An Exegetical Examination of Adverbial and Adjectival Functions of πρῶτον, πρῶτος, and πρότερον in the New Testament
This exegetical study of ‘An Exegetical Examination of Adverbial and Adjectival Functions of πρῶτον, πρῶτος, and πρότερον in the New Testament’ is based on a b-greek discussion from an unspecified date. The discussion initiates with a fundamental inquiry into the syntactic behavior of adverbs, specifically how to discern their modification targets, which appear to range from complete clauses to specific verbal, adverbial, or even nominal constructions. The original query expresses uncertainty regarding the accuracy of this broad understanding of adverbial modification and seeks clarification on differentiating between these various possibilities.
The central exegetical issue revolves around the precise categorization and functional analysis of Greek terms related to “first” or “before,” namely πρῶτον (adverbial/adjectival neuter), πρότερον (adverbial), and πρῶτος (adjectival, but often used adverbially). The difficulty arises from their overlapping semantic domains and the potential for syntactic ambiguity in various New Testament contexts. The original query highlights specific passages (e.g., Rom 1:8, 1 Cor 15:46, John 1:41) where the function of these terms is not immediately clear, leading to questions about whether they modify verbs, entire clauses, or act as adjectives, sometimes with an adverbial force. Discerning the exact grammatical role and semantic scope of these terms is crucial for accurate interpretation and translation.
For a detailed examination, we will focus on 1 Corinthians 15:46, a passage explicitly identified in the original discussion as problematic regarding the function of πρῶτον.
Greek text (Nestle 1904)
ἀλλ’ οὐ πρῶτον τὸ πνευματικὸν ἀλλὰ τὸ ψυχικὸν ἔπειτα τὸ πνευματικόν.
Key differences with SBLGNT (2010):
- SBLGNT uses an apostrophe (ἀλλ᾽) instead of the elision mark (ἀλλ’).
- SBLGNT includes commas after πνευματικόν and ψυχικόν, which are matters of modern punctuation rather than textual variants.
No substantial textual variants impacting the meaning of πρῶτον are found in this verse.
Textual Criticism (NA28) and Lexical Notes
The critical apparatus of NA28 confirms the reading of 1 Corinthians 15:46 as presented in Nestle 1904, with no significant textual variants affecting the word πρῶτον or its immediate context. This indicates a high degree of textual stability for this particular phrase.
Lexical Notes:
- πρῶτον (neuter singular of πρῶτος, used adverbially): BDAG defines this as an adverb meaning first, before, pertaining to order or rank, or at first, formerly, previously, pertaining to time. It typically modifies verbs or entire clauses, indicating initial position in a sequence or priority. KITTEL (TDNT) emphasizes its function in marking the beginning of a series or a primary point, often with a temporal or logical sense of “first of all.”
- πρῶτος (adjective): BDAG defines this as an adjective meaning first, of order, rank, or time. While primarily an adjective, it is frequently used adverbially, especially in the nominative singular (e.g., πρῶτος for a masculine subject, πρώτη for a feminine, πρῶτον for a neuter). When used adverbially, it often carries the sense of “first to do something” or “being the first one to do something,” attaching a sense of priority or initiative to the subject rather than merely modifying a verb’s action.
- πρότερον (adverb): BDAG defines this as an adverb meaning before, earlier, formerly. It is the neuter singular comparative form of πρό and strongly denotes temporal priority or anteriority. KITTEL (TDNT) notes its clear focus on temporal precedence.
The distinction between πρῶτον (adverb) and πρῶτος (adjective used adverbially) is subtle but important. πρῶτον as an adverb modifies the verb or clause, signifying “firstly” in a sequence. πρῶτος (and its other gender forms) used adverbially tends to modify the subject, indicating that the subject *itself* is the first one involved in the action, thus carrying a stronger implication of agency or identity associated with the “firstness.”
Translation Variants with Grammatical & Rhetorical Analysis
In 1 Corinthians 15:46, Paul is articulating a crucial sequence concerning the nature of resurrection bodies. The passage states: ἀλλ’ οὐ πρῶτον τὸ πνευματικὸν ἀλλὰ τὸ ψυχικὸν ἔπειτα τὸ πνευματικόν.
Grammatically, πρῶτον here functions as an adverb, modifying an implied verb of existence or appearance, likely ‘is’ or ‘comes into being.’ The phrase τὸ πνευματικόν acts as the subject. The structure ἀλλ’ οὐ . . . ἀλλὰ . . . ἔπειτα . . . establishes a clear antithesis and a chronological or logical sequence. Paul explicitly denies that the spiritual comes first, asserting instead that the physical/soulish precedes it.
The word ψυχικόν refers to that which pertains to the psyche (soul), often translated as “physical,” “natural,” or “soulish,” indicating a body animated by the natural life principle, in contrast to πνευματικόν, which pertains to the pneuma (spirit), signifying a body animated by the divine Spirit. The adverb ἔπειτα (“then,” “afterward”) unequivocally marks the subsequent stage in this ordered development.
Rhetorically, Paul is correcting a potential misunderstanding among the Corinthians regarding the sequence of the resurrection body. He emphasizes that the natural, perishable body (τὸ ψυχικόν) must precede the spiritual, imperishable body (τὸ πνευματικόν). The negative particle οὐ directly negates the idea of the spiritual coming first, underscoring the divine order of creation and redemption. The emphasis is on a necessary progression, not merely a preference.
Conclusions and Translation Suggestions
Based on the textual and lexical analysis, the use of πρῶτον in 1 Corinthians 15:46 is clearly adverbial, indicating a temporal or sequential priority. The distinction between an adverb like πρῶτον and an adjective like πρῶτος (even when used adverbially) is subtle but significant. While πρῶτον emphasizes the *order* of an action or state, πρῶτος used adverbially tends to emphasize the *identity* of the one who is first to act. In 1 Corinthians 15:46, πρῶτον unequivocally establishes the initial element in a sequence. The broader question of adverbial modification is indeed complex, requiring careful contextual analysis, as adverbs can modify various elements from single verbs to entire clauses, and the specific intent is often gleaned from the surrounding discourse.
Here are three translation suggestions for 1 Corinthians 15:46, reflecting various nuances:
- “However, the spiritual did not come first, but the soulish; afterward, the spiritual.”
This rendering emphasizes the temporal sequence of the resurrection bodies, using ‘did come’ to clarify the dynamic aspect of πρῶτον. - “But it is not the spiritual that is first, but the natural; then the spiritual.”
This translation focuses on the state of being (“is first”) and uses “natural” for ψυχικόν, clearly contrasting it with “spiritual.” - “Yet the spiritual is not given priority at the outset, but the physical; subsequently, the spiritual.”
This option brings out the idea of initial precedence or order (“at the outset”) and employs “subsequently” to mirror the sequential force of ἔπειτα.
For three days (biblical accounting) this message has lain unanswered in my inbox. Perhaps my own tentative response will stir the dust a bit and evoke some alternative views on the question. General questions like this tend to simmer or fester or whatever a while before being taken off the burner or treated or whatever. It’s different with specific texts about which specific questions are raised: everybody knows what he/she thinks about the question — almost without thinking at all!
The dead grammarians (myself included?) used to say (as I still do) that an adverb can and does modify an adjective, a noun, or another adverb — or any phrase or clause that functions adjectivally, nominally, or adverbially. One live grammarian I know likes to speak — and I think he’s right — of adverbs functioning as sentence modifiers.
I might add TO PRWTON, perhaps even TA PRWTA to that list.
But then, I would quickly go on (before somebody beats me to it (you know who you are!):
(1) whether any of the forms you have listed functions adverbially can be answered only when it appears within a context. They don’t function at all adverbially or adjectivally in isolation from a context.
(2) I personally would not consider how to English any particular word or expression until I have understood it in its Greek context; that’s why I tend to think that glossaries are of little real help.
I’d be more inclined to say that TO PROTERON as an adverbial phrase modifies the whole adverbial clause hOPOU HN, but you could perhaps as well say it modifies simply HN. Of course hOPOU HN TO PROTERON is a relative adverbial clause modifying an implicit EKEI.
I’d take PROTERON to modify hUPER TWIN IDIWN hAMARTIWN and EPEITA to modify (hUPER) TWN TOU LAOU (hAMARTIWN).
Yes. But again, it seems to me you’re putting the cart before the horse, talking about what the English translated word modifies. I’d prefer to talk wholly in terms of the Greek.
I’d understand PRWTON here as governing everything from verse 8 through verse 12. Verse 13 with its DE answers the PRWTON MEN of verse 8. And here I’d say that PRWTON governs the whole sequence. It could be Englished, “First of all … ” or “In the first place … ” or “(1) … ”
There’s a problem here of ellipsis. I’d say that OU PRWTON probably modifies an understood GINETAI or EGENETO, and that EPEITA works the same way.
I must say, this whole business of word-for-word translation is disturbing. As your initial question seems to indicate, you do readily understand that words do not signify by themselves but only in a context. First understand the Greek words as a sequential unit; if you want to translate, wait until after you clearly understand what the Greek says. Translation, I submit, is NOT a method of coming to understand what the Greek says.
Here again, I really think that adding these English glosses only obfuscates the problem under consideration.
I’d think that PRWTON governs TOUTO (words like this and MONON that restrict the preceding word often are used postpositively), but it could perhaps as well or better be said that MONON governs the whole participial phrase, TOUTO GINWSKONTES.
No, it doesn’t mean “this first one.” It means “he finds, before doing anything else” This is an idiomatic way that ordinal adjectives work in Greek — one must get used to it; they agree with the subject but function like adverbs. For example, hOUTOS ESCATOS HLQEN = “He got there last” or “He was the last one to arrive.” When you’ve read enough Greek, you won’t ask questions like this; you will see this sort of thing over and over.
This PRWTH has commonly been understood as an adverbial usage construed with EGENETO, “This registration first took place when Qurinius was governing Syria … ” That would be another instance of the adverbial usage of an ordinal adjective.
HOWEVER, this particular verse was the subect of a now celebrated blog entry by list-member Stephen Carlson, an eminent lawyer who is now teaching beginning Greek at Duke. Stephen has understood this verse in a different way and probably should, when he can find the time, either give the URL of his blog entry from two or three years back or briefly outline his understanding of this text. It is a very problematic text, and the URL of his blog entry would probably be very helpful. I don’t have it ready to hand.
One last thing (is that an adverb?): I would seriously urge you to drop the whole procedure of interposing English glosses between the Greek text under consideration and your effort to analyze the construction. The construction should be analyzed in the Greek text first; Englishing it can only make sense after the Greek text has come to make good sense to you.
Carl W. Conrad Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
That’s the right link. Thanks, Iver. The text continues to fascinate me.
Stephen
Dear all,
Yes I certainly agree that it is impossible to understand the Greek text through its English translation, but I am of the opinion that it is possible to understand the grammatical construction apart from the actual meaning by grouping the clauses, so I didn’t mean to say that it was the English words that modify each other, but rather that the grammatical function was equivalent. So I could do it entirely in Greek but since English is my first language I do think in English, although I understand the English words to be simply placeholders for the Greek…
Anyway, can I confirm some of the examples?
[John 6:62] “… anabainonta opou hn to proteron” I understand it to mean that “pou hn to proteron” = “[he] was previously somewhere” (did I use “pou” correctly?) and therefore “ton uion tou anqrwpou” is described as “anabainonta X” where X is “opou hn to proteron”
[1 Cor 15:46] “all ou prwton to pneumatikon alla to yucikon epeita to pneumatikon” Am I right to say that you understand it to imply “ou estin/ginetai prwton to pneumatikon” and “epeita estin/ginetai to pneumatikon”? I also think so, based on the parallel, but how would one know that it does not mean “to pneumatikon ou estin to prwton”?
[2 Pet 1:20] “touto prwton ginwskontes …” So it means first “touto ginwskontes” before anything else? Rather than “ginwskontes prwton touto … epeita ekeino …”?
As for the adjectives, are “euriskei outos prwtos” and “prwton euriskei outos” equivalent then?
Thanks!
David Lim
But in not a few cases the Greek construction has no English equivalent. Greek’s distinctive structures can be reproduced in English — that’s what woodenly literal translations ordinarily achieve. Participles, for instance, are workhorses in Greek narrative and exposition. The bane of ancient Greek pedagogy is the endeavor to read Greek while thinking in English or another language that’s not structured like Greek. The objective in learning ancient Greek must be understanding the structures in which the Greek mind thinks.
Yes. hOPOU HN TO PROTERON is adverbial with the ptc. ANABAINONTA
Well, for one thing, TO PNEUMATIKON OUK ESTIN TO PRWTON is an un-greek sentence, in terms of word-order; it’s possible but its natural meaning would be either “the spiritual is not the first thing” or “the first thing is not the spiritual” — that is to say, TO PRWTON in this instance would ordinarily appear a substantive, not an adverb.
The EPEITA indicates “next in sequence.”
Well, yes — except that Greek idiom prefers the former. That is to say, it tends to use the adjectival form of an ordinal in the nominative rather than an ordinal adverb with a verb of action.
Dear all,
something like that in order to say “the spiritual is not the first thing”. For example if he wanted to say “the spiritual is not first but second” could he say “all ou prwton to pneumatikon alla deuteron”, or does he have to say “all to pneumatikon ou prwton alla deuteron”?
completely identical?
Thanks a lot,
David Lim
Carl — When you wrote the following, didn’t you intend to say “verb” instead of “noun” in reference to the categories an adverb can modify? Here’s what you wrote::
The dead grammarians (myself included?) used to say (as I still do) that an adverb can and does modify an adjective, a *noun*, or another adverb — or any phrase or clause that functions adjectivally, nominally, or adverbially. One live grammarian I know likes to speak — and I think he’s right — of adverbs functioning as sentence modifiers.
Jawohl! Genau so. Yes. And thanks for watching out for a doddering old dead grammarian!
Carl
href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected] href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected]
Carl W. Conrad Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
Or more likely, ALL’ OU MEN PRWTON TO PNEUMATIKON, DEUTERON DE.
They might be identical in meaning, but the Greek author would ordinarily write hEURISKEI hOUTOS PRWTOS, not PRWTON hEURISKEI hOUTOS. That is to say, the latter is not what a Greek would ordinarily say, although he might conceivably write PRWTON MEN hEURISKEI hOUTOS … EPEITA DE (ALLO TI PRATTEI).
Carl W. Conrad Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
Hi, Carl — You’re quite welcome.
I sent my note offlist to you just in case I myself misunderstood what you had written. And, BTW, if you are indeed a “dead” grammarian, you certainly have ME fooled! Have a great day — I always love to read your posts but usually I’m just lurking.
But the Majority Text has PRWTOS. Tischendorf has it too.
This is another instance where I would protest against supposing that the GNT is an adequate database for Koine usage in a matter of this sort. As a guess, I would expect to find the adjective with a verb of action when it refers to temporal sequence in more literary Greek, and that the adverbial form PRWTOS might be more common in colloquial usage.
BDF #243:
(2) PREDICATE ADJECTIVE CORRESPONDING TO AN ADVERB (OR PREPOSITIONAL PHRASE)
243. In classical Greek a predicate adjective appears in certain expressions added to the predicate which correspond to an adverb or prepositional phrase in English. This idiom is rare in the NT, most of the instances being in Lk. The adjective μόνος and the adverb μόνον, which have already grown close in classical, are occasionally confused.—Mayser II 2, 173f., 174f.
Adj. of time: δευτεραῖοι ἤλθομεν ‘on the second day’ A 2
href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected]
Carl W. Conrad Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
Dear Iver and all,
I did the same as you, but I could not find conclusive evidence of the difference, at least in the new testament. Although my initial thought on seeing that “prwtos” was declined as an adjective was that it should “modify” the noun as you stated, I could not find an occurrence in the new testament where it was unlikely to act as an adverb “modifying” the verb. So do you have any particular examples? And if “prwtos” does modify “outos”, is it possible that it could mean that Andrew was the first to find his own brother (implying either that John later found his or that others like Philip would also find their own brother) or that Andrew was the first to find someone else in general (implying that others later would also bring people to Jesus)? On the assumption that the other of the two is the author of the gospel and that Philip is the brother or at least close to Nathanael, I would favour the former as the implied meaning. Or have I misunderstood?
Regards, David Lim
href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected]>
For three days (biblical accounting) this message has lain unanswered in my inbox. Perhaps my own tentative response will stir the dust a bit and evoke some alternative views on the question. General questions like this tend to simmer or fester or whatever a while before being taken off the burner or treated or whatever. It’s different with specific texts about which specific questions are raised: everybody knows what he/she thinks about the question — almost without thinking at all!
The dead grammarians (myself included?) used to say (as I still do) that an adverb can and does modify an adjective, a noun, or another adverb — or any phrase or clause that functions adjectivally, nominally, or adverbially. One live grammarian I know likes to speak — and I think he’s right — of adverbs functioning as sentence modifiers.
I might add TO PRWTON, perhaps even TA PRWTA to that list.
But then, I would quickly go on (before somebody beats me to it (you know who you are!):
(1) whether any of the forms you have listed functions adverbially can be answered only when it appears within a context. They don’t function at all adverbially or adjectivally in isolation from a context.
(2) I personally would not consider how to English any particular word or expression until I have understood it in its Greek context; that’s why I tend to think that glossaries are of little real help.
I’d be more inclined to say that TO PROTERON as an adverbial phrase modifies the whole adverbial clause hOPOU HN, but you could perhaps as well say it modifies simply HN. Of course hOPOU HN TO PROTERON is a relative adverbial clause modifying an implicit EKEI.
I’d take PROTERON to modify hUPER TWIN IDIWN hAMARTIWN and EPEITA to modify (hUPER) TWN TOU LAOU (hAMARTIWN).
Yes. But again, it seems to me you’re putting the cart before the horse, talking about what the English translated word modifies. I’d prefer to talk wholly in terms of the Greek.
I’d understand PRWTON here as governing everything from verse 8 through verse 12. Verse 13 with its DE answers the PRWTON MEN of verse 8. And here I’d say that PRWTON governs the whole sequence. It could be Englished, “First of all … ” or “In the first place … ” or “(1) … ”
There’s a problem here of ellipsis. I’d say that OU PRWTON probably modifies an understood GINETAI or EGENETO, and that EPEITA works the same way.
I must say, this whole business of word-for-word translation is disturbing. As your initial question seems to indicate, you do readily understand that words do not signify by themselves but only in a context. First understand the Greek words as a sequential unit; if you want to translate, wait until after you clearly understand what the Greek says. Translation, I submit, is NOT a method of coming to understand what the Greek says.
Here again, I really think that adding these English glosses only obfuscates the problem under consideration.
I’d think that PRWTON governs TOUTO (words like this and MONON that restrict the preceding word often are used postpositively), but it could perhaps as well or better be said that MONON governs the whole participial phrase, TOUTO GINWSKONTES.
No, it doesn’t mean “this first one.” It means “he finds, before doing anything else” This is an idiomatic way that ordinal adjectives work in Greek — one must get used to it; they agree with the subject but function like adverbs. For example, hOUTOS ESCATOS HLQEN = “He got there last” or “He was the last one to arrive.” When you’ve read enough Greek, you won’t ask questions like this; you will see this sort of thing over and over.
This PRWTH has commonly been understood as an adverbial usage construed with EGENETO, “This registration first took place when Qurinius was governing Syria … ” That would be another instance of the adverbial usage of an ordinal adjective.
HOWEVER, this particular verse was the subect of a now celebrated blog entry by list-member Stephen Carlson, an eminent lawyer who is now teaching beginning Greek at Duke. Stephen has understood this verse in a different way and probably should, when he can find the time, either give the URL of his blog entry from two or three years back or briefly outline his understanding of this text. It is a very problematic text, and the URL of his blog entry would probably be very helpful. I don’t have it ready to hand.
One last thing (is that an adverb?): I would seriously urge you to drop the whole procedure of interposing English glosses between the Greek text under consideration and your effort to analyze the construction. The construction should be analyzed in the Greek text first; Englishing it can only make sense after the Greek text has come to make good sense to you.
Carl W. Conrad Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
That’s the right link. Thanks, Iver. The text continues to fascinate me.
Stephen
Dear all,
Yes I certainly agree that it is impossible to understand the Greek text through its English translation, but I am of the opinion that it is possible to understand the grammatical construction apart from the actual meaning by grouping the clauses, so I didn’t mean to say that it was the English words that modify each other, but rather that the grammatical function was equivalent. So I could do it entirely in Greek but since English is my first language I do think in English, although I understand the English words to be simply placeholders for the Greek…
Anyway, can I confirm some of the examples?
[John 6:62] “… anabainonta opou hn to proteron” I understand it to mean that “pou hn to proteron” = “[he] was previously somewhere” (did I use “pou” correctly?) and therefore “ton uion tou anqrwpou” is described as “anabainonta X” where X is “opou hn to proteron”
[1 Cor 15:46] “all ou prwton to pneumatikon alla to yucikon epeita to pneumatikon” Am I right to say that you understand it to imply “ou estin/ginetai prwton to pneumatikon” and “epeita estin/ginetai to pneumatikon”? I also think so, based on the parallel, but how would one know that it does not mean “to pneumatikon ou estin to prwton”?
[2 Pet 1:20] “touto prwton ginwskontes …” So it means first “touto ginwskontes” before anything else? Rather than “ginwskontes prwton touto … epeita ekeino …”?
As for the adjectives, are “euriskei outos prwtos” and “prwton euriskei outos” equivalent then?
Thanks!
David Lim
But in not a few cases the Greek construction has no English equivalent. Greek’s distinctive structures can be reproduced in English — that’s what woodenly literal translations ordinarily achieve. Participles, for instance, are workhorses in Greek narrative and exposition. The bane of ancient Greek pedagogy is the endeavor to read Greek while thinking in English or another language that’s not structured like Greek. The objective in learning ancient Greek must be understanding the structures in which the Greek mind thinks.
Yes. hOPOU HN TO PROTERON is adverbial with the ptc. ANABAINONTA
Well, for one thing, TO PNEUMATIKON OUK ESTIN TO PRWTON is an un-greek sentence, in terms of word-order; it’s possible but its natural meaning would be either “the spiritual is not the first thing” or “the first thing is not the spiritual” — that is to say, TO PRWTON in this instance would ordinarily appear a substantive, not an adverb.
The EPEITA indicates “next in sequence.”
Well, yes — except that Greek idiom prefers the former. That is to say, it tends to use the adjectival form of an ordinal in the nominative rather than an ordinal adverb with a verb of action.
Dear all,
something like that in order to say “the spiritual is not the first thing”. For example if he wanted to say “the spiritual is not first but second” could he say “all ou prwton to pneumatikon alla deuteron”, or does he have to say “all to pneumatikon ou prwton alla deuteron”?
completely identical?
Thanks a lot,
David Lim
Carl — When you wrote the following, didn’t you intend to say “verb” instead of “noun” in reference to the categories an adverb can modify? Here’s what you wrote::
The dead grammarians (myself included?) used to say (as I still do) that an adverb can and does modify an adjective, a *noun*, or another adverb — or any phrase or clause that functions adjectivally, nominally, or adverbially. One live grammarian I know likes to speak — and I think he’s right — of adverbs functioning as sentence modifiers.
Jawohl! Genau so. Yes. And thanks for watching out for a doddering old dead grammarian!
Carl
href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected] href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected]
Carl W. Conrad Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
Or more likely, ALL’ OU MEN PRWTON TO PNEUMATIKON, DEUTERON DE.
They might be identical in meaning, but the Greek author would ordinarily write hEURISKEI hOUTOS PRWTOS, not PRWTON hEURISKEI hOUTOS. That is to say, the latter is not what a Greek would ordinarily say, although he might conceivably write PRWTON MEN hEURISKEI hOUTOS … EPEITA DE (ALLO TI PRATTEI).
Carl W. Conrad Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
Hi, Carl — You’re quite welcome.
I sent my note offlist to you just in case I myself misunderstood what you had written. And, BTW, if you are indeed a “dead” grammarian, you certainly have ME fooled! Have a great day — I always love to read your posts but usually I’m just lurking.
But the Majority Text has PRWTOS. Tischendorf has it too.
This is another instance where I would protest against supposing that the GNT is an adequate database for Koine usage in a matter of this sort. As a guess, I would expect to find the adjective with a verb of action when it refers to temporal sequence in more literary Greek, and that the adverbial form PRWTOS might be more common in colloquial usage.
BDF #243:
(2) PREDICATE ADJECTIVE CORRESPONDING TO AN ADVERB (OR PREPOSITIONAL PHRASE)
243. In classical Greek a predicate adjective appears in certain expressions added to the predicate which correspond to an adverb or prepositional phrase in English. This idiom is rare in the NT, most of the instances being in Lk. The adjective μόνος and the adverb μόνον, which have already grown close in classical, are occasionally confused.—Mayser II 2, 173f., 174f.
Adj. of time: δευτεραῖοι ἤλθομεν ‘on the second day’ A 2
href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected]
Carl W. Conrad Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
Dear Iver and all,
I did the same as you, but I could not find conclusive evidence of the difference, at least in the new testament. Although my initial thought on seeing that “prwtos” was declined as an adjective was that it should “modify” the noun as you stated, I could not find an occurrence in the new testament where it was unlikely to act as an adverb “modifying” the verb. So do you have any particular examples? And if “prwtos” does modify “outos”, is it possible that it could mean that Andrew was the first to find his own brother (implying either that John later found his or that others like Philip would also find their own brother) or that Andrew was the first to find someone else in general (implying that others later would also bring people to Jesus)? On the assumption that the other of the two is the author of the gospel and that Philip is the brother or at least close to Nathanael, I would favour the former as the implied meaning. Or have I misunderstood?
Regards, David Lim
href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected]>