“`html
body { font-family: ‘Times New Roman’, serif; line-height: 1.6; max-width: 900px; margin: auto; padding: 20px; }
h1, h2, h3 { font-family: ‘Georgia’, serif; color: #333; }
h2 { border-bottom: 1px solid #ccc; padding-bottom: 5px; margin-top: 30px; }
h3 { border-bottom: 1px dashed #eee; padding-bottom: 3px; margin-top: 25px; }
blockquote { background: #f9f9f9; border-left: 5px solid #ccc; margin: 1.5em 10px; padding: 0.5em 10px; font-style: italic; }
b { font-weight: bold; }
i { font-style: italic; }
ul { list-style-type: disc; margin-left: 20px; }
An Exegetical Examination of Grammatical Attraction in Philippians 1:28
This exegetical study of “An Exegetical Examination of Grammatical Attraction in Philippians 1:28” is based on a b-greek discussion concerning the grammatical phenomenon of attraction in Koine Greek. The initial inquiry expresses perplexity regarding the concept of “attraction,” specifically referencing Philippians 1:28. The discussion highlights a statement from Mounce’s Graded Reader, quoting Fee, who posits that the relative pronoun ἥτις (hētis) in verse 28 refers to the entire preceding clause and is in the feminine gender due to “attraction” to the gender of ἔνδειξις (endeixis), an appositive noun.
The main exegetical issue under scrutiny is the grammatical phenomenon of “attraction” in Koine Greek, particularly as it applies to relative pronouns. The question arises whether attraction is a genuine linguistic mechanism explaining apparent gender or case discrepancies, or if it functions as an explanatory recourse when other grammatical, semantic, or logical explanations fail. This investigation will analyze the specific instance of ἥτις in Philippians 1:28, examining its grammatical relationship to potential antecedents and the appositive noun ἔνδειξις, to determine the nature of its referent and the implications for translation, thereby addressing the broader question of the validity and purpose of grammatical attraction in New Testament Greek.
Philippians 1:27-28 (Nestle 1904)
27 Μόνον ἀξίως τοῦ εὐαγγελίου τοῦ Χριστοῦ πολιτεύεσθε, ἵνα εἴτε ἐλθὼν καὶ ἰδὼν ὑμᾶς εἴτε ἀπὼν ἀκούω τὰ περὶ ὑμῶν, ὅτι στήκετε ἐν ἑνὶ πνεύματι, μιᾷ ψυχῇ συναθλοῦντες τῇ πίστει τοῦ εὐαγγελίου,
28 καὶ μὴ πτυρόμενοι ἐν μηδενὶ ὑπὸ τῶν ἀντικειμένων, ἥτις ἐστὶν αὐτοῖς ἔνδειξις ἀπωλείας, ὑμῶν δὲ σωτηρίας, καὶ τοῦτο ἀπὸ θεοῦ.
Key differences with SBLGNT (2010):
- In Philippians 1:28, Nestle 1904 reads ὑμῶν (hymōn, genitive plural, “of you/your”), while SBLGNT 2010 reads ὑμῖν (hymin, dative plural, “to you/for you”). This is a significant textual variant impacting the precise nuance of the salvation described.
- Otherwise, the texts of Philippians 1:27-28 are identical between Nestle 1904 and SBLGNT 2010.
Textual Criticism (NA28): The critical apparatus of NA28 for Philippians 1:28 indicates a strong preference for ὑμῖν (hymin) over ὑμῶν (hymōn). The reading ὑμῖν is supported by significant early manuscripts, including א* (Sinaiticus, original hand), A (Alexandrinus), B (Vaticanus), C (Ephraemi Rescriptus), D (Claromontanus), and P (Porphyrianus), alongside many minuscules and ancient versions. The reading ὑμῶν, found in Nestle 1904, is less strongly attested, though present in some later manuscripts and the corrector of א (אc). The shift from ὑμῶν to ὑμῖν changes the grammatical relationship from a genitive of possession or description (“evidence of destruction *of them*, but *of your* salvation”) to a dative of advantage or reference (“evidence of destruction *for them*, but *for your* salvation”). Given the overwhelming manuscript evidence, ὑμῖν is the preferred reading, indicating the salvation is “for you” or “to you.”
Lexical Notes:
- πολιτεύεσθε (politeuesthe, Philippians 1:27): From πολιτεύομαι, meaning “to live as a citizen, conduct oneself as a citizen, order one’s life” (BDAG, s.v. “πολιτεύομαι”). It evokes the idea of living in a manner worthy of one’s citizenship, which for believers is in heaven (Phil 3:20).
- συναθλοῦντες (synathlountes, Philippians 1:27): Present active participle from συναθλέω, meaning “to strive together with, contend together” (BDAG, s.v. “συναθλέω”). It signifies a united effort, like athletes competing as a team, emphasizing corporate engagement in the gospel.
- πτυρόμενοι (ptyromenoi, Philippians 1:28): Present passive participle from πυρόω, meaning “to be frightened, be terrified, be intimidated” (BDAG, s.v. “πτυρόω”). The passive voice indicates that the intimidation comes from an external source.
- ἀντικειμένων (antikeimenōn, Philippians 1:28): Present middle/passive participle from ἀντίκειμαι, meaning “to be opposed, be an opponent, adversary” (BDAG, s.v. “ἀντίκειμαι”). Refers to those who are actively hostile to the gospel and believers.
- ἥτις (hētis, Philippians 1:28): This is a compound relative pronoun (ὅστις, ἥτις, ὅτι). It often carries a nuance of “of the sort that,” “which in particular,” or “which sort of thing” (BDAG, s.v. “ὅστις”). Its use here, in the feminine singular nominative, is the crux of the grammatical discussion regarding attraction.
- ἔνδειξις (endeixis, Philippians 1:28): “An indication, proof, evidence” (BDAG, s.v. “ἔνδειξις”). KITTEL notes that ἔνδειξις denotes the visible proof or manifestation of something (TDNT 2:343). In this context, it refers to the visible manifestation of either perdition for the opponents or salvation for the believers.
- ἀπωλείας (apōleias, Philippians 1:28): From ἀπώλεια, meaning “destruction, ruin, loss” (BDAG, s.v. “ἀπώλεια”). Here, it refers to eternal perdition.
- σωτηρίας (sōtērias, Philippians 1:28): From σωτηρία, meaning “salvation, deliverance, preservation” (BDAG, s.v. “σωτηρία”). Refers to the divine act of rescue and eternal well-being.
Translation Variants
The grammatical analysis of ἥτις (hētis) in Philippians 1:28 is central to understanding the meaning of the clause. The pronoun is feminine singular nominative. Its immediate appositive, ἔνδειξις (endeixis, “evidence/proof”), is also feminine singular nominative. This grammatical congruence gives rise to the “attraction” theory, where the gender of the relative pronoun is said to be attracted to that of the predicate noun in its own clause, rather than its true antecedent.
The challenge lies in identifying the true antecedent of ἥτις. Grammatically, a relative pronoun typically agrees with its antecedent in gender and number, while its case is determined by its function in its own clause. Here, ἥτις is nominative because it is the subject of the clause “which is to them evidence…” However, its feminine singular gender does not immediately fit a clear masculine or neuter singular antecedent from the preceding context, which describes the Philippians’ collective action and attitude:
- “standing firm in one spirit” (ἐν ἑνὶ πνεύματι – neuter dative)
- “striving together with one mind for the faith of the gospel” (μιᾷ ψυχῇ συναθλοῦντες τῇ πίστει τοῦ εὐαγγελίου – ψυχῇ is feminine dative, πίστει is feminine dative). While ψυχῇ and πίστει are feminine, they are dative, not nominative, and refer to specific aspects of their conduct, not the *entire* conduct.
- “not being intimidated in anything by your opponents” (καὶ μὴ πτυρόμενοι ἐν μηδενὶ ὑπὸ τῶν ἀντικειμένων). This entire action, or the *attitude* of not being intimidated, is the most semantically probable referent.
If ἥτις refers to the entire preceding clause or the action described (“standing firm… and not being intimidated”), then it is functioning as a “sentence relative.” When a relative pronoun refers to an entire clause, it is usually neuter singular (e.g., ὅ or τοῦτο). The feminine ἥτις in this context is anomalous if it directly refers to the clause as a whole without some form of attraction. Therefore, Fee’s explanation suggests that the feminine gender of ἥτις is “attracted” to the gender of ἔνδειξις, which is indeed feminine. This attraction allows the relative pronoun to maintain its function as a sentence relative while syntactically aligning with the predicate noun, making the clause flow more smoothly. Such attraction is a recognized, albeit sometimes debated, phenomenon in Koine Greek (e.g., Smyth §2520, Robertson IV.5.d, Wallace p. 343).
Rhetorically, the identification of the antecedent of ἥτις is crucial. If it refers to the Philippians’ steadfastness and lack of fear, then their unwavering stance *is* the evidence. This emphasizes the powerful testimony of their conduct in the face of opposition. It shows that their courageous behavior serves as a clear sign, both to their adversaries and to themselves, of ultimate destinies. The use of ἥτις, a compound relative pronoun, can add a nuance of “that sort of thing” or “which indeed,” underscoring the definitive nature of this evidence.
The phrase “ἥτις ἐστὶν αὐτοῖς ἔνδειξις ἀπωλείας, ὑμῖν δὲ σωτηρίας” (which is to them evidence of destruction, but to you of salvation) strongly contrasts the fate of the opponents with that of the believers. The believers’ steadfastness becomes a tangible sign: for the opponents, it is an indication of their impending doom (because they are unable to overcome the believers who are divinely sustained); for the believers, it is an assurance of their own salvation (because their perseverance is a fruit of God’s work in them). The clause “καὶ τοῦτο ἀπὸ θεοῦ” (“and this from God”) further emphasizes that this entire situation – the steadfastness, the evidence, and the salvation – originates from divine power, not human strength.
Conclusions and Translation Suggestions
The grammatical phenomenon of attraction, while sometimes invoked as a “catch-all,” appears to have a legitimate, albeit subtle, function in Koine Greek. In Philippians 1:28, the attraction of ἥτις to the feminine gender of ἔνδειξις allows the relative pronoun to refer to the broader concept of the Philippians’ steadfast and unyielding conduct (a “sentence relative”), while maintaining a syntactical smoothness within its own clause. This interpretation prevents an awkward gender clash and facilitates the rhetorical emphasis on the nature of their conduct as a definitive sign. The NA28 reading of ὑμῖν (dative) for “for you” is strongly supported and shapes the nuance of the salvation described.
-
27Only live your lives in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that whether I come and see you or am absent and hear about you, I may know that you are standing firm in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel, 28and not being intimidated in any way by your opponents. This very steadfastness is a clear sign to them of their destruction, but to you of your salvation, and this comes from God.
Explanation: This translation takes ἥτις as a sentence relative referring to the preceding clause (the Philippians’ steadfastness), using “this very steadfastness” to capture the specific nature of the referent. The attraction to ἔνδειξις is implicitly handled by the construction “is a clear sign.” The genitive in “their destruction” and “your salvation” reflects the common English idiomatic expression for “evidence of” something, while acknowledging the dative preference for ὑμῖν by translating “to you” as “your salvation” in a possessive sense that is natural in English.
-
27Only conduct yourselves as citizens worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that whether I come and see you or am absent and hear about you, I may know that you are standing united in one spirit, with one soul contending together for the faith of the gospel, 28and in no way terrified by those who oppose you. This conduct of yours serves as an undeniable proof for them of their perdition, and for you of your salvation—and this is from God.
Explanation: This rendition emphasizes “conduct” as the antecedent of ἥτις, thereby accommodating the concept of a sentence relative. The dative force of ὑμῖν is explicitly maintained by “for them” and “for you,” highlighting the advantage or reference. The term “undeniable proof” reinforces the meaning of ἔνδειξις and the definitive nature of the sign.
-
27Only, live as citizens worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that whether I come and see you or am absent and hear about you, I may know that you stand firm in one spirit, striving side-by-side with one mind for the faith of the gospel, 28and not terrified in anything by your adversaries. This very thing — your lack of intimidation — is evidence to them of destruction, but for you, it is evidence of salvation, and this comes from God.
Explanation: This translation more explicitly pinpoints the specific aspect of their conduct, “your lack of intimidation,” as the referent for ἥτις. It directly translates the dative ὑμῖν with “for you,” and frames the entire statement as a confirmation, allowing the feminine ἥτις to indirectly refer to the “thing” (neuter concept) that is their bold stance.
“`
Perhaps if you looked at some examples of how ‘attraction’ works in English it might make more sense in Greek. As a process, it is not unique to Greek.
Kevin Riley
href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected] href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected] — B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek B-Greek mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
Robertson has considerable to say regarding attraction, but it is scattered about. I will give a couple of his comments. 10. Attraction of the Relative. A word only is needed about the attraction of the relative, a matter treated properly in the chapter on Pronouns, which see. Here it may only be noted that the genitive (as of other oblique cases) of the relative sometimes appears with a verb when the case is due, not to the verb, but to the antecedent. Thus we note
Regarding ὅστις he states 6. Case. There is little here that calls for comment. We do not have attraction or incorporation. As a matter of fact only three cases occur (nom., gen., acc.). The stereotyped phrase p 729 with ἕωςand the genitive, ἕως ὅτου, occurs five times. Cf. Mt. 5:25; Lu. 12:50 (Luke three times, Matthew and John once each). This is the only form of the shortened inflection. The LXX once (2 Macc. 5:10) has ἥστινος, elsewhere ὅτου. The accusative is found in the N. T. only in the neuter singular ὅτι(absent from modern Greek). But see (note 6, p. 728) occasional ὅντιναand ἥντιναin the papyri. So Lu. 10:35, ὅτι ἂν προσδαπανήσῃς. Cf. ὅτι ἄν, Jo. 2:5; 14:13; 15:16; ὅτι ἐάν, Mk. 6:23; 1 Cor. 16:2 f.; Col. 3:17; ὅτιalone, Jo. 8:25; Ac. 9:6. The other examples are all in the nominative. In Ac. 9:6 the clause is nominative. (pp 728-29)
george gfsomsel
… search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.
– Jan Hus _________
________________________________ Sent: Fri, December 3, 2010 9:19:46 PM
Ladies and Gentlemen: I am perplexed and perhaps a little cynical about the concept of “attraction” in Koine Greek. One example [among several] occurs in Philippians 1:27-28 where, in Mounce’s Graded Reader, he quotes Fee (NICNT) saying that the hHTIS in v28 refers back to the preceding clause refers back to the whole preceding clause (admittedly I do not have Fee’s work, I am quoting Mounce quoting Fee) and is in the feminine because it is “attracted” to the gender of ENDEIXIS hHTIS ESTIN AUTOIS ENDEIXIS Preceding clause: 1:27-28: THi PISTEI TOU EUANGGELIOU KAI MH PTUROMENOI EN MEDENI hUPO TWN ANTIKEIMENWN hHTIS… [trust the transliteration attains the minimal acceptable standard] I have consulted my grammars — I even hoped, after my recent questions whether A.T. Robertson might rise to the occasion, since there is precious little in any of my other works on this subject. Alas he sits on the table in accordance with Lightman’s suggestion, awaiting a job holding down papers in the next tornado.
So is this thing called “attraction” apparent or real? Perhaps I am uncomfortable with the terminology — it is as if the words have a mind of their own rather than a writer deliberately choosing the appropriate and grammatically correct lexical form? If attraction is real, what purpose does it serve? Or is “attraction” a catch-all when all logical, semantic, and grammatical attempts to explain the case of a word have failed? “oh it is not a,b,c,d therefore it is ‘attraction'”
Any references, comments, clues welcomed!
Rgds Steve Baldwin [email protected]
— B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek B-Greek mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek περὶ πάντων ὧν ἐποίησεν(Lu. 3:19), an idiom common in Luke, but rare elsewhere, as ἀστέρων οὓς εἶδες(Rev. 1:20). (p 512)
— B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek B-Greek mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
There was a thread on this in January 2002. You can go to the archives or google for “Phil 1:28 hHTIS”.
Iver Larsen
—– Original Message —– Sent: 4. december 2010 07:19
href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected]
— B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek B-Greek mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
Hi, Stephen,
I have the same subjective reaction as you do. I am repelled by attraction. I understand why people feel the concept is needed. Relative pronouns generally have antecedents, and they generally agree in gender with those antecedents, and when they don’t, people feel they have to right to know why they don’t. Attraction is as good an explanation as any, but I agree that there is something vaguely creepy about the term. All things being equal, becoming the gender you are attracted to doesn’t make a lot of sense. I wonder what the Greeks themselves called it?
In other words, Paul could have written ὅ τι (hO TI) instead of ἥστις, or, for that matter, he could have written και τουτο OR και αυτη. A linguist might say that the neuter would be the “unmarked” form, and that attraction is marked, and so adds emphasis. What’s good about saying that something adds emphasis is that there is no way to prove or disprove it.
I am 100% sure that if you asked Paul why he sometimes allows his words to be attracted and at other times not, he would say “I don’t know. It just sounded better to say it this way.”
Generally, when people talk about attraction, they talk about a relative being attracted to the case of its prior antecedent, so what you have in Phil 1:27-28 is actually reverse attraction, I think, which is even a more unattractive term.
“No, good mother. Here’s metal more attractive.”
Mark L
FWSFOROS MARKOS
________________________________ Sent: Fri, December 3, 2010 9:19:46 PM
Ladies and Gentlemen: I am perplexed and perhaps a little cynical about the concept of “attraction” in Koine Greek. One example [among several] occurs in Philippians 1:27-28 where, in Mounce’s Graded Reader, he quotes Fee (NICNT) saying that the hHTIS in v28 refers back to the preceding clause refers back to the whole preceding clause (admittedly I do not have Fee’s work, I am quoting Mounce quoting Fee) and is in the feminine because it is “attracted” to the gender of ENDEIXIS hHTIS ESTIN AUTOIS ENDEIXIS Preceding clause: 1:27-28: THi PISTEI TOU EUANGGELIOU KAI MH PTUROMENOI EN MEDENI hUPO TWN ANTIKEIMENWN hHTIS… [trust the transliteration attains the minimal acceptable standard] I have consulted my grammars — I even hoped, after my recent questions whether A.T. Robertson might rise to the occasion, since there is precious little in any of my other works on this subject. Alas he sits on the table in accordance with Lightman’s suggestion, awaiting a job holding down papers in the next tornado.
So is this thing called “attraction” apparent or real? Perhaps I am uncomfortable with the terminology — it is as if the words have a mind of their own rather than a writer deliberately choosing the appropriate and grammatically correct lexical form? If attraction is real, what purpose does it serve? Or is “attraction” a catch-all when all logical, semantic, and grammatical attempts to explain the case of a word have failed? “oh it is not a,b,c,d therefore it is ‘attraction'”
Any references, comments, clues welcomed!
Rgds Steve Baldwin [email protected]
— B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek B-Greek mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
— B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek B-Greek mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
Hello Kevin: My original [slightly facetious] response to you was intended for the wider community rather than moving the conversation off-list 😉 Trust it is OK to re-engage the rest of the list [if indeed anyone else out there is interested in engaging!]. If I may be so bold as to query your example, is it a real case of “attraction”? In your example, “what” is a relative pronoun isn’t it? And if so, can be either singular or plural can it not since in English we plainly do not have distinct singular/plural forms of “what”?
As I understand it, is “attraction” simply evident in gender/case choices or does it occur [in NTG] in other forms?
Iver and George: Tak/Thanks for your responses. I will chase up your suggestions.
Rgds Steve [Baldwin] [email protected]
Message body
I was trying to think of an example when I came across one in an email this morning. The subject was initially the importance of the extended family to individuals in some parts of the world. Moving on to what mattered to the extended family, one person wrote “What was most important to the extended family were alliances with other families for mutual defense.” This is a good example of the use of ‘were’ for ‘was’ because of the ‘attraction’ of the following plural noun. The basic thought was “alliances were needed …”, and this may have caused ‘confusion’ momentarily in the mind of the writer, resulting in the incorrect “What was needed were alliances …”. Rather than two ‘was’es, both dependent on ‘what’, the second ‘was’ is replaced by ‘were’ because of ‘attraction’ to the following plural noun. I suspect we have all done similar things without even noticing. Greek provides more opportunities than English by encoding not only number, but also gender.
Kevin
On 4/12/2010 3:50 PM, Stephen Baldwin wrote:
Hello Kevin:
That was almost a useful reply 😉
Would you care to expound further?
Rgds
SteveB
> Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 15:47:58 +1100
> From: [email protected]
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [B-Greek] The Unattractiveness of Attraction?
>
> Perhaps if you looked at some examples of how ‘attraction’ works in
> English it might make more sense in Greek. As a process, it is not
> unique to Greek.
>
> Kevin Riley
>
> On 4/12/2010 3:19 PM, Stephen Baldwin wrote:
> > Ladies and Gentlemen:
> > I am perplexed and perhaps a little cynical about the concept of “attraction” in Koine Greek.
> > One example [among several] occurs in Philippians 1:27-28 where, in Mounce’s Graded Reader, he quotes Fee (NICNT) saying that the hHTIS in v28 refers back to the preceding clause refers back to the whole preceding clause (admittedly I do not have Fee’s work, I am quoting Mounce quoting Fee) and is in the feminine because it is “attracted” to the gender of ENDEIXIS
> > hHTIS ESTIN AUTOIS ENDEIXIS
> > Preceding clause:
> > 1:27-28: THi PISTEI TOU EUANGGELIOU KAI MH PTUROMENOI EN MEDENI hUPO TWN ANTIKEIMENWN hHTIS…
> > [trust the transliteration attains the minimal acceptable standard]
> > I have consulted my grammars — I even hoped, after my recent questions whether A.T. Robertson might rise to the occasion, since there is precious little in any of my other works on this subject. Alas he sits on the table in accordance with Lightman’s suggestion, awaiting a job holding down papers in the next tornado.
> >
> > So is this thing called “attraction” apparent or real? Perhaps I am uncomfortable with the terminology — it is as if the words have a mind of their own rather than a writer deliberately choosing the appropriate and grammatically correct lexical form? If attraction is real, what purpose does it serve?
> > Or is “attraction” a catch-all when all logical, semantic, and grammatical attempts to explain the case of a word have failed?
> > “oh it is not a,b,c,d therefore it is ‘attraction'”
> >
> > Any references, comments, clues welcomed!
> >
> > Rgds
> > Steve Baldwin
> > [email protected]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > —
> > B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek
> > B-Greek mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
> >
> >
> >
> —
> B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek
> B-Greek mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
— B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek B-Greek mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
Mark L. wrote:
“Generally, when people talk about attraction, they talk about a relative being attracted to the case of its prior antecedent, so what you have in Phil 1:27-28 is actually reverse attraction, I think, which is even a more unattractive term.”
LJ:
Actually, what we have in Phil. 1:27-28 is attraction of the relative to the gender of the predicate. “Inverse attraction” (or “reverse attaction,” as you put it), is the assimilation of the gender of the antecedent to that of the relative. Normally, it is the other way round–hence the term “inverse attraction.”
An example is Ps. 118:22 (LXX), quoted in Mt. 21:42; Mk. 12:10 and Lk. 17:
LIQON, hON APEDOKIMASAN hOI OIKODOMOUNTES, hOUTOS EGENHQH EIS KEFALHN GWNIAS.
Normal grammar would require LIQOS (nominative), hON …, which is exactly what we have in 1 Peter 2:7: LIQOS, hON APEDOKIMASAN hOI OIKODOMOUNTES ….
Leonard Jayawardena
— B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek B-Greek mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
Perhaps if you looked at some examples of how ‘attraction’ works in English it might make more sense in Greek. As a process, it is not unique to Greek.
Kevin Riley
href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected] href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected] — B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek B-Greek mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
Robertson has considerable to say regarding attraction, but it is scattered about. I will give a couple of his comments. 10. Attraction of the Relative. A word only is needed about the attraction of the relative, a matter treated properly in the chapter on Pronouns, which see. Here it may only be noted that the genitive (as of other oblique cases) of the relative sometimes appears with a verb when the case is due, not to the verb, but to the antecedent. Thus we note
Regarding ὅστις he states 6. Case. There is little here that calls for comment. We do not have attraction or incorporation. As a matter of fact only three cases occur (nom., gen., acc.). The stereotyped phrase p 729 with ἕωςand the genitive, ἕως ὅτου, occurs five times. Cf. Mt. 5:25; Lu. 12:50 (Luke three times, Matthew and John once each). This is the only form of the shortened inflection. The LXX once (2 Macc. 5:10) has ἥστινος, elsewhere ὅτου. The accusative is found in the N. T. only in the neuter singular ὅτι(absent from modern Greek). But see (note 6, p. 728) occasional ὅντιναand ἥντιναin the papyri. So Lu. 10:35, ὅτι ἂν προσδαπανήσῃς. Cf. ὅτι ἄν, Jo. 2:5; 14:13; 15:16; ὅτι ἐάν, Mk. 6:23; 1 Cor. 16:2 f.; Col. 3:17; ὅτιalone, Jo. 8:25; Ac. 9:6. The other examples are all in the nominative. In Ac. 9:6 the clause is nominative. (pp 728-29)
george gfsomsel
… search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.
– Jan Hus _________
________________________________ Sent: Fri, December 3, 2010 9:19:46 PM
Ladies and Gentlemen: I am perplexed and perhaps a little cynical about the concept of “attraction” in Koine Greek. One example [among several] occurs in Philippians 1:27-28 where, in Mounce’s Graded Reader, he quotes Fee (NICNT) saying that the hHTIS in v28 refers back to the preceding clause refers back to the whole preceding clause (admittedly I do not have Fee’s work, I am quoting Mounce quoting Fee) and is in the feminine because it is “attracted” to the gender of ENDEIXIS hHTIS ESTIN AUTOIS ENDEIXIS Preceding clause: 1:27-28: THi PISTEI TOU EUANGGELIOU KAI MH PTUROMENOI EN MEDENI hUPO TWN ANTIKEIMENWN hHTIS… [trust the transliteration attains the minimal acceptable standard] I have consulted my grammars — I even hoped, after my recent questions whether A.T. Robertson might rise to the occasion, since there is precious little in any of my other works on this subject. Alas he sits on the table in accordance with Lightman’s suggestion, awaiting a job holding down papers in the next tornado.
So is this thing called “attraction” apparent or real? Perhaps I am uncomfortable with the terminology — it is as if the words have a mind of their own rather than a writer deliberately choosing the appropriate and grammatically correct lexical form? If attraction is real, what purpose does it serve? Or is “attraction” a catch-all when all logical, semantic, and grammatical attempts to explain the case of a word have failed? “oh it is not a,b,c,d therefore it is ‘attraction'”
Any references, comments, clues welcomed!
Rgds Steve Baldwin [email protected]
— B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek B-Greek mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek περὶ πάντων ὧν ἐποίησεν(Lu. 3:19), an idiom common in Luke, but rare elsewhere, as ἀστέρων οὓς εἶδες(Rev. 1:20). (p 512)
— B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek B-Greek mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
There was a thread on this in January 2002. You can go to the archives or google for “Phil 1:28 hHTIS”.
Iver Larsen
—– Original Message —– Sent: 4. december 2010 07:19
href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected]
— B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek B-Greek mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
Hi, Stephen,
I have the same subjective reaction as you do. I am repelled by attraction. I understand why people feel the concept is needed. Relative pronouns generally have antecedents, and they generally agree in gender with those antecedents, and when they don’t, people feel they have to right to know why they don’t. Attraction is as good an explanation as any, but I agree that there is something vaguely creepy about the term. All things being equal, becoming the gender you are attracted to doesn’t make a lot of sense. I wonder what the Greeks themselves called it?
In other words, Paul could have written ὅ τι (hO TI) instead of ἥστις, or, for that matter, he could have written και τουτο OR και αυτη. A linguist might say that the neuter would be the “unmarked” form, and that attraction is marked, and so adds emphasis. What’s good about saying that something adds emphasis is that there is no way to prove or disprove it.
I am 100% sure that if you asked Paul why he sometimes allows his words to be attracted and at other times not, he would say “I don’t know. It just sounded better to say it this way.”
Generally, when people talk about attraction, they talk about a relative being attracted to the case of its prior antecedent, so what you have in Phil 1:27-28 is actually reverse attraction, I think, which is even a more unattractive term.
“No, good mother. Here’s metal more attractive.”
Mark L
FWSFOROS MARKOS
________________________________ Sent: Fri, December 3, 2010 9:19:46 PM
Ladies and Gentlemen: I am perplexed and perhaps a little cynical about the concept of “attraction” in Koine Greek. One example [among several] occurs in Philippians 1:27-28 where, in Mounce’s Graded Reader, he quotes Fee (NICNT) saying that the hHTIS in v28 refers back to the preceding clause refers back to the whole preceding clause (admittedly I do not have Fee’s work, I am quoting Mounce quoting Fee) and is in the feminine because it is “attracted” to the gender of ENDEIXIS hHTIS ESTIN AUTOIS ENDEIXIS Preceding clause: 1:27-28: THi PISTEI TOU EUANGGELIOU KAI MH PTUROMENOI EN MEDENI hUPO TWN ANTIKEIMENWN hHTIS… [trust the transliteration attains the minimal acceptable standard] I have consulted my grammars — I even hoped, after my recent questions whether A.T. Robertson might rise to the occasion, since there is precious little in any of my other works on this subject. Alas he sits on the table in accordance with Lightman’s suggestion, awaiting a job holding down papers in the next tornado.
So is this thing called “attraction” apparent or real? Perhaps I am uncomfortable with the terminology — it is as if the words have a mind of their own rather than a writer deliberately choosing the appropriate and grammatically correct lexical form? If attraction is real, what purpose does it serve? Or is “attraction” a catch-all when all logical, semantic, and grammatical attempts to explain the case of a word have failed? “oh it is not a,b,c,d therefore it is ‘attraction'”
Any references, comments, clues welcomed!
Rgds Steve Baldwin [email protected]
— B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek B-Greek mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
— B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek B-Greek mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
Hello Kevin: My original [slightly facetious] response to you was intended for the wider community rather than moving the conversation off-list 😉 Trust it is OK to re-engage the rest of the list [if indeed anyone else out there is interested in engaging!]. If I may be so bold as to query your example, is it a real case of “attraction”? In your example, “what” is a relative pronoun isn’t it? And if so, can be either singular or plural can it not since in English we plainly do not have distinct singular/plural forms of “what”?
As I understand it, is “attraction” simply evident in gender/case choices or does it occur [in NTG] in other forms?
Iver and George: Tak/Thanks for your responses. I will chase up your suggestions.
Rgds Steve [Baldwin] [email protected]
Message body
I was trying to think of an example when I came across one in an email this morning. The subject was initially the importance of the extended family to individuals in some parts of the world. Moving on to what mattered to the extended family, one person wrote “What was most important to the extended family were alliances with other families for mutual defense.” This is a good example of the use of ‘were’ for ‘was’ because of the ‘attraction’ of the following plural noun. The basic thought was “alliances were needed …”, and this may have caused ‘confusion’ momentarily in the mind of the writer, resulting in the incorrect “What was needed were alliances …”. Rather than two ‘was’es, both dependent on ‘what’, the second ‘was’ is replaced by ‘were’ because of ‘attraction’ to the following plural noun. I suspect we have all done similar things without even noticing. Greek provides more opportunities than English by encoding not only number, but also gender.
Kevin
On 4/12/2010 3:50 PM, Stephen Baldwin wrote:
Hello Kevin:
That was almost a useful reply 😉
Would you care to expound further?
Rgds
SteveB
> Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 15:47:58 +1100
> From: [email protected]
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [B-Greek] The Unattractiveness of Attraction?
>
> Perhaps if you looked at some examples of how ‘attraction’ works in
> English it might make more sense in Greek. As a process, it is not
> unique to Greek.
>
> Kevin Riley
>
> On 4/12/2010 3:19 PM, Stephen Baldwin wrote:
> > Ladies and Gentlemen:
> > I am perplexed and perhaps a little cynical about the concept of “attraction” in Koine Greek.
> > One example [among several] occurs in Philippians 1:27-28 where, in Mounce’s Graded Reader, he quotes Fee (NICNT) saying that the hHTIS in v28 refers back to the preceding clause refers back to the whole preceding clause (admittedly I do not have Fee’s work, I am quoting Mounce quoting Fee) and is in the feminine because it is “attracted” to the gender of ENDEIXIS
> > hHTIS ESTIN AUTOIS ENDEIXIS
> > Preceding clause:
> > 1:27-28: THi PISTEI TOU EUANGGELIOU KAI MH PTUROMENOI EN MEDENI hUPO TWN ANTIKEIMENWN hHTIS…
> > [trust the transliteration attains the minimal acceptable standard]
> > I have consulted my grammars — I even hoped, after my recent questions whether A.T. Robertson might rise to the occasion, since there is precious little in any of my other works on this subject. Alas he sits on the table in accordance with Lightman’s suggestion, awaiting a job holding down papers in the next tornado.
> >
> > So is this thing called “attraction” apparent or real? Perhaps I am uncomfortable with the terminology — it is as if the words have a mind of their own rather than a writer deliberately choosing the appropriate and grammatically correct lexical form? If attraction is real, what purpose does it serve?
> > Or is “attraction” a catch-all when all logical, semantic, and grammatical attempts to explain the case of a word have failed?
> > “oh it is not a,b,c,d therefore it is ‘attraction'”
> >
> > Any references, comments, clues welcomed!
> >
> > Rgds
> > Steve Baldwin
> > [email protected]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > —
> > B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek
> > B-Greek mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
> >
> >
> >
> —
> B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek
> B-Greek mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
— B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek B-Greek mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
Mark L. wrote:
“Generally, when people talk about attraction, they talk about a relative being attracted to the case of its prior antecedent, so what you have in Phil 1:27-28 is actually reverse attraction, I think, which is even a more unattractive term.”
LJ:
Actually, what we have in Phil. 1:27-28 is attraction of the relative to the gender of the predicate. “Inverse attraction” (or “reverse attaction,” as you put it), is the assimilation of the gender of the antecedent to that of the relative. Normally, it is the other way round–hence the term “inverse attraction.”
An example is Ps. 118:22 (LXX), quoted in Mt. 21:42; Mk. 12:10 and Lk. 17:
LIQON, hON APEDOKIMASAN hOI OIKODOMOUNTES, hOUTOS EGENHQH EIS KEFALHN GWNIAS.
Normal grammar would require LIQOS (nominative), hON …, which is exactly what we have in 1 Peter 2:7: LIQOS, hON APEDOKIMASAN hOI OIKODOMOUNTES ….
Leonard Jayawardena
— B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek B-Greek mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek