix clause since there is noth-ing in the matrix clause to correspond to the referent of the reflexive.

    There is one example of a reflexive in an embedded clause with noantecedent in its clause but which for special reasons must be considereda direct reflexive.

    Rom 1:12 tou ̀to dev ejstin sumparaklhqh` nai ej n uJmi` n dia; th`~ ej nthis but is to-be-encouraged-together among you through the inajllhvloi~ pivstew~ uJmw' n te kai; ejmou`.each-other faith of-you both and of-me.But that is for me to be encouraged while among you throughthe faith that is in each other – both yours and mine.

    The subject of the infinitive sumparaklhqh`nai is an underlying mev(‘me’); otherwise ejn uJmi`n(‘among you’) would make little sense. Thetrigger of ajllhvloi~ should be hJma`~(‘us’) which is nowhere in the con-

    50 Patrick A. Tiller

  • 8/20/2019 Reflexive Pronouns in the New Testament (Patrick a. Tiller)

    9/21

    text at all. Again the trigger is more semantically than syntactically determined. The trigger is a combination of the underlying subjectmev

    and the clause-mate uJmi` n

    (‘you’). Presumably the fact that there is no realtrigger explains the strange addition of uJmw' n te kai; ejmouàt the end of the sentence. It seems to be an attempt to clarify the meaning of a gar-bled sentence.

    We may therefore conclude that, apart from the main class of excep-tions that will be discussed below, reflexives have clause-mate triggers evenif those triggers are not expressed. There is normally no distinctionbetween reflexives in matrix clauses and reflexives in embedded clauses.

    Definition 1 A direct reflexive has a co-referent trigger in its ownclause.

    Indirect Reflexives

    In the NT when the subject of an infinitive is co-referent with thesubject of the matrix clause, is may either be expressed or notexpressed. If expressed it will be in the accusative case; if not, its mod-ifiers will be in the nominative case. According to Blass, «The con-struction [with the accusative subject] is more striking in the case of anarticular infinitive, where it is not the reflexive, but the simple person-al pronoun that is inserted 13.» In other words, when the infinitive hasan article, its subject is a personal pronoun and otherwise it is a reflex-ive pronoun. This is almost true as far as it goes, but there is a better,more general explanation.

    A pronoun in an embedded clause may be reflexive when it is co-ref-erent with the subject of the matrix clause even if it is not co-referent withthe subject of its own clause. This includes reflexives that are themselvesthe accusative subject of an infinitive and whose antecedents are in a matrix clause14. This will be dealt with explicitly in doubtful cases. Thisis especially true of the accusative subject of an infinitive but is also trueof other kinds of pronouns within an embedded clause. It also occurs

    once in a participial clause (Phil 2:3, see p. 53, below).Definition 2 An indirect reflexive occurs in an embedded clause

    and does not have a co-referent trigger in its ownclause, but in a matrix clause.

    13 F. Blass and A. Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (translated and revised from the ninth-tenth German edition by Robert W. Funk; Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1961) 209.

    14 The problem with this definition is that it is sometimes difficult to know whetheran accusative is the subject of the infinitive or the direct object of the matrix verb.

    Reflexive Pronouns in New Testament 51

  • 8/20/2019 Reflexive Pronouns in the New Testament (Patrick a. Tiller)

    10/21

    The following is, as far as I know, an almost complete list of indirectreflexives in the NT, with the exception of doubtful cases, which will be

    dealt with below.Luke 23:2 kai; lev gonta eJauto; n cristo; n basileva ei\ nai.

    and saying himself Christ king to-be.... and saying that he is Christ the king.

    Acts 5:36 pro; ga;r touv twn tw' n hJmerw' n anevsth Qeuda`~, lev gwn ei\ naivbefore for these the days arose Theudas, saying to-be

    tina eJauto; n.someone himself.For before these days Theudas arose saying that he was some-one great.

    Rev 2:2 kai; ej peivrasa~ tou; ~ lev gonta~ eJautou;~ aj postovlou~ ...and you-have-tested the ones-who-say themselves apostles ... And you have tested those who say that they are apostles ...(In this example the verb ei\ nai [‘to be’] is omitted.)

    Rev 2:9 oi\dav ... th; n blasfhmivan ejk tw' n legov ntwn ’Ioudaivou~ ei\ naiI-know ... the blasphemy from the ones-who-say Jews to-be

    eJautou;~ ...themselves ...I know ... the blasphemy of those who say that they are Jews ...

    Rev 2:20 hJ lev gousa eJauth; n profh ̀tin ...the (fem.) one-who-says herself a-prophetess ...... who says that she is a prophetess ...

    Rev 3:9 tw' n legov ntwn eJautou;~ ’Ioudaivou~ ei\ nai, ...of-the ones-who-say themselves Jews to-be, ...

    Acts 25:4 oJ me; n ou\ n fh s̀to~ aj pekrivqh threi`sqai to; n pau l̀onthe (untranslatable) therefore Festus answered to-be-kept the Paul

    eij~ kaisavreian, eJauto; n de; mevllein ej n tav cei ejkporeuv esqai:in Caesarea, himself but to-be-about quickly to-depart;Therefore Festus answered that Paul should be kept in Caesarea but that he was going to depart soon; ...

    Rom 6:11 ou{ tw~ kai; uJmei~̀ logivzesqe eJautou;~ ei\ nai nekrou;~ me; nso also you consider yourselves to-be dead (untranslatable) th' / aJmartiva zw' nta~ de; tw' / qew' / ej n Cristw' / ’Ihsou.̀to-the sin living but to-the God in Christ Jesus.

    Phil 3:13 ej gw; ejmauto; n ouj logivzomai kateilhfev naiI myself not consider to-have-attainedI do not consider myself to have attained it.

    Heb 10:34 ginwvskonte~ e] cein eJautou;~ kreiv ttona u{ parxin kai; mev nousan.knowing to-have yourselves (a)-better possession and abiding.... knowing that you have a better and abiding possession.

    52 Patrick A. Tiller

  • 8/20/2019 Reflexive Pronouns in the New Testament (Patrick a. Tiller)

    11/21

    Luke 20:20 kai; parathrhv sante~ aj pevsteilan ej gkaqev tou~ uJ pokrinomev nou~and lying-in-wait they-sent spies pretending

    eJautou;~ dikaivou~ ei\ nai ...themselves righteous to-be ...

    Rom 2:19 pepoiqav~ te seauto; n oJdhgo; n ei\ nai tuflw' n, ...you-are-certain and yourself a-guide to-be of-blind-ones

    Phil 2:3 ajlla; th' / tapeinofrosuv nh/ ajllhvlou~ hJ gouvmenoi uJ perev conta~but in-the humility considering being-better-than

    eJautw' nyourselvesBut in humility consider one another to be better than you are.

    What distinguishes these examples from others where the reflexive isnot used in the embedded clause is that these verbs all indicate either thethought or the expression of the subject. Such verbs may be called«logophoric.» We may therefore provisionally propose that when a com-plement clause of a logophoric verb contains a pronoun which is co-ref-erent with the subject of the logophoric verb, the pronoun will be reflex-ive even if it is not co-referent with anything in its own clause. Such pro-nouns may be also called «logophoric.»

    Definition 3 (provisional) A logophoric verb is a verb of saying orthinking that takes a complement clause, which con-tains the thought or expression of the subject.

    Definition 4 A logophoric pronoun is one that occurs in the com-plement clause of a logophoric verb and is co-referent

    with the subject of the logophoric verb but not co-ref-erent with anything in its own clause.

    Rule 5 A logophoric pronoun will be reflexive in form.Rule 6 All indirect reflexives in the NT are logophoric.This explains Phil 2:3. The reflexive ( eJautw' n) is the genitive direct

    object of a participle, which in turn serves as the VP of the complementclause of the logophoric verb hJ gouvmenoi(‘considering’)

    15

    . The participlerepresents the thought of the subject of the logophoric verb, and becausethe pronoun in the embedded clause is co-referent with the subject of logophoric verb, the pronoun is reflexive.

    The rule does not state that logophoric verbs will always havelogophoric pronouns in their complement clauses but only that if they dohave a pronoun, the pronoun will be reflexive. In the following examplethe logophoric pronoun has been omitted.

    15 Blass-Debrunner, 215. See the discussion of double accusatives below.

    Reflexive Pronouns in New Testament 53

  • 8/20/2019 Reflexive Pronouns in the New Testament (Patrick a. Tiller)

    12/21

    2 Cor 11:5 Logivzomai ga;r mhde; n uJsterhkev nai tw' n uJ perlivan aj postovlwn.I-consider for nothing to-have-been-inferior to-the super apostles.For I do not consider that I have been at all inferior to thegreatest apostles.

    It is now necessary to define the rule for logophoric pronouns moreprecisely. As the following examples show, the concept of logophors mustbe defined rather narrowly. In the first place, not all complement infini-tives are logophoric16.

    1 Th 4:9 peri; de; th`~ filadelfiv a~ ouj creivan e] cete grav fein uJmi` n:concerning but the brotherly-love not need you-have to-write to-you;But concerning brotherly love, you have no need for anyone to

    write to you.

    Not even pronouns that are co-referent with the objects of logophoricverbs or the subjects of verbs of hearing are logophoric.

    Eph 4:21-22 21 ei] ge auj to;n hjkouvsate kai; ej n aujtw'/ ejdidav cqhteIf indeed him you-have-heard and in him you-were-taught ...22aj poqevsqai uJma~̀ ... to; n palaio; n a] nqrwpon ...to-put-off you ... the old person ...If indeed you have heard him and have been taught in him (foryou) to put off the old person

    The meaning is not entirely clear, but it is clear that uJma~̀ (‘you’) is thesubject of the infinitive and co-referent with subject of the matrix verb. If the matrix verb had been a verb of saying or thinking (instead of a verbof hearing), the pronoun would have been reflexive.

    Secondly, logophoric verbs do not include verbs that indicate what isin the mind of the subject as a potentiality. Verbs such as ‘hope for’, ‘ask for’, and ‘command’ are not logophoric. In the next example the accu-sative subject of the complement infinitive is a personal pronounalthough it is co-referent with the subject of the matrix verb of saying or thinking.

    Acts 25:21 tou ̀de; Pauvlou ej pikalesamev nou thrhqh ̀nai auj to; n eij~ th; n tou ̀the but Paul having-appealed to-be-kept him for the of-theSebastou` diav gnwsin, ...Emperor decision, ...But when Paul had appealed to be kept for the Emperor’s deci-sion ...

    16 It is precisely at this point that Blass’s observations fail to adequately distinguishbetween the use of personal and reflexive pronouns in infinitival clauses.

    54 Patrick A. Tiller

  • 8/20/2019 Reflexive Pronouns in the New Testament (Patrick a. Tiller)

    13/21

    The next example is similar.

    Acts 26:3 dio; devomai makroquvmw~ ajkous̀aiv mou. Wherefore I-ask patiently to-hear me. Wherefore I ask you to listen to me patiently.

    Finally, a logophoric verb must portray the thought as consciously present to the mind of the thinker. In other words, the verb must refer notto physical perception, but intellectual perception.

    Luke 8:46 ej gw; ga;r e] gnwn duv namin ejxelhluqui àn aj p ’ ejmou`.I for perceived power having-gone-out from me.

    In this example, although the participle is complementary, it is not

    logophoric because it represents not the thought of the subject but hisfeeling. The sentence does not mean, «I consider it to be a fact that powerhas gone out from me,» but, «I felt power going out from me.»

    The above examples show that the verbal complement must contain a thought that the speaker or thinker (not the hearer) holds to be an actu-ality and not merely a potentiality. Further the thought must be present-ed as actually present to the mind of the speaker/thinker as opposed tosomething felt or understood by him. Luke 20:20 above can now beexplained on this basis.

    Luke 20:20 kai; parathrhv sante~ aj pevsteilan ej gkaqev tou~ uJ pokrinomev nou~

    and lying-in-wait they-sent spies pretending eJautou;~ dikaivou~ ei\ nai ...themselves righteous to-be ...

    In this example, the spies do not really think that they are righteous. They are not, however, thinking of their righteousness as a potentiality but as a falseactuality or reality, which they wish to portray. Consequently, a logophoricverb does not need to portray something that the subject holds to be true butonly what is claimed to be an actuality from his or her point of view.

    Definition 3 A logophoric verb is a verb of saying or thinking that

    (revised) takes a complement clause which contains thethought or expression of the subject. The comple-ment clause must be either an infinitival or participi-al clause. The thought or expression must be some-thing that the speaker or thinker holds or at least pre-tends to be an actuality and not merely a potentiality.

    Blass’s observation that only infinitives that lack the article take reflex-ive pronouns can now be explained. The reason that articular infinitivesnever have a reflexive pronoun as subject is that they are never used as thecomplement of a logophoric verb.

    Reflexive Pronouns in New Testament 55

  • 8/20/2019 Reflexive Pronouns in the New Testament (Patrick a. Tiller)

    14/21

    There is one apparent exception to the logophoric rule that must bediscussed. The following verse has a verb that appears to be logophoric

    but the pronoun in the embedded clause is not reflexive.1 Cor 2:12 i{ na ei]dwmen ta; uJ po; tou ̀ qeou ̀ carisqev nta hJmi` n:

    that we-might-know the by the God given to-us;... that we might know the things given to us by God.

    In this case the pronoun is not truly logophoric. The participle doesnot represent a part of the thought of the subject of the matrix clause («...that we might know that certain things have been given to us by God.»).Rather it supplies additional information that limits the scope of what«we» may know. This is different from Phil 2:3 above where the partici-

    ple represents the thought of the subject.These observations help us to understand the following text moreprecisely.

    John 17:13 kai; tau ̀ta lalw' ej n tw' / kovsmw i{ na e] cwsin th; n xara ̀nand these-things I-speak in the world in-order-that they-might-have the joy

    th; n ejmh; n peplhrwmev nhn ej n eJautoi`~.the of-me made-full in themselves.

    Since ej cwsin (‘have’) is clearly not logophoric, one must understand

    the prepositional phrase ej n eJautoi`~ (‘in themselves’) to be governed notby the participle but by the matrix verb e[ cwsin . «And I say these thingsin the world in order that they might have in themselves my joy madefull.» Other manuscripts (P66 a D L Q 054 f 1.(13) M) have the personalpronoun which then becomes part of the participial clause: «And I say these things in the world in order that they might have my joy made fullin them.»

    Doubtful Cases

    Verbs meaning ‘call’, ‘make’, ‘consider’, and ‘show’ take a double accu-sative object. The first is the direct object and the second is a predicate tothe first.

    Matt 4:19 poihvsw uJma~̀ aJliei`~ aj nqrwv pwn.I-will-make you fishers of-people.

    This is different from the syntax of Rev 2:2 (repeated below for con-venience) in which the first accusative ( eJautou;~) is not the direct objectbut the subject of an omitted infinitive.

    56 Patrick A. Tiller

  • 8/20/2019 Reflexive Pronouns in the New Testament (Patrick a. Tiller)

    15/21

    Rev 2:2 kai; ej peivrasa~ tou; ~ lev gonta~ eJautou;~ aj postovlou~ ...and you-have-tested the ones-who-say themselves apostles ...

    And you have tested those who say that they are apostles ...

    It is possible to confuse these two constructions, either when a comple-mentary infinitival clause lacks its infinitive or when a double infinitive con-struction has the infinitive ei\ nai (‘to be’). Presumably, in the case of a realdouble accusative, the underlying structure would be something like «I willmake you that you will be fishers of people.» There is at least one verifiablesyntactic difference in surface structure. The primary direct object in a dou-ble accusative may not be omitted but the accusative subject of a logophoriccomplementary infinitive may. In the following examples, then, the reflexivesare normal direct reflexives, co-referent with the subject of their own clauses.

    1 Tim 5:22 seauto; n aJ gno; n thvrei.yourself pure keep (imperative).Keep yourself pure.

    2 Cor 4:5 Ouj ga;r eJautou;~ khruvssomen ajlla; ’Ihsou ̀n Cristo; n kuvrion,Not for ourselves we-proclaim but Jesus Christ Lord,

    eJautou;~ de; douvlou~ uJmw' n dia; ’Ihsou` n.ourselves but servants of-you because-of Jesus.For we do not proclaim ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord andourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake.

    The following examples are probably double accusatives, but couldpossible be understood as complement clauses of logophoric verbs in

    which the infinitive ei\ nai (‘to be’) must be supplied. If so, verbs whichare not normally logophoric have been used as if they were.

    John 19:7 uiJo; n qeou ̀ eJauto; n ej poiv hsen.son of-God himself he-made.He made himself the Son of God.

    Tit 2:7 seauto; n parecovmeno~ tuv pon kalw' n e[rgwn ...yourself showing example of-good works ...Showing yourself as an example of good works ...

    Gal 2:18 parabav thn ejmauto; n sunistav nw.transgressor myself I-demonstrate.I demonstrate myself as a transgressor

    According to Blass, the infinitive in the next verse is harsh17.

    2 Cor 7:11 ej n pav nti sunesthv sate eJ autou;~ aJ gnou;~ ei\ nai tw' / prav gmati.In everything you-demonstrated yourselves holy to-be (in)-thematter.

    17 Blass-Debrunner, 106.

    Reflexive Pronouns in New Testament 57

  • 8/20/2019 Reflexive Pronouns in the New Testament (Patrick a. Tiller)

    16/21

    It should be a simple double accusative in which the underlying infini-tive is not omitted. In this context, however, Paul means to say that they

    demonstrated something that they consciously wished to communicate.The verb, then, in this context is logophoric.The reflexive in the next example is peculiar.

    1 Cor 7:7 qevlw de; pav nta~ aj nqrwv pou~ ei\ nai wJ~ kai; ejmauto; n:I-want but all people to-be as also myself;

    wJ~ kai; ejmautov n is an abbreviated clause meaning «as I am.» Since thereflexive is in the accusative case, it must be grammatically either a directobject or the accusative subject of an infinitive. Since there is no transi-tive verb that could be supplied, it must be the subject of an impliedinfinitive ei\ nai (‘to be’). On the other hand, the phrase should not beunderstood to be derived from an underlying wJ~ kai; qevlw ejmauto; n

    ei\ nai (‘as also I want myself to be’) because that is not what Paul meanshere. The next verse is exactly parallel, except that the pronoun in ques-tion remains nominative and not reflexive.

    1 Cor 7:8 kalo; n auj toi`~ eja; n meiv nwsin wJ~ kagwv:(It is ) good for-them if they-remain as also-I (am)

    In vs. 7, an underlying wJ~ kagwv(kaiv[‘also’] + ej gwv [‘I’]) has becomewJ~ kai; ejmautov n because of its association with the complement clause of qevlw (‘I want’).qevlw is not a logophoric verb and it does not trigger indi-rect or logophoric reflexives because it represents the subject’s thought of

    what is potential only. But herewJ~ kai; ejmautov n is not a potentiality inPaul’s mind but an actuality. It is therefore a logophoric pronoun withouta true logophoric verb. It may be possible to make sense of this by sup-posing that there is an implied verb (‘to say’) that controls the clause andtriggers the pronoun to be logophoric: «But I want all people to be as also(I say that) I am.»

    We have now examined all of the true indirect reflexives in the NT.Every one of them can be explained as logophoric pronouns. Since theredoes not seem to be any other principle that can satisfactorily explain the

    use and non-use of indirect reflexives, we must conclude that this is thecorrect explanation.

    The syntax of the reflexive

    Now that we know what can trigger a reflexive we must consider whatpronouns can be triggered. For this discussion I will limit myself to the «gen-uine» Pauline epistles and to third person reflexives, not reciprocals. In orderto further simplify the problem I will consider only direct reflexives. Thequestion is, when a pronoun is co-referent with its clausemate subject, under

    58 Patrick A. Tiller

  • 8/20/2019 Reflexive Pronouns in the New Testament (Patrick a. Tiller)

    17/21

    what conditions is it reflexive in form and under what conditions does itremain a personal pronoun in form. Because of the limitations of space, I

    will only be able to suggest a few patterns and explanations.

    Syntactic Constraints on Reflexives

    In the NT, virtually any clause-mate pronoun may be reflexive.Occasionally, a full noun will be in a position where a pronoun is expect-ed, especially in a very long sentence where the antecedent might be oth-erwise unclear. The reflexive may be directly governed by the VP or it may be governed by an NP or PP. If governed by the VP or PP it will almostnever be the personal pronoun 18. Phil 2:23 and Phil 3:21 are the only exceptions in Paul that I know of

    19

    .If the pronoun is governed directly by another NP (possessive geni-tive), it may be either reflexive or personal. But the comparative genitiveis always reflexive. Curiously, if the pronoun is governed by a PP that isin turn governed by a NP, then it will always be reflexive in Paul. Thus, itseems that the use of reflexives is normally subject to syntactic constraintsand that other considerations normally enter in only in the case of geni-tive NP’s that are governed by other NP’s.

    Rule 7 In the Pauline letters, if a pronoun is co-referent with thesubject of its clause then it will be reflexive in form, unlessit is governed directly by a noun in which case it may beeither a reflexive or personal pronoun.

    Non-syntactic Constraints on Reflexives

    In order to test for patterns in the use or non-use of reflexives whendirectly governed by another NP, I made a list of all such reflexives in Pauland then made a less exhaustive list for non-reflexives. Features that occurredin one list and not in the other, I assumed were relevant. Some of the fea-

    18 The Gospel of Matthew especially violates this in that it frequently has a personalpronoun where it «should» be reflexive (Matt 6:19; 17:27).

    19 I cite them here for reference but will not discuss them.Phil 2:23 wJ~ a] n afivdw ta; peri; ejme; ...

    when ever I-see the concerning me ...«Whenever I see how things are with me ...»

    Phil 3:21 tou ̀duv nasqai auj to; n kai; uJ potavxai auj tw' / ta; pav nta.(-) to-be-able him also to-subject to-him the all-things.«For him to be able to subject all things to himself.»

    Reflexive Pronouns in New Testament 59

  • 8/20/2019 Reflexive Pronouns in the New Testament (Patrick a. Tiller)

    18/21

    tures that I considered were impossible to test for. For example, all of the trig-gers of both lists were either human or God (except for one reflexive whose

    trigger was love, personified) so that it is impossible to know whetherhumanness has any effect. Since I was testing only for third person reflexivesI could not consider the relation of the speaker to the referent of the trigger,though it seems that reflexives are more frequent in the third person.

    Other features that I tested for (the definiteness of the trigger, wordorder) seemed irrelevant. Verbs that expressed the feeling of the referentof the trigger toward the NP that governs the reflexive never had a simplepersonal pronoun but in each case the reflexive could be adequately explained by other means.

    There were three features that seemed to result in the use of the reflex-ive. The first is that in every case where there was a contrast between thereferent of the pronoun and something else, the reflexive was used.

    1 Cor 10:29 suneivdhsin de; lev gw ouci; th; n eJautou ̀ ajlla; th; n tou ̀eJ tevrou.conscience but I-say not the of-yourself but the of-the other.Now I do not mean your own conscience but that of the other.

    The syntax of this was explained above. What is important to see hereis that what determines the use of the reflexive is that it is contrasted with

    tou ̀eJ tevrou (‘the other’). A frequent example of this is with the phrase ta; eJautw' n (‘ones own things’).

    Phil 2:21 oiJ pav nte~ ga;r ta; eJautw' n zhtou s̀in, ouj ta;’

    Ihsou ̀the all for the-things of-themselves seek, not the-things of-JesusCristou`.Christ.For everyone seeks his own interests and not those of Jesus Christ.

    In this case the general issue seems to be focus. Contrast necessarily puts the focus on the items being contrasted.

    The second and third factors are not, by themselves, sufficient reasonsto use the reflexive, but only when used in combination. The second fac-tor that seems to affect the choice of reflexive is that if the trigger is also

    the agent of the action that is received by the pronoun, then the pronounis more likely to be reflexive. The third factor is that if the referent of theNP that governs the pronoun is part of the body or family of the referentof the trigger, then the reflexive is likely to be used20. Neither the secondnor the third factor is sufficient in itself to trigger a reflexive. In each of the following examples, both of these factors are present.

    20 Possibly one should add that the referent of the trigger should be aware of his orher relation to the referent of the NP that governs the pronoun or that the statementmust be made from the point of view of the referent of the trigger.

    60 Patrick A. Tiller

  • 8/20/2019 Reflexive Pronouns in the New Testament (Patrick a. Tiller)

    19/21

  • 8/20/2019 Reflexive Pronouns in the New Testament (Patrick a. Tiller)

    20/21

    This passage demonstrates both the application of the rule and the prob-lems with it. Clearly, when one «stands steadfast in his heart,» one is not the

    agent of action that is received by the heart, and so the reflexive is not used.It is equally clear that the virgin who is kept does directly receive the actionof the «keeper.» And so the reflexive is used. But in the case of acting inde-cently toward ones virgin, the virgin does not seem to be entirely outside of the line of action; one would expect the reflexive. In the light of the nextcounter-example, it may be that the indefiniteness of the subject may havesome influence on the choice of the non-reflexive in marginal cases.

    1 Cor 11:4 pa ~̀ aj nh;r proseucovmeno~ h\ profhteuv wn kata; kefalh` ~ e[ cwnevery man praying or prophesying on head having kataiscuv nei th; n kefalh; n auj tou .̀

    shames the head of-him.Every man who has something on his head while praying orprophesying shames his head.

    According to rule (8), this should be reflexive. Perhaps the fact that thetrigger is as indefinite as possible influences the choice of the personalpronoun. But this is not consistent. Other examples that seem equally indefinite have the reflexive. More likely it is because the verb expressesthe point of view of the speaker and not that of the trigger.

    In the next verse ajdelfov n (‘brother’) is used metaphorically of fellow members of the church. It may be that the reflexive was not used because«brother» is used metaphorically. It does seem that the brother (the NPthat governs the pronoun) directly receives the action of which the poten-tial trigger is the agent.

    1 Thess 4:6 to; mh; uJ perbaiv nein kai; pleonektei ̀n ej n tw' / prav gmatithe not to-transgress and defraud in the matter

    to; n ajdelfo; n auj tou ̀...the brother of-him ...Not to transgress and defraud his brother in this matter ...

    It is possible that the reflexive is not used here because the transgres-sion and fraud are expressed from the point of view of the writer and notthat of the subject of the sentence.

    These conclusions have some significance for one’s understanding of the next verse, which uses the reflexive according to rule (8,2).

    Gal 6:8 oJ speivrwn eij~ th; n savrka eJautou ̀ ejk th;~ sarko;~the one-who-sows to the flesh of-himself, from the fleshqerivsei fqorav n ...he-shall-reap corruption ...

    According to Eduard Schweizer,

    62 Patrick A. Tiller

  • 8/20/2019 Reflexive Pronouns in the New Testament (Patrick a. Tiller)

    21/21

    Man’s building on the flesh is sinful. This is called sowing to the fleshin Gl. 6:8. If the savrx brings fqorav, it is in the first instance a compre-hensive expression for all that in which man puts his trust. In antitheticalparallelism to pneum̀a, however,savrx approximates to the idea of a [non-mythological] power which works on man and determines his destiny even beyond life on earth22.

    Schweizer interprets the use of the reflexive withsavrc and not with pneum̀a as follows: «This shows that the norm of the Spirit by which a man directs his life is not his own possibility but an alien possibility granted to him 23.»

    However, according to my rule (8), the reason for the reflexive withsavrx is not because flesh, unlike spirit, is not an alien possibility. Ratherit is becausesavrx (‘flesh’) is the recipient of the action of which the trig-ger is the agent (it receives the sowing) and because it is a body part of thereferent of the trigger. This means thatsavrx cannot be «all that in whichman puts his trust» nor «a power which works on man and determines hisdestiny.» This is consistent with the understanding of Galatians aspolemicizing against rituals of bodily purity such as circumcision, kosherfoods, and the keeping of the Sabbath and other holy days.

    Conclusions

    In this paper I have investigated that syntactic and semantic con-straints on the use of reflexives. I have certainly not solved all of the prob-lems, but I have discovered a few basic principles that determine under

    what conditions a reflexive pronoun will be used. I will not summarizemy conclusions since they can be easily reviewed by looking over my eightrules and three definitions. Instead I will merely mention a few notewor-thy observations that deserve further consideration.

    1. Almost all generalizations that one might make concerning reflex-ives are wrong.

    2. One must distinguish between reflexives and reciprocals; betweenfirst, second, and third person pronouns; and between various authors.

    3. On the other hand, the NT authors seem to be surprisingly consis-tent in their constraints on triggers.4. Point of view and focus seem to be important semantic constraints

    when the use of the reflexive form is syntantically optional.

    22 Eduard Schweizer, «savrx,» TDNT 7 (1971) 132.23 Eduard Schweizer, « pneum̀a, pneumatikov~,» TDNT 6 (1968) 430.

    Reflexive Pronouns in New Testament 63