An Exegetical Analysis of Grammatical Concord and Periphrastic Construction in Luke 2:33
This exegetical study of An Exegetical Analysis of Grammatical Concord and Periphrastic Construction in Luke 2:33 is based on a b-greek discussion from February 14th, 2013. The initial inquiry focuses on Luke 2:33, noting the apparent lack of grammatical concord where the main verb ἦν (imperfect indicative, singular) is singular while its compound subject ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἡ μήτηρ (his father and mother) is plural, as is the modifying participle θαυμάζοντες (present active participle, plural).
The central exegetical issue revolves around two primary grammatical phenomena. First, the singular finite verb with a plural, conjoined subject, and how this relates to the plural participle. Second, the potential for an imperfect periphrastic construction (ἦν + θαυμάζοντες) and whether the discord in number between the finite verb and the participle undermines this interpretation. Further questions arise regarding the possibility of anacoluthon or alternative explanations for the grammatical structure.
Greek text (Nestle 1904)
καὶ ἦν ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἡ μήτηρ θαυμάζοντες ἐπὶ τοῖς λαλουμένοις περὶ αὐτοῦ.
Key differences with SBLGNT (2010):
- There are no significant textual variants in Luke 2:33 between the Nestle 1904 edition and the SBLGNT (2010) edition. The text is consistently attested across critical editions.
Textual Criticism (NA28): The NA28 text for Luke 2:33 aligns completely with the Nestle 1904 edition provided above, indicating a stable textual tradition with no significant variants affecting the grammatical structure under examination. There is no evidence of scribal attempts to “correct” the apparent concord issue, suggesting the Greek as transmitted was considered acceptable by early copyists.
Lexical Notes:
- ἦν (ēn): The third person singular imperfect indicative of εἰμί (eimi, “to be”). Its singular form despite a plural subject is the primary grammatical puzzle.
- ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἡ μήτηρ (ho patēr autou kai hē mētēr): “his father and the mother.” This phrase functions as the plural subject, referring to Joseph and Mary. The use of ὁ πατήρ for Joseph prior to the explicit mention of Mary (ἡ μήτηρ) is consistent with Lukan narrative.
- θαυμάζοντες (thaumazontes): Present active participle, nominative masculine plural from θαυμάζω (thaumazō). BDAG (Bauer, Danker, Arndt, Gingrich, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature) defines θαυμάζω as “to be amazed, marvel, wonder.” The plural form clearly agrees with the plural subject.
- ἐπὶ τοῖς λαλουμένοις (epi tois laloumenois): “at the things being spoken.” The preposition ἐπί (epi) here takes the dative, signifying “at” or “over” in the sense of the object of amazement. λαλουμένοις is a present passive participle, dative plural, from λαλέω (laleō), meaning “to speak, to say.” (BDAG: “to produce sounds by mouth… to impart information, state something”).
- περὶ αὐτοῦ (peri autou): “concerning him.” The preposition περί (peri) with the genitive indicates “about, concerning” (BDAG: “pertaining to a certain matter”). Here it refers to Jesus.
While Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT) provides extensive theological discussion of terms like θαυμάζω and λαλέω, the primary issue in Luke 2:33 is grammatical rather than semantic or theological in terms of individual word meaning. The core problem lies in the syntax.
Translation Variants
The grammatical structure of Luke 2:33 presents a notable challenge for translation, primarily due to the apparent lack of concord between the singular finite verb ἦν (ēn) and its plural subject ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἡ μήτηρ (ho patēr autou kai hē mētēr), even though the accompanying participle θαυμάζοντες (thaumazontes) is correctly plural. This phenomenon raises questions about anacoluthon, the rules of Greek grammar for compound subjects, and the nature of periphrastic constructions.
A closer examination, informed by standard Greek grammars, provides a robust explanation for this construction, mitigating the need to posit anacoluthon. Blass-Debrunner-Funk (BDF) addresses such cases explicitly. BDF §135 (4) details rules for agreement with two or more co-ordinate words. Specifically, BDF §135(1)(a) notes that when a singular verb precedes the first subject in a singular + singular or singular + plural subject group, the verb may agree with the first subject, except when the subject-group is basically conceived as a whole. However, BDF §135(1)(d) is more directly applicable, stating that rules concerning the verb preceding the subject and a participle following the subject can be combined. More saliently, BDF §135(3) states, “Attributives (participles) which belong to two or more connected substantives customarily agree with the nearest.” In Luke 2:33, θαυμάζοντες, though following the compound subject, is plural, indicating it refers to both Joseph and Mary, rather than just the nearest noun (Mary) in isolation. This suggests that while the finite verb ἦν might follow a rule of proximity or emphasis on the first part of the subject (Joseph), the participle clearly embraces the full plural subject.
Furthermore, the construction ἦν… θαυμάζοντες is a prime example of an imperfect periphrastic construction. BDF §353 extensively discusses the use of forms of εἶναι with a present participle as periphrases, particularly common in Luke and Mark. BDF notes that while some classical parallels exist, the high frequency in the NT, especially in Luke, suggests strong influence from Semitic uses of such periphrases, which often carry a certain emphasis. The potential discord in number between the finite verb and the participle does not necessarily negate its periphrastic nature, particularly given the flexibility of concord rules for compound subjects in Hellenistic Greek. The plural participle θαυμάζοντες ensures that the action of “being amazed” is attributed to both Joseph and Mary, regardless of the singular form of ἦν.
The suggestion that the singular verb might elevate the social status of the first-mentioned subject (Joseph) is an interesting interpretive nuance, potentially drawing on sociological observations of ancient texts. However, the primary grammatical explanation rests on the flexibility of concord rules for compound subjects in Koine Greek, particularly when the verb precedes the full subject, and the clear function of the plural participle to include both individuals.
Therefore, there is no compelling grammatical reason to assume anacoluthon or a mid-sentence change in the writer’s thought. The structure, while initially appearing irregular to modern readers, falls within the accepted patterns of Hellenistic Greek as documented by grammarians.
Conclusions and Translation Suggestions
The grammatical structure of Luke 2:33, featuring a singular finite verb (ἦν) with a plural compound subject (ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἡ μήτηρ) and a plural participle (θαυμάζοντες), is best understood as a legitimate, albeit flexible, construction in Koine Greek. The phenomenon is accounted for by rules governing concord with co-ordinate subjects, especially when the verb precedes the subject. The presence of the plural participle unambiguously indicates that both Joseph and Mary are the subjects of amazement. This construction functions as an imperfect periphrastic, emphasizing the ongoing nature of their wonder.
Translation choices should reflect this ongoing amazement by both parents, without unnecessarily implying grammatical error or anacoluthon on the part of the Lukan author.
- 1. And his father and his mother were marveling at the things being said concerning him.
This translation uses a common English periphrastic equivalent (“were marveling”) to capture the ongoing action implied by the Greek imperfect periphrastic, while naturally resolving the concord issue by making the English verb plural. - 2. And his father and his mother continued to be amazed at what was being spoken about him.
This rendering emphasizes the continuous aspect of the imperfect periphrastic, highlighting the duration of their amazement. - 3. Now Joseph and Mary stood in amazement at the things that were being said about Jesus.
This idiomatic translation captures the state of being amazed without using a direct periphrastic, focusing on their posture or reaction. It also clarifies the identities for a modern audience without altering the core meaning.