“`html
body { font-family: ‘Palatino Linotype’, ‘Book Antiqua’, Palatino, serif; line-height: 1.6; margin: 40px; background-color: #f9f9f9; color: #333; }
h1, h2, h3 { color: #2c3e50; margin-top: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; }
h2 { border-bottom: 1px solid #ddd; padding-bottom: 0.5em; }
blockquote { background-color: #eef; border-left: 5px solid #ccc; margin: 1.5em 0; padding: 1em 1.5em; font-style: italic; color: #555; }
b { font-weight: bold; }
i { font-style: italic; }
ul { list-style-type: disc; margin-left: 20px; }
li { margin-bottom: 0.5em; }
p { margin-bottom: 1em; }
An Exegetical Analysis of Word Order and Semantic Emphasis in Matthew 9:32 and 12:22
This exegetical study of the impact of word order on semantic emphasis in Matthew 9:32 and 12:22 is based on a b-greek discussion from 29 March 2011. The initial commentary posits that while no fundamental difference in meaning may exist between variant word orders, a subtle shift in emphasis might be conveyed. The participant suggests that a phrase like “ἄνθρωπον κωφὸν δαιμονιζόμενον” (a mute man, demon-possessed) describes two co-existing facts about the man without necessarily implying causality. Similarly, “δαιμονιζόμενος τυφλὸς καὶ κωφός” (one who is demon-possessed, also blind and mute) places the state of demon-possession first, potentially making it the primary identifier.
The core exegetical issue explored herein is whether the specific word order of adjectives and participles in Matthew 9:32 and Matthew 12:22 intentionally conveys nuanced information regarding the primary or causal nature of the described conditions. Specifically, we will examine if the placement of “κωφὸν” (mute) before “δαιμονιζόμενον” (demon-possessed) in 9:32, versus “δαιμονιζόμενος” (demon-possessed) before “τυφλὸς καὶ κωφός” (blind and mute) in 12:22, signals a deliberate emphasis on the presenting symptom versus the underlying cause, or if such distinctions are over-interpretations of standard Greek syntactic flexibility.
Greek Text (Nestle 1904)
Matthew 9:32: Αὐτῶν δὲ ἐξερχομένων ἰδοὺ προσήνεγκαν αὐτῷ ἄνθρωπον κωφὸν δαιμονιζόμενον.
Matthew 12:22: Τότε προσηνέχθη αὐτῷ δαιμονιζόμενος τυφλὸς καὶ κωφός.
Key differences with SBLGNT (2010):
- Matthew 9:32: The Nestle 1904 text reads “Αὐτῶν δὲ ἐξερχομένων“, whereas the SBLGNT (2010) and NA28 read “Καὶ ἐξερχομένων αὐτῶν“. This represents a minor textual variant concerning the initial conjunction and word order of the genitive absolute, but does not alter the core descriptive phrase of the afflicted man.
- Matthew 12:22: No significant differences are observed between the Nestle 1904 text provided and the SBLGNT (2010) or NA28 for this verse.
Textual Criticism (NA28), Lexical Notes (KITTEL, BDAG)
As noted above, the primary textual variant impacting these passages is in Matthew 9:32, where the NA28 (and SBLGNT) prefers “Καὶ ἐξερχομένων αὐτῶν” over “Αὐτῶν δὲ ἐξερχομένων” (Nestle 1904/TR). This variant primarily concerns the discourse connector (‘and’ vs. ‘but’) and the ordering within the genitive absolute construction, rather than the description of the man himself. It does not alter the grammatical relationship between the adjective and participle in question.
Lexical analysis of key terms provides foundational understanding:
- κωφός (kōphos): According to BDAG (3rd ed., 2000), this adjective can mean “mute, speechless” or “deaf.” In biblical contexts, particularly when associated with demon possession or divine healing, it frequently refers to muteness (e.g., Matt 9:32-33; Mk 7:32; Lk 11:14). KITTEL (TDNT, vol. III, pp. 883-884) emphasizes the connection between muteness/deafness and a state of being “shut off” or “imprisoned,” often by demonic forces or as a spiritual condition.
- δαιμονιζόμενος (daimonizomenos): The present passive participle of δαιμονίζομαι (daimonizomai), meaning “to be under the power of a demon, be demon-possessed” (BDAG, 3rd ed., 2000). KITTEL (TDNT, vol. II, pp. 19-20) details the New Testament understanding of demon possession as a state of affliction, often manifested through physical or mental impairments, distinct from illness alone.
- τυφλός (typhlos): This adjective universally means “blind” (BDAG, 3rd ed., 2000). KITTEL (TDNT, vol. VIII, pp. 268-270) discusses blindness in biblical thought, often symbolizing spiritual darkness or a physical condition remedied by divine intervention.
Translation Variants with Grammatical & Rhetorical Analysis
The core inquiry concerns the rhetorical and semantic impact of word order in the descriptions of the afflicted individuals. Greek, unlike English, has a relatively free word order, allowing for emphasis, nuance, and stylistic variation. While the default word order in Greek tends to be subject-verb-object, modifiers (adjectives, participles) often precede the noun they modify, though post-positive positions are also common and can carry specific rhetorical weight.
In Matthew 9:32, the phrase is “ἄνθρωπον κωφὸν δαιμονιζόμενον.” Here, the adjective “κωφὸν” directly precedes the participle “δαιμονιζόμενον.” Both modify “ἄνθρωπον” (man). The initial position of “κωφὸν” might highlight the presenting physical symptom – the man’s muteness – as the primary observation, perhaps what drew attention or was the most immediate manifestation of his distress. The subsequent “δαιμονιζόμενον” then further describes his underlying condition. This ordering could suggest a focus on the *observable* aspect first, then the *etiological* explanation, or simply list two attributes. It does not necessarily establish a causal link where muteness *causes* demon-possession, but rather describes a mute man *who happens to be* demon-possessed.
Conversely, Matthew 12:22 presents “δαιμονιζόμενος τυφλὸς καὶ κωφός.” Here, the participle “δαιμονιζόμενος” precedes the two adjectives “τυφλὸς καὶ κωφός.” This order places the state of demon-possession as the initial and perhaps overarching descriptor of the individual. The subsequent “τυφλὸς καὶ κωφός” then describes specific manifestations or consequences of this possession. This arrangement could rhetorically imply that the demon-possession is the *primary condition* or even the *cause* of the blindness and muteness. The initial placement of the participle might foreground the overarching state from which the other afflictions derive, suggesting a deeper connection between the demon possession and the sensory impairments.
As A.T. Robertson and W. Hersey Davis note, Greek possesses significant flexibility in expression, allowing for “the most delicate shades of an idea” through various grammatical and syntactic choices. While not explicitly mentioning word order, their point regarding the “freedom” of Greek underscores that variations can, and often do, carry nuanced meaning. It is important to avoid overstating such nuances but equally crucial not to dismiss them, as the “sensitive Greek mind” would have perceived them. The difference in word order between 9:32 and 12:22 could therefore represent a deliberate, albeit subtle, rhetorical choice by Matthew, perhaps to vary emphasis depending on the narrative context or to highlight different aspects of the same phenomenon.
Conclusions and Translation Suggestions
The analysis suggests that while Greek word order is flexible, variations in the sequence of adjectives and participles, particularly when describing the same phenomenon across different pericopes, can convey subtle rhetorical emphasis. In Matthew 9:32, the focus appears to be on the observable symptom, whereas in Matthew 12:22, the emphasis seems to shift to the underlying cause or encompassing condition. This distinction, while not altering the factual content of the descriptions, provides a richer understanding of the narrative’s perspective.
Here are three suggested translations for each passage, reflecting these nuances:
Matthew 9:32:
- “As they were going out, behold, they brought to Him a mute man who was demon-possessed.”
This translation prioritizes the man’s muteness as the immediately observed characteristic, followed by the explanation of his condition. - “As they were going out, behold, they brought to Him a man, mute and demon-possessed.”
This option lists the two attributes with equal weight, suggesting two co-existing facts without implying a direct causal hierarchy from the word order itself. - “As they were going out, behold, they brought to Him a mute man, afflicted by a demon.”
This variant uses a slightly more interpretative rendering of the participle, emphasizing the state of being afflicted as a secondary descriptive detail to his muteness.
Matthew 12:22:
- “Then a demon-possessed man who was blind and mute was brought to Him.”
This translation places the demon-possession as the primary, overarching condition, with blindness and muteness described as consequences or concurrent symptoms. - “Then one who was demon-possessed, and also blind and mute, was brought to Him.”
This emphasizes the man’s possession first, with the physical impairments following as additional characteristics of that possessed state. - “Then a man suffering from demon-possession, being also blind and mute, was brought to Him.”
This emphasizes the suffering caused by demon-possession as the initial and foundational aspect, which manifests in blindness and muteness.
“`
Jeremy asked
Hi Jeremy,
You bet, but the nuances are so nuanced that they cannot be demonstrated or falsified.
Here’s Euripides’ Alcestis line 9
καὶ τόνδε ἔσῳζον οἶκον ἐς τόδ’ ἡμέρας. KAI TONDE ESWiZON OIKON ES TOD’ hHMERAS.
“And I preserved this house right up until today.”
And here is the comment on the line by Lusching:
“Notice the word order. Apollo puts the verb, as it were, INSIDE the house as if he were saving it by his presence in it.”
The only way to prove or disprove Lusching’s point would be to ask Euripides. I wonder if any Greek author ever talks about his or her choice of word order? Lucian, I think, gives the Greek view on this. When he goes to the Island of the Blessed, he asks Homer why he began his story with the wrath of Achilles. Homer says it just came to him that way, without giving it much thought. (οὕτως ἐπελθεῖν αὐτῳ μηδὲν ἐπιτηδεύσαντι)
Same thing. The only way to prove or disprove this would be to ask Matthew. My guess is he would say this is just the way the words came out.
Hamlet: Do you see yonder cloud that’s almost in shape of a camel? Polonius: By th’ mass and ’tis, like a camel indeed. Hamlet: Methinks it is like a weasel. Polonius: It is backed like a weasel. Hamlet: Or like a whale Polonius: Very like a whale
Mark L Φωσφορος
FWSFOROS MARKOS
________________________________ href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected] Sent: Tue, March 29, 2011 8:50:06 AM
29 March 2011
Friends:
I was wondering about a matter of emphasis that may or may not be implied in the word order of Matthew 9:32:
Αὐτῶν δὲ ἐξερχομένων ἰδοὺ προσήνεγκαν αὐτῷ ἄνθρωπον κωφὸν δαιμονιζόμενον
AUTWN DE EXERCHOMENWN IDOU PROSHNEGKAN AUTWi ANQRWPON KWFON DAIMONIZOMENON
Does the word order of the adjective κωφὸν (KWFON) before the participle δαιμονιζόμενον (DAIMONIZOMENON) communicate, as an older commentator like Alfred Plummer thinks it does, that the man’s muteness is primary, while the fact that he is demon-possessed is secondary? Or is that pressing the Greek word order too far? For the sake of discussion, I’d like to note Matthew 12:22:
Τότε προσηνέχθη αὐτῷ δαιμονιζόμενος τυφλὸς καὶ κωφός.
TOTE PROSHNECHQH AUTWi DAIMONIZOMENOS TUFLOS KAI KWFOS.
In this case, would the placement of the participle before the two adjectives indicate that the demon-possession of the man contributed to the person’s blindness and muteness, demon-possession being primary?
These are specific textual questions. However, my larger question has to do with whether word order or word placement in a sentence indicates nuances of meaning. In this context, I thought I’d quote A. T. Robertson and W. Hersey Davis:
“It is possible in Greek to express the most delicate shades of an idea by means of voice, tense, mode, cases, prepositions, particles, conjunctions. Often an idea in Greek can be expressed in various ways that are substantially alike, but yet differ in ways that the sensitive Greek mind understands. So the Greek has liberty where the Latin has bonds. The Greek may use coordinating clauses or subordinating clauses with conjunctions, or the infinitive, or the particple. His sentences may be short or long. He may use prepositions freely or not. Only do not accuse a Greek of using one construction for another. Freedom is the glory of the Greek language. Each writer has his own style and flavor” (A New Short Grammar of the Greek Testament, 10th ed. [Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1958], pp. 318-319). Robertson doesn’t specifically mention worder order or word placement here as a factor in nuanced Greek, but might it be a factor?
This matter of word order or word placement interests me, but I don’t have many recent resources dealing with the topic. I’d be interested in the comments of list members.
Best wishes, Jeremy Spencer
Come on, Mark: Lucian is the stand-up comedian, cartoonist, and political- social caricaturist of his era — the era that Hegel describes as coming after the owl of Minerva has flown the coop. Do you really think that Lucian is the spokesman for the Greeks? Well, of course you do. You would. You fall into the same category yourself! 😉
However, I would be rather skeptical of Luschnig comment on word-order here in the Alcestis (KAI TOND’ ESWiZON OIKON) too. This sandwiching of verb between such the elements of the accusative phrase is one of the standard elements, not in prose, to be sure, but in poetry.
Yea, verily, ’tis like Leviathan hisself!
Carl W. Conrad Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected]
Mark Lightman wrote: You bet, but the nuances are so nuanced that they cannot be demonstrated or falsified. [snip]
I write: Yet Euripides was writing in iambic trimeter. Metrical writing cannot be used as evidence for nuance-laden word ordering without taking into account the meter.
Relatedly, I’ve been thinking lately that alternate word order in exemplars of a given passage may be related not so much to nuance as to euphony, a quality of a writing that was (and is) particularly important to Greeks. Those texts written without euphony in mind may have been altered in various ways in order to adapt them toward such. I wonder whether much of the word order alteration in various NT manuscripts may likely be related to this rather than anything else.
Regards, Kevin Edgecomb Berkeley, California
Kevin wrote:
Hi, Kevin,
As a semantic minimalist, I’ve had the same thought, and this seems to me the most likely explanation of why a scribe would make minor changes but not major ones. If meaning were the issue, we would see more meaningful changes. I think euphony also explains the variances in other things, like the tenses, which particles/connectives are used, the absence or presence of the article, PRWTOS versus PRWTON, etc.
Mark L Φωσφορος
FWSFOROS MARKOS
________________________________ href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected] Sent: Thu, March 31, 2011 5:30:10 PM
Mark Lightman wrote: You bet, but the nuances are so nuanced that they cannot be demonstrated or falsified. [snip]
I write: Yet Euripides was writing in iambic trimeter. Metrical writing cannot be used as evidence for nuance-laden word ordering without taking into account the meter.
Relatedly, I’ve been thinking lately that alternate word order in exemplars of a given passage may be related not so much to nuance as to euphony, a quality of a writing that was (and is) particularly important to Greeks. Those texts written without euphony in mind may have been altered in various ways in order to adapt them toward such. I wonder whether much of the word order alteration in various NT manuscripts may likely be related to this rather than anything else.
Regards, Kevin Edgecomb Berkeley, California
Jeremy asked
Hi Jeremy,
You bet, but the nuances are so nuanced that they cannot be demonstrated or falsified.
Here’s Euripides’ Alcestis line 9
καὶ τόνδε ἔσῳζον οἶκον ἐς τόδ’ ἡμέρας. KAI TONDE ESWiZON OIKON ES TOD’ hHMERAS.
“And I preserved this house right up until today.”
And here is the comment on the line by Lusching:
“Notice the word order. Apollo puts the verb, as it were, INSIDE the house as if he were saving it by his presence in it.”
The only way to prove or disprove Lusching’s point would be to ask Euripides. I wonder if any Greek author ever talks about his or her choice of word order? Lucian, I think, gives the Greek view on this. When he goes to the Island of the Blessed, he asks Homer why he began his story with the wrath of Achilles. Homer says it just came to him that way, without giving it much thought. (οὕτως ἐπελθεῖν αὐτῳ μηδὲν ἐπιτηδεύσαντι)
Same thing. The only way to prove or disprove this would be to ask Matthew. My guess is he would say this is just the way the words came out.
Hamlet: Do you see yonder cloud that’s almost in shape of a camel? Polonius: By th’ mass and ’tis, like a camel indeed. Hamlet: Methinks it is like a weasel. Polonius: It is backed like a weasel. Hamlet: Or like a whale Polonius: Very like a whale
Mark L Φωσφορος
FWSFOROS MARKOS
________________________________ href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected] Sent: Tue, March 29, 2011 8:50:06 AM
29 March 2011
Friends:
I was wondering about a matter of emphasis that may or may not be implied in the word order of Matthew 9:32:
Αὐτῶν δὲ ἐξερχομένων ἰδοὺ προσήνεγκαν αὐτῷ ἄνθρωπον κωφὸν δαιμονιζόμενον
AUTWN DE EXERCHOMENWN IDOU PROSHNEGKAN AUTWi ANQRWPON KWFON DAIMONIZOMENON
Does the word order of the adjective κωφὸν (KWFON) before the participle δαιμονιζόμενον (DAIMONIZOMENON) communicate, as an older commentator like Alfred Plummer thinks it does, that the man’s muteness is primary, while the fact that he is demon-possessed is secondary? Or is that pressing the Greek word order too far? For the sake of discussion, I’d like to note Matthew 12:22:
Τότε προσηνέχθη αὐτῷ δαιμονιζόμενος τυφλὸς καὶ κωφός.
TOTE PROSHNECHQH AUTWi DAIMONIZOMENOS TUFLOS KAI KWFOS.
In this case, would the placement of the participle before the two adjectives indicate that the demon-possession of the man contributed to the person’s blindness and muteness, demon-possession being primary?
These are specific textual questions. However, my larger question has to do with whether word order or word placement in a sentence indicates nuances of meaning. In this context, I thought I’d quote A. T. Robertson and W. Hersey Davis:
“It is possible in Greek to express the most delicate shades of an idea by means of voice, tense, mode, cases, prepositions, particles, conjunctions. Often an idea in Greek can be expressed in various ways that are substantially alike, but yet differ in ways that the sensitive Greek mind understands. So the Greek has liberty where the Latin has bonds. The Greek may use coordinating clauses or subordinating clauses with conjunctions, or the infinitive, or the particple. His sentences may be short or long. He may use prepositions freely or not. Only do not accuse a Greek of using one construction for another. Freedom is the glory of the Greek language. Each writer has his own style and flavor” (A New Short Grammar of the Greek Testament, 10th ed. [Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1958], pp. 318-319). Robertson doesn’t specifically mention worder order or word placement here as a factor in nuanced Greek, but might it be a factor?
This matter of word order or word placement interests me, but I don’t have many recent resources dealing with the topic. I’d be interested in the comments of list members.
Best wishes, Jeremy Spencer
Come on, Mark: Lucian is the stand-up comedian, cartoonist, and political- social caricaturist of his era — the era that Hegel describes as coming after the owl of Minerva has flown the coop. Do you really think that Lucian is the spokesman for the Greeks? Well, of course you do. You would. You fall into the same category yourself! 😉
However, I would be rather skeptical of Luschnig comment on word-order here in the Alcestis (KAI TOND’ ESWiZON OIKON) too. This sandwiching of verb between such the elements of the accusative phrase is one of the standard elements, not in prose, to be sure, but in poetry.
Yea, verily, ’tis like Leviathan hisself!
Carl W. Conrad Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected]
Mark Lightman wrote: You bet, but the nuances are so nuanced that they cannot be demonstrated or falsified. [snip]
I write: Yet Euripides was writing in iambic trimeter. Metrical writing cannot be used as evidence for nuance-laden word ordering without taking into account the meter.
Relatedly, I’ve been thinking lately that alternate word order in exemplars of a given passage may be related not so much to nuance as to euphony, a quality of a writing that was (and is) particularly important to Greeks. Those texts written without euphony in mind may have been altered in various ways in order to adapt them toward such. I wonder whether much of the word order alteration in various NT manuscripts may likely be related to this rather than anything else.
Regards, Kevin Edgecomb Berkeley, California
Kevin wrote:
Hi, Kevin,
As a semantic minimalist, I’ve had the same thought, and this seems to me the most likely explanation of why a scribe would make minor changes but not major ones. If meaning were the issue, we would see more meaningful changes. I think euphony also explains the variances in other things, like the tenses, which particles/connectives are used, the absence or presence of the article, PRWTOS versus PRWTON, etc.
Mark L Φωσφορος
FWSFOROS MARKOS
________________________________ href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected] Sent: Thu, March 31, 2011 5:30:10 PM
Mark Lightman wrote: You bet, but the nuances are so nuanced that they cannot be demonstrated or falsified. [snip]
I write: Yet Euripides was writing in iambic trimeter. Metrical writing cannot be used as evidence for nuance-laden word ordering without taking into account the meter.
Relatedly, I’ve been thinking lately that alternate word order in exemplars of a given passage may be related not so much to nuance as to euphony, a quality of a writing that was (and is) particularly important to Greeks. Those texts written without euphony in mind may have been altered in various ways in order to adapt them toward such. I wonder whether much of the word order alteration in various NT manuscripts may likely be related to this rather than anything else.
Regards, Kevin Edgecomb Berkeley, California