Matthew 12:4

The Syntactic Function of ὃ in Matthew 12:4: An Exegetical Analysis

The Gospel of Matthew presents a notable exegetical challenge in 12:4 concerning the relative pronoun ὃ. In a passage recounting David’s consumption of the bread of the Presence, the seemingly straightforward narrative is complicated by the grammatical form of ὃ (neuter singular) in the clause ὃ οὐκ ἐξὸν ἦν αὐτῷ φαγεῖν οὐδὲ τοῖς μετ᾿ αὐτοῦ εἰ μὴ τοῖς ἱερεῦσιν μόνοις. This form stands in apparent disagreement with its most immediate and logical antecedent, τοὺς ἄρτους τῆς προθέσεως (masculine plural), prompting extensive discussion regarding its precise syntactic function and semantic nuance within the Matthean text. This exegesis will explore the various interpretations proposed for this construction, drawing upon textual criticism, grammatical analysis, and comparative examples from the New Testament and other Koine Greek literature.

πῶς εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὸν οἶκον τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τοὺς ἄρτους τῆς προθέσεως ἔφαγον, ὃ οὐκ ἐξὸν ἦν αὐτῷ φαγεῖν οὐδὲ τοῖς μετ᾿ αὐτοῦ εἰ μὴ τοῖς ἱερεῦσιν μόνοις;
(Nestle 1904)

Key differences with SBLGNT (2010):

• While critical editions such as Nestle 1904 and SBLGNT 2010 concur on the reading ὃ in Matthew 12:4, it is crucial to note the presence of οὓς in the parallel accounts of Mark 2:26 and Luke 6:4, which explicitly refers to τοὺς ἄρτους (masculine plural accusative).
• Furthermore, some manuscript traditions for Matthew 12:4, including Codex Sinaiticus (א) and certain Byzantine texts, also present οὓς, indicating a textual fluidity or a tendency towards grammatical harmonization in some early transmission streams.

Textual Criticism (NA28), Lexical Notes (KITTEL, BDAG)

The textual critical apparatus of NA28, reflecting the consensus of modern scholarship, retains ὃ (neuter singular accusative) as the preferred reading for Matthew 12:4, aligning with major uncials such as Vaticanus (B) and Ephraemi Rescriptus (C). The divergence with the parallel accounts in Mark 2:26 and Luke 6:4, both of which read οὓς (masculine plural accusative), highlights a significant redactional or stylistic choice by Matthew. This discrepancy raises questions regarding Matthew’s potential alteration of an earlier tradition (if Mark/Luke are prior) or the independent development of different textual streams, with a tendency in some later manuscripts to harmonize Matthew’s reading with the more grammatically expected οὓς.

Lexical Notes:

• ἄρτος (artos): BDAG defines ἄρτος as “bread,” referring here specifically to τοὺς ἄρτους τῆς προθέσεως, the “bread of the Presence” or “showbread.” This was a sacred bread set out in the tabernacle/temple, consumable only by priests (Lev 24:5-9). KITTEL (I, 621-623) notes the theological significance of ἄρτος in Jewish and Christian contexts, ranging from staple food to symbolic representation of God’s provision and presence, as well as its cultic use in sacred meals.
• ἔξεστιν (exestin): BDAG defines this as an impersonal verb meaning “it is permitted, it is lawful, it is possible.” It typically takes a dative case for the person(s) permitted and an infinitive for the action permitted (e.g., ἔξεστιν τινι ποιεῖν τι). The construction ἐξὸν ἦν is a common periphrastic form of the imperfect ἐξῆν, where the participle ἐξὸν functions adjectivally or as a predicate nominative, often with an implicit εἰμί/εἰσιν. KITTEL (II, 696-698) highlights its usage in ethical and legal contexts, defining what is permissible or forbidden by divine or human law, often in public discourse as seen in the disputes between Jesus and the Pharisees.
• φαγεῖν (phagein): BDAG defines this as the aorist infinitive of ἐσθίω, meaning “to eat.”

Translation Variants with Grammatical & Rhetorical Analysis

The grammatical analysis of ὃ in Matthew 12:4 has led to several distinct interpretations, each with implications for translation:

1. ὃ as Accusative Object of φαγεῖν with Neuter of General Reference

This interpretation posits that ὃ functions as the direct object of the infinitive φαγεῖν (“to eat”), despite its neuter singular form and the masculine plural τοὺς ἄρτους as its apparent antecedent. Proponents suggest that ὃ refers to the general concept or act of eating such bread, rather than the bread loaves themselves. The neuter singular is thus understood as a “neuter of general notion” (cf. James L. Boyer), encompassing the entire situation or the “thing” in question, implicitly referring to something like an “offering” (δῶρον) or a “sacrifice” (θῦμα) that summarized the cultic significance of the bread. This aligns with other New Testament examples where ὃ refers to a broader idea or action rather than a specific noun (e.g., Mark 10:9, 13:37, 1 John 1:1,3). The argument is that while grammatically incongruent with ἄρτους, it is semantically coherent with the prohibition. However, the lack of explicit plural agreement remains a grammatical tension.

2. ὃ as Accusative of Specification (Adverbial Use)

Another interpretation suggests that ὃ functions as an accusative of specification, similar to the Latin quod in an adverbial sense, introducing the topic under discussion. In this view, ὃ would mean “with regard to which” or “as for the fact that,” thereby not directly referring to the bread as its object, but rather to the *circumstance* of eating it. This construction shifts the focus from the bread itself to the unlawfulness of the act, effectively setting the stage for the following prohibition. This makes the clause function somewhat like ὅτι, meaning “that” or “because,” introducing a clause of content or reason. This approach avoids the issue of gender/number disagreement by treating ὃ as an adverbial modifier of the entire subsequent clause.

3. ὃ as Nominative Quasi-Subject of Impersonal ἔξεστιν (Idiomatic Use)

This reading considers ὃ to be a nominative singular neuter functioning as a quasi-subject of the impersonal verb οὐκ ἐξὸν ἦν, forming an idiomatic expression for “that which is not permissible/lawful.” While impersonal verbs traditionally do not take a subject, examples in Koine Greek suggest such constructions evolved into fixed phrases. The periphrastic ἐξὸν ἦν for ἐξῆν is common. Instances like Matthew 12:2 (ὃ οὐκ ἔξεστιν ποιεῖν ἐν σαββάτῳ), Mark 2:24 (ὃ οὐκ ἔξεστιν), Luke 6:2 (ὃ οὐκ ἔξεστιν τοῖς σάββασιν), Acts 16:21 (ἃ οὐκ ἔξεστιν ἡμῖν παραδέχεσθαι), and Acts of Peter 40 (ὃ μὴ ἐξὸν ἦν) support the idea of ὃ ἔξεστιν becoming a formulaic expression meaning “that which is permissible.” In this view, ὃ acts as an implicit antecedent for “that which” or “the thing that,” encompassing the entire prohibited action of eating the bread.

4. ὃ as an “Indefinite Relative Pronoun” in Apposition

Some analyses propose ὃ as an indefinite relative pronoun, used in apposition to τοὺς ἄρτους. In this understanding, ὃ would establish an “unspecified entity” that is then brought into apposition with the preceding masculine plural noun. However, standard Greek grammar typically requires closer agreement in number, case, and gender for apposition and relative clauses. While examples exist of neuter singular pronouns referring to collective or compound entities (e.g., John 17:2; 2 Thess 3:17), the direct apposition of a neuter singular pronoun with a masculine plural noun is grammatically challenging for many scholars, suggesting this interpretation stretches the bounds of typical Greek agreement rules.

5. ὃ as a Semitism

Another suggestion, albeit less widely accepted, is that ὃ reflects a Semitic influence, possibly as a translation of an Aramaic relative pronoun like דִי (diy), which is indeclinable for gender and number. In this scenario, the translator might have rendered דִי as a neuter singular ὃ because it referred to the action (David’s eating) rather than the bread itself. Alternatively, an unaccented ο (definite article) could have been mistakenly rendered as ὃ, hypothetically referring back to David. While Semitic influences are recognized in the Gospels, this specific proposal faces the difficulty that Greek speakers would have interpreted the text through Greek grammatical rules, likely perceiving the construction as unusual if not ungrammatical in the absence of a clear Semitic understanding.

Conclusions and Translation Suggestions

The complex syntax of ὃ in Matthew 12:4 reflects either a nuanced grammatical choice by the author or an idiomatic expression common in Koine Greek that has developed from more standard constructions. The weight of evidence from comparative texts suggests that the construction ὃ οὐκ ἐξὸν ἦν functions as a relatively fixed, almost formulaic expression indicating “that which was not permissible.” This understanding allows ὃ to act as a quasi-subject, referring to the general concept of the preceding action rather than directly the loaves.

Considering the analyses, the following translation suggestions attempt to convey the likely intended meaning while acknowledging the grammatical subtleties:

1. “how he entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which thing it was not lawful for him to eat, nor for those with him, but only for the priests;”
   This translation takes ὃ as a neuter singular accusative of general reference, referring to the entire act of eating the bread, rather than the bread itself. It maintains the literal form of “which thing” to highlight the abstract quality.
2. “how he entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, concerning which it was not lawful for him to eat, nor for those with him, but only for the priests;”
   This rendering interprets ὃ as an accusative of specification, functioning adverbially to introduce the specific prohibition. It effectively rephrases the problematic relative pronoun as a prepositional phrase, clarifying the scope of the restriction.
3. “how he entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, that which it was not lawful for him to eat, nor for those with him, but only for the priests;”
   This option understands ὃ as the quasi-subject of an idiomatic impersonal construction, “that which was not lawful.” It conveys the meaning of a general prohibition applying to the entire situation described, reflecting the broader idiomatic usage observed in other Koine texts.