Passage Notes for the BibleWorks Greek NT Sentence

Diagrams, In Canonical Order

Matthew
Mat 2:18 — Numerous other constructions are possible. Perhaps the best alternative
would be to construe klauqmo.j kai. ovdurmo,j and ~Rach,l as appositives to
fwnh, and to coordinate the two indicatives hvkou,sqh and h;qelen.
Diagramming klai,ousa would then be a challenge, though, if it is to be taken as
adverbial to hvkou,sqh with only ~Rach,l as its referent.
Mat 2:18 klai,ousa — The clause could alternately be construed as having an elliptical
hvkou,sqh as its main verb, with this participle functioning adverbially. That
construction would have the virtue of coordinating two indicatives and would avoid
having the participle function as a finite verb. I have not insisted on this level of
grammatical precision, however, partly because Hebrew, especially Hebrew poetry,
seems generally to be looser than Greek on these points. At times it is difficult to
decide, when diagramming OT quotations, whether to diagram according to Greek
grammar or according to Hebrew.
Mat 2:23 — I have diagrammed the concluding o[ti clause as a noun clause rather than a
quotation based on the fact that the “quoted” words nowhere appear in the Old
Testament. The diagram construes the clause as an indirect rather than a direct
quotation.
Mat 3:3 fwnh, — The noun could alternatively be construed as the subject of an
elliptical linking verb with no complement, in the sense “There was a voice. . . .”
Mat 3:16 — It may seem on the surface that the first ivdou/ should introduce the first
two coordinate clauses. ivdou/, however, introduces a direct statement of the event
to which it calls attention, not an indirect statement of some’s observation of that
event. “Behold, the Spirit of God came down” would be good Greek, but “Behold, he
saw the Spirit of God coming down” would not (unless for some reason the seeing is
intended as the focus of special attention).
Mat 3:16-17: Two word slots too small, generating red blots.
Mat 4:15 o`do,n — On o`do,j used as a preposition, see BDAG, o`do,j, 1.
Mat 4:24 paralutikou,j — Diagramming this adjective within a coordinate series of
participles is an exercise in choosing the least of the evils. The diagram technically
shows it incorrectly as a substantival participle. The alternatives seemed worse:
diagramming it outside the series or supplying a participle of eivmi, (o;ntaj), for
which this word would then function as predicate.
Mat 5:12 evn toi/j ouvranoi/j — Based on word order, I find myself somewhat
inclined to construe this phrase with polu,j, but I cannot discern a clear meaning for
that construction.
Mat 6:22 o` ovfqalmo,j — I have taken this word rather than o` lu,cnoj as the
subject because it appears to be the topic of this whole section. It seems better to me
within the context to understand “eye” as the topic and “is the light of the body” as
the predicate than vice-versa.
Mat 6:34 e`auth/j — The pronoun could possibly be construed as direct object.
Mat 7:29 e;cwn — The versions treat the participle as an anarthrous substantive: “as one
having authority.” This approach does yield exact grammatical parallelism with “and
not as their scribes” in that the nominative word in each phrase is construed as the
subject of an elliptical verb. Ordinarily I conform the diagramming to the versions in
cases such as this, but here I suspect that the versions are simply opting for attractive
English wording. The Greek text itself seems to me to read most naturally by taking
the participle as adverbial.
Mat 8:30 boskome,nh — The participle could alternatively be construed as
periphrastic.
Mat 9:6 — I do not find a way to diagram this sentence without some sort of problem.
The verse begins with Jesus addressing the crowd, then after a parenthetical insertion
(“then he says to the paralytic”), He speaks to the paralytic. The grammar is simply
too convoluted to submit entirely to ordinary diagramming conventions. The diagram
as I have drawn it fails to indicate that the commands to the paralytic are actually the
object of le,gei. But the only alternative I can see is to diagram the opening de, as
introducing the “he says” clause, and this is not acceptable because it removes de,
from the quotation and makes it part of the parenthesis.
Mat 9:6 evpi. th/j gh/j — I construe this prepositional phrase with avfie,nai rather
than e;cei based on the parallel in Mar 2:10, where the order of words strongly
favors the connection with the infinitive. It is always possible, of course, that
Matthew intended a thought connection different from Mark’s.
Mat 9:12 ouv — It is difficult to decide whether to construe the negative with crei,an,
which appears most natural from the word order, or whether to pair it with avllV as
joining the subjects, which yields the simpler grammar and diagram. The general
policy is to construe “not” and “but” as pairs wherever reasonable. I adhered to policy
in this diagram, though I admit that in doing so I may be stretching the outer edges of
“reasonable.”
Mat 9:17 ouvde, — I split this word into it its parts, ouv and de,, in order to preserve
the introductory de, and pair the ouv with the contrasting avlla,.
Mat 9:38 tou/ kuri,ou — The words might alternatively be diagrammed as adverbial,
with only the noun clause serving as object.
Mat 10:15 — I am diagramming on the Semitic model in which “x is to y” means “y has
x.” The construction could be rendered literally, “A more tolerable thing will be to the
land of Sodom and Gomorrah than will be to you,” or, recast using “to have”: “The
land of Sodom and Gomorrah will have a more tolerable thing than you will have.”
The virtue of this approach to the construction is that it does not leave e;stai without
a subject. If, following the English model (“it will be more tolerable”), we diagram
avnekto,teron as predicate, then what is the subject? The vague “it” may be
acceptable English, but I have not seen many places where the Greek text seems to
work best that way. Since this Semitic construction is quite common in the NT, I see
no reason not to use it here.
Mat 10:20 — It is difficult to decide which nominative is subject and which is predicate
in each clause.
Mat 10:25 — The grammatical parallelism is not precise: “disciple” is dative but
“servant” is nominative. Therefore the diagram cannot be perfectly coherent. It
 appears to read “it is sufficient for the disciple that . . . the servant [should be] as his
Lord.” This seems to me, however, to be the least objectionable approach.
Mat 10:32 pa/j — The word could alternatively be diagrammed as a pendent nominative
(with auvtw|/ serving as its resumptive). It would also be the antecedent for o[stij.
Mat 10:36 — It is difficult to tell which nominative is subject and which is predicate. I
diagrammed based on the anarthrous state of evcqroi,.
Mat 11:22 — See note on Mat 10:15.
Mat 11:26 ou[twj — I have diagrammed this adverb in the subject slot on the
assumption that it refers to the preceding material: to conceal these things from some
and to reveal them to others was God’s good pleasure. Also, I have supplied an
elliptical clause for the o[ti clause in this verse to modify. That clause could be either
“I praise you” or “You have done this.” Alternatively, the o[ti clause could possibly
be construed as modifying the last portion of v. 25, eliminating the need for the
elliptical clause. However, in such a construction it would be difficult to construe
nai. o` path,r.
Mat 11:28 — The participles could alternatively be diagrammed as vocatives.
Mat 12:3, 5 OUK — Had diagrammed on wrong widget (adverb).
Mat 12:4 eiv mh, — I am following BDAG (eiv, 6.i.b) in taking the phrase in the sense
“but.” It could perhaps be taken in its ordinary sense “except,” if David’s band
perhaps contained a few off-duty priests. The diagramming would be more complex;
an elliptical repetition of “it was lawful” would have to be supplied for toi/j
i`ereu/sin mo,noij to modify.
Mat 12:16 — The grammar could alternatively be construed with auvtoi/j as direct
object and the i[na clause as adverbial.
Mat 12:17 — The purpose clause could alternatively be construed with all three of the
preceding clauses (including “many crowds followed him”). The portion of the OT
quotation that would support this connection comes in verse 21: “And in his name
will the nations hope.”
Mat 13:4 — I have ignored the end punctuation in order to be able to pair the me,n in
this verse with the de, that opens verse 5.
Mat 13:11 o[ti — It would also be possible to construe this word as simply introducing a
direct quotation, as most of the versions seem to do. The capitalization of the UBS
Greek text, however, makes this the first word of the quotation, requiring an elliptical
clause to be supplied: “(I speak to them in parables) because to you it has been
given....”
Mat 14:6 genesi,oij — The word could alternatively be construed as a simple dative of
time. In that case the participle genome,noij would be a simple temporal participle
modifying the main verbs, with genesi,oij as its referent. I have diagrammed the
construction as a dative absolute, but the validity of such a construction is
questionable.
Mat 14:16 ouv — The negative could alternatively be construed with crei,an.
Mat 14:16 fagei/n — Alternatively, an elliptical direct object (ti) could be supplied for
do,te, and the infinitive could modify either the object or the verb. I am
diagramming according to a common Semitic construction using !tn, which
corresponds to di,dwmi in Greek.
Mat 15:20 — It is difficult to decide whether tau/ta is subject and ta. koinou/nta is
predicate or vice-versa. The pronoun refers to the nearer topic at hand while the
participle refers to the overall topic of the discourse, so both have reasonable claim to
subject status.
Mat 15:27 — I have supplied an elliptical clause for the ga,r clause to modify (cf.
BDAG, ga,r, 1.e.). It is impossible to know exactly what that clause should contain;
something like, “Yes, Lord, [but please help me anyway], for even the dogs...” would
seem to fit nicely.
Mat 16:3 — recast with OU on correct widget (had it on adverb).
Mat 16:7 o[ti — The conjunction could be diagrammed as introducing a direct quotation
(as indicated by the capitalization of the UBS Greek NT: o[ti :Artouj ouvk
evla,bomen) rather than as part of the quotation, as I have diagrammed it. My
diagramming reflects what appears to be the consensus of the versions. The elliptical
clause I supplied would read something like, “[Jesus said that,] because we did not
bring bread.”
Mat 16:11 ouv — The negative could alternatively be construed with the prepositional
phrase: “not concerning bread.”
Mat 19:18 to, — The article seems to me best taken with the listing of commands from
the second table of the Decalogue. avgaph,seij to.n plhsi,on sou w`j
seauto,n in v. 19 is given separately in the OT and does not seem to cohere tightly
enough with the other commands to warrant placing it under the article that governs
the others. This is consistent also with the fact that the Decalogue commands lack the
coordinating conjunction whereas this final command is introduced by kai,.
Mat 19:22 lupou,menoj — The diagram shows the participle functioning as a predicate
adjective (not a predicate noun). Some, no doubt, would prefer to diagram it as
adverbial.
Mat 19:22 e;cwn — The participle could perhaps be taken as a predicate noun: “He was
[a man] who had many possessions.”
Mat 19:29 e`katontaplasi,ona — In diagramming this word as an adverb rather than
direct object, I follow BDAG.
Mat 20:8 e[wj tw/n prw,twn — The diagram does not reflect precise logic:
“beginning from the last” makes sense, but “beginning until the first” does not. The
only way to make the logic precise, however, would be to supply a coordinate
participle such as “[and paying] until the first” or “[and continuing] until the first.”
This seems to me like a rather large ellipsis, and it seems better simply to leave the
logic looking a little loose, since slightly loose logic is a common phenomenon even
in well educated and careful speakers.
Mat 20:9-10 avna. dhna,rion — The phrase (an idiom meaning “a denarius apiece”)
is difficult to diagram, because the overall syntax seems to require dhna,rion to
function as direct object of e;labon, but avna, also needs it as its object. The
difficulty is compounded by the inclusion of the anaphoric article with the phrase in
verse 10 (to. avna. dhna,rion). My assumptions are these: the most compelling
syntactical considerations demand construing avna. dhna,rion as a prepositional
phrase, and the overall syntax should be the same in both verses. The least
objectionable way I see to handle the construction is to view the prepositional phrase
as a whole as the object of the verb. The article can then particularize the phrase
 anaphorically in verse 10 (the same “denarius apiece” as was mentioned in verse 9). It
might seem attractive simply to diagram the noun as the direct object and treat avna,
as an adverb. BDAG does in fact indicate that an adverbial function is possible, but
where avna, is used with the accusative they appear to treat it always as a
preposition, and as far as I know this is the consensus among the grammarians.
Mat 20:21 ei-j evk dexiw/n sou kai. ei-j evx euvwnu,mwn sou — I do not find
a way to diagram all the syntactical connections accurately. The adjectives ei-j are
nominative because of an appositional connection to ui`oi,. But the prepositional
phrases need verbs to modify. The verbs to be supplied could perhaps be singular
subjunctives coordinate with kaqi,swsin, but whole new clauses do not seem
appropriate, since the material is embedded between the verb kaqi,swsin and its
modifier evn th|/ basilei,a| sou. The best way I can find to keep the material
subordinate to kaqi,swsin is to supply participles rather than subjunctives, and the
only construction diagrammable looks like a pair of nominative absolutes. The
problem with this construction is that the nominatives are not absolute (they cohere
with ui`oi,). Still, this seems to me to be the least objectionable approach.
Mat 20:23 @tou/to# — Both the BNM and GNM databases parse the word as
accusative. I agree and have diagrammed accordingly. But the word could also be
taken as nominative, the subject of e;stin, in which case dou/nai would be
explanatory to evmo,n. This construction is in fact reflected in the NRSV. A literal
translation of the construction I have in mind, which treats kaqi,sai as a pendent
nominative, would read, “But to sit on my right and on [my] left, it is not mine to give
this, but [this] is for [those] for whom it has been prepared....”
Mat 21:22 pisteu,ontej — The participle could alternatively be construed as modifying
aivth,shte (cf. NRSV).
Mat 21:41 kakou.j kakw/j avpole,sei auvtou,j — This appears to be an idiomatic
expression emphasizing the severity of the destruction. Since it is not clear how that
meaning could be reflected in a syntactically coherent diagram, I have put kakou,j
into a reasonable syntactical connection, assuming that the idiom probably originated
from some such syntactically coherent expression.
Mat 22:3 eivj tou.j ga,mouj — I am personally inclined to construe the phrase with
kale,sai rather than keklhme,nouj (supported by the frequent occurrence in this
passage of oi` keklhme,noi construed absolutely), but I defer to the strong
consensus of the versions.
Mat 22:5 o]j me.n)))o]j de, — See note on Mat 20:21. The considerations discussed
there apply here also.
Mat 22:16-17 — The punctuation of BNT (period after ouvdeno,j) appears to be in
error. My print copy has colon here.
Mat 22:24 e;cwn — The participle could alternatively be construed as attributive to tij,
as subject (modified by tij), or even as predicate adjective.
Mat 22:30 evn tw|/ ouvranw|/ — The phrase could alternatively modify eivsin: “In
heaven, they are like angels.
Mat 22:32 — See note on Mar 12:27.
Mat 23:16 o]j a'n ovmo,sh| evn tw|/ naw|/ — This is a hanging construction; the
remainder of the sentence forms a different grammatical construction that does not
cohere with this opening clause. In most hanging constructions, an entity is named in
 the nominative case but then later takes another function in relation to the verb. Here
it is the verbal idea, “swears,” that is resumed in the main clause, as the subject of “it
is nothing.” The only way I can find to diagram with reasonable adequacy is to use
the pendent nominative symbol that is ordinarily used for hanging constructions,
using it to connect the verb of the hanging portion with the subject slot of the main
clause.
Mat 23:17 mwroi. kai. tufloi, — I have taken these words as predicate nominatives
rather than vocatives because a complete clause is needed to govern the explanatory
clause introduced by ga,r.
Mat 23:18 o]j a'n ovmo,sh| evn tw|/ qusiasthri,w| — Cf. note on v. 16.
Mat 23:19 tufloi, — Cf. note on v. 17.
Mat 23:37 o]n tro,pon — I have diagrammed the relative phrase as a simple
conjunction meaning “like” or “as,” losing the relative function of the pronoun. The
relative function could perhaps be preserved by instead diagramming tro,pon as
adverbial to evpisunagagei/n and o[n as adverbial to evpisuna,gei and joining
the two with a relative clause connector rather than using the subordinate clause
symbol.
Mat 24:19 evn evkei,naij tai/j h`me,raij — The phrase actually modifies the action
of the participles rather than the persons referred to by the participles, but I did not
want to introduce the additional complexity that would be required to make this detail
clear. Probably the best way to show this detail would be to diagram the whole
prepositional phrase separately for each participle, connecting it under each participle
itself.
Mat 24:24 mega,la — It is also possible to construe the adjective as modifying both
shmei/a and te,rata.
Mat 26:2 — It is also possible to construe the last clause as parallel to the first; in that
case Jesus is stating only one fact that the disciples know, which is that Passover is
coming in two days. The last clause would then reiterate a fact that Jesus had
previously stated but that the disciples did not seem to have understood and accepted
fully enough that Jesus can say that they know it. I am attracted to the logic of this
view, but it would seem more naturally expressed with some other connection than a
simple conjunctive kai,; for example, “at that time...” or “and I have told you that....”
Mat 26:26 a;rton — It is difficult to decide whether to construe this noun as the object
of both participles or only of labw,n. euvloge,w could be construed absolutely
here and in similar passages, with the sense, “give thanks.” But both Mar 8:7 and Luk
9:16 unambiguously make the food the object of euvloge,w. BDAG is equivocal on
the question, treating the ambiguous passages under both constructions.
Mat 26:35 ka;n — Since kai, seems to intensify eva,n (“even if”), and there is not a
natural way to diagram an intensifier for a conjunction, I have left the two words
together rather than splitting them apart as usual. If the two words had to be split
apart, probably the best way to diagram kai, would be adverbial to avpoqanei/n:
“If it were necessary that I even die....”
Mat 26:40 — Corrected widget for OUK; it was on adverb.
Mat 26:50 — What ellipsis to supply is a topic of dispute. See BDAG, o[j, 1.b.a;
1.b.b.b; and 1.i.b. I have diagrammed according to the strong consensus of the
versions.
Mat 26:60 yeudomartu,rwn — I am inclined to read this word as a predicate noun
and pollw/n as subject: “though many came forward [as] false witnesses.” In
deference, however, to the strong consensus of the versions, I diagram it as the
subject, modified by pollw/n.
Mat 26:62 ti, — The interrogative pronoun infringes upon the domain of the relative
pronoun, especially in contexts where an underlying question may be discerned (see
BDAG). In this context the question is not apparent, and the usage seems to me
almost purely relative. The only way I see to diagram is to treat the word as a relative
pronoun.
Mat 26:65 e;ti — Diagramming the adverb as an adjective is unusual, but the sense
seems clear to me, supported by a good number of versions: “What further need do
we have...?” The position of the word between ti, and crei,an seems to me to read
much more naturally like this than “What need do we still have...?”
Mat 26:75 eivrhko,toj — I understand the participle to be masculine gender, with Jesus
as its referent: “Peter remembered the word of Jesus, when He said....” Lacking the
article, it seems best construed as adverbial. However, it does not specify when Peter
remembered; rather it specifies when the word event named by r`h,matoj took
place. Although it is unusual for an adverbial participle to modify a noun, I think such
a construction is entirely possible when the noun is an event noun. The diagram could
also be interpreted to mean “the word which said,” since the adverbial participle
symbol is not visually distinct from the adjectival. Ordinarily this overlap between
symbols is not a problem, since adverbial participles modify verbs and adjectival
participles modify nouns. Hence this note to call attention to the fact that I used the
adverbial participle symbol and that I do not believe an adjectival construction would
be correct.
Mat 27:7 ivdou. ei=pon u`mi/n — This clause could alternatively be construed as
part of the o[ti clause specifying what the women should tell the disciples. In that
case, u`mi/n would refer to the disciples; as I have diagrammed, it refers to the
women.

Mark

Mar 1:4 eivj a;fesin a`martiw/n — The phrase could alternatively be construed to
modify metanoi,aj.
Mar 1:19 katarti,zontaj — Alternatively, the participle could be construed as adverbial
to a supplied indirect discourse participle o;ntaj. The difference in meaning would
be that this alternative construction would mean that they were in the boat, mending
their nets. The meaning as I have diagrammed would be that they were mending their
nets in the boat.
Mar 1:24 o` a[gioj — I construed this word as appositional to ti,j rather than as a
further appositive to se based on its being in the nominative case.
Mar 1:41 auvtou/ — The pronoun could be construed alternatively as referring to Jesus
and modifying th.n cei/ra. I would be inclined personally to read it so, but I defer
to KJV/NKJV, which show by italic type (“his hand”) that they take it as object of
h[yato.
Mar 2:10-11 — See the two notes on Mat 9:6.
Mar 2:16 o[ti — The word is likely the neuter singular accusative of o[stij (the sense is
the same as the simple interrogative ti, would be in this context: “Why?”) rather than
the common conjunction. See BDAG, o[stij, 4.b.
Mar 4:20 $karpoforou/n% — Several considerations lead to supplying this participle
in an absolute construction. First, karpoforou/sin seems to cohere so tightly with
the preceding verbs sharing oi[tinej as their subject that it is not natural to try to
construe this one separately with the 3 instances of e[n constituting its subject. The
remaining options for each e[n are to treat them as appositional to oi[tinej or as
subjects of elliptical verbs, either indicative or absolute participles. The adjectives
specifying the multiplication factor, though, must either complete or modify verbs.
They could perhaps be construed as adverbial to karpoforou/sin, but with the
instances of e[n diagrammed as appositive to oi[tinej, how could each e[n be
connected with its multiplier? So the decision goes against the appositive
construction. Once the decision is made to treat e[n as the subject of an elliptical
verb, a decision must be made about what verb to supply, and in what form. In v. 8
the verb was fe,rw, which allowed the adjectives to be treated as substantive objects.
The same verb could be supplied here, with the adjectives construed as objects.
However, it seemed best to me to supply the verb already used in sentence. Since
karpofore,w is ordinarily intransitive (but cf. v. 28), the adjectives would better be
construed as adverbial modifiers than as objects. Any supplied verb could be either an
indicative or a participle. It seemed best to me to favor the subordination allowed by
the participle, so I diagrammed absolute constructions with the participle in the neuter
gender agreeing with e[n. The neuter gender gives rise to a further question: since
Jesus has been referring to the recipients of the word in the masculine gender in this
part of the chapter, it seems likely that the neuter gender signals some other reference
than to a recipient of the word. In v. 8 the neuter gender could naturally refer to a
seed. I assume that the thought here has simply reverted to the reference to seeds.
However, I think it would be highly viable to understand the neuter as referring to
neither a person nor a seed but rather something like “in one case thirty, in one case
sixty, and in one case one hundred.” This meaning could be diagrammed without
supplying elliptical verbs: the adjectives would constitute a compound modifier to the
explicit karpoforou/sin, and each adjective would be modified by one occurrence
of e[n, understood as something like an accusative of reference.
Mar 4:28 $karpoforw/n% — Although this verb is ordinarily intransitive, it seems best
to construe it as transitive here; it is not easy to see what the accusative nouns could
be other than direct objects. The only way I see around the problem is to supply a
different verb, but that option does not seem natural.
Mar 4:31 w`j ko,kkw| — The understood kernel would be, “We liken it” or “We put it
in a parable...”, which are the kernels of the preceding question. The dative case of
ko,kkw| fits either construction: for the first, a dative after o`moio,w expresses the
standard of comparison; for the second, ko,kkw| would be appositional to the dative
parabolh|/. My diagramming reflects the first option, which seems slightly more
natural to me.
Mar 5:9 ti, o;noma, soi( legiw.n o;noma, moi — Based on the use of the dative
rather than the genitive, an alternative diagramming would reflect the Semitic
 construction in which the dative would be adverbial. See section VII.22 of the
diagramming policies guide.
Mar 5:30 evx auvtou/ — One might think that this phrase most naturally modifies
evxelqou/san. The position of the phrase between th,n and du,namin, however,
seems compelling in favor of the adjectival construction.
Mar 6:2 — The grammar of the last clause is difficult, as reflected by the variety of
readings among the manuscripts. The most significant weakness in the diagram I have
drawn is that I have construed gino,menai as an attributive participle even though it
is in predicate position in relation to ai` duna,meij. This is the best construction I
can make of the text as punctuated by NA27, which includes this clause as part of the
crowd’s question. The most attractive alternative to me is the one reflected in versions
that take this clause as an exclamation: “And such miracles are being worked through
his hands!”
Mar 6:9 $poreu,esqai% — In supplying this infinitive I follow A.T. Robertson’s
suggestion (Word Pictures in the Greek NT). It is indeed difficult to see any other way
to construe the grammar that makes sense of an accusative participle
(u`podedeme,nouj) here. There are unambiguously two different kinds of
complements for parh,ggeilen (indirect discourse in the third person subjunctive
and direct discourse in the second person imperative); why not a third (indirect
discourse using an infinitive)?
Mar 6:22 th/j qugatro.j auvtou/ ~Hrw|dia,doj — The textual note in the NET
Bible is very helpful. If this is the original reading, it seems to me that it can be
understood to mean, “his daughter, that is, Herodias’s (daughter)....” She is Herod’s
daughter in the sense that he is her mother’s husband, but physically she is only her
daughter. I admit that this is an awkward reading, compared to taking “Herodias” as a
simple appositive, but it is perhaps the least problematic of all the options. The
problem with understanding “Herodias” as an appositive is of course the fact that this
is the mother’s name and therefore very unlikely to be the daughter’s name as well—
NLT’s “his daughter, also named Herodias” to the contrary notwithstanding. A good
many versions that generally follow the Critical Text either depart from it in this
passage or else render it along the lines suggested above (e.g. RSV, NAU, NIV, ESV).
Mar 6:35 pollh/j — The adjective could alternatively be diagrammed as attributive to
w[raj.
Mar 6:37 fagei/n — See note on Mat 14:16.
Mar 6:37 — An alternative would be to diagram dhnari,wn diakosi,wn a;rtouj as
the object of both verbs and construe fagei/n as adverbial to dw,somen.
Mar 6:41 euvlo,ghsen kai. kate,klasen tou.j a;rtouj — Theoretically the noun
could be construed as the object of both verbs (cf. note on Mat 26:26). But the
construction seems clearly to separate Jesus’ handling of the loaves from that of the
fish, and surely euvlogh,saj must be construed so that it applies to both types of
food. The sense here would be “give thanks,” which does not require an object.
Mar 7:2 — The sentence opens with a circumstantial participle, in anticipation of a main
verb expressing the Pharisees’ and scribes’ speaking to Jesus. However, after the long
parenthetical digression on scribal traditions about washing, Mark resumes the main
idea of the sentence with kai,, as though he had already completed an independent
clause and needed to start a new one. I simply diagrammed the opening participle as
 subordinate to an elliptical clause. Another alternative would be perhaps to diagram
both instances of kai, (v. 2 and v. 5) together on a single introductory conjunction
symbol or on two separate symbols connected to the baseline side-by-side.
Mar 7:4 a;lla polla, — Which of these two adjectives is subject and which is
attributive? The method by which I answer such questions is to ask this: which of the
two words would best stand alone in the noun slot? Is the idea “there are other
things,” with “many” being the more incidental qualifier, or is it “there are many
things” with “other” being more incidental? The call in this passage is a tough one,
and I would not insist that I have made it correctly.
Mar 7:15 eivsporeuo,menon — I am personally inclined to take the participle phrase
as an anarthrous substantive functioning as subject and modified by ouvde,n. This
is in keeping with the basically parallel construction in v. 18. However, I defer to the
versions, which display a strong consensus in favor of taking the participle
adverbially.
Mar 7:19 — By ending the quotation at evkporeu,etai, I follow the strong consensus
of versions rather than the punctuation of NA27.
Mar 7:26 de, — The word is, of course, a coordinating conjunction. However, the
statement seems clearly parenthetical: the main line of this portion of the sentence is
clearly “a woman (anarthrous gunh, in v. 25) fell at his feet and asked him that he
might cast the demon out of her daughter.” Embedded between these two verbs is
another complete clause: h` de. gunh. h=n ~Ellhni,j.... I see no alternative but
to diagram this embedded clause separately from the main coordination, which means
that it must be construed as subordinate.
Mar 8:1 evn evkei,naij tai/j h`me,raij — The prepositional phrase could be
construed with either the participle or the main verb.
Mar 8:1 pa,lin — If Mark has in mind a reference back to the previous miraculous
feeding, then the adverb would modify both participles.
Mar 8:2 h`me,rai — Surely this nominative cannot be the subject of prosme,nousin,
which must be the people. So an adverbial nominative is really the only option.
Mar 8:23 evpilabo,menoj th/j ceiro.j tou/ tuflou/ — It is hard to tell which
genitive is the direct object. The phrase could read “having taken the blind man’s
hand” or “having taken the blind man by the hand.” I am personally somewhat
inclined toward the former, based on the order of words, but I defer to the strong
consensus of the versions. BDAG appears to endorse my preference; the examples
they cite for taking a person by a thing (including body parts) place the person first
and the thing second.
Mar 8:23 eiv — On eiv used to introduce a direct question, see BDAG, eiv, 5.a.
Mar 8:24 — The grammar of the quotation is very difficult. o[ti could perhaps introduce
a second quotation, though awkwardly. The versions, however, do not go this
direction. With the word as part of the quotation, a reasonable logic can be obtained if
we understand the o[ti clause as explanatory, introducing “walking” as the man’s
explanation of how he knows he is looking at people and not trees. I am construing
the phrase w`j de,ndra as the predicate of an understood participle, which would
have a concessive connection. The overall idea is “I see men, because (though they
are) like trees, I see (them) walking.” On the assumption that the record contains the
 man’s very words, it is not surprising that the intensity of the moment generates
syntax that is halting and incomplete.
Mar 9:3 sti,lbonta — The construction I have diagrammed reflects the preponderance
of versions that render “dazzling white” or some such.
Mar 9:3 oi-a — The exact grammatical connection is difficult to trace, and I am not
certain that I have done it correctly.
Mar 9:11 o[ti (1st) — I am taking this word as the neuter accusative singular of o[stij,
equivalent to interrogative ti, and meaning “why?” See BDAG, o[ti, 2.b. and o[stij,
4.b.
Mar 9:28 o[ti — See note on Mar 9:11.
Mar 9:43 kalo,n — The adjective must be understood Semitically in the comparative
sense “better.”
Mar 10:22 lupou,menoj — The participle could alternatively be construed as a
predicate adjective.
Mar 10:22 e;cwn — The participle could alternatively be construed as a periphrastic.
The sense I have in mind is, “He was a man who had many possessions.”
Mar 11:3 auvtou/ — Is it possible that the placement of this word intentionally allows a
subtle ambiguity with a secondary meaning “its Master needs (it)”? An interesting
question, but I have diagrammed according to the straightforward sense reflected in
the versions, which would almost certainly be the primary meaning at any rate.
Mar 11:13 — The indirect question introduced by eiv could alternatively be construed as
the object of an understood participle or infinitive meaning something like “to see.”
Mar 11:19 ovye, — The adverb has substantival uses (see BDAG, 2.).
Mar 12:16 ti,noj h` eivkw.n au[th kai. h` evpigrafh, — Most of the versions use
an English construction in which “this” is the subject, and “image and inscription” is
the predicate, modified by “whose”: “Whose image and inscription is this?” The
Greek could be diagrammed correspondingly, but the presence of the article with the
nouns makes it appear more natural to me to take them as subject, with ti,noj serving
as predicate genitive. The corresponding English construction would be, “Whose
is/are this image and inscription?” (cf. KJV: “Whose is this inscription?”). I assume
that the versions turned the construction around for the sake of English style.
Mar 12:27 — qeo,j could alternatively be diagrammed as subject, and the genitives
would then be predicate genitives. This is in fact how I diagrammed the parallel in
Mat 22:32. The difference is that in that passage qeo,j is articular, inclining me to
construe it as subject, whereas here it is anarthrous. It is a relatively fine line to draw,
however, and in my judgment either passage could go either way.
Mar 12:28 proselqw,n — The participle could perhaps be diagrammed as modifying
the main verb evphrw,thsen. But the approaching seems to me to cohere in
context more closely with his act of hearing than with that of asking. To construe it
with the main verb would imply that he stood at some distance listening, then
approached only to ask his question. It seems a more natural scenario to me that he
approached, took in the debate as a listener, and then asked his own question as an
involved party rather than as an interrupter.
Mar 12:33 — This verse could alternatively be construed as part of Jesus’ statement that
the scribe is commending, rather than as the scribe’s own statement. Of course, Jesus
did not say exactly these words, but neither did he say ouvk e;stin a;lloj plh.n
 auvtou/, which the scribe seems clearly to attribute to him. What the scribe says in
this verse is clearly implied by what Jesus did say, just as ouvk e;stin a;lloj plh.n
auvtou/ is.
Mar 13:19 toiau,th — It is hard to know how to diagram this word. BDAG’s suggestion
that it is a Semitic pleonasm (b.b.) is attractive, but how does one diagram such a
construction? The options seem to me to be: 1) appositive to oi-a, 2) attributive to oi-
a, or 3) predicate after ge,gonen and ge,nhtai. The predicate option is least
attractive to me, since gi,nomai in this verse seems best taken in an absolute sense:
“has not happened and never will happen.” The attributive construction does not seem
to reflect the pleonastic connection very well. The appositive construction seems to
me closest to the pleonastic idea and therefore least objectionable. I suppose a fourth
option would be simply to diagram both words together in the subject slot.
Mar 13:21 to,te — The adverb could alternatively be construed with the main clause.
Mar 13:30 me,crij ou- — The phrase could alternatively be diagrammed as a
conjunction introducing a subordinate clause.
Mar 13:34 — Most of the versions treat the participles avfei,j and dou,j and the
indicative evnetei,lato as a coordinate series of three verbs. Probably the best way
to diagram that construction would be simply to treat the participles as finite verbs,
which can be a valid construction in some contexts. It seems to me, though, that the
NAS may well have correctly picked up the construction: “It is like a man going
away on a journey, who upon leaving his house and putting his slaves in charge,
assigning to each one his task, also commanded the doorkeeper to stay on the alert.”
This way of reading the sentence subordinates the participles in the normal fashion.
The focus of the sentence then falls on commanding the doorkeeper to stay alert. This
reading fits the context exceedingly well, since the remaining verses of the chapter
focus solely on the need to maintain vigilance. I have diagrammed accordingly.
Mar 14:4 avganaktou/ntej — The participle could alternatively be construed as a
periphrastic. The versions are divided.
Mar 14:38 — The i[na clause could alternatively be construed as the object of
proseu,cesqe.
Mar 14:39 pa,lin — It is hard to decide whether the adverb modifies the participle or the
main verb. I suspect that Mark had both in mind. Cf. v. 40, where clearly pa,lin must
at least modify the main verb: to attach the “again” qualifier to “came” and leave
“found them sleeping” unmodified by “again” is contextually unthinkable. Based on
that parallel, I construe the adverb as modifying the main verb.
Mar 14:51 peribeblhme,noj — The participle could alternatively be construed as
attributive to neani,skoj.
Mar 15:22 Golgoqa/n — The word is the transliteration of an Aramaic noun, but it
appears clearly to be used as an adjective in this construction.
Mar 15:26 auvtou/ — The pronoun could alternatively be construed to modify h`
evpigrafh, after the Semitic construction.
Mar 16:1 — Because of the appositives renaming two of the three subjects, I could not
find a good way to diagram the introductory conjunction at the left end of the main
baseline as usual. So I connected it to the verb slot of the baseline, which seems to me
a highly viable alternative that even deserves consideration as standard practice. The
one way I can see for connecting it to the left end of the diagram would be to build
 the main baseline onto a stilt resting on a generic item symbol. That symbol would
then be extended to the left so that it is the left-most point in the diagram, and then
the introductory conjunction could be connected to it.
Mar 16:17 evn tw|/ ovno,mati, mou — The prepositional phrase could alternatively
be construed as modifying only the first clause.
Mar 16:19-20 — Contrary to the punctuation of NA27, I have diagrammed these verses
as a single sentence in order to bring together the me,n...de, construction.

Luke

Luk 1:4 peri. w-n kathch,qhj lo,gwn th.n avsfa,leian — On the construction,
see BDAG, kathce,w, 1.
Luk 1:9 tou/ qumia/sai — I have diagrammed according to the construction suggested
in BDAG, lagca,nw, 2. In my opinion, a good alternative would be to diagram the
infinitive as the object of e;lace rather than modifying it.
Luk 1:10 — This verse could alternatively coordinate with verse 8 rather than verse 9.
Luk 1:23 — The w`j clause could alternatively be construed as modifying evge,neto.
Luk 1:25 avfelei/n — The infinitive could possibly be construed as the object of
evpei/den. The idea would be, “The Lord looked (favorably) upon taking away my
reproach....”
Luk 1:28 pro.j auvth,n — The prepositional phrase could alternatively be construed as
modifying ei=pen.
Luk 1:35 a[gion — The adjective could alternatively be construed as subject, modified
by gennw,menon. In that case, ui`o,j would function as predicate noun.
Luk 1:41 — The w`j clause could alternatively be construed as modifying evge,neto.
Luk 1:44 sou — I am inclined to construe the pronoun as modifying fwnh, (after the
Semitic construction) but I defer to the strong consensus of versions.
Luk 1:45 — The o[ti clause could be construed as either the object of pisteu,sasa or
as an explanatory modifier of it. Many versions contain notes indicating the
alternatives. The predominant view seems to favor the object construction. See also
BDAG, pisteu,w, 1.a.b. and o[ti, 4.b.
Luk 1:51 auvtw/n — I have diagrammed the pronoun according to the Semitic
construction where the personal pronoun modifies an element earlier than the
immediately preceding one. The NIV clearly reflects this same understanding: “those
who are proud in their inmost thoughts.” The word their modifies thoughts
(dianoi,a|); inmost renders kardi,aj and also modifies thoughts. A slightly more
literal rendering of the construction would be “proud in their imagination of heart.”
Luk 1:55 tw|/ VAbraa.m kai. tw|/ spe,rmati auvtou/ eivj to.n aiw/na — It
seems to me that this phrase could well be construed as expressing the content (i.e., as
the object) of evla,lhsen, governed by an understood clause such as “I will make
my covenant” (Gen 17:19) or “I will give the land” (Exo 32:13). The Exodus passage
is particularly apposite, since it includes mimnh|,skomai, VAbraa,m, spe,rma,
and eivj to.n aivw/na. On this construction of the passage, the words would serve
as a loose quotation; more of an allusion, really. In diagramming, however, I defer to
the fact that the versions do not seem inclined to read the passage this way. I will
 admit that the use of lale,w rather than le,gw weighs rather heavily against the
reading I suggest. However, lale,w is used with an object clause expressing direct
discourse in Mar 14:31 and Luk 2:15. In Act 2:31 lale,w is completed by indirect
discourse expressing an OT quotation, and in Act 7:6 and Heb 11:18 are OT
quotations in direct discourse (introduced by o[ti). Heb 5:5 even has an OT quotation
in direct discourse without o[ti. So the construction I am suggesting is by no means
unparalleled. Also, a construction very similar to the one here in v. 55 appears in vv.
70-71, where material after lale,w reflects allusions to OT content (Psa 18:18,
106:10).
Luk 1:59 evn th|/ h`me,ra| th|/ ovgdo,h| — The phrase could alternatively modify
evge,neto rather than h=lqon.
Luk 1:59 evka,loun — The verb could alternatively coordinate with h=lqon rather
than evge,neto.
Luk 1:65 pa,ntaj — I have diagrammed as usual, construing the adjective as modifying
the substantival participle. However, in this context, with the adjective and the
preposition grouped before the verb and the articular participle following the verb, it
might be better to construe the adjective as substantival, functioning as the object of
the preposition, and the participle as its attributive modifier.
Luk 1:71 swthri,an — See note on v. 55 where a similar construction occurs. I have
construed the noun as appositional to ke,raj based on its accusative case. The
accusative would also work, of course, as the object of evla,lhsen.
Luk 1:73 o[rkon — I am construing this accusative noun as appositional to the genitive
diaqh,khj based on what seems to be the obvious logic of the expression, assuming
that the accusative case is used in indirect attraction to the accusative relative pronoun
o[n.
Luk 1:76-79 — The passage contains four infinitives. The fact that two of them are
anarthrous and two articular suggests that Luke did not intend them to be understood
as coordinate, though there is nothing illogical about a coordinate sequence of
thought. The sequence of thought that I think I see and that I have reflected by the
subordination in the diagram is something like this: “You will go before the Lord for
the purpose of preparing his ways. You will prepare his ways by giving knowledge of
salvation and forgiveness that are ours because of God’s compassion, by which
compassion a dawning from on high will visit us. That dawning is for the purpose (or
has the result) of enlightening those sitting in darkness, and that enlightenment
consists of, or has the purpose or result of, directing our feet into the path of peace.”
Luk 1:78 qeou/ — The genitive noun could alternatively be construed as modifying
evle,ouj.
Luk 1:80 auvtou/ — The pronoun could alternatively be construed as modifying
avnadei,xewj.
Luk 2:1 evn tai/j h`me,raij evkei,naij — The phrase could alternatively be
construed as modifying evge,neto.
Luk 2:1 avpogra,fesqai — The infinitive phrase could alternatively be construed as
adverbial to evxh/lqen.
Luk 2:8 fulaka,j — The cognate accusative could alternatively be diagrammed as the
object of fula,ssontej.
Luk 2:9 auvtou,j — I am construing the pronoun as direct object based on BDAG’s
indication that the verb is transitive. Otherwise the construction would be adverbial.
Luk 2:11 — The o[ti clause could alternatively be construed as a noun clause in
apposition to cara,n. In that case o[ti would be translated “that.”
Luk 2:13 — I am not diagramming the participles as genitive absolutes because the
genitive case appears to depend upon stratia/j rather than being absolute.
Luk 2:16 te — The word could alternatively be construed along with the kai, that
coordinates Maria,m and VIwsh,f.
Luk 2:19 ta. r`h,mata tau/ta — I am personally inclined to construe this phrase as
the object of sumba,llousa, leaving pa,nta alone as the object of suneth,rei.
BDAG appears to be of a similar mind (sumba,llw, 2.). However, I defer to the
strong consensus of the versions.
Luk 2:21 tou/ peritemei/n — The genitive infinitive could alternatively be construed
as modifying h`me,rai, analogously to tou/ kaqarismou/ in v. 22.
Luk 2:22 auvtw/n — The pronoun could alternatively be construed as modifying
kaqarismou/.
Luk 2:25 prosdeco,menoj — The participle could alternatively be construed as
predicate nominative.
Luk 2:39 Nazare,q — The noun could alternatively be construed as appositional to
po,lin.
Luk 2:46 meta. h`me,raj trei/j — The prepositional phrase could alternatively be
construed as modifying evge,neto.
Luk 2:47 — The verse could alternatively be construed as a second object clause
completing eu-ron, since the amazement of the hearers is part of what Jesus’ parents
found.
Luk 3:3 eivj a;fesin — It is grammatically possible that the phrase may modify
ba,ptisma or khru,sswn rather than metanoi,aj.
Luk 3:5-6 — These verses could alternatively be construed as coordinate with the first
clause of the quotation from Isaiah rather than as part of what the voice cries out. The
versions appear to agree, though, that these verses belong to “the voice,” and I
concur; the context of the original quotation from Isa 40:3-5 seems clearly to attribute
the longer statement to the voice.
Luk 3:18 me,n — If the particle functions as something like an intensifier for ou=n,
one could perhaps justify diagramming it as a modifier to ou=n. Another alternative
might be to diagram me,n and ou=n together as a phrasal conjunction (see BDAG,
me,n, 2.e.).
Luk 3:23-38 — The genitive articles in the genealogy could be construed as simply
governing each noun rather than as pronominally used in apposition to the preceding
one. The fact that VIwsh,f, the first noun in the list, lacks the article suggests that
Luke intended all the names to be anarthrous and the articles to function
pronominally.
Luk 4:1 plh,rhj — The adjective could alternatively be construed as predicate after
u`pe,streyen.
Luk 4:10 tou/ diafula,xai — The infinitive could alternatively be construed as the
direct object of evntelei/tai.
Luk 5:17 — The coordination of the three place names is challenging. Galilee and Judea
naturally go together as provincial areas within Palestine. But Judea and Jerusalem
naturally go together in that Judea is the province where Jerusalem is located. It
seems to me that the “every village” idea most naturally applies to Jesus’ immediate
vicinity, which is Galilee; to have representatives from every village in Judea, quite a
distance away, seems much less likely. Note the NIV rendering: “from every village
of Galilee and from Judea and Jerusalem.”
Luk 5:19 dia. to.n o;clon — The prepositional phrase could alternatively be construed
as modifying eu`ro,ntej.
Luk 5:24 — See the two notes on Mat 9:6.
Luk 5:37 — This clause has a construction found nowhere else in the NT: Robertson calls
it “a survival of the literary style” (Word Pictures in the Greek NT). English has no
close grammatical equivalent. blh,teon is a verbal adjective, but it is more verbal
than adjectival in that it forces oi=non into the accusative case as its direct object
rather than agreeing with the noun and modifying it. Notice that the BNT/BNM
parsing has the adjective as neuter nominative (equivalent to an impersonal verb),
while the noun is masculine accusative. Since this is a one-of-a-kind construction in
the NT, it seems simplest just to diagram the adjective as a verb with an elliptical
subject. The closest English meaning for the word would be the expression “it is
necessary to put,” which can then take “wine” as direct object.
Luk 6:13 evklexa,menoj — The word is a participle, but since it has no governing
verb to which it can be diagrammed as subordinate, it seems best to diagram it as the
relatively rare use of the participle in place of a finite verb. If one wishes to ignore
NA27’s sentence punctuation at the end of verse 16, this participle could be
coordinated with kataba,j of verse 17, subordinate to the main clause of that verse.
Such a construction would constitute an exceedingly long and complex sentence, but
it may well be exactly what Luke had in mind.
Luk 6:18 oi[ — I have diagrammed the pronoun so that its antecedent consists of both
the disciples and the populace, even though the disciples probably did not come to be
healed. The disciples did, however, come to hear Jesus, so they do have a place in the
compound relative clause. It may be that Luke intends us to understand that the
disciples were interested in hearing while the populace was interested in healing, but,
even if that generalization is valid, probably there is no reason to divide the crowd
into mutually exclusive categories.
Luk 6:19 — An alternative construction would have du,namij as the subject only of
evxh,rceto and Jesus as the understood subject of iva/to. My diagramming
reflects the strong consensus of the versions.
Luk 6:22 w`j ponhro,n — The phrase could alternatively be construed as object
complement. Diagramming the two words together on the complement symbol would
seem to be the least problematic arrangement for that option.
Luk 6:35 evcqrou,j — It may seem strange to construe the noun as the direct object of
avgaqopoiei/te, which does not seem to take a direct object. However, in v. 33 the
direct object construction with this verb seems unavoidable, and using it here is not
inferior to using it there.
Luk 6:38 me,tron — The noun and its modifiers could alternatively be construed as the
direct object phrase.
Luk 6:43 — Some may incline toward taking the participles along with evstin as
periphrastics, but it seems clear to me that the opening ouv ga,r evstin should be
read in the negative existential sense, “There is not.”
Luk 6:43 pa,lin — The word could perhaps be diagrammed right along with ouvde, as
part of the conjunction.
Luk 6:46 ku,rie ku,rie — An unusual situation. kale,w takes an object complement,
but the ordinary object construction would use the accusative. The vocative implies a
quotation, so I simply diagrammed the vocatives on a generic line with a quotation
symbol connected to the object complement slot.
Luk 7:6 makra,n — The adverb could alternatively be construed as modifying the
participle avpe,contoj.
Luk 7:9 evqau,masen auvto,n — On the transitive use of qauma,zw, see BDAG,
qauma,zw, 1.b.
Luk 7:40 eivpei/n — On this construction of the infinitive with e;cw, see BDAG,
e;cw, 7.a.e.
Luk 8:3 ai[tinej — The antecedent is impossible to identify with certainty. The options
are 1) “many others,” 2) “Joanna, Susannah, and many others,” or 3) the whole list of
women, some of whom would have been following Jesus out of gratitude for their
healing and others in order to provide for him. Joanna would seem to be a woman of
means, given the fact that her husband was Herod’s steward, so probably she should
be included. If Mary Magdalene is to be excluded (reasons for doing so would be that
her name is followed by a separate descriptive relative clause and the possibility that
her former demon-possessed state may well have entailed poverty rather than wealth),
then the coordination would be diagramed with a subset of the last 3 elements,
modified by the ai[tinej clause, coordinated with Mary, modified by her own
relative clause.
Luk 8:12 — Compare v.14 to see what I had in mind for the rather odd-looking elliptical
conjunction. Semantically the last part of the verse is part of the complement of
eivsin, but the only way I can find to diagram it in coordination to avkou,santej is
with this elliptical conjunction.
Luk 8:15 to.n lo,gon — The noun could alternatively be construed as the object of
avkou,santej. In its other occurrences in the immediate context, though, avkou,w
is used without an object.
Luk 8:15 — Either or both of the two prepositional phrases in the latter part of the verse
could alternatively be construed as modifying both verbs of the relative clause.
Luk 8:27 evxelqo,nti auvtw|/ — I am not inclined to read this construction as a
dative absolute, because the dative case of auvtw|/ depends on u`ph,nthsen and
is therefore not absolute. I do think it is just possible, though, that it could be a dative
absolute, with the dative object of u`ph,nthsen understood, and that the absolute is
written in the dative rather than the genitive in order to cohere with that elliptical
object.
Luk 8:30 ti, soi o;noma, evstin — The grammar could alternatively be construed
according to the Semitic model in which the dative pronoun would be adverbial to the
linking verb (see diagramming policy VII.22). On this construction ti, would be
adjectival to o;noma.
Luk 8:52 auvth,n — The pronoun could alternatively be construed as the object of both
verbs. BDAG indicates that klai,w can be transitive (klai,w, 2.), but they do not list
this occurrence under that category.
Luk 9:1 — In the latter part of the verse, I would not be surprised if Luke had a chiastic
construction in mind: authority over the demons and power to heal diseases. Given
the kai, joining the prepositional and infinitive phrases, though, it is not easy to see
how such a construction would be diagrammed, and the versions do not go this
direction in their renderings.
Luk 9:3 avna. du,o citw/naj — See note on Mat 20:9-10.
Luk 9:3 e;cein — The imperatival use of the infinitive, though not common, seems to
be the only option here.
Luk 9:12 w-de — I have supplied an adverbial participle (o;ntej) for this adverb to
modify. The statement doesn’t seem to be “We are here in a deserted place,” but, in
contrast to the surrounding villages where food and lodging would be available,
“Here, we are in a deserted place.” The grammar underlying the thought is, “[While
we are] here, we are in a deserted place,” or, “[Being] here, we are in a deserted
place.”
Luk 9:13 fagei/n — See note on Mat 14:16.
Luk 9:31 th.n e;xodon — The noun could alternatively be construed as adverbial to
e;legon.
Luk 9:39 kra,zei — I have diagrammed on the assumption that the subject is the boy,
not the spirit, though the matter cannot be determined with certainty.
Luk 9:46 auvtw/n — The pronoun could alternatively be construed as modifying
mei,zwn.
Luk 9:58 pou/ — The adverb is interrogative, but its usage here can hardly be construed
as anything other than relative. To diagram it as interrogative, one could build its
clause on a noun-clause stilt and construe it as the object of e;cei.
Luk 10:18 — The w`j clause could alternatively be construed as introducing another
main clause with an indirect discourse complement. The ellipsis I have diagrammed
means “I saw Satan fall from heaven as (though he were) lightning.” The alternative
would read “I saw Satan fall from heaven as (though I had seen) lightning (fall from
heaven).” The accusative case of avstraph,n precludes the simpler reading “I saw
Satan fall from heaven as lightning (falls).”
Luk 10:21 ou[twj — See note on Mat 11:26.
Luk 10:32 geno,menoj — The participle could alternatively be construed as modifying
Leui,thj: “a priest who came to the place....”
Luk 10:33 o`deu,wn — Like geno,menoj in v. 32, this participle could alternatively
be construed as modifying the subject, Samari,thj.
Luk 10:33-34 — Based on the occurrence of de,, the coordinate series of verbs might be
subdivided into the first three, describing what happened on the spot, and the last two,
describing the extension of the Samaritan’s care beyond the crime scene. I
diagrammed a single series of five because another basis for subdivision would be the
first two verbs, which describe the events leading up to the Samaritan’s assistance to
the victim, and the last three, detailing his actual labors on his behalf. Since at least
two good schemes for subdivision are apparent, it seemed best not to subdivide at all.
Luk 10:35 o[ ti — This is actually a single word, the neuter singular of the indefinite
relative o[stij (o[j + tij) which is written as two words in NA27 (and in some other
editions) to avoid confusion with the conjunction o[ti. See the entry for this
expression in section IX. of the diagramming policies document.
Luk 10:39 kai, — It is difficult to know how to construe this word. The thought reflected
in the diagram is that Mary, in addition to providing hospitality to the Lord (along
with Martha) also sat and listened to His teaching.
Luk 11:1 proseuco,menon — The participle could alternatively be construed along
with ei=nai as a periphrastic.
Luk 11:3 to. kaqV h`me,ran — I diagrammed the prepositional phrase on a
substantival prepositional phrase symbol, though it is adverbial rather than
substantival. This is one of a very few articular prepositional phrases functioning
adverbially in the NT. The phrase needs to be on a stilt, but it is neither attributive nor
substantive, which are the only symbols for prepositional phrases on stilts. The
substantive symbol seemed to me to be the less objectionable of the two. This is an
example of the drawback to giving the symbols highly specific names.
Luk 11:14 evqau,masan oi` o;cloi — The clause could alternatively coordinate with
evla,lhsen o` kwfo,j to form a compound subject for evge,neto. Yet another
possibility is that it could coordinate with the whole set of the first three clauses: the
first two in a pair coordinated with the single evge,neto clause, and then that whole
set of three coordinated with this one.
Luk 11:19 oi` ui`oi, u`mw/n — Based on the position of this phrase fronted ahead of
the interrogative phrase (evn ti,ni), which would ordinarily stand first, this phrase
could alternatively be diagrammed as a pendent nominative.
Luk 11:20 a;ra — Not often in the NT is the apodosis of a conditional statement
introduced by this equivalent of the English “then.” Ordinarily I would diagram this
as the introductory conjunction to the apodosis, which is the sentence’s main clause.
But the sentence already has an introductory conjunction, de,. I opted simply to
diagram two introductory conjunctions, side-by-side. An alternative would be to
diagram a;ra as adverbial to e;fqasen or perhaps to diagram the whole conditional
statement on a conjunction symbol with a dual conjunction. On the latter approach, I
would think it would be best to diagram the protasis, with its conjunction eiv, on the
top portion of the conjunction symbol and the apodosis, with its conjunction a;ra, on
the bottom.
Luk 12:6 evpilelhsme,non — Since, by position in the sentence, ouvk negates the
verb rather than the subject, one might be inclined to read the core of the sentence as,
“One of them does not exist,” or “There is not one of them.” The participle could fit
into this core as adjectival to the subject: “There is not one of them (that is)
forgotten.” However, the periphrastic construction, “One of them has not been
forgotten,” is probably more likely (cf. Robertson, Word Pictures). One might suggest
that the periphrastic would read more naturally with the subject negated: ouvde.n
evx auvtw/n evstin evpilelhsme,non, but note the parallel construction in
Mat 10:29, e]n evx auvtw/n ouv pesei/tai, where the verb rather than the
subject is negated.
Luk 12:15 — Robertson (Word Pictures) expresses the same understanding of the last
part of the verse that I diagrammed: “In the abounding (articular infinitive) to one out
of the things belonging (articular participle) to him.”
Luk 12:24 o[ti — The conjunction could alternatively be construed as introducing a
subordinate clause modifying the main verb. On this construction it would mean
“because”; I have diagrammed it in the sense “that.”
Luk 12:26 evla,ciston — The adjective could alternatively be construed as the direct
object of an elliptical poih/sai supplied as the complement to du,nasqe. I am
construing it with a reference function: “If you are able not even with reference to the
least thing....” This yields a reasonable parallel to the phrase peri. tw/n loipw/n in
the main clause.
Luk 12:28 evn avgrw|/ — The prepositional phrase could alternatively be construed as
modifying to.n co,rton.
Luk 12:30 pa,nta — The adjective could alternatively be construed as modifying ta.
e;qnh. I have construed the grammar parallel to Mat 6:31: pa,nta ga.r tau/ta ta.
e;qnh evpizhtou/sin.
Luk 12:36 (gi,nesqe) — I supplied the imperative of gi,nomai rather than eivmi,
because there are no second person plural imperatives from eivmi, in the NT, while
gi,nomai is fairly common (cf. v. 40).
Luk 12:45 e;rcesqai — If croni,zw can be taken as a transitive verb, then the
infinitive could alternatively be construed as its object.
Luk 12:50 baptisqh/nai — On this construction of the infinitive with e;cw, see
BDAG, e;cw, 7.a.e.
Luk 13:2 — The o[ti clause could alternatively be construed as modifying dokei/te.
Luk 13:19 o[n — The relative pronoun could alternatively be construed as the direct
object of the participle labw,n.
Luk 13:21 h[n — The relative pronoun could alternatively be construed as the direct
object of the participle labou/sa.
Luk 13:23 eiv — I am not entirely satisfied with the diagramming of the word. It
functions to introduce a direct question (see BDAG, eiv, 5.a), which would suggest
that it belongs on the quotation stilt. But that diagramming would make it appear as
though it does not actually belong to the quotation as one of the words spoken. The
diagramming reflects the only way I could see to treat the word as introducing the
question while belonging to the quotation.
Luk 13:25-27 — I have construed these verses as a single sentence, contrary to the
punctuation of NA27 and the versions, in order to have a main clause to which the
coordinate series of verbs introduced by avfV ou- can be subordinate. Even this
construction is not ideal, since on this reading the to,te of v. 26 appears redundant. I
take it, though, as essentially resumptive of avfV ou-, since the subordinate clause
introduced by that phrase became somewhat lengthy. to,te here can be read as
reminding the reader of the opening avfV ou- and signaling that the main clause is
now to follow. For those who wish to begin a new sentence with v. 26, the best
suggestion I can make for diagramming avfV ou- is to simply treat the phrase as an
introductory conjunction. The commentators agree that the syntax is difficult.
Luk 13:27 — More than one construction is possible. I have construed the quotation as
the object of le,gwn, taking the participle in its ordinary construction to introduce a
 direct quotation. However, it would also be possible to construe the quotation as the
object of evrei/. On this construction, the participle would be understood in the
Semitic idiom whereby a participle can reflect the Hebrew infinitive absolute used to
stress the certainty of the main verb: “Saying he will say to you” = “He will certainly
say to you.” This solemnity of this rendering is contextually attractive, but the fact
that the participle follows rather than precedes the verb weighs against it. The word
order is not conclusive, however; Eph 5:5 may well contain this idiom with the
participle following the verb.
Luk 14:5 evn h`me,ra| tou/ sabba,tou — The prepositional phrase could
alternatively be construed as modifying both clauses of the quotation.
Luk 14:34 kai, — The word could alternatively be construed as modifying the verb; it is
difficult to trace the exact nuance.
Luk 15:7 h; — It is difficult to diagram the comparative idea, since a comparative word
such as “more” is lacking. BDAG appears to construe h; with the verb (h;, 2.b.a.),
hence the diagram as I have drawn it. A viable alternative might be to diagram the h;
clause as subordinate to a supplied comparative modifying either e;stai or cara,.
Luk 16:1 w`j diaskorpi,zwn — The participle phrase could alternatively be construed
as adverbial. For w`j used to introduce a predicate, see the entry for w`j in section
IX of the diagramming policies.
Luk 16:2 ti, — I have diagrammed in deference to the strong consensus versions, which
construe this pronoun as the predicate of an elliptical linking verb: “What (is) this I
am hearing...?” The fact that gives me pause about this construction is that it requires
an elliptical relative pronoun to be supplied as the object of avkou,w. I do not recall
having seen such a construction elsewhere in the NT. While modern English is quick
to drop the relative pronoun, NT Greek is not. The alternative is to understand the
pronoun as accusative, used adverbially: “Why am I hearing this about you?”
Luk 16:30 avpo. nekrw/n — The prepositional phrase could alternatively be construed
as modifying the verb.
Luk 16:31 evk nekrw/n — The prepositional phrase could alternatively be construed
as modifying the verb.
Luk 17:1 tou/...evlqei/n — See note on 1Co 16:4, where a similar construction
appears. Diagramming the infinitive as adverbial to avne,ndekton would account
for the genitive case much better than diagramming it as subject, but I am not yet able
to bring myself to view the clause as lacking a subject. I may eventually come to see
this construction differently and revise the diagrams accordingly.
Luk 17:6 $ou=san% — The supplied participle could alternatively be construed as
modifying pi,stin. The BibleWorks diagrammer does not currently allow a
subordinating conjunction to be attached to the adjectival participle symbol, a
connection rarely if ever needed.
Luk 17:18 u`postre,yantej — I have construed the participle as substantival,
functioning as subject (“Were not ones having returned found?”). An alternative
construction would take the participle as the predicate (“Were not [any] found to have
returned?”). How to diagram would be a challenge: the active-voice construction
might be taken as indirect discourse: “[Someone] found [them] having returned,” but
what would be the equivalent construction in the passive? The retained object
construction would not work well, since the predicate would actually be modifying
 the subject. Another way to view the active-voice construction would be as object and
complement (see the entry for eu`ri,skw in section IX. of the diagramming
policies). This construction is easy enough to transform into the passive: the object
complement simply becomes subject complement (i.e., predicate nominative), and the
best way to diagram the participle would be on the predicate adjective symbol (since
it is not substantive in this construction).
Luk 17:24 evk th/j u`po. to.n ouvrano,n — The prepositional phrase could
alternatively be construed as modifying the participle avstra,ptousa.
Luk 17:25 avpo. th/j genea/j tau,thj — The prepositional phrase could alternatively
be construed as modifying both infinitives.
Luk 17:29 pu/r kai. qei/on — The nouns could be understood as either nominative (in
which case the verb would be intransitive) or accusative, in which case they would be
the direct objects. BDAG while acknowledging the former appears to prefer the latter
(bre,cw, 2. and 3.), but the versions appear strongly to prefer the latter. I have
diagrammed according to the consensus of the versions.
Luk 19:3 avpo. tou/ o;clou — It seems to me that the preposition could well be
understood in its most common sense “from”: “He was not able [to see Jesus] from
the crowd,” i.e., from a vantage point located in the middle of the crowd. To diagram
this meaning would require the supplying of an elliptical ivdei/n (as complement of
hvdu,nato) for the prepositional phrase to modify. However, BDAG and the
versions all seem to concur in preferring a causal sense for avpo,, which construes
with hvdu,nato rather than the elliptical infinitive.
Luk 19:8 tetraplou/n — The neuter accusative adjective could alternatively be
construed adverbially, as accusative of extent.
Luk 19:31 auvtou/ — See note on Mar 11:3.
Luk 19:34 auvtou/ — See note on Mar 11:3.
Luk 19:39 avpo. tou/ o;clou — The prepositional phrase could alternatively be
construed as modifying tinej or even ei=pan (cf. note on v. 3).
Luk 19:48 auvtou/ — The pronoun could alternatively be construed as the object of
avkou,wn; BDAG seems to prefer that construction. Many of the versions use free
enough wording that it is not possible to discern what construction they see. ASV
reflects my diagramming.
Luk 20:20 auvtou/ lo,gou — It would be possible to construe lo,gou as the object
and auvtou/ as its modifier (“catch his word”), but it seems to me more likely that
this idea would have been expressed with the article: auvtou/ tou/ lo,gou or tou/
lo,gou auvtou/.
Luk 20:26 auvtou/ r`h,matoj — See note on Luk 20:20.
Luk 20:29 a;teknoj — The adjective could alternatively be construed as the predicate of
an understood adverbial participle of eivmi, (w;n).
Luk 20:37 kai, (1st) — I am inclined personally to construe the word as adverbial to
evmh,nusen with this understanding in mind: “Moses [not only gave this law that
you use to argue against the resurrection but] also showed that the dead do arise....”
However, I defer to the strong consensus of the versions.
Luk 20:37 ku,rion to.n qeo,n... — The accusative case of the nouns makes it difficult
or impossible to construe the words as a direct quotation, since the grammar of the
original statement requires the nominative (Exo. 3:6). The diagramming reflects the
 grammar as the versions construe it: “...he called the Lord (i.e., Yahweh) the God of
Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.”
Luk 21:1 ba,llontaj — The attributive position of the participle prevents its being
construed as indirect discourse. If it were to be construed as substantive direct object
of ei=den, the adjective plousi,ouj would be left anarthrous, hanging awkwardly
at the end of the sentence.
Luk 21:12 e[neken tou/ ovno,mato,j mou — I am personally inclined, along with
the NIV, to construe the prepositional phrase with the main verbs of verse 12,
intending the subordinate participles to participate in the connection as well.
However, I diagram in deference to the punctuation of NA27 and the strong
consensus of versions.
Luk 21:23-24 An alternative subgrouping for the clauses introduced by ga,r would pair
aivcmalwtisqh,sontai with the last clause, based on their sharing the reference to
the e;qnh. pesou/ntai would then either stand alone or would be grouped with the
first two clauses, or alternatively with just the ovrgh, clause, leaving the avna,gkh
clause to stand alone.
Luk 21:25 h;couj qala,sshj kai. sa,lou — The coordination could alternatively be
construed as joining qala,sshj and sa,lou. Most versions go that direction; to me
the NIV makes better sense: h;coj and sa,loj seem to be best understood as
properties of the sea.
Luk 21:26 The ga,r clause could perhaps alternatively be construed as modifying
e;sontai in v. 25.
Luk 21:27 pollh/j — The adjective could alternatively be construed as modifying both
nouns.
Luk 21:30 avfV e`autw/n — The prepositional phrase could alternatively be construed
as modifying ginw,skete.
Luk 21:34 aivfni,dioj — It is unusual for an adjective in the nominative to function
adverbially, but this seems to be the most straightforward construction here. A
possible alternative would be to construe the word as predicate adjective.
Luk 21:38 evn tw|/ i`erw|/ — The prepositional phrase could alternatively be
construed as modifying avkou,ein.
Luk 22:3 o;nta — The fact that the participle is anarthrous suggests to me the possibility
of construing it as adverbial, probably concessive: “although he was of the number of
the twelve.” I diagram, though, in deference to the consensus of the versions.
Luk 22:4 to. pw/j auvtoi/j paradw|/ auvto,n — I am reading the articular clause as
an accusative of reference: “he spoke with the chief priests and soldiers about how he
might deliver him to them.” The adverbial construction connects to the main verb
sunela,lhsen on a symbol slanting downward to the right because it contains a
finite verb.
Luk 22:5 auvtw|/ — The pronoun could alternatively be construed as modifying
sune,qento (see BDAG, sunti,qhmi, 2.). The diagramming reflects the
consensus of versions.
Luk 22:7 evn h|- — The prepositional phrase could alternatively be construed as
modifying e;dei.
Luk 22:24 to. ti,j auvtw/n dokei/ ei=nai mei,zwn — Cf. note on Luk 22:4.
Luk 22:25 auvtw/n (2nd) — The pronoun could alternatively be construed as
adnominal to oi` evxousia,zontej, parallel to tw/n evqnw/n in the previous
clause.
Luk 22:44 w`sei, — See the entry for w`j in section IX. of the diagramming policies.
The construction could alternatively be diagrammed as an adverbial clause with
qro,mboi construed as subject of an elliptical verb.
Luk 22:53 ouvk — The negative could alternatively be construed as paired with avllV.
Luk 22:55 me,soj — The masculine nominative form seems clearly to indicate an
adjectival rather than adverbial function (cf. BDAG, me,soj, 2.a.).
Luk 22:69 tou/ qeou/ — The genitive could alternatively be construed as modifying
dexiw/n, after the Semitic construction described in section VII.13 of the
diagramming policies.
Luk 23:14 (evkei/na) — The best construction I can come up with involves supplying
this pronoun as the antecedent for w-n. Its function would be accusative of reference.
Luk 23:26 evrco,menon — The participle could alternatively be construed as
modifying Kurhnai/on or even as adverbial to evpilabo,menoi.
Luk 23:32 su.n auvtw|/ — The prepositional phrase could alternatively be construed
as modifying the main verb h;gonto.
Luk 23:43 sh,meron — It is argued by some (generally on doctrinal grounds) that the
adverb should be construed with le,gw rather than e;sh|: “I say to you today, you
will be with me in paradise.” One strong argument in favor of the traditional
understanding, which I have diagrammed, lies in the thought flow. The kakou/rgoj
has asked for a blessing at some indefinite point in the future: “whenever you come
into your kingdom.” The forward position of sh,meron seems designed to stress
that the man’s request would be granted much sooner than he expected: today. The
thought flow yielded by construing the adverb with le,gw is rather lame: of course
Jesus is saying this today. On what other day might the kakou/rgoj think Jesus is
speaking? The matter whose timing needs clarification is not that of Jesus’ speaking
but that of the granting of the man’s request.
Luk 23:50 avnh,r (1st) — The noun could alternatively be construed as a pendent
nominative, resumed by ou-toj in v. 52. On this construction, though, the
parenthetical clause would be difficult to diagram. I suppose the best construction for
the parenthesis would attach it to avnh,r as a modifier.
Luk 24:12 pro.j e`auto,n — BDAG seems to be of a double opinion about how to
construe the prepositional phrase. Under pro,j (3.g.) the suggestion appears to be
“wondering to himself,” but under avpe,rcomai (1.b.) the preference is for “went
away to himself” (i.e., “went home”). The latter is also the suggestion under
e`autou/ (1.a.i.), and the entry under pro,j is in fact ambiguous. I have
diagrammed according to the unambiguous suggestions in BDAG, along with the
strong majority of versions.
Luk 24:13 VEmmaou/j — The proper name could perhaps be construed as predicate
nominative after (h=n).

John
Joh 1:3 o] ge,gonen — The words are construed by many versions as belonging to the
preceding sentence rather than the one following. I have diagrammed according to the
punctuation in NA27.
Joh 1:6 o;noma auvtw|/ VIwa,nnhj — The clause could alternatively be construed
with auvtw|/ adjectival to o;noma and VIwa,nnhj predicate nominative (“His
name was John”). I have diagrammed according to the Semitic construction, where
the meaning would be “The name John was to him,” or “He had the name John.”
Joh 1:9 evrco,menon — The participle could alternatively be construed as
periphrastic; less probably as masculine accusative modifying a;nqrwpon.
Joh 1:14 plh,rhj — The adjective could alternatively be construed as feminine,
modifying the elliptical do,xa. It seems likely to me, however, that if John had in
mind for the adjective to modify do,xa, he would have written it in the accusative,
modifying the explicit do,xan.
Joh 1:25 — The quotation could alternatively be construed as the object only of ei=pan.
Joh 1:29 th|/ evpau,rion — The phrase could alternatively be construed as modifying
both verbs.
Joh 1:35 — The o[ti clause could alternatively be construed as the object of both verbs.
Joh 1:41 meqermhneuo,menon — The participle could alternatively be construed as
periphrastic; I have diagrammed parallel to v. 38, where the periphrastic construction
is not possible.
Joh 1:51 avnew|go,ta — The participle could alternatively be construed as indirect
discourse.
Joh 2:6 avna. metrhta,j — On diagramming the distributive phrase, see the note on
Mat 20:9.
Joh 2:9 gegenhme,non — I have diagrammed the participle adverbially based on its
predicate position.
Joh 3:2 dida,skaloj — The noun could alternatively be construed as a simple predicate
noun after evlh,luqaj.
Joh 3:15 evn auvtw|/ — The prepositional phrase could alternatively be construed as
modifying the participle pisteu,wn. For support for the diagram I have drawn, see
BDAG, pisteu,w, 2.a.e.
Joh 4:7 pei/n — The infinitive could alternatively be construed, after the Semitic
fashion, as direct object, or perhaps as adverbial to do,j. The same possibilities are
present in vv. 9, 10, and 33.
Joh 4:9 pei/n — See note on Joh 4:7.
Joh 4:10 pei/n — See note on Joh 4:7.
Joh 4:33 fagei/n — See note on Joh 4:7.
Joh 4:47 — The clause introduced by ga,r could alternatively be construed as modifying
the main verbs.
Joh 5:5 e;th — The noun could alternatively be construed as adverbial to e;cwn. See
BDAG, e;cw, 7.b.
Joh 5:6 cro,non — The noun could alternatively be construed as adverbial to e;cei. See
BDAG, e;cw, 7.b.
Joh 5:19 ti — The easy construction one is inclined to look for would treat this word as a
relative pronoun. However, BDAG does not show that the indefinite pronoun (note
the enclitic form) can be used as a relative. One might be inclined to accent the word
 as the interrogative pronoun, which can function as a relative, but the enclitic
accenting has a long history and is probably correct. Note A.T. Robertson’s translation
(in Word Pictures): “unless he sees the Father doing something.”
Joh 5:38 to.n lo,gon ))) me,nonta — The words could alternatively be construed as
indirect discourse.
Joh 5:45 e;stin — The versions are divided over whether to take the verb as the copula
(“The one accusing you is Moses”) or as existential (“There is one who accuses you,
Moses”). The accent suggests that the editors of NA27 have the latter in mind (I
suspect that the order of words is also a factor), and I have diagrammed accordingly.
Joh 6:9 is a parallel construction (with only one nominative, though) where the usage
is pretty clearly existential.
Joh 6:14 ivdo,ntej o] evpoi,hsen shmei/on — I find it attractive to understand the
construction to mean “having perceived what he did [as being] a sign.” This meaning
would be diagrammed with an elliptical direct object modified by the relative clause,
followed by shmei/on diagrammed as object complement. This meaning of o`ra,w
is given in BDAG (o`ra,w, 4.), and the anarthrous state of shmei/on fits nicely
with an object complement construction. I do not find any versions translating this
way, however, so I refrain from diagramming this way.
Joh 6:27 th.n brw/sin — The noun (both occurrences) could alternatively be construed
as adverbial. I have construed it as direct object based on BDAG, evrga,zomai, 2.,
which says that the verb can be transitive and categorizes this passage as such.
Joh 6:27 h[n — The relative pronoun could alternatively be construed with zwh,n as its
antecedent.
Joh 6:31 a;rton evk tou/ ouvranou/ e;dwken auvtoi/j fagei/n — The clause
could alternatively be construed after the Semitic idiom, in which a;rton would be
the object of the infinitive fagei/n, and the infinitive phrase would be the direct
object of e;dwken. See also v. 52.
Joh 6:38 — The o[ti clause could alternatively be construed as modifying both main
clauses. It seems to me, though, that the most intimate thought connection is with just
the second. Jesus’ coming to do the Father’s will and not his own seems better to
explain why he will not cast out those who come to him than why they will come to
him. The reason they come to him has already been implied: it is because the Father
wills it (He has given them to him). Since the Father wills them to come, and since
Jesus does the Father’s will rather than his own, he certainly will not turn them away.
Joh 6:40 — The clause kai. avnasth,sw auvto.n evgw. evn th|/ evsca,th|
h`me,ra| could alternatively be construed as coordinate with the main clause of the
sentence.
Joh 6:52 h`mi/n dou/nai th.n sa,rka auvtou/ fagei/n — As in v. 31, the clause
could alternatively be construed after the Semitic idiom, in which sa,rka would be
the object of the infinitive fagei/n, and the infinitive phrase would be the direct
object of dou/nai.
Joh 6:58 ouv kaqw.j e;fagon oi` pate,rej — The expression presents some
challenges. What does ouv negate? Just how does kaqw,j function? An alternative
diagramming would treat kaqw,j as a relative pronoun functioning as direct object of
e;fagon. BDAG almost seems to justify such a construction (see BDAG, kaqw,j, 1,
where the word is said to be capable of carrying the sense of poi/oj). Such a
 construction would have the virtue of eliminating the elliptical o` a;rtoj evsti,n
clause and relative pronoun (o[n), but I would rather keep kaqw,j functioning as a
conjunction, and the diagram as I have drawn it is the only way I see to do that.
Joh 6:59 evn sunagwgh|/ — The prepositional phrase could alternatively be
construed as modifying ei=pen.
Joh 6:69 — The o[ti clause could alternatively be construed as the object of both verbs.
Joh 7:22 dia. tou/to — The phrase is difficult to construe. Taking it with the preceding
verse, modifying qauma,zete, yields the clearest sense, and one line of versions
(ASV, RSV, ESV) does so. Interestingly, NRSV, also in this line of versions, avoids
the problem by omitting the phrase entirely. Construing the phrase with verse 22
raises the question whether it modifies only the first clause or both independent
clauses. I have diagrammed in keeping with the punctuation of NA27, showing the
simplest possible connection, with the first clause only.
Joh 7:23 o[lon — The adjective could alternatively be construed as adverbial, modifying
u`gih/: “completely healthy,” as many versions do. The superior thought connection
seems to me to be Jesus’ operation on the whole body compared to just the small
portion on which circumcision is performed. This reading highlights the argument
from the lesser to the greater: if the lesser good is lawful, is not the greater good at
least equally so? The “completely healthy” rendering does not highlight this thought
connection, because circumcision can hardly be thought to address a health issue and
make a man partly healthy. All the word o[lon does on this reading is intensify the
idea of health; it does not signal the progress from lesser to greater. I do not claim,
though, that the “completely healthy” reading eliminates such a progression of
thought. The argument from lesser to greater at least implicitly present regardless of
how o[lon is construed. My suggestion here is only that the understanding “the
whole man” allows the word o[lon to be read in a way that highlights the nature of
the argumentation. The word order certainly makes this reading natural. The
“completely healthy” rendering would put o[lon in a strikingly forward position,
seeming to require a very strong emphasis on “completely.” Such a strong emphasis
would imply a point of contrast with circumcision stressing that circumcision results
in only incomplete health, which has already been suggested to be a rather strange
conception.
Joh 7:24 th.n dikai,an kri,sin — The cognate accusative phrase could alternatively be
construed as adverbial to kri,nete.
Joh 7:28 evn tw|/ i`erw|/ — The prepositional phrase could alternatively be construed
as modifying e;kraxen.
Joh 7:53 e[kastoj — Those who would quibble over a singular subject used with a
plural verb might choose to diagram a nominative absolute construction, supplying
the participle (poreuo,menoj). I interpret BDAG, e[kastoj, b. “The sg. is used w.
pron. or verbs in the pl.” to justify diagramming the singular of this particular word,
which implies a plurality of individuals, as subject of a plural verb.
Joh 8:6 kathgorei/n — On the infinitive as object after e;cw, see BDAG, e;cw, 5.
Joh 8:7 evrwtw/ntej — On the gerundive participle, see section III.25 of the
diagramming policies. An alternative construction would read the participle as
adverbial.
Joh 8:8 pa,lin — The adverb could alternatively be construed as modifying e;grafen.
Joh 8:25 — The last clause is difficult. See Robertson’s Word Pictures for a succinct
summary. Following the strong majority of the versions, I have diagrammed the
clause as affirmative rather than following NA27’s interrogative punctuation.
Joh 8:26 — An alternative construction would take the infinitives as the object of e;cw,
and polla, as the object of the infinitives. This is in keeping with BDAG, e;cw, 5.
The meaning would be something like, “I am in a position to say and judge many
things concerning you....” I am attracted to this construction, but I diagram in
deference to the versions.
Joh 8:36 o;ntwj — The adverb could alternatively be construed as modifying the verb.
Joh 8:38 ou=n — On ou=n used to signal coordination, see BDAG, ou=n, 2. Section
2.c. seems to apply to this passage, yielding the meaning, “I speak the things which I
have seen alongside the Father; you also, in turn, do the things you have heard from
your father.” There are a variety of questions about the text and the syntax; the NET
Bible notes are helpful, though I have adopted an understanding of the passage
different from theirs. The major reason they do not take tou/ patro,j as referring to
the devil is the absence of the pronoun u`mw/n. In support of my position (which
agrees with many versions), I would point out that the pronoun is also missing at the
beginning of verse 44, where the reference is explicitly to the devil rather than to God
the Father. The pronominal article is sufficient to imply the possessive when the
context is clear. I admit that the context in verse 38 is not nearly so clear as that in
verse 44, but I do believe that it is clear enough and that the insertion of u`mw/n
(assuming that it is not original) was intended only to remove any doubt. Surely the
meaning suggested above yields a more coherent development of thought than that of
the NET Bible (along with some other versions).
Joh 8:49 — It is difficult to decide how to subgroup the coordinate clauses. The second
clause shares the idea of honor with the third, but it shares the subject of the first. It
seems to me that the primary two-fold division is not between the pair of clauses
referring to honor and the one that does not but rather the pair of clauses with Jesus as
subject (evgw,) and the one with the Jews as subject (u`mei/j).
Joh 8:54-55 — The situation is similar to verse 49: a coordinate series of three clauses
has a middle clause that could be paired with either the first, with which it shares the
subject u`mei/j, or the third, with which it shares the verb “to know.” As in verse 49,
I have preferred the subgrouping that highlights the contrast between Jesus and the
Jews as the subjects of the respective verbs.
Joh 9:39 — The compound i[na clause could alternatively be construed as a purpose
clause modifying h=lqon. The meaning I have in mind is that the clauses introduced
by i[na define what the judgment is. The construction I diagrammed does not
eliminate the idea of purpose from the verse, since eivj in this context clearly
indicates purpose. The adverbial construction, on the other hand, would not
necessarily eliminate the idea that the i[na clauses define what the judgment is, since
both purpose expressions could be taken as saying the same thing, the second one
with greater specificity than the first. So either approach to the grammar can yield
essentially the same exegesis.
Joh 9:41 nu/n — It is tempting to read the word as a subordinating conjunction with a
causal or explanatory force, as many translations do, rendering it “since” or “now
 that.” However, I do not recall ever having seen the word used this way elsewhere,
and I do not find such a sense indicated in BDAG.
Joh 10:8 pa,ntej — The adjective could alternatively be construed as the subject of
eivsin.
Joh 10:12 ou- — The construction is challenging in that there are two possessive words:
this relative pronoun and the adjective i;dia. I have diagrammed the understanding
reflected in the versions, which merge the two into one possessive idea comprising
the predicate after ouvk e;stin. An alternative construction would construe the
pronoun as modifying pro,bata: “Whose sheep are not his own.” “Whose sheep”
would have the sense of a flock or portion of a flock that the hired hand has been
charged to look after; i;dia would have a more intimate sense of ownership of or
ultimate responsibility for the sheep. If I understand the ways of the ancient world on
this point, the shepherd most often would not be the owner of the sheep, but he would
be a member of the owner’s household and would derive his living from the flock
itself, as Jacob did when shepherding Laban’s flock. For practical purposes, he had no
existence independently of the owner’s approval of his work and provision for him. A
hired hand, however, had a very loose relationship with the household and derived no
inherent benefit from the flock’s welfare. It is easy for the hired hand to lose a job if
necessary to save his limbs or life. But the sheep are the shepherd’s life, so he will
defend theirs with his. So the hired hand may have sheep in a loosely possessive
sense (ou-) while not being able to call them i;dia. I am attracted to this
understanding, “Whose sheep are not his own,” but I defer to the versions. 2Pe 3:3,16
and possibly Act 24:23 can be cited in support of the versions’ construing i;dioj and a
genitive together as a single possessive idea. The distance between the two words in
this verse can be explained in terms of the necessity of the relative pronoun’s being
placed early and the naturalness of the end position of i;dia. On the other hand,
though, the word order also very naturally produces “Whose sheep are not his own.”
Joh 10:21 tau/ta ta. r`h,mata ouvk e;stin daimonizome,nou — An alternative
construction would take tau/ta as subject, ta. r`h,mata as predicate noun, and
daimonizome,nou as genitive modifier to r`h,mata. The basis for my
diagramming is a sense that tau/ta ta. r`h,mata preceding the verb reads most
naturally as a single word group constituting the subject phrase.
Joh 10:29 o` path,r mou o] de,dwke,n moi pa,ntwn mei/zo,n evstin — The
meaning of this text, with the neuter pronoun and adjective, can only be, “That which
my father has given to me is greater than all.” Hence the diagramming. However,
most translators have not followed the editors of the text here and have preferred the
majority reading, which has the pronoun and adjective in the masculine. In that
reading, path,r would be the subject of evstin, and o[j would be the subject of
de,dwken.
Joh 11:6 evn — The preposition could alternatively be construed as governing to,pw|.
Joh 11:17 h`me,raj — The accusative could alternatively be construed as adverbial to
e;conta, which would then have the meaning given in BDAG, e;cw, 10.b, “to be.”
Joh 11:18 w`j — For support for taking w`j as indicating approximation in this
construction, compare Joh 21.8, which BDAG (w`j, 6.) treats as I am doing here.
Joh 11:22 kai. nu/n — The expression could alternatively be construed as modifying
dw,sei, as KJV and NIV construe it.
Joh 11:24 evn th|/ evsca,th| h`me,ra| — The prepositional phrase could
alternatively be construed as modifying avnasta,sei.
Joh 11:37 ou-toj o` avnoi,xaj — Two alternative constructions are possible: o`
avnoi,xaj as subject with ou-toj as its modifier, or ou-toj as subject with the
participle construed as a substantive standing in apposition to it.
Joh 11:44 dedeme,noj — The participle could alternatively be construed as adverbial
to evxh/lqen.
Joh 11:52 ouvc)))mo,non avllV)))kai, — The expressions could be construed as
phrases constituting the paired conjunction: “not only...but also” (see the
Diagramming Policies document, section VIII. 8). I have diagrammed as I did based
on the word order, which seems to highlight the contrasting focal points of the nation
and the scattered children. mo,non, however, cannot be construed as a simple
modifier to e;qnouj because of the case disagreement, so it seems best to take it as
modifying the whole prepositional phrase. In all, a rather thorny diagramming
situation. Cf. Joh 12:9 for exactly the same construction.
Joh 11:53 — The i[na clause could alternatively be construed as a purpose clause
modifying evbouleu,santo.
Joh 11:57 — The o[pwj clause could alternatively be construed as modifying
mhnu,sh|.
Joh 12:3 poluti,mou — The two-termination adjective (polu,timoj( on) could be
parsed as feminine (as in the BNT/M morphology), modifying na,rdou. I have taken
it as neuter, modifying mu,rou, as the majority of versions seem to construe it.
Joh 12:7 — One could ignore the comma after auvth,n and diagram the i[na clause as
a second accusative after a;fej.
Joh 12:9 ouv)))mo,non avllV)))kai, — See note on Joh 11:52, where the same
construction occurs.
Joh 12:21 ou=n — This conjunction, within a sentence, would ordinarily be taken as
subordinating, but in this context the thought connection seems clearly coordinate.
Joh 12:38 o` braci,wn — The noun could alternatively be construed as a pendent
nominative.
Joh 12:46 fw/j — The noun could alternatively be construed as predicate after an
elliptical participle of eivmi, (w;n) modifying the verb.
Joh 12:49 path,r — The noun could alternatively be construed as a pendent nominative,
in which case auvto,j would be the subject of the clause.
Joh 13:1 pro. th/j e`orth/j — The prepositional phrase could alternatively be
construed as modifying hvga,phsen.
Joh 13:2 VIskariw,tou — Many versions construe the noun as renaming Si,mwnoj.
However, cf. verse 26, where the same sequence of nouns appears, except that
“Judas” is in the dative case, allowing only the construction where “Iscariot” renames
“Simon.” Along with several versions, I have construed this verse like verse 26.
Joh 13:3 auvtw|/ — It seems to me just possible that the pronoun could alternatively be
construed as a possessive modifier for cei/raj.
Joh 13:18 — Many versions supply an elliptical clause for the i[na clause to modify,
construing the quotation as an appositive to h` grafh,, specifying which Scripture is
fulfilled. NA27’s colon before the quotation supports such a construction. It is
difficult, however, to come up with an elliptical clause that provides a coherent flow
 of thought. It seems best to me to take the quotation itself as the main clause
introduced by avlla,: “I do not speak about all of you; I know whom I have chosen,
but, in order that the Scripture might be fulfilled, one of you is an alien.” But rather
than say something like “One of you is an alien,” Jesus simply quotes one of several
Scripture passages that Judas will soon fulfill. When Judas lifts up his heel against
Jesus, he will fulfill more than just the passage quoted; he will fulfill the Scripture,
i.e., all the passages prophesying that event and its aftermath (see also, e.g., Psa
55:12ff. and Psa 69:25 [cf. Act 1:20]). In fairness, though, I must acknowledge that
Joh 15:25 contains a construction much like the one here, and its context allows no
other alternative than to supply an elliptical clause like most versions do here. So
perhaps I strain unnecessarily here.
Joh 13:20 a;n — For a;n = eva,n, see BDAG, a;n, II.; also Robertson, Word Pictures,
on this verse.
Joh 14:1 kai, — The word could alternatively be construed as a conjunction coordinating
the two clauses. I am personally attracted to this construction, which seems to be what
the punctuation of NA27 suggests, but I diagram in deference to the versions. Yet
another alternative is to diagram the word as modifying eivj.
Joh 14:2 — Note the punctuation of NA27, which is followed by NRS, ESV and others.
Joh 14:19 mikro,n — The adjective (parsed as accusative in BNM, consistently with
BDAG) could possibly be construed as adverbial to the elliptical verb. But what
would the content of that clause be? In my diagram, the adjective is understood to be
nominative: “(There will be) yet a little (while)....” This approach makes it much
easier to diagram the kai, than BDAG’s suggestion.
Joh 14:30 polla, — The adjective could alternatively be construed as adverbial to
lalh,sw.
Joh 14:31 kai, — I am following a number of versions in the overall construction of vv.
30-31. On this construction, kai, is understood as intensifying kaqw,j: “even as,” or
as some put it, “exactly as.” Since I find no attractive way to attach a modifier (kai,)
to a conjunction (kaqw,j), I have opted to diagram the two words together as a
phrase. An alternative overall construction would be to supply an elliptical clause for
the i[na clause to modify, and then take kai, as coordinating two object clauses
introduced by o[ti. This construction, though, seems more difficult to coordinate
conceptually with evn evmoi. ouvk e;cei oude,n of v. 30. Probably the best
way to make such a construction work would be to supply an elliptical clause, “He is
coming,” so that the overall thought would be, “The ruler of the world is coming, and
he has nothing in me, but [he is coming (sc. to put me through the passion)] in order
that the world may know that I love the father and do just as he commanded me.”
Joh 15:4 ouvde, — The word could alternatively be construed as adverbial to the
elliptical du,nasqe.
Joh 15:5 kavgw. evn auvtw|/ — I do not find a completely satisfactory way to
diagram the clause. kai, implies co-ordination, but the clause is not truly coordinate,
since its verb cannot be another substantival participle with the same referent as the
first. The clause could be brought into slightly closer coordination by supplying a
participle (me,nwn) rather than an indicative (me,nw), but the grammatical usage
of that participle would be very difficult to identify. I have diagrammed in the way
that seems least objectionable to me.
Joh 15:7 o[ — An alternative construction would construe the pronoun as the object of an
elliptical aivth,sasqai completing qe,lete.
Joh 15:16 — The first i[na clause could alternatively be construed as a purpose clause
modifying e;qhka. My diagram reflects the understanding of BDAG, i[na, 2.a.e. It
might be possible to construe the second i[na clause as coordinate to the first, so that
Jesus is appointing not only the fruit bearing but also the answered prayer. However,
the versions are probably correct in taking i[na to show purpose or result here.
Grammatically, the lack of a coordinating kai, weighs somewhat against this
construction. The more weighty grammatical consideration is that the first accusative,
u`ma/j, coheres nicely with the second-person verbs of the first i[na clause, but not
with the third-person verb of the second i[na clause. There is a further theological
consideration: it seems out of place for Jesus to say that He has appointed the Father
to do something.
Joh 15:17 — The plural tau/ta invites the interpretation that it refers, not forward to the
command to love, but back to the things just spoken, so that i[na would be taken as
introducing, not a noun clause in apposition to tau/ta, but a purpose clause
modifying evnte,llomai. NRS construes the grammar this way. The problem I see
with this approach is that the matters just discussed are not of the nature of a
command. The nearest previous clear command given is in verse 12, the command to
love. Construing the i[na clause as a noun clause, then, seems least objectionable.
Joh 16:12 le,gein — The infinitive could alternatively be construed as modifying
polla,. Another possible construction would treat le,gein as the object of e;cw and
polla, as the object of le,gein.
Joh 16:16 mikro,n — The adjective (parsed as accusative in BNM, consistently with
BDAG) could possibly be construed as adverbial to the elliptical verb. But what
would the subject of that clause be? In my diagram, the adjective is understood to be
nominative: “(There will be) yet a little (while)....” This approach makes it much
easier to diagram the kai, than BDAG’s suggestion.
Joh 16:19 mikro,n — The adjective (parsed as accusative in BNM, consistently with
BDAG) could possibly be construed as adverbial to the elliptical verb. But what
would the subject of that clause be? In my diagram, the adjective is understood to be
nominative: “(There will be) yet a little (while)....” This approach makes it much
easier to diagram the kai, than BDAG’s suggestion.
Joh 16:14 peplhrwme,nh — The participle could alternatively be construed as
predicate adjective.
Joh 16:23 a;n — For a;n = eva,n, see BDAG, a;n, II.
Joh 17:2 — The subordinate clauses (introduced by kaqw,j and i[na) may be construed
differently; a variety of combinations are possible. The kaqw,j clause could modify
the following clause rather than the preceding, or possibly even the immediately
preceding doxa,sh|, and independently of that question, the i[na clause could
modify do,xason in v. 1 (co-ordinate with the i[na clause of v. 1), doxa,sh| (v. 1),
or evxousi,an (v. 2). In the absence of compelling reasons to do otherwise, I have
construed each in the most straightforward way: as modifying the nearest preceding
verb with which it makes good sense.
Joh 17:6 soi, — The word seems to me almost certainly the nominative plural possessive
adjective rather than the dative singular personal pronoun. The accenting of NA27
 seems to imply this, and v. 10 unambiguously uses the possessive adjectives evma,
and sa,.
Joh 17:8 avlhqw/j — The adverb could alternatively be construed as modifying
evxh/lqon.
Joh 17:9 soi, — The word seems to me almost certainly the nominative plural possessive
adjective rather than the dative singular personal pronoun. The accenting of NA27
seems to imply this, and v. 10 unambiguously uses the possessive adjectives evma,
and sa,.
Joh 17:13 evn e`autoi/j — The prepositional phrase could alternatively be construed
as modifying e;cwsin. This interpretation is attractive to me, but the versions do not
seem to prefer it.
Joh 17:23 — The last i[na clause could alternatively be construed as modifying
de,dwka in v. 22.
Joh 17:24 — Because of the forward position of the relative clause o] de,dwka,j moi,
I have diagrammed it as a pendent nominative construction rather than a simple
relative clause. The indirectness of this approach also alleviates to some extent the
difficulty of the neuter singular pronoun referring to a masculine plural antecedent.
Joh 17:24 — It seems to me that the o[ti clause could be construed as a noun clause in
apposition to th.n do,xan. However, I do not find any versions reflecting such an
understanding.
Joh 17:24 pro. katabolh/j ko,smou — The prepositional phrase could alternatively
be construed as modifying de,dwkaj.
Joh 17:25 kai....kai, — BDAG, kai,, 1.f. suggests that the two instances of kai, are
paired, with the sense, “although...yet.” This approach is attractive in that kai....kai,
is a common construction, but it leaves the middle clause, introduced by de,, difficult
to construe (is it just a parenthesis?). Most versions take the second kai, as
coordinating the second and third clauses, which are alike in their positive statements
of knowledge, and I have followed that approach. BDAG indicates that kai....kai,
can mark a contrasting relationship, so it would seem that the adversative particle de,
might well be substituted for the second kai,. A.T. Robertson (Word Pictures) reads
the construction thus.
Joh 18:8 — I have ignored NA27’s sentence punctuation in the middle of the verse in
order to be able to construe verse 9 as adverbial to avpekri,qh in verse 8.
Joh 18:18 metV auvtw/n — The prepositional phrase could alternatively be construed
as modifying only e`stw,j.
Joh 18:18 e`stw.j kai. qermaino,menoj — The participles could alternatively be
construed as adverbial to h=n. On this construction, metV auvtw/n must modify
h=n, which would otherwise be left with nothing to fill out its clause.
Joh 18:26 — The quotation could be construed with an elliptical indirect discourse or
adverbial participle, o;nta, modified by the two prepositional phrases: “Did I not see
you (being) in the garden with him?” or “Did I not see you (when you were) in the
garden with him?”
Joh 18:30 poiw/n — The participle could alternatively be construed as periphrastic (cf.
ESV’s translation, “If this man were not doing evil”).
Joh 18:35 to. so,n — The adjective could alternatively be construed as modifying only
to. e;qnoj.
Joh 18:37 ouvkou/n — The word could alternatively be divided into two, an
introductory conjunction (ou=n) and the negative introducing the question (ouvk).
Joh 18:37 — The i[na clause presents a diagramming challenge. It can naturally be
understood as a purpose clause appositional to both eivj tou/to phrases and
modifying both verbs. The diagramming challenge is to express all these connections.
Not finding a way to do so, I have construed the clause as a noun clause appositional
just to the two occurrences of the pronoun tou/to, which seems to me a construction
only slightly inferior if at all.
Joh 19:18 to,pon — NA27 capitalizes the word, making it the head word of a phrase
functioning as a proper noun, “Place of a Skull.” In Matt 27:33 and Mar 15:22. It may
well be the same here, but that construction leaves the participle to.n lego,menon
without a referent. A few versions (KJV, NKJ, NIV) construe the article with the
noun, taking the participle as attributive and leaving only Krani,ou to function as its
complement. Such a use of the genitive seems entirely appropriate to me. The single-
word equivalents that have come down to us (Calvary, via Latin, and Golgotha, via
Aramaic) may lend further credence to taking the construction so. However, as usual,
in the diagramming I defer to the majority of versions, supported by BDAG.
Joh 19:30 VIhsou/j — The name could alternatively be construed as the subject of
e;laben.
Joh 19:35 — The i[na clause could perhaps be construed as modifying le,gei or
possibly even the whole series of three independent clauses.
Joh 19:38 o` avpo. ~Arimaqai,aj — The phrase could alternatively be construed as
appositional to VIwsh,f.
Joh 19:38 w;n — The participle could alternatively be construed as adjectival to
VIwsh,f. I have construed it as adverbial based on the absence of the article.
Joh 20:1 to.n li,qon hvrme,non — The construction could alternatively be construed
as indirect discourse.
Joh 20:7 evntetuligme,non — The participle could alternatively be construed as
coordinate with the elliptical kei,menon.
Joh 20:12 — The two occurrences of e[na are best construed as appositives renaming
du,o avgge,louj, but I do not find a way to diagram them as such while also
providing verbs for the prepositional phrases pro.j th|/ kefalh|/ and pro.j toi/j
posi,n to modify.
Joh 20:18 $evgw,% — I have supplied the elliptical subject just to prevent accidental
misreading of e`w,raka as third person. The first clause of the quotation, in which
Mary appears in the first person, is direct discourse; the second clause, in which she
appears in the third person (auvth|/), is indirect.
Joh 20:23 a;n — For a;n = eva,n, see BDAG, a;n, II.
Joh 20:25 — I have construed the coordination to group the two clauses referring to the
nail prints in Jesus’ hands, parallel to the one referring to His side. Alternatives would
be to group the last two clauses (which are tactile as opposed to visual), parallel to the
first, or to construct a single coordinate series of three.
Joh 21:25 a[tina — The relative pronoun, positioned ahead of eva,n, does not at first
seem to belong to the conditional clause. However, there is no place for the pronoun
within the head clause, nor does the head clause contain a resumptive word to which
a[tina could be diagrammed as a pendent nominative (unless bibli,a is to be taken
 as such, which seems unlikely to me since it refers to something other than the deeds
themselves). The least of the evils seems to be to take the pronoun as the subject of
the conditional clause. The strong tendency for the relative pronoun to stand first in
its clause can explain the forward position, which is not at all unparalleled even with
other kinds of words (e.g., see 2Co 4:4, where the object of a i[na clause precedes
the conjunction). The one other possible alternative I see is to diagram the pronoun as
the direct object of cwhr/sai and construe ta. bibli,a as an appositive to it.

Acts

Act 1:5 — I am personally inclined to construe the verse as appositional to th.n

evpaggeli,an (although the first clause is not of the nature of a promise; it does,
however, set up the promise in the second clause). I defer, though, to the strong
consensus of versions.
Act 1:6 eiv — The particle could alternatively be diagrammed as a conjunction
introducing the quotation (see BDAG, eiv, 5.a.), in which case it would appear on the
downward stilt extending from the object slot after le,gontej.
Act 1:8 pa,sh| — The adjective could alternatively be construed as modifying only
VIoudai,a|.
Act 1:10 kai, (2nd) — On this seemingly redundant kai,, see BDAG, kai,, 1.b.d. I have
diagrammed in the least objectionable way I can think of.
Act 1:11 o]n tro,pon — See note on Mat 23:37.
Act 1:15 e`kato.n ei;kosi — The number could alternatively be construed as the
predicate after h=n. In that case, the prepositional phrase evpi. to. auvto, would
probably better be construed as modifying the subject phrase.
Act 1:18 me,soj — The nominative adjective is difficult to construe. Subject at first
seems possible (“[his] middle burst open”), but such a construction would probably
be both articular and neuter in gender (to. me,son) and, most significantly, this
subject would not cohere well with the participle phrase prhnh.j geno,menoj.
Since only Judas himself can be construed as the referent of the participle, he must be
the subject, and some other use for me,soj must be sought. Robertson (Word
Pictures) suggests a predicate adjective, but it is difficult for me to understand the
adjective as either a modifier for the subject or the complement of the verb. So an
adverbial use of the nominative seems least objectionable, but against this usage are
its rarity of occurrence and, perhaps most significant, the masculine gender, which
seems to mark it as referring to Judas. In all, it seems to be something of a hybrid,
with aspects of both an adverbial usage (since it is neither subject nor complement to
the verb) and a predicate adjective usage (since its gender, number, and case connect
it to the subject). Diagramming it adverbially seems least objectionable to me.
Act 2:7 — The question can alternatively be construed with ou-toi as the subject and oi`
lalou/ntej as its attributive.
Act 2:22 avpo. tou/ qeou/ — I am personally inclined to construe this phrase as a
predicate: “a man attested [to be] from God...” But I defer to BDAG and the versions.
Act 2:23 w`risme,nh| — The participle could alternatively be construed as modifying
both nouns.
Act 2:29 evxo,n — I am construing the neuter participle as a predicate nominative after
an elliptical linking verb (see BDAG, e;xestin 1.d.). The verb could be indicative
(“it is permissible”) or imperative (“let it be permissible”; i.e., “give me permission”).
BDAG and a number of versions take the participle to mean “it is possible” rather
than “it is permitted”; in that case the understood verb must be indicative.
Act 2:30 auvtou/ (1st) — The pronoun could alternatively be construed as modifying
karpou/.
Act 2:33 ou=n — The particle could perhaps be construed with the two participles
rather than with the indicative. However, the thought connection would not be
between the participles and their governing verb (evxe,ceen); it would connect
them to the preceding verb (avne,sthsen). A connection with the participles would
therefore have to be diagrammed as an adverb modifying them rather than a
conjunction introducing them.
Act 2:35 sou (2nd) — The pronoun could alternatively be construed as modifying
u`popo,dion.
Act 2:38 eivj a;fesin — The prepositional phrase could alternatively be construed as
modifying both imperatives.
Act 2:42 tw/n avposto,lwn — The genitive could alternatively be construed as
modifying both didach|/ and koinwni,a|.
Act 2:46 kaqV h`me,ran — The prepositional phrase could alternatively be construed
as modifying only proskarterou/ntej or even as modifying metela,mbanon.
Act 2:46 kardi,aj — I think it is very likely that kardi,aj was intended to modify only
avfelo,thti, because avgalli,asij is an overwhelming joy that is generally
expressed outwardly.
Act 2:47 kaqV h`me,ran — The prepositional phrase could alternatively be construed
as modifying sw|zome,nouj.
Act 3:3 me,llontaj — The participle could alternatively be construed as adverbial to
ivdw,n, of which Pe,tron kai. VIwa,nnhn would then be construed as direct
objects.
Act 3:12 tou/ peripatei/n auvto,n — The genitive article with an indirect discourse
infinitive is rare, but this construction seems least objectionable to me.
Act 4:6 — I have supplied (sunh,cqhsan) in order to provide a finite verb with which
the nominatives may be construed as the subject. Alternatively, the nominatives could
be construed as a second coordinate set of subjects for the infinitive sunhcqh/nai in
verse 5. The nominative case would be difficult to explain in that construction,
however.
Act 4:9 evn ti,ni ou-toj se,swtai — I am construing the clause as a retained object
after a passive verb.
Act 4:16 me,n — Other constructions of this word are possible; I am following BDAG,
me,n, 1.a.a. and 1.a.b.
Act 4:16 — An interesting construction: the o[ti clause seems to function as both the
subject of the elliptical evstin and the object of avrnei/sqai. It is of course
impossible to diagram a single occurrence of the clause in both connections. Since it
is a rather large ellipsis to supply with avrnei/sqai, I have opted to diagram it only
in its primary connection.
Act 4:17 auvtoi/j and lalei/n — I am adhering to a pattern that the Greek idiom for
commands and permissions expresses the action commanded or permitted as the
direct object and the person(s) receiving the command or permission as indirect
objects in the dative. Threaten, however, is not precisely an action of commanding or
permitting, so perhaps the pattern should not be imposed here. The alternative
construction would take auvtoi/j as direct object and lalei/n as modifying the verb.
Numbers 23:19, in which the passive of avpeile,w appears with a person as its
implied subject, provides some support for taking the person(s) as the object of the
active and middle voices. Some might choose to diagram indirect discourse, with
auvtoi/j functioning as subject of the infinitive, but I do not recognize such a use of
the dative myself.
Act 4:24 — I have supplied an elliptical (ei=) to join su, to the participles o` poih,saj
and o` eivpw,n. It is possible that the participles should instead be understood as
appositives renaming su,. Such a construction, however, would leave su, without a
verb, as though the thought was broken off by the rather lengthy quotation and
explanation in vv. 25-28 and then either never resumed or else restarted in v. 29,
where God is the subject. The sentence in vv. 29-30 would not naturally take su, as
its subject, however, so that option is least attractive to me. The participles read most
naturally as appositives, but I have allowed the grammatical need for a verb to
dominate my thinking and have therefore supplied the copula.
Act 4:25 — It is commonly recognized that the grammar of the reading printed in the
UBS/NA texts is not coherent. The grammatical connection I have diagrammed for
sto,matoj (adverbial modifier to eivpw,n) cannot be understood in terms of any
ordinary genitive case use. It does, however, seem to be the be the least objectionable
way to approximate good grammar without emending the text.
Act 4:30 VIhsou/ — The noun could alternatively be construed as renaming
ovno,matoj.
Act 4:32 tou/ plh,qouj tw/n pisteusa,ntwn h=n kardi,a kai. yuch. mi,a —
Several constructions are possible. I have construed the genitive as predicate, with a
possessive idea in mind: “One heart and soul belonged to the multitude of those who
believed.” It might be possible to take mi,a as the predicate, with the genitive simply
adnominal: “The heart and soul of the multitude of those who believed was one.” This
seems like perhaps a more natural sequence of thought, but one would expect an
article with “heart and soul” in this construction. It would also be possible to take
h=n as existential, having no predicate: “There was one heart and soul of the
multitude of those who believed.” The decision between the first and third
constructions is difficult for me.
Act 4:32 auvtoi/j — The pronoun could alternatively be construed as adverbial to h=n,
understood as dative of possession: “They possessed all things in common.”
Act 4:34 ouvde, — The particle could alternatively be construed as modifying the verb.
Act 5:3 pneu/ma — On the accusative as direct object of yeu,domai, see BDAG,
yeu,domai, 2.
Act 5:9 o[ti — It is difficult to decide whether to take the conjunction as introducing a
noun clause (as I have done) or some sort of explanatory clause, which would require
diagramming it as subordinate to the elliptical evstin, which would then have ti, as
its subject. BDAG classifies this passage under “marker of explanatory clauses,” but
 that whole section is sequenced between noun-clause uses of o[ti, and several of the
grammatical constructions in that section are clearly noun clauses. BDAG’s
translation of ti, o[ti, “What (is it) that?” uses the expletive “it,” and it seems to me
best to interpret the o[ti clause as supplying the content for that expletive. Of course
no expletive is necessary in Greek; the o[ti clause simply occupies the grammatical
slot that English fills with “it.”
Act 5:9 evxoi,sousin — I have construed the grammar so that the subject of this verb is
understood to be the men who buried Ananias. It is also possible to construe oi`
po,dej as the subject of both verbs in this sentence.
Act 5:14 tw|/ kuri,w| — Several versions construe the dative as the direct object of
pisteu,ontej. The decision is a very difficult one; BDAG leaves the question open
(prosti,qhmi, 1.b.). The diagram follows the majority of English versions.
Act 5:15 Pe,trou — The noun, along with the adverbial participle evrcome,nou,
could alternatively be construed as genitive absolute.
Act 5:22 paragenome,nou — The flow of thought certainly seems more natural with
this participle construed as adverbial rather than attributive. Many versions translate it
adverbially, and the Majority and Received Texts transpose this word with
u`phre,tai, yielding a clearly adverbial construction in the Greek. Supported by
several versions (e.g., ASV, NAS, NET), I have diagrammed in the only way that
seems admissible for a participle positioned between article and noun: as attributive.
Act 5:22 ouvc — Ordinarily, ouv...de, is diagrammed as a paired conjunction. In this
sentence, however, the elements joined by de, are not in a negative-positive contrast
but rather in simple coordination, with ouv simply negating the first rather than
setting up a negative against which a later positive is to contrast. It is a simple
chronological sequence: “They did not find...and they reported.”
Act 5:23 — Section IX. of the diagramming policies explains the basis on which I decide
between object/complement or indirect discourse as the complement of eu`ri,skw.
This passage is unusual in that the verb has a coordinate pair of complements, one of
each type. Someone who preferred to maintain grammatical parallelism between the
two complements would probably do best to diagram e`stw/taj as object
complement (also called predicate accusative) rather than diagram kekleisme,non
as indirect discourse.
Act 5:24 ti, a'n ge,noito tou/to — I diagram this clause as a noun clause with an
adverbial function: “They were perplexed (regarding) what this might possibly turn
out to be.” Some might wish to treat the clause as the object of dihpo,roun, but the
verb does not seem transitive to me. Cf. Act 10:17.
Act 5:25 evn tw|/ i`erw|/ — The prepositional phrase could alternatively be construed
as modifying eivsi,n or just e`stw/tej.
Act 5:27 auvtou,j (1st occurrence) — Assuming that the verb is transitive (see below),
the pronoun could alternatively be construed as the direct object of e;sthsan.
Act 5:27 e;sthsan — The form could be taken as the intransitive second aorist (only the
third person plural is subject to this ambiguity), but BDAG and the versions appear
unanimous in their preference for the transitive first aorist.
Act 5:32 — Since the Holy Spirit is third person plural, an elliptical clause could be
supplied for which it would serve as subject: “We are witnesses, and the Holy Spirit
(is a witness).” It seems to me that the addition of a third person singular noun
 coordinate with “we” does not change the fact that the subject phrase remains first
person plural, and even if the case were otherwise, I generally do not supply elliptical
clauses for the sole purpose of avoiding disagreement between a whole subject phrase
and its predicate.
Act 5:34 tij — The grammar could alternatively be construed with Farisai/oj as the
subject, modified by tij: “a certain Pharisee.”
Act 5:35 — The elliptical antecedent for ti, could alternatively be construed as adverbial
to prose,cete, leaving the verb without a complement. The verb, however, seems
transitive to me.
Act 5:36 eivj ouvde,n — The prepositional phrase could alternatively be construed as
the predicate after evge,nonto.
Act 5:37 meta, tou/ton — The prepositional phrase, I suppose, could alternatively be
construed as modifying all three clauses. NA27’s major stop after auvtou/, though,
seems to me clearly to indicate that they view it as belonging only to the first clause.
Act 6:9 — There are numerous possible groupings of the coordinate elements identifying
those who disputed with Stephen. I have diagrammed two main groups, based on the
syntax of the articular prepositional phrases, leaving kai. Kurhnai,wn kai.
VAlexandre,wn to serve as an expansion of the first. Versions unambiguously
reading the passage the same way include NAS, NET, and CSB. The best alternatives
are 1) a single group, the synagogue of the Libertines, with its ethnic makeup listed,
and 2) four different groups: the Libertines, the Cyrenians, the Alexandrians, and
those from Cilicia and Asia. I consider the first alternative to be a very attractive one,
based on an assumption that Stephen’s opposition would most likely arise from a
single group. My reasons for diagramming as I did are syntactical, though I must
admit that there is nothing highly unnatural about reading the second tw/n as
introducing a third subset rather than a second parallel set.
Act 6:11 le,gontaj — An adverbial construction might be possible; I even wonder about
indirect discourse or a double accusative. BDAG is not very helpful on constructions
with u`poba,llw.
Act 7:3 deu/ro — Although the word is not a verb, I do not find an acceptable way to
diagram it otherwise.
Act 7:14 evn yucai/j — On the construction with evn, see BDAG, evn, 12.
Act 7:30 Sina/ — The noun could alternatively be construed as a genitive modifier to
o;rouj.
Act 7:30 ba,tou — It is difficult to decide how to construe the genitive. I am following
A.T. Robertson (Word Pictures), who says that both genitives are dependent on
flogi,. Alternatives are adverbial to w;fqh (genitive of place) and modifying puro,j;
much less likely is that it modifies flogi, and is modified by puro,j.
Act 7:33 tw/n podw/n — The genitive could alternatively be construed as adverbial to
lu/son (genitive of separation).
Act 7:33 sou — The pronoun could alternatively be construed as modifying
u`po,dhma.
Act 7:36 e;th tessera,konta — It would be good if the phrase could be diagrammed
so that it modifies poih,saj only in its connection with evn th|/ evrh,mw|, since
it almost certainly was intended to specify the length of the wilderness period alone.
However, the only way to diagram this specific construction would be to supply an
 elliptical poih,saj coordinate with the explicit poih,saj and modified only by evn
th|/ evrh,mw|. The drawback to such a construction is that it entails breaking up
the coordination of the three prepositional phrases. Of course, the stages preceding
the forty years in the wilderness did not occupy a great deal of additional time, so the
whole period was for practical purposes forty years in length, and the difficulty is
more a matter of grammatical precision than chronological accuracy. I suppose one
could diagram the phrase as a modifier for the third evn, but the adverbial
connection is to the verb, not the preposition, so the gain in connecting the phrase
only with the wilderness period is negated by the loss of the proper grammatical
connection to the verb.
Act 7:40 Aivgu,ptou — The noun could alternatively be construed as appositive to
gh/j (cf. the dative construction in v. 36). The legitimacy of preferring to read a
genitive modifier where possible is apparent from the reading of the Received Text in
v. 36, where the wording is evn gh|/ Aivgu,ptou.
Act 7:44 tw|/ Mwu?sh|/ — It seems to me entirely possible to construe the dative as
the indirect object of dieta,xato, but I do not find any English versions rendering
the passage so.
Act 8:7 — The first clause of the verse is very difficult. polloi, obviously refers to many
people, but the most natural subject for evxh,rconto is the unclean spirits, which
are in the clause in the accusative. It is just possible to understand that the people are
coming out of their demon haunts to be delivered, in which case there is no
grammatical problem at all. But none of the reputable versions renders the passage so.
The versions either translate according to the sense rather than the grammar, or else
they follow the variant pollw/n, which allows the spirits to be understood as the
elliptical subject of the verb. NAS is perhaps treating the nominative as having some
adverbial usage. In diagramming, I followed A.T. Robertson’s (Word Pictures)
suggestion that this is an instance of anacolouthon: the clause simply does not end
with the same grammar with which it began. It seemed best to me to represent this
construction by beginning the clause with polloi,, breaking it off at the appropriate
point, and then beginning a brand new clause coordinate with the broken one,
supplying (ta. pneu,mata) for clarity.
Act 8:11 evxestake,nai auvtou,j — Based on a strong pattern of usage in which the
perfect active of i[sthmi in all its compounds is intransitive (with present tense
meaning), I would have been inclined to construe auvtou,j as accusative of general
reference: “they were amazed.” The versions are very strong, however, in their
consensus of reading the construction as transitive: “he amazed them.” BDAG seems
inconsistent: the initial listing of forms for evxi,sthmi notes that the perfect active
is intransitive, yet this passage is listed under transitive uses. Some time back I
became interested in this question and posted a query to the B-Greek online
discussion list. The ensuing discussion brought to light some data suggesting that
perfect active forms of i[sthmi using a rather than the more common h as the stem
vowel do in fact function transitively. Searching for .*estak* in BGT yields 7 hits,
all of which appear to be transitive. So it is with confidence that I diagram the
transitive construction found in the versions. This matter ought to be explored in
research for future revisions of BDAG.
Act 8:15 o[pwj — The conjunction could alternatively be construed as introducing a
purpose clause, leaving proshu,xanto without a complement.
Act 8:18 avposto,lwn — The genitive could alternatively be construed as modifying
evpiqe,sewj.
Act 8:19 — The i[na clause could alternatively be construed as a purpose clause
modifying do,te.
Act 8:24 (evkei,nwn) — I have supplied the demonstrative pronoun in the genitive case
in order to clarify why w[n (direct object of eivrh,kate) is in the genitive: by
attraction to its elliptical antecedent.
Act 8:28 — Other combinations of coordination are possible. I am especially attracted to
the idea of taking te as coordinating at least two verbs within the second relative
clause. The basis on which I have formed the groupings is the idea that the two
relative clauses expand the description of the eunuch, while the set of verbs
introduced by te begins to unfold the action of the story. Within this framework, it is
very easy to construe “returning” parallel to “had come” (both verbs referring to
travel) but the single copula governing two periphrastic participles argues against a
wide separation between “returning” and “sitting.” One could keep the participles
together by construing the whole set of verbs introduced by te within that second
relative clause, but only at the expense of the clear distinction between description of
the eunuch and advancement of action. It is difficult to decide which virtue to prefer
over the other; I do not consider my diagramming to satisfy all concerns ideally.
Act 8:32 evpi. sfagh,n — The prepositional phrase could alternatively be construed as
belonging to the w`j clause.
Act 9:18 w`j — For w`j diagrammed right along with its noun, see the entry for w`j in
section IX. of the diagramming policies manual.
Act 9:38 dielqei/n — The infinitive could alternatively be construed as direct object of
ovknh,sh|j. I am uncertain whether ovkne,w is transitive or intransitive.
Act 10:2 poiw/n...kai. deo,menoj — The participles could alternatively be construed
as modifying both euvsebh,j and fobou,menoj. Such a construction would
present a diagramming challenge: since the participles appear to be adverbial, they
could not directly modify the adjective euvsebh,j. Probably the best construction
would be to supply w;n as a substantive participle coordinate to fobou,menoj,
with euvsebh,j as its predicate. poiw/n and deo,menoj would then be
diagrammed as modifying w;n and fobou,menoj.
Act 10:15 (evge,neto) — I supplied this particular verb (as opposed to, say, ei=pen,
which would take the quotation as its object) because the language appears so parallel
to verse 13, where this verb is used.
Act 10:17 ti, a'n ei;h to. o[rama — I diagram this clause as a noun clause with an
adverbial function: “He was perplexed (regarding) what this might possibly be.”
Some might wish to treat the clause as the object of dihpo,rei, but the verb does not
seem transitive to me. Cf. Act 5:24, 12:18.
Act 10:25 tou/ eivselqei/n — On the genitive infinitive as subject, see section VII.6.
of the diagramming policies.
Act 10:31 evnw,pion tou/ qeou/ — The prepositional phrase could alternatively be
construed as modifying both verbs.
Act 10:35 evn panti. e;qnei — The prepositional phrase could alternatively be
construed as modifying the subject.
Act 10:36-38 — The overall syntax is very difficult. I have diagrammed two accusatives,
to.n lo,gon (v. 36) and VIhsou/n (v. 38) as pendent elements, even though their
case, rather than being nominative, is that in which the resumption of the idea appears
within their respective clauses. The word order, if not the case, does seem to indicate
pendent elements: an idea is expressed, but rather than completing a syntactically
coherent clause, the writer breaks off and starts a fresh clause, including a repetition
of the pendent element. The alternative to pendent constructions would be to treat the
pendent and resumptive elements as appositional to one another.
Act 10:37 avrxa,menoj — The masculine gender seems unusual; apparently the reader
is to infer Jesus as the referent of the participle, though He does not appear within the
syntax in the nominative. A similar construction appears in Luk 24:47, though the
punctuation of NA27 (incorrectly?) removes the problem.
Act 10:42 — This clause could alternatively be construed as coordinate to the first clause
of v. 39. “We are witnesses...and he command us to preach” makes good sense, but it
seemed to me even better to construe the clause as belonging to the set of post-
resurrection events described in the last portion of the sentence.
Act 11:16 w`j — The clause introduced by this particle could alternatively be construed
as modifying r`h,matoj.
Act 11:17 pisteu,sasin — A number of versions construe this participle as modifying
h`mi/n: “when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ.” While this construction is
grammatically attractive (in that it construes the participle with the immediately
preceding words), I think it is unlikely based on historical context. The Pentecostal
effusion of the Spirit on the disciples was not something that happened “when they
believed,” unless “when” is to be stretched to cover a considerable interval of time.
“Because we believed” could be better defended, but it seems to me that the context
points most naturally to the faith of Cornelius and his household. When they believed
Peter’s message about Jesus Christ, immediately the Spirit fell upon them (10:36-44).
So it seems to me that the w`j clause ends with h`mi/n, and pisteu,sasin resumes
the eiv clause. It would be nice, ideally, if the participle could be construed with both
clauses, because faith was indeed crucial to disciples’ receiving of the Spirit and is the
vital link equating the two groups (see Robertson, Word Pictures). But I do not see a
natural way to diagram both connections (perhaps an elliptical pisteu,sasin could
be supplied with the w`j clause), so I have diagrammed only what I see as the
primary connection.
Act 11:24 o[ti — The clause introduced by this conjunction might be construed as
modifying evxape,steilan in v. 22. In this case the nearest connection also seems
to me the most plausible; the logic is that Barnabas’ unprejudiced delight in and
support for these converted Hellenists is explained on the basis of his genuine
spirituality.
Act 11:29 tw/n maqhtw/n — The noun could alternatively be construed as a simple
genitive modifier for tij. I am personally inclined to read the construction so, but I
defer to the punctuation of NA27.
Act 12:7 auvtou/ — The pronoun could alternatively be construed as modifying
ceirw/n. The possessive occasionally precedes the preposition of which its head
 noun is the object. This construction would be more unusual in that the subject of the
clause would also intervene between the possessive and the prepositional phrase
containing its head noun. Still, I find that construction attractive and several versions
render the passage so, although perhaps simply as a matter of English style. Those
seeking an unambiguous parallel may consult Act 13:23 (though the need for
emphasis motivating the fronted position in that passage does not apply here).
Overall, however, it seemed best to follow several versions in diagramming the
simpler construction.
Act 12:10 auvtoma,th — To the English mind, this word seems to function
adverbially: “opened automatically.” Adjectives used adverbially in Greek, though,
are generally neuter accusative singular; this one is feminine nominative singular,
agreeing with the subject. The predicate function can be perceived, perhaps, by
thinking of the clause as, “which opened self-powered,” almost with an understood
“being” supplied. The grammatical principle involved is that an adjective agreeing
with the subject but belonging to the predicate of the clause is construed where
possible as a predicate adjective, even when the verb is not a simple copula.
Regarding a parallel construction with prw/toj, BDAG notes, “as a predicate adj.,
where an adv. can be used in English” (prw/toj, 1.a.a.). I have diagrammed that
construction as an adverb at times, which is probably an inconsistency calling for
revision.
Act 12:18 ti, a;ra o` Pe,troj evge,neto — I diagram this clause as a noun clause
with an adverbial function: “(regarding) what Peter had become” (i.e., “what had
become of Peter”). Cf. Act 5:24, 10:17.
Act 13:2 (eivj) — It is unusual to supply an elliptical preposition, but both Robertson
(Word Pictures) and BDAG (proskale,w 2.b.) suggest it. At least it is a repetition of
an existing preposition, and various kinds of condensation of relative clauses are
common. An alternative would be to diagram o[ as adverbial. A double accusative
construction would probably be incorrect, since proskale,w seems to take only a
personal object.
Act 13:6 VIoudai/on — The word could alternatively be construed as a noun in
apposition to yeudoprofh,thn, in which case it would also serve as the most
natural antecedent for w|-.
Act 13:14 auvtoi, — The pronoun could alternatively be construed as the subject of
both clauses of this sentence. It seems to me that it conveys emphasis contrasting the
movement of Paul’s group against that of John (Mark), who returned to Jerusalem.
Only the first clause warrants such a contrast; the second clause needs no such
emphasis.
Act 13:15 pro.j to.n lao,n — The prepositional phrase could alternatively be construed
as modifying paraklh,sewj.
Act 13:22 a;ndra — I have diagrammed the noun as object complement: “I found
David, the son of Jesse, (to be) a man after my heart.” The punctuation of NA27
suggests that the editors construed the noun as a further appositive instead. The
versions are divided.
Act 13:25 ou- — The pronoun could alternatively be construed as modifying
u`po,dhma.
Act 13:25 podw/n — The genitive could alternatively be construed as adverbial to
lu/sai (genitive of separation).
Act 13:26 oi` fobou,menoi to.n qeo,n — It is possible that the participle should be
construed as coordinate with a;ndrej avdelfoi,, which would mean that Paul is not
categorizing the God-fearers (who are Gentiles) along with the Jews as brothers.
Certainly Paul thinks of Gentile believers as brothers; whether he would classify God-
fearers as brothers prior to their conversion is open to question. Probably there are
indications within primary literature whether or not Jews referred to God-fearers as
brothers, but I do not have access to such information, and at any rate, Paul’s
sympathies on a point like this may well have been broader than those of his Jewish
contemporaries.
Act 13:27 ta.j fwna,j — The versions are divided over how to construe the noun. On
first encounter, it seems to be a second object of avgnoh,santej. But that
construction leaves kri,nantej evplh,rwsan seeming to hang rather awkwardly at
the end of the clause. The alternative is to construe ta.j fwna,j as the object of
evplh,rwsan. This construction makes the ending of the clause less awkward, but
now the kai, before ta.j fwna,j is difficult to construe naturally, and kri,nantej
remains somewhat awkward without an object. The solution I have adopted reflects a
common pattern in which the object of an adverbial participle is also the understood
object of the governing verb; the meaning is clear enough without repeating the
object with the verb. This sentence appears to me to be a slightly more complicated
version of that construction, in which both objects of the adverbial participle
avgnoh,santej are shared with two different subsequent verbs: the first object
(tou/ton) with the first additional verb (the participle kri,nantej) and the second
with the second. For clarity I have supplied a repetition of these objects with their
respective verbs.
Act 13:32 genome,nhn — Lacking the article, the participle seems best construed as
indirect discourse: “We bring you the good news that the promise has come to pass.”
The versions, however, seem disinclined to read the grammar so, preferring to
construe the participle as a simple attributive to evpaggeli,an or to condense the
ideas so that this participle is not translated at all. The only translation I find
unambiguously taking my view of the grammar is the New Jerusalem Bible.
Act 13:34 — I follow the consensus of versions in construing the opening o[ti clause as a
noun clause functioning adverbially to ei;rhken.
Act 13:38 — I would ordinarily diagram the o[ti clause on an upward stilt, but using the
downward stilt is much more space efficient in this sentence.
Act 13:46 ouvk — The negative could alternatively be construed as modifying
avxi,ouj. It seems more likely to me, though, that the negation of that word would
be expressed with the a privative, avna,xioj. All the NT occurrences of a;xioj with
a negative in the clause seem to me best understood with the negative modifying the
verb.
Act 14:2 kata. tw/n avdelfw/n — The prepositional phrase could alternatively be
construed as modifying only evka,kwsan.
Act 14:12 tou/ lo,gou — The noun could alternatively be construed as the direct object
of the participle or as an adnominal genitive modifying the person who leads rather
 than the action of leading, in which case it would be diagrammed under the noun slot
on which the participle’s stilt rests.
Act 15:1 tw|/ Mwu?se,wj — The diagramming looks like an error, as though I thought
the noun is in the dative agreeing with the article. Policy VII.18, though, explains that
the extra article that sometimes accompanies an adnominal genitive (the article
agreeing with the head noun) is diagrammed right along with the genitive. Usually in
this construction the genitive noun is also articular, and the two articles prevent the
impression of a subtle error, but not so in this case.
Act 15:2 tou.j avposto,louj kai. presbute,rouj — I do not mean the diagramming
to imply that the apostles and elders are the same people (cf. vv. 4, 6), only that the
one article governs both nouns so that they merge into a single group: the spiritual
leaders in Jerusalem.
Act 15:2 eivj VIerousalh,m — The prepositional phrase could alternatively be
construed as modifying the nouns avposto,louj kai. presbute,rouj.
Act 15:8 auvtoi/j — The pronoun could alternatively be construed as the indirect object
of dou,j.
Act 15:11 swqh/nai — I follow the versions in construing the infinitive as the object of
pisteu,omen. It seems to me that it could also be construed as adverbial, with the
object of pisteu,omen left unexpressed: “We believe [in Christ] in order to be
saved.” On that construction, I would be inclined to construe dia. th/j ca,ritoj tou/
kuri,ou VIhsou/ as modifying pisteu,omen.
Act 15:22 evklexame,nouj — The participle could alternatively be construed as
attributive to a;ndraj, which in that case would serve as the direct object of
pe,myai, with the proper names Judas and Silas standing in apposition to it. The
similar syntax of v. 25 does not allow this attributive construction, however, since
there the participle is dative and is therefore unambiguously adverbial. It seems best
to me to use the same construction here.
Act 15:24 evx h`mw/n — The prepositional phrase could alternatively be construed as
modifying evxelqo,ntej.
Act 15:27 kai. auvtou.j avpagge,llontaj — It is difficult to decide how to diagram.
Attempting to reflect Robertson’s suggestion (Word Pictures), “They themselves also
announcing,” I have diagrammed an accusative absolute, although the accusative is
not really absolute since there is an accusative case connection to the governing
clause. An alternative would be to diagram two coordinate objects: the pair of proper
names and the pronoun, coordinated by kai,. The participle would then be construed
as modifying avpesta,lkamen only in its connection with auvtou,j. The thought
of this construction would be expressed, “We sent Judas and Silas, and [we sent] them
announcing the same things.”
Act 15:28 plh.n tou,twn tw/n evpa,nagkej — The adjective evpana,gkhj in the
neuter accusative singular is used as an adverb; here, with the article, it functions
substantively as the object of the improper preposition plh,n. Some might be
inclined to construe the phrase as modifying mhde,n: “nothing except....” I follow
BDAG (polu,j, 2.b.b.) in construing it as modifying ple,on: “no burden more
than....”
Act 15:33 cro,non — The noun could alternatively be construed as adverbial to
poih,santej.
Act 15:35 lo,gon — The noun could alternatively be construed as the object only of
euvaggelizo,menoi.
Act 15:36 kata. po,lin — The prepositional phrase could alternatively be construed as
modifying tou.j avdelfou,j.
Act 16:4 tw/n avposto,lwn kai. presbute,rwn — I do not mean the diagramming
to imply that the apostles and elders are the same people (cf. 15:4, 6), only that the
one article governs both nouns so that they merge into a single group: the spiritual
leaders in Jerusalem.
Act 16:5 kaqV h`me,ran — The prepositional phrase could alternatively be construed
as modifying both verbs.
Act 16:6 lalh/sai — The infinitive could alternatively be construed as the retained object
of kwluqe,ntej.
Act 16:9 — The stilt connecting the description of the vision to the appositive slot
renaming o[rama would ordinarily move upward, but the downward direction
allows for a much more space-efficient layout.
Act 16:12 diatri,bontej — The participle could alternatively be construed as adverbial
to h=men, in which case it would be modified by h`me,raj tina,j.
Act 16:37 avkatakri,touj( avnqrw,pouj ~Rwmai,ouj u`pa,rcontaj — The
words could alternatively be construed as a pair of appositives renaming h`ma/j.
The head word of the second phrase could be avnqrw,pouj, modified attributively
by u`pa,rcontaj with ~Rwmai,ouj as its predicate, or possibly it could be
u`pa,rcontaj, with avnqrw,pouj as its predicate, modified attributively or else
renamed appositionally by ~Rwmai,ouj: “[ones] who are Roman men.”
Act 17:3 — The noun clauses could alternatively be construed as objects of both
participles, which is what the wording of the versions seems to imply. In supplying
(ta.j grafa,j) as the object of dianoi,gwn, I follow BDAG, dianoi,gw, 2.
Act 17:12 ~Ellhni,dwn — BDAG says that noun can be used as an adjective. It is
specifically a feminine word and so technically cannot modify avndrw/n, though, as
A.T. Robertson observes (Word Pictures), “Probably Luke means by implication that
the “men” (avndrw/n) were also noble Greeks though he does not expressly say
so.”
Act 17:16 qewrou/ntoj — The participle could alternatively be construed as genitive
absolute, either with an elliptical subject or sharing tou/ Pau,lou with
evkdecome,nou. The diagramming reflects an understanding that the participle’s
referent is rather auvtou/.
Act 17:21 pa,ntej — The adjective could alternatively be construed as modifying both
subjects.
Act 17:26 katoikei/n — In diagramming the infinitive as indirect discourse, I follow
BDAG, poie,w, 2.h.a. Robertson (Word Pictures) takes it as expressing the purpose
of evpoi,hsen. Many versions use ambiguous wording.
Act 17:27 zhtei/n — The infinitive could alternatively be construed as modifying
evpoi,hsen.
Act 17:27 u`pa,rconta — The participle could alternatively be construed as modifying
zhtei/n.
Act 17:30 tou.j cro,nouj — The noun could perhaps alternatively be construed as
accusative of time with u`peridw,n, the object being inferred from the context:
something like “such error.”
Act 17:34 kai, (first occurrence) — The word could alternatively be construed as
modifying the whole set of three subjects.
Act 18:2 — The long participle phrase with eu`rw,n could alternatively be construed as
modifying only prosh/lqen.
Act 18:3 — The infinitive phrase introduced by dia, could alternatively be construed as
modifying only e;menen, and the clause introduced by ga,r could alternatively be
construed as modifying only hvrga,zato.
Act 18:6 — The punctuation of NA27 demands that kaqaro,j be construed as predicate
adjective after poreu,somai. However, though that construction seems plausible to
me, I do not find any versions adopting it, nor do I find an exact NT parallel.
Recognizing the possibility of a simple error in NA27, I follow the versions.
[Interestingly, the UBS 4th edition has the same punctuation as NA27, but no note
about the matter in the Discourse Segmentation (punctuation) Apparatus. At the
moment I am mystified.]
Act 18:24 w;n — The participle could alternatively be construed as adverbial to
kath,nthsen.
Act 18:25 th.n o`do,n — I am construing the noun as a retained object.
Act 18:28 ei=nai to.n cristo.n VIhsou/n — The grammar could alternatively be
construed with VIhsou/n as accusative of general reference and to.n cristo,n as
predicate noun.
Act 19:12 — In construing the first kai, and grouping the coordinate infinitives, I follow
the consensus of the versions. The punctuation of NA27 seems to group
avpalla,ssesqai with avpofe,resqai rather than evkporeu,esqai. Since in the
gospels disease and demon influence were often combined, the construction given by
the versions seems most likely to me.
Act 19:14 poiou/ntej — The consensus of the versions is to render the participle as a
periphrastic. The order of words in the sentence, though, seems to me more clearly to
present h=san in the existential sense: there were seven sons. (I wonder whether the
versions are simply using the most economical English phraseology that expresses
essentially the same meaning?) On this reading the participle could perhaps be
construed adverbially: “and they were doing this,” but the attributive construction
seems most natural to me: “who were doing this.”
Act 19:20 tou/ kuri,ou — All the versions available to me construe the genitive as
modifying lo,goj. If the versions are correct, though, this is the only place I can find
in the Greek Bible (including the Septuagint) where the expression “the word of the
Lord” or “the word of God” (allowing either lo,goj or r`h/ma for “word”) appears
with the genitive preceding the head noun, against dozens of instances where the
genitive follows the head noun. Of these dozens, I find 21 occurrences just within
Acts. If the construction with kra,toj is correct, then o` lo,goj does not have a
qualifying genitive at all. Such usage is well supported: lo,goj without a qualifying
genitive, referring to the gospel message, occurs at least 9 other times in Acts (4:4,
6:4, 8:4, 10:44, 11:19, 14:12?, 14:25, 16:6, 17:11, 18:5, 20:7?). A further
consideration is the fairly well attested variant (found in both the Byzantine majority
 and in the TR, as well as P74) that reads o` lo,goj tou/ kuri,ou. Even some of the
versions that do not follow the TR are probably translating this variant rather than the
text I am diagramming. Thoroughness also demands investigating the validity of the
expression kata. kra,toj tou/ kuri,ou. Though the absence of exact parallels to
this expression precludes similarly detailed assessment, the expression does appear
grammatically valid. The only complaint against it that I can conceive would be that
perhaps the head noun qualified by an articular genitive ought also to be articular.
Though this is indeed a strong pattern of NT syntax, exceptions are especially
common where the head noun is the object of a preposition. The closest parallels I
can find use some other preposition with an object naming an attribute of God
expressed anarthrously and qualified by an articular genitive referring to God. Rom
15:7 (eivj do,xan tou/ qeou/) and 2Pe 1:1 (evn dikaiosu,nh| tou/ qeou/)
are two good examples; Eph 5:20 and 2Th 3:6 (evn ovno,mati tou/ kuri,ou) are
not far off. Broadening the object of the preposition to include ideas other than
attributes greatly expands the number of parallels that could be adduced. So, based on
all these considerations, I construe the genitive with kra,toj.
Act 19:24 poiw/n — The participle phrase could alternatively be construed as
modifying avrguroko,poj.
Act 19:27 — The core of the sentence can alternatively be construed with tou/to...to.
me,roj and to. ...i`ero,n taken as nominative-case subjects of kinduneu,ei and
the three infinitives as adverbial. The BNM and GNM databases parse the phrases as
accusative; WHO, BYZ, and SCR parse them as nominative. BDAG seems to prefer
taking the infinitives as subjects (s.v. kinduneu,w). I have diagrammed based on
what appears to be the superior scholarship.
Act 19:27 me,llein — It seems to me that the infinitive could easily be construed as
sharing with logisqh/nai the subject to. i`ero,n, thus avoiding what strikes me as
a mildly awkward ellipsis. However, I do not find any versions construing the passage
so, and thus I refrain from diagramming that construction.
Act 19:27 o[lh — The adjective could alternatively be construed as modifying only
VAsi,a.
Act 19:31 o;ntej — The participle could alternatively be construed as adverbial.
Act 19:31 auvtw|/ — The pronoun could alternatively be construed as modifying fi,loi.
These possessive datives so often accompany linking verbs that, where possible, I
construe them with the verb, as indicated in the diagramming policies (VII.22). I must
admit, though that this is not always possible (cf. Act 19:27).
Act 19:32 sugkecume,nh — The participle could alternatively be construed as
periphrastic.
Act 19:34 evk pa,ntwn — The prepositional phrase could alternatively be construed as
adverbial.
Act 19:36 de,on — The participle could alternatively be construed as a predicate
adjective.
Act 19:36 katestalme,nouj — The participle could alternatively be construed as
periphrastic.
Act 19:39 peraite,rw — The adverb should perhaps be construed as substantival,
modified by ti: “If you seek any further thing.”
Act 20:3 poih,saj — The versions are divided over whether to construe the participle
with the preceding or the subsequent material. The punctuation of NA27 obviously
construes it with what precedes, but the coordinating te seems to me very difficult in
this construction. The particle seems quite easy to understand as joining the two main
clauses, however. Though te most often joins smaller units within a sentence, Luke
uses it especially often in Acts to introduce independent clauses: 2:37,40,43;
4:13,14,33; 5:35,42; 6:7,12,13, etc. So with some reluctance, I depart from the
punctuation of NA27 and follow the versions that construe the participle with the
subsequent material.
Act 20:3 auvtw|/ — The pronoun could alternatively be construed as adverbial.
Act 20:4 de, — Ordinarily an introductory conjunction is diagrammed at the left end of
the baseline, but the complicated subject section of this clause makes that position
impossible.
Act 20:4 Timo,qeoj — I grouped this name with Ga,i?oj based on the fact that
Timothy was from Derbe or nearby (Act 16:1), and all the other names are associated
with their respective localities. The word Derbai/oj, though, is singular and
therefore is best connected with Ga,i?oj alone.
Act 20:16 auvtw|/ (both occurrences) — Those who believe that the dative can function
as the subject of an infinitive will doubtless want to diagram the two occurrences of
this word as the subject of their respective infinitives.
Act 20:20 ouvde,n — The word could alternatively be construed as the object only of
avnaggei/lai.
Act 20:20 dhmosi,a| kai. katV oi;kouj — This section could alternatively be
construed as modifying only dida,xai.
Act 20:22 dedeme,noj — The participle could alternatively be construed as adverbial
to poreu,omai.
Act 20:24 lo,gou — The syntax is challenging. I follow the construction suggested by
BDAG, lo,goj, 1.a.a, though it seems to me that lo,goj may perhaps more naturally
carry the sense of calculation or reckoning here: “I make my life worth(y of) no
reckoning at all to myself.”
Act 20:28 poimai,nein — The infinitive could alternatively be construed as modifying
prose,cete.
Act 20:30 lalou/ntej — The participle could alternatively be construed as adverbial.
Act 20:32 tw|/ duname,nw| — It seems to me that the participle could well be
construed as an appositive to tw|/ qew|/, but I do not find any versions rendering
the passage so.
Act 20:36 su.n pa/sin auvtoi/j — The prepositional phrase could alternatively be
construed as modifying proshu,xato.
Act 21:3 euvw,numon — The adjective could perhaps be construed as object
complement.
Act 21:8 o;ntoj — The participle could perhaps be construed as an indefinite
substantive, in further apposition to Fili,ppou: “one who was of the seven.”
Act 21:12 tou/ mh. avnabai,nein — The infinitive could alternatively be construed
as adverbial to parekalou/men.
Act 21:37 ~Ellhnisti, — The fact that the word is an adverb disinclines me to diagram
it simply as the direct object of ginw,skeij, though I would not strongly object to it.
 An alternative to supplying an elliptical infinitive (which would be something like “to
speak”) might be to construe the adverb as modifying ginw,skeij, which is the
construction suggested by BDAG (ginw,skw, 6.e.).
Act 21:39 VIoudai/oj — The adjective could alternatively be construed as attributive to
a;nqrwpoj. I have construed it as a substantive, reflecting a common pattern in Acts
in which avnh,r is followed by an appositional noun (e.g. 1:16; 2:22,29,37; 3:12,14;
5:35; 7:2,26; 8:27; 11:20; 13:15,26,38; 15:7,13; 16:9; 21:28; 22:1; 23:1,6; 28:17). The
synonym a;nqrwpoj is used a few times in a similar way (16:37, 21:39, 22:25), but
interestingly, always with adjectives (avnh,r also occurs occasionally with
adjectives: 1:11, 2:14, 10:28, 17:22, 19:35, 22:3), leaving open the question whether
the adjectives are attributive or substantive. Since the word here is a;nqrwpoj, the
construction may well be attributive. BDAG (a;nqrwpoj, 4.a.e.) cites occurrences
in Matthew and Luke of the construction with a;nqrwpoj and a noun (e.g.,
a;nqrwpoj basileu,j), and also takes those in Acts as I have construed them. In
summary, the frequent pattern of avnh,r followed by a noun in apposition strongly
justifies reading the occasional adjective as a substantive in the same construction;
less commonly the same constructions appear with a;nqrwpoj, and I see no
compelling reason to treat them differently from those with avnh,r.
Act 22:3 — The four participles could alternatively be construed as a single coordinate
series, or the last three could form a subseries coordinate with the first. I have taken
the adversative de, that coordinates the first two, along with an absence of
conjunctions introducing the others, as an indication that Paul did not have in mind a
single series. The first two participles form a clear contrast focused on location: born
in Tarsus but brought up in Jerusalem. The thought then proceeds, as I see it, to
expand on the upbringing, stating first that he had the finest and strictest Jewish
education available, and adding the outcome of that education: he was (does he also
intend to say that he remains?) a zealot for God.
Act 22:5 kai, (1st occurrence) — The conjunction could alternatively be construed as a
paired conjunction along with the second kai,, with the sense “both ... and.”
Act 22:5 kai, (3rd occurrence) — The word could alternatively be construed as
modifying evporeuo,mhn.
Act 22:5 o;ntaj — The participle could alternatively be construed along with
dedeme,nouj as a periphrastic construction, the object being simply tou.j
evkei/se.
Act 22:5 dedeme,nouj — The participle (possibly along with o;ntaj as a periphrastic
construction) could alternatively be construed as object complement.
Act 22:6 moi poreuome,nw| kai. evggi,zonti — The words could alternatively be
construed as dative absolute.
Act 22:16 me,lleij — See BDAG, me,llw, 4.
Act 22:17 moi u`postre,yanti — The words could alternatively be construed as a
dative absolute.
Act 22:17 kai, — What the conjunction connects is an interesting question. Some may
wish to render it as introducing the subject clause of evge,neto, recalling the
fondness for this construction that Luke displays in his gospel (Luk 5:1,12,17; 8:1,22;
9:28,51; 14:1; 17:11; 19:15; 24:4,15). I seriously considered this construction, but
three factors, listed in order of importance from least to greatest, turned me against it.
 First, I do not find it elsewhere in Acts. Second, the complexity entailed in the
opening genitive absolute of the subject clause does not have a parallel in Luke.
Finally, every instance of this construction in Luke uses the indicative in the subject
clause, whereas this passage uses the infinitive. This final consideration is very, very
strong in my opinion. So, even though it is unusual for adverbial participles in
different cases to form a coordinate series, this construction seems best to me overall.
Act 22:20 kai, (2nd occurrence) — The word could alternatively be construed as
adverbial to the series of periphrastics.
Act 22:20 ~Rwmai/on — I would ordinarily construe this adjective as a substantive in
apposition to a;nqrwpon (see the note on Act 21:39), but the coordinate adjective
avkata,kriton makes such a construction difficult. The diagramming is consistent
with the consensus of the versions.
Act 22:26 tw|/ cilia,rcw| — The noun could alternatively be construed as the indirect
object of avph,ggeilen.
Act 22:30 to. ti, kathgorei/tai — The clause could alternatively be construed as an
accusative of reference modifying to. avsfale,j: “The certainty (about) why he was
being accused” (or “what he was being accused of”—see note on ti,).
Act 22:30 ti, — The pronoun could alternatively be construed as retained object after
kathgorei/tai. My diagramming follows the versions, understanding ti, in the sense
“Why?”
Act 23:1 tw|/ qew|/ — The dative could alternatively be construed as modifying
suneidh,sei. BDAG (politeu,omai, 3.) seems to send mixed signals on the
construction: “w. a double dat.” implies that both datives connect with the verb, but
the translation “I have lived my life with a clear conscience before God” seems to
connect tw|/ qew|/ with the noun. The versions are divided. I disconnected tw|/
qew|/ from suneidh,sei based on the fact that the verb intervenes between the
two, but such word order is not at all uncommon, so my preference for this
construction is very, very slight.
Act 23:5 ga,r — The connection to h|;dein is problematic, since the Scripture
statement does not really explain Paul’s not knowing. However, I do not see any other
straightforward connection to make. I think the surface-level statement “I did not
know” can be understood as semantically equivalent to “Had I known I would not
have spoken so,” and that semantic-level idea is well explained by the Scripture
statement introduced by ga,r.
Act 23:6 nekrw/n — The genitive could perhaps be construed as modifying only
avnasta,sewj. I understand evlpi,doj kai. avnasta,sewj as forming a
hendiadys, and nearly all the versions join the ideas in some fashion also.
Act 23:17 avpaggei/lai — On this construction of the infinitive with e;cw, see
BDAG, e;cw, 7.a.e.
Act 23:18 e;conta — The predicate position of the participle prevents its being
construed as attributive to neani,skon, though some versions render it so.
Act 23:18 lalh/sai — On this construction of the infinitive with e;cw, see BDAG,
e;cw, 7.a.e.
Act 23:19 avpaggei/lai — On this construction of the infinitive with e;cw, see
BDAG, e;cw, 7.a.e.
Act 23:19 th/j ceiro,j auvtou/ — It is possible to construe th/j ceiro,j as direct
object with auvtou/ as its genitive. The diagramming follows the versions.
Act 23:19 katV ivdi,an — Several versions construe the prepositional phrase as
modifying avnacwrh,saj.
Act 23:20 avkribe,steron — The adjective could alternatively be construed as
adverbial, modifying punqa,nesqai, parallel to the construction in verse 15.
Act 23:24 kth,nh — It seems to me possible that this noun could be construed as a
further object of e`toima,sate: “Prepare animals to make available in order that....”
The only advantage to this construction, however, is relatively minor: it prevents
having to read the infinitive as imperatival. It suffers the disadvantage is that it seems
to render the infinitive superfluous, and this is probably why the versions appear
unanimous in rendering the infinitive as imperatival with kth,nh as its object.
Act 23:30 e;sesqai — The construction is challenging. Robertson’s (Word Pictures)
comment describes it concisely: “Two constructions combined: genitive absolute
(mhnuqei,shj evpiboulh/j...) and future infinitive (e;sesqai as if evpiboulh,n
accusative of general reference used) in indirect assertion after mhnu,w.” I have
kept the genitive absolute and diagrammed the infinitive as retained object after the
passive verb.
Act 24:2 klhqe,ntoj auvtou/ — In keeping with Luke’s style, this is probably to be
taken as a genitive absolute. However, it is also possible to construe auvtou/ as the
object of kathgorei/n, in which case klhqe,ntoj would function as a simple
adverbial participle modifying h;rxato. BDAG favors the genitive absolute (by
implication), saying that kathgorei/n is to be construed absolutely (i.e., without
complement) in this passage (kathgore,w, 1.a.).
Act 24:5 eu`ro,ntej — It seems best simply to construe the participle as a finite verb,
since there is no verb which it can modify.
Act 24:8 peri. pa,ntwn tou,twn — The prepositional phrase could alternatively be
construed as modifying avnakri,naj, but the New American Standard seems to be
the only version favoring this construction. In that case the antecedent of w[n would
be an elliptical object of evpignw/nai.
Act 24:10 ta. peri. evmautou/ — The articular prepositional phrase could
alternatively be construed as adverbial to avpologou/mai.
Act 24:13 peri. w-n — I follow the construction in BDAG, kathgore,w, 1.f. Another
construction that seems viable to me takes parasth/sai in the sense “furnish” or
“supply” (BDAG 1.a.): “They are not able to supply (anything, i.e., any evidence)
concerning (the things) which they now accuse me of.” This construction would
supply peri, with an elliptical object, and w-n would be a second object after
kathgorou/si, as in v. 8. I find this construction attractive; however, CSB is the
only version I find adopting it.
Act 26:3 — The clause introduced by dio, could alternatively be construed as modifying
o;nta.
Act 26:6 genome,nhj — The versions read the participle as attributive to th/j
evpaggeli,aj. However, the anarthrous state of the participle makes this
construction at least mildly difficult to justify. I am reading it in a causal connection:
“I stand being judged because of the hope of the promise to our fathers, since it has
come to pass (i.e., been fulfilled) by God.” A genitive absolute construction is also
 just possible: “I stand being judged because of hope, since the promise to our fathers
has been fulfilled by God.” Reading “promise” as an expansion of “hope,” though,
seems much more natural. Act 13:32 contains a close parallel, though in that passage
a predicate relationship of the participle to the noun is very natural. The construction
for this passage most attractive to me would be to construe the participle in predicate
relationship to the noun, as in 13:32, with the meaning “the hope (i.e., confidence)
that the promise has been fulfilled by God.” I cannot recall ever having seen such a
construction in the Greek NT, though, so I refrain from attempting to devise a way to
diagram it. One issue that does challenge my reading of these two passages is that
BDAG does not see gi,nomai as carrying the sense “be fulfilled” with respect to a
promise, though “promise” does seem to be very close semantically to other ideas
(such as commands and instructions) that they do associate with that sense. I find the
whole matter difficult, and I certainly cannot be dogmatic that BDAG and the
versions are mistaken.
Act 26:6 krino,menoj — The participle could alternatively be construed as adverbial to
e[sthka.
Act 26:17 evxairou,menoj — The participle could alternatively be construed as
modifying w;fqhn or ovfqh,somai.
Act 26:18 avnoi,xai — The infinitive could alternatively be construed as modifying
evxairou,menoj. The construction I have diagrammed applies the opening of the
eyes to the Gentiles only. This is consistent with Paul’s office as the Apostle of the
Gentiles and with the general pattern of resistance to his preaching by the Jews,
whose eyes Paul’s preaching actually tended to close (Rom 11:8,10). Moreover, the
language seems to point to a change of position with respect to God radical enough to
describe Gentile better than Jewish conversion. However, a remnant of Jews did
repent and turn to God under Paul’s preaching, and their conversion was also radical
in its own way (from law to faith). Those who prefer an application to both Jews
(tou/ laou/) and Gentiles (tw/n e;qnwn) may construe the infinitive with
evxairou,menoj.
Act 26:20 — The subgroupings of the coordinate elements, as well as their diagramming
with respect to their verb (avph,ggellon), are challenging. The biggest
complication is that the adverbial prw/ton must be taken as modifying the verb,
though it belongs to only one indirect object phrase (toi/j evn Damaskw|/
prw/to,n te kai. ~Ierosolu,moij) and, further, as I am reading it, to only one of
the cities named in that phrase (Damaskw|/). This, along with the additional
adverbial modifiers (pa/san th.n cw,ran th/j VIoudai,aj, accusative of space,
and toi/j e;qnesin, indirect object) requires splitting the verb slot into several parts
under which the various adverbial modifiers may be diagrammed. Theoretically, the
verb slot could be split into only two parts, one for the indirect object containing
prw/ton and one for the remaining three adverbial elements, which would be
diagrammed as a single coordinate series (though the fact that two are indirect objects
and one an accusative introduces complication). I have chosen to diagram two pairs
based on the use of te rather than kai, introducing pa/san th.n cw,ran (supported
by the consideration that the first two name the first cities in which Paul preached and
the second two name larger regions), and I have diagrammed the last two modifiers
beneath separate verb slots rather than diagramming them as a single coordinate
 series based on the fact that they are not of the same type. A rather stilted rendering of
the relationships I have in mind would be, “I began proclaiming (imperf. tense) to the
ones in both Damascus first and Jerusalem, as well as throughout all the region of
Judea and to the Gentiles, to repent....”
Act 26:22 a;cri th/j h`me,raj tau,thj — The prepositional phrase could alternatively
be construed as modifying e[sthka. The versions are almost equally divided on the
question.
Act 26:22 marturo,menoj — The participle could alternatively be construed as
adverbial to e[sthka.
Act 26:22 te...kai, — Since te always follows the word it “introduces,” the construction
should probably coordinate two instances of w[n (the second supplied as an ellipsis):
“nothing except (the things) both which the prophets spoke (as) destined to happen
and (which) Moses (spoke as destined to happen).” However, the diagramming would
become exceedingly complicated, perhaps even beyond what is possible with
standard symbology, so for the sake of simplicity I have simply coordinated the
subjects.
Act 26:22 w-n...me,llwn — The pronoun is attracted to the genitive case of its elliptical
antecedent (genitive as the object of evto,j), and the participle is written in
agreement with its referent. I have diagrammed an object/complement construction:
“(the things) which the prophets spoke (as) destined to happen.” An alternative is
indirect discourse: “(the things) which the prophets said would happen.” My choice
was based on the fact that I am not aware of lale,w construed with indirect discourse
elsewhere.
Act 26:23 — In an alternative construction, prw/toj and evx avnasta,sewj could
modify katagge,llein, with the meaning, “By resurrection from the dead he would
be proclaiming light first (i.e., the first one to proclaim light)....” The construction I
have diagrammed means, “As the first of the resurrection (i.e., those raised) from the
dead he would be proclaiming light....” The versions are divided over the question.
Act 26:24 tau/ta — The pronoun could alternatively be construed as adverbial to
avpologoume,nou.
Act 26:24 mega,lh| th|/ fwnh|/ — The predicate position of the adjective prevents the
simple attributive construction (“with a loud voice”). It is similar to the English
idiom, “with his voice raised.”
Act 26:26 ouvqe,n — The accusative could alternatively be construed as modifying
either lanqa,nein or pei,qomai, with the meaning “in no way.”
Act 27:1 tou/ — I am not entirely comfortable diagramming the genitive infinitive as
subject, but it seems to me the least objectionable approach, and I have done it a few
other times, very possibly all in Luke’s writings. See section VII.6. of the
diagramming policies document.
Act 27:8 Kalou.j Lime,naj — Retaining NA27’s capitalization (Kalou.j lime,naj)
gives a strange appearance, since the capitalized word of the proper name is an
adjective modifying the lowercase word. Using all lowercase did not seem to be wise,
since it entails losing the indication of a proper name. So I adopted the English
custom (practiced by many editors the Greek New Testament as well) of capitalizing
all the words in a proper name.
Act 27:10 — I construed the ouv mo,non...avlla. kai, set of modifiers with zhmi,aj
only, because out of 65 occurrences of u[brij in BGT, I found no clear examples of
its being modified by an objective genitive. This consideration is rather strongly
offset, however, by the fact that this sense of “damage” is very rare in the Greek
Bible; the two occurrences in Acts being perhaps the only ones. So I would not
strongly object to construing this set of modifiers with both u[brewj and zhmi,aj.
Act 27:14 o` kalou,menoj — The participle could alternatively be construed as
substantival, in apposition to a;nemoj.
Act 27:36 — An alternative construction would take the participle as equivalent to a
finite verb and simply render two coordinate clauses joined by kai,. I prefer to keep
the participle subordinate.
Act 27:37 diako,siai e`bdomh,konta e[x — The number could alternatively be
construed as a coordinate series.
Act 28:2 ouv th.n tucou/san filanqrwpi,an — The position of the negative before
the article of the noun phrase might seem to preclude construing it with the
intervening participle. But compare Act 19:11 (duna,meij ouv ta.j tucou,saj),
where the negative clearly negates the participle. The only difference between the
constructions is that here in 28:2 the noun comes last rather than first. In the logic of
the idiom, the negative clearly coheres with the participle. Someone might want to
insist that this difference is crucial so that the grammar of the two constructions must
be understood differently. In that case, the article would be diagrammed with the noun
and the article-noun phrase modified by the negative.
Act 28:2 — The pair of prepositional phrases at the end of the sentence could
alternatively be construed as modifying a[yantej. The impression I have is that they
kindled the fire because of the cold and that they received them not merely with an
outdoor welcome but with shelter from the rain (note BDAG, proslamba,nw, 4.:
“receive in[to] one’s home or circle of acquaintances”). Thus the construction would
be chiastic, the first prepositional phrase modifying the second verb and the second
prepositional phrase modifying the first verb. However, the fact that the prepositional
phrases are coordinated by kai, prevents separating them in the diagram.
Diagramming them under the head verb allows either or both to be understood as
modifying the subordinate verb as well.
Act 28:4 diaswqe,nta — The participle could alternatively be construed as modifying
ei;asen.
Act 28:5 me,n — me.n ou=n is a common combination in Acts, usually without a
de, corresponding to the me,n. In this passage it is not clear whether me,n
coordinates with de, or whether it functions independently. BDAG’s article on
ou=n seems to treat ou=n independently of me,n in this verse (2.c. and 4.) but the
article on me,n includes this verse in the list of occurrences of me.n ou=n (2.e.).
Act 28:10 kai, (1st occurrence) — The conjunction could alternatively be construed
along with the second kai, as a paired conjunction: “both...and.”
Act 28:10 (h`mi/n) — I have supplied the indirect object in order to clarify the
construction of the adverbial participle avnagome,noij in the dative.
Act 28:13 deuterai/oi — On the adverbial diagramming of a nominative adjective, see
the entry for prw/toj in section IX. of the diagramming policies. The two words are
similar in idea and function.
Act 28:15 VAppi,ou Fo,rou and Triw/n Tabernw/n — Retaining NA27’s
capitalization (VAppi,ou fo,rou and Triw/n tabernw/n) gives a strange
appearance, since the capitalized word of the proper name is an adjective modifying
the lowercase word. Using all lowercase did not seem to be wise, since it entails
losing the indication of a proper name. So I adopted the English custom (practiced by
many editors the Greek New Testament as well) of capitalizing all the words in a
proper name.
Act 28:19 kathgorei/n — The infinitive could alternatively be construed as modifying
ti or perhaps as direct object of e;cwn, modified by ti.
Act 28:21 parageno,menoj — The participle could perhaps be construed as
attributive to tij or even as the subject, modified by tij. The majority of versions
supports my own inclination to construe it as adverbial.

Romans

Rom 1:4 kata. pneu/ma a`giwsu,nhj — The prepositional phrase could

alternatively be construed as modifying duna,mei.
Rom 1:5 u`pe.r tou/ ovno,matoj auvtou/ — The prepositional phrase could
alternatively be construed as modifying evla,bomen.
Rom 1:6 VIhsou/ Cristou/ — The genitive could be taken as a simple possessive or as
subjective (modifying the verbal idea in klhtoi,, cf. v. 7). The predicate construction
I have diagrammed (predicate genitive of possession) reflects what seems to be the
consensus of the more recent versions.
Rom 1:16 prw/ton — The diagramming presents this word as an adverb modifying
VIoudai,w|, which does not really make good sense. I would say that prw/ton is
technically adverbial to an elliptical verb repeating the main clause: “it is the power
of God unto salvation to every one who believes, both [it is the power of God...] first
to the Jew and [it is the power of God...] to the Greek. To diagram it this way,
however, would both introduce considerable complexity and obscure the appositional
relationship between the participle phrase “every one who believes” and the
coordinate pair of nouns, “both Jew and Greek.” I have opted for the simpler and
clearer presentation, admittedly at the expense of technical accuracy.
Rom 1:17 evk pi,stewj eivj pi,stin — It was very difficult for me to decide whether
to construe this pair of phrases with “righteousness” or with “is revealed.” There is a
difference in meaning, and both meanings seem attractive. The versions are divided
on the matter. The factor slightly favoring the adverbial connection in my opinion is
the order of the words.
Rom 1:17 evk pi,stewj (2nd occurrence) — Same difficulty as with the first
occurrence: does it modify the subject or the verb? My (slight) personal preference is
to take it with the subject, but I have diagrammed it adverbially in deference to the
majority of versions (RSV and NET see it my way). I must admit wondering how
many of the other versions were swayed by a desire to avoid censure for altering the
time-honored Reformation battle cry. (In this respect it is interesting to observe the
Catholic versions: DRA has “the just man liveth by faith”; the much later NAB and
NJB have, respectively, “the one who is righteous by faith will live” and “anyone who
 is upright by faith will live.”) The difference in meaning is real but slight; either
rendering certainly reflects the Reformation’s sola fide.
Rom 1:19 — The diagramming of the explanatory clause introduced by dio,ti seems at
first to suggest that I think it explains why these people suppress the truth in
unrighteousness, which of course makes no sense. The thought connection I believe I
see is that the clause provides, not the reason why they suppress the truth, but the
reason why Paul speaks in terms of suppressing truth (when we might have expected
him to speak of ignorance). I have diagrammed in the only way I can see to show this
connection without introducing a large elliptical section.
Rom 1:24 sw,mata — I have followed BDAG in treating the infinitive as passive,
which requires sw,mata to be AGR. Some versions read the infinitive as middle
voice with sw,mata as direct object.
Rom 1:30-31 — The two sets of 4 could perhaps each be divided into two pairs based on
conceptual similarity.
Rom 2:2 — prep phr on incorrect widget
Rom 2:9, 10 prw/ton — See note on Rom 1:16.
Rom 2:9-11 — Diagram positioned too low on page.
Rom 2:14 ta. mh. no,mon e;conta — This phrase could also be diagrammed as
attributive to e;qnh.
Rom 2:16 — This verse is construed by some versions as subordinate to v. 13, with the
intervening verses functioning as a parenthesis. This is attractive in terms of meaning
(will the Gentiles really be debating their conduct within themselves on the day when
God brings everything hidden to light?—this would seem to be the meaning of the
passage as I have diagrammed it and as most of the newer versions present it), but
such an extended parenthesis is awkward in terms of thought flow. Still, that
construction seems best to me overall. The diagramming reflects the contrary
consensus of the newer versions, which is certainly easier to diagram! A third possible
alternative would be to construe the clause as modifying evndei,knuntai, but that
connection does not seem to me to have any real advantages to commend it; that verb
seems clearly to refer to what is happening as the Gentiles observe certain aspects of
God’s law now.
Rom 2:17-21 — These verses present an interesting challenge regarding the introductory
conjunctions. The sentences opens with de,; the first clause is an extended condition
introduced by eiv. Some would prefer to diagram conditional clauses with the two
parts (protasis, the “if” part, and apodosis, the “then” part) as grammatically
coordinate, using a paired conjunction. The practice I follow is to diagram the protasis
as subordinate to the apodosis. On this approach, de, introduces the whole sentence,
and eiv introduces the opening subordinate clause. However, when we get down to
the apodosis, we find it introduced by ou=n. But we already have a conjunction
introducing the main clause, the opening de,. I considered diagramming this sentence
with the two parts of the condition coordinated, which would allow ou=n to
introduce the apodosis and the opening de, to introduce the whole construction. I
opted instead, though, to keep to the practice of treating the protasis as subordinate,
leaving me no choice but to diagram with two opening conjunctions.
Rom 2:29 ouv — The negative could alternatively be construed as modifying
gra,mmati.
Rom 3:2 — The elliptical subject and verb I have in mind for both clauses is along this
line: “The advantage is....” The ASV and NASB show the construction most literally
in English.
Rom 3:2 o[ti — The clause introduced by this conjunction could alternatively be
construed as adverbial to the elliptical verb, with a causal sense: “(The advantage is
great) because . . . .” The diagram reflects the consensus of versions, taking the clause
as the predicate: “(The advantage is) that . . . .”
Rom 3:7 w`j a`martwlo,j — The phrase could alternatively be construed as the
predicate, semantically equivalent to “Why am I being judged to be a sinner?” In this
case kri,nw reflects the judicial evaluation, not the punishment.
Rom 3:8 — Delete extraneous widget.
Rom 3:8 — The elliptical elements in the main clause express the thought, along with
most of the newer versions, “And [why should we] not [say], ‘Let us do evil....’”
Rom 3:25 — The large brackets around the phrase eivj e;ndeixin indicate that the
attached appositive (the phrase pro.j e;ndeixin in v. 26) renames the whole
prepositional phrase. The appositional phrase could also be placed within brackets if
desired.
Rom 4:17 kate,nanti... — This extended prepositional phrase could also be taken as
modifying the infinitive phrase in verse 16, “that the promise may be secure.”
Rom 5:2 kai. kaucw,meqa... — This clause could also be coordinated with either
evsch,kamen or e`sth,kamen. The punctuation of the versions reflects their
varied understandings of the connection. The admittedly slim basis on which I have
preferred the connection all the way back to e;comen is that it coordinates two
verbs in the same tense (present). This basis is all the weaker in light of the fact that
the perfect tense of e`sth,kamen has essentially the same meaning as the present.
But I can find no stronger basis than simple proximity for preferring one of the other
connections, and that factor seems to me no stronger than the commonality of the
tense. The connection I have diagrammed seems to me to yield a sense as good as or
better than the others, so I see no reason not to let the tense consideration win out.
Rom 5:6 e;ti...e;ti — The versions appear either to be following the majority text in
omitting the second e;ti, or else reading it as a redundant construction and translating
it only once.
Rom 5:12 — Most versions punctuate this verse to show that Paul’s thought breaks off
before he comes to the main clause. So I have simply supplied an elliptical main
clause for this verse to modify.
Rom 6:10 o[ (twice) — I am taking these pronouns, along with most of the versions, as
cognate accusatives (the cognate is the understood antecedent in each case, “death”
and “life”). I am assigning them an adverbial relation to the verbs (rather than treating
them as objects) because the verbs are intransitive and thus cannot take objects.
Rom 7:15-20 — These verses present a couple of recurring challenges. First is the
question whether to diagram the relative clauses as pendent constructions. Is the
antecedent of o[ in each case an elliptical pendent accusative (e.g., “not [the thing]
which I wish, this I do”) or is the antecedent tou/to (e.g. “I do this which I do not
wish”)? Although I think the pendent construction is probably superior technically,
for the sake of simplicity, I have avoided it except in one compelling case, at the end
of 7:19. The second challenge is whether to take the relative pronouns as objects of
 qe,lw in each case or whether to supply an elliptical infinitive “to do,” with the
pronouns functioning as objects of the infinitives. Again, I have opted for the
simplicity of the first approach, though the fact that qe,lw nearly always has an
infinitive complement would at least technically justify an insistence that I should
have supplied the infinitives here. My half-felt apology to anyone offended by this
preference for simplicity over technical consistency!
Rom 7:17 — The diagram could be faulted technically for showing a third-person subject
(h` a`marti,a) with a first-person verb (katerga,zomai). I diagrammed as I did
in order to highlight the contrast between the two subjects; the discrepancy in
agreement seemed to me a lesser evil than losing the focus on that contrast.
Rom 7:20 — The note on Rom 7:17 applies here also.
Rom 8:2 evn Cristw|/ VIhsou/ — This phrase could also be taken as a modifier for
th/j zwh/j. There is no strong consensus among the versions.
Rom 8:3 evn w|- — BDAG (evn, 9.a.) suggests understanding the phrase in the sense
“because”; hence I have diagrammed it as a simple conjunction. I have diagrammed
the subordinate clause unusually, modifying an adjective, because what it expands on
is the idea of “impossible.”
Rom 8:3-4 — The sentence is grammatically complex. Following the strong consensus of
versions, I have supplied “God did” to expand “the impossible thing” into a whole
clause. I then set that whole clause in apposition to the explicit main clause, “God
condemned sin,” using brackets to show that the appositional units are the whole
clauses.
Rom 8:16 pneu,mati — An interesting little interpretation issue. Is it dative of
association or indirect object? Verbs compounded with su,n usually imply the idea of
more than one entity participating together in the action on an approximately equal
level. On this interpretation, the human spirit actively testifies along with the Spirit of
God. Most versions seem to read the passage this way, using the preposition with.
BDAG, however, suggests that the idea of su,n with this particular verb may be
intensive rather than associative. On that view, the human spirit may be viewed as the
indirect object of the action, not testifying at all but rather receiving the Spirit’s
testimony. The NET Bible reflects this idea, translating with to. I have diagrammed
the associative idea in keeping with the strong consensus of versions, but I will admit
finding the other view attractive.
Rom 8:28 pa,nta — The versions are approximately equally divided over whether to
take this word as nominative (“all things work together”) or accusative (“[God] works
all things together”). The latter option is probably a reflection more of a textual
choice favoring the inclusion of o` qeo,j (cf. Westcott & Hort) than a reading of the
grammar as it stands in Nestle-Aland. The wording of the text I am diagramming
seems to me slightly to favor taking pa,nta as subject.
Rom 9:5 o` w'n evpi. pa,ntwn qeo,j — An alternative would be to take qeo,j as
appositive rather than as predicate, which would yield the rendering of several
versions, “Who is over all, God blessed for ever.” Some who do not believe this verse
identifies Christ as God believe that qeo,j should be taken as the subject of an
elliptical linking verb: “May God be blessed forever.” The literature against this view
is extensive.
Rom 9:10 — The grammar is not at all straightforward! It seems that Paul began the
sentence intending Rebekah to be the subject of a verb that he never expressed, with
evx e`no.j koi,thn e;cousa serving as an adverbial participle phrase. After that
phrase, though, where the reader expects to find the main verb, Paul instead launches
into a subordinate clause introduced by ga,r. This clause includes Rebekah, but as
indirect object rather than subject. One might try to diagram verse 10 as a nominative
absolute to the clause in v. 12, but that construction makes no place for the ga,r of v.
11. It seemed best to me to express elliptical clauses with Sarah and Rebekah as
subjects in v. 10, thus allowing ga,r in v. 11 to serve its usual subordinating function.
Rom 10:9 ku,rion VIhsou/n — It is also possible to take ku,rion as direct object and
VIhsou/n as a simple appositive. The diagramming reflects an understanding that
the anarthrous ku,rion should be construed as predicate.
Rom 10:18, 19 mh, — The diagramming reflects the following understanding. Questions
introduced by mh, expect a negative answer. “mh. X?” means “X is not so, is it?”
This much is straightforward. What potentially confuses the issue is the following
ouv. Since ouv mh, is in Greek an emphatic negation, some have looked for a
similar emphasis in mh. ouv. What seems contextually simplest and clearest is
rather to include ouv in the expression represented by X in the formulations above.
The resulting rendering is “[That] they did not hear is not so, is it?” or, more
colloquially, “It’s not that they didn’t hear, is it?”
Rom 11:8 — In the latter part of the verse, the three accusatives (“spirit,” “eyes,” and
“ears”) could also be taken as a single coordinate series. I have diagrammed the
infinitives as verbal nouns functioning as genitive-case modifiers. A literal rendering
(using the English gerund to represent the infinitive) would be “eyes of not seeing and
ears of not hearing,” i.e., “unseeing eyes and unhearing ears.”
Rom 11:10 tou/ mh. ble,pein — It is tempting to diagram exactly as in v. 8: “Let their
unseeing eyes be darkened.” However, that rendering does not seem to yield as clear a
sense as “Let their eyes be darkened so that they do not see.” If the eyes are already
unseeing, what is the point of darkening them? On the other hand, if we understand
“unseeing” in the sense of not seeing accurately rather than not seeing at all, then the
idea of darkening them does make sense: it is a form of further judgment. My
diagramming reflects what appears to be the unanimous consent of the major
versions.
Rom 11:33 — Some versions read the two occurrences of kai, near the beginning as a
“both...and” pair: “Oh, the depth of the wealth of both the wisdom and knowledge of
God!” This construction has in its favor the fact that both “depth” and “wealth” are
words that can signify a quantity, while “wisdom” and “knowledge” signify
intellectual capacities. Paul’s language is seen as compounding (by the use of two
“quantity” words) the vastness of God’s mind. I have opted for the other construction,
in which Paul lists three capacities of God (“wealth” [or “generosity”] is included)
and describes their vastness with only the word “depth.” I am fairly confident of this
construction because of the overall structure of the passage, with the OT quotes that
follow in vv. 34-35. “Who has known the mind of the Lord?” reflects the vastness of
God’s knowledge; “Who has been his counselor?” his wisdom, and “Who has first
given to him?” his wealth. Thus we find a three-part chiasmus, as the quotations
answer to the capacities in reverse order of their initial listing. This literary device
 perfectly fits the poetic nature of this exclamation that concludes the doctrinal section
of the epistle.
Rom 12:6-8 — This is my best attempt to bring some grammatical structure to a highly
elliptical sentence. Notice that all the verbs I supplied are third-person imperatives.
What I have in mind for the sense of e;stw is the same as in 1Ti 4:15, where Paul
exhorts, evn tou,toij i;sqi, “be in these things,” i.e., “stay focused on these things.”
For the construction with o` dida,skwn and o` parakalw/n, compare Col 2:8,
ble,pete mh, tij u`ma/j e;stai o` sulagwgw/n.... For the last three clauses I
supplied the imperative of the same verb as the participle, because the prepositional
phrases are different from the preceding three. In the preceding three, the
prepositional phrases contain nouns cognate with the participles, forbidding the use of
the same verb as the elliptical imperative. In the last three clauses, though, the nouns
of the prepositional phrases are not cognate with the participles, leaving open the
option to supply an imperative from the same verb, which seems to be the simplest
construction.
Rom 12:9-13 — It might seem attractive to view the participles as adverbial to the
opening admonition, “Let love be unhypocritical.” On this view, the participles
outline various facets of what unhypocritical love looks like in action. However, the
participles cannot be thus construed based on strict grammar, because the masculine
plural form does not find any referent in the governing clause. One could answer that
the readers are in the governing clause conceptually if not grammatically, and that
Paul writes the participles with the conceptual rather than grammatical referent in
mind. The case is pretty well sealed, however, by the fact that later in the chapter Paul
uses infinitives (v. 15) and participles (v. 16-19) in constructions where there is no
possible clause for them to modify, and, further, the constructions are parallel to
commands using the imperative mood (vv. 14, 16, 19, 21). It seems clearly best, then,
to construe the usage of the participles here as independent, having an imperatival
force, as reflected in all the versions.
Rom 12:11 tw|/ kuri,w| douleu,ontej — The passage seems to me to me to break
down most clearly if this participle is treated, rather than as a separate item in the
coordinate series, as adverbial to the preceding pair: “Not being slack in diligence
[but] being enthusiastic in spirit, [because you are] serving the Lord.” This is
consistent with Paul’s thought in Eph 6:5-7 and Col 3:22-24.
Rom 13:9 kai. ei; tij e`te,ra evntolh, — The diagramming is a little unusual in that
the verb slot begins on both prongs of the subject conjunction. This arrangement
allows me to construe the conditional clause with only the verb and its second,
implied subject.
Rom 14:11 — It is difficult to decide how to diagram the o[ti clause. As the text stands
in the LXX, the clause functions as a simple noun clause completing “I swear.” Paul
has substituted “[as] I live,” however, and the o[ti clause does not construe well with
that clause. Ordinarily le,gei ku,rioj would be construed as a subordinate
parenthesis, but in this case, despite the punctuation of NA27, it seems best to take it
as the main clause, since the o[ti clause can then so easily be construed as its
complement. I am not entirely satisfied with this construction, but it seems to me the
least of the evils. I cannot find a LXX parallel to o[ti after zw/ evgw,.
Rom 15:7 eivj do,xan tou/ qeou/ — The phrase could also be taken as modifying
prosela,beto, as the punctuation of NA27 seems to indicate. The diagram as drawn
reflects the rendering of most of the more recent versions.
Rom 15:11 pa,nta ta. e;qnh — In my opinion this phrase could legitimately be
diagrammed as the subject. In diagramming it as vocative I am following what the
punctuation of NA27, which sets off this phrase with commas, seems to reflect.
Rom 15:12 kai. o` avnista,menoj — This phrase could be taken as appositional to
h` r`i,za, which I would say is semantically what it is. However, the paratactic
nature of Hebrew poetry inclines me to read the expression as grammatically
coordinate.
Rom 15:32 evn cara|/ — Personally, I am strongly inclined to construe this phrase with
sunanapau,swmai, but I have deferred to the very strong consensus of the
versions. The overall meaning is not greatly affected by whether Paul comes with joy
or whether he rests with joy.
Rom 16:2 — The relative clause is challenging. I am taking u`mw/n as direct object
because crh|,zw takes the genitive, (though in other NT constructions the object is
impersonal). The construction I have in mind would read something like this:
“...assist her in [any] matter [with reference to] which she may need you.” An
alternative would be to read the relative pronoun as a genitive direct object attracted
to the case of its antecedent and u`mw/n as adverbial: “...assist her in [any] matter
which she may need [from] you.”
Rom 16:22 evn kuri,w| — The versions construe the phrase with avspa,zomai,
where, I admit, it makes the best sense, at least on first thought. However, a fair
number of greetings in this chapter end with this phrase. In most of them it is not
possible to construe the phrase with the word “greet.” However, in the two other
cases where such a construction is possible (vv. 8, 10), the versions construe it with
the nearer head word, construing it with “greet” only in this verse. If I am correct in
construing the phrase with the participle, consistently with the other occurrences in
the chapter, interesting implications emerge. Tertius on this view expresses a
consciousness that his scribal work in taking down Paul’s dictation is a spiritual, not
simply a mechanical, exercise. [Note: This is not to suggest that the doctrine of
inerrancy which I personally hold should be extended to cover the work of later
copyists.] I acknowledge, however, that the evidence backing my interpretation is not
conclusive, and the versions may have the construction right.
Rom 16:25-27 — As the text of NA27 stands, the only way to read the sentence with
reasonable grammatical coherence is to assume that Paul never did express the main
subject, since the only nominative resides in the closing relative clause. Some
manuscripts omit the relative pronoun, which would then allow h` do,xa to stand
naturally as the main subject. My diagram, which follows the text of NA27, supplies
an elliptical clause for all the other pieces of the sentence to modify. The referent of
the relative pronoun might seem most naturally to be “Jesus Christ,” but in
doxological expressions like this Paul consistently attributes glory to the Father.

1Corinthians
1Co 1:5 — The o[ti clause could also be construed as a noun clause in apposition to
ca,riti. This difference of opinion is reflected among the versions, some translating
“that” and some “for.” The diagramming reflects the latter.
1Co 1:16 — The eiv clause could also be construed as a conditional clause modifying
oi=da.
1Co 1:31 — Of course i[na usually introduces the subjunctive, and I could have
diagrammed the sentence with an elliptical subjunctive verb. That approach would
also have allowed the quotation to be diagrammed as a direct quotation. However, it
seems to me that what Paul is doing here is simply substituting the direct quotation
for the subjunctive he would have written (kauch,shtai) had he instead expressed
the thought indirectly with the subjunctive that i[na ordinarily expects. The
additional complexity required to supply the elliptical subjunctive did not seem to me
to be warranted.
1Co 3:4 me,n — The word order suggests that perhaps this word should be diagrammed
as adverbial within the first clause, but the appropriateness of its coordination with
de, inclined me to diagram as I have. If Paul intended it as part of the quotation, we
might be justified in expecting a corresponding me,n or de, within the second
quotation as well. There is no such necessity, however, and I am not confident that my
decision is the correct one.
1Co 3:5 — The diagramming departs from the consensus of the versions. I really think
what is happening here is the Semitic idiom for possession: x is to y (y in the dative
case in Greek) means “x belongs to y” or “y has x.” The New Jerusalem Bible reflects
this understanding: “For what is Apollos and what is Paul? The servants through
whom you came to believe, and each has only what the Lord has given him.” In this
case the x factor is the w`j clause, which I am taking as essentially relative,
expressing the subject, rather than as an adverbial manner clause.
1Co 3:17 — In the relative clause, it is somewhat difficult to decide which nominative is
subject and which is predicate. The verb is second person, suggesting perhaps that
u`mei/j should be the subject. However, based on the definitions that the subject is
the topic under discussion and the predicate is the statement made about the subject, it
seems clearly preferable to take the pronoun referring to the temple as the subject.
1Co 6:7 — The condensed expression of the two questions is challenging to “unpack.”
The diagramming reflects this understanding: “Why (do you) not instead let it happen
(that) you be wronged?”
1Co 7:35 — In the second half of the verse, ouvc and avlla, are clearly coordinated, but
the two purpose constructions are different: the first uses i[na and the subjunctive
while the second uses a prepositional phrase. The difficulty lies in the fact that
standard policy calls for the i[na clause to be diagrammed on a line slanting down to
the right, while prepositional phrases are diagrammed on lines slanting down to the
left. Section VIII.14 in the policies document explains why the connector used here
slants downward to the right. A more complicated approach would be to supply two
elliptical occurrences of le,gw coordinated by ouvc and avlla,. Then each of the
two purpose modifiers could be attached to its verb with the appropriate symbol.
What is gained by the approach I have taken is that the two purpose modifiers are
joined most clearly in their coordinate relationship.
1Co 8:4 ouvde,n — It is a difficult question whether this is an attributive or a predicate
adjective. The question cannot be considered apart from the parallel wording at the
end of the verse. In each case there are three theoretical possibilities:
1) The adjective could be substantival, functioning as subject, while the noun is
predicate. This yields:
1a) “nothing is an idol in the world”
1b) “no one is God except one”
2) Vice-versa. This yields:
2a) “an idol is nothing in the world”
2b) “God is no one except one”
3) The adjective could modify the noun, which would function as subject. This yields:

3a) “there is no idol in the world”

3b) “there is no God except one”
If we are to maintain that the construction is the same in both parts, only option 3
yields adequate sense, and even there 3a) must be understood as meaning something
like “no idol has any real existence,” since obviously there were plenty of physical
objects called idols in the world. The versions are divided; some go with 2a) and 3b)
while others go with 3a) and 3b). Maintaining parallelism of construction was
attractive to me, hence the diagramming reflects 3a) and 3b). However, I admit that
2a) is also attractive in terms of clarity of meaning, and my preference for parallelism
is not a strong one.
1Co 8:12 avsqenou/san — The predicate position of the participle prevents it from
being taken as a simple attributive. A number of versions reflect the adverbial
construction with wording like “when it is weak.”
1Co 9:1,2 evn kuri,w| — My inclination is to construe these words with u`mei/j:
“You in the Lord are my work,” and “You in the Lord are the seal of my apostleship
(or my seal of apostleship).” I am diagramming in deference to the strong consensus
of the versions.
1Co 9:4,5 mh. ouvk — See BDAG, mh,, 3.a.: “In cases like Ro 10:18f; 1 Cor 9:4f
mh, is an interrog. word and ouv negatives the verb. The double negative causes
one to expect an affirmative answer....” I like to express the construction in English
this way: “It’s not that we don’t have the right to eat and drink, is it?” Cf. 1Co 11:22,
Rom 10:18f.
1Co 9:21 qeou/, Cristou/ — I have diagrammed these words as adjectives (rather than
adverbs) because I see them in an adjectival genitive relationship to the noun idea
(no,moj) in the head words a;nomoj and e;nnomoj. Most of the more current
versions render the passage this way.
1Co 9:24 oi` evn stadi,w| tre,contej — It is attractive to me to consider this a
pendent nominative, which would allow pa,ntej and eivj to be starkly contrasted as
subjects. Not feeling strongly about that, and seeing the lack of consensus among the
versions, I opted for simplicity instead.
1Co 10:12 mh. pe,sh| — It seems to me that this clause could alternatively be
diagrammed as an object clause for blepe,tw.
1Co 10:16 to.n a;rton — It is odd to have an accusative-case noun diagrammed as
subject of a finite verb. However, Robertson (Word Pictures) takes this as an instance
 of inverse attraction with the relative pronoun; that is, the antecedent is attracted to
the case of the relative rather than the more common vice-versa. What makes this
instance especially unusual, for the New Testament, at least, is that it crosses the
boundary between the nominative case and the oblique cases. Ordinarily attraction
occurs among the oblique cases (genitive, dative, and accusative), especially where an
accusative-case object is attracted to one of the other cases. Given the position of
ouvci, within each of the verse’s two clauses, it is attractive to consider a;rton (and
the first clause’s corresponding poth,rion) as a pendent construction. But even
viewing the clauses so does not resolve the question of why a;rton (and by analogy
apparently poth,rion as well) should be accusative rather than nominative.
Apparently the puzzlement is only mine, however. NA27 shows no textual variation
at this point, so the scribes must have thought the construction entirely natural.
1Co 11:2 — The o[ti clause could also perhaps be viewed as a noun clause functioning
as double accusative after evpainw/.
1Co 11:5 avkatakalu,ptw| — The adjective is in the predicate position and therefore
cannot be diagrammed as a simple attributive to th|/ kefalh|/. The difference is
subtle: the attributive would be “with an uncovered head,” the predicate is “with the
head (being) uncovered.”
1Co 11:22 mh.)))ouvk — See BDAG, mh,, 3.a. The thought could be rendered, “For
it’s not that you don’t have houses for eating and drinking, is it?” Cf. 1Co 9:4f., Rom
10:18f.
1Co 11:25 (tosa,kij) — For clarity, I have supplied the correlative corresponding to
o`sa,kij. It does not occur in the Greek Bible but may be found in the Liddell and
Scott lexicon.
1Co 11:26 (tosa,kij) — For clarity, I have supplied the correlative corresponding to
o`sa,kij. It does not occur in the Greek Bible but may be found in the Liddell and
Scott lexicon.
1Co 12:11 ivdi,a| — This is not a qualifier for e`ka,stw| (note the feminine gender). If
I correctly understand BDAG (i;dioj, 5.), the suggestion is that the word refers to the
Spirit’s own individual, private choice. However, I do not find this meaning clearly
conveyed in any of the versions available to me. Nevertheless, this understanding
does seem highly commendable to me both grammatically and contextually.
1Co 12:15,16 — It is difficult to sustain NA27’s punctuating with question marks. If the
introductory negative were mh,, the question would make sense: “It is not because of
this not (a part) of the body, is it?” But ouv introducing a question expects a positive
answer, regardless of the presence of another ouv within the clause. Taking the
sentences as declarative (as do most of the versions), though, makes good sense: “It is
not therefore not (a part) of the body.”
1Co 12:28 — The opening ou]j me,n expects a subsequent ou]j de,, but Paul breaks
off the construction rather than following through with it. My impression is that the
enumeration introduced with prw/ton eliminates the need for the disjunctive
construction with which he began the sentence. I have introduced only minimal
ellipsis: a de, to complement the opening me,n.
1Co 12:31 e;ti — The versions are divided over whether to construe this word
adverbially with dei,knumi or as a qualifier for kaqV u`perbolh,n. I have
 followed the second option based on what seems to be an ascending in the thought
from “the greater gifts” to “a still more excellent way.”
1Co 13:3 ouvde,n — I have diagrammed the word as a retained object; an adverbial
function is also possible.
1Co 14:18 euvcaristw/ tw|/ qew|/ — This clause could also perhaps be construed as
parenthetical, with glw,ssaij lalw/ standing as the main clause. It would seem to me
somewhat out of the ordinary, though, for a sentence to begin with the parenthetical
element.
1Co 14:22 eivj shmei/on — I have diagrammed according to the Semitic idiom where
the equivalent construction expresses a simple predicate. The meaning would be
“tongues are a sign” or “tongues have become a sign.” Some versions render the
phrase adverbially, which would yield the meaning, “tongues exist for a sign,” that is,
they serve the purpose of a sign.
1Co 14:25 — The concluding o[ti clause may be taken as either a direct or an indirect
quotation.
1Co 15:2 ti,ni lo,gw| — There are two major issues here: the function of ti,ni and the
use of the dative case. On the first point, ti,ni is either attributive to lo,gw| or else it
functions like a relative pronoun. If it is relative, the question arises why the dative
case is used, since neither euvaggeli,zw nor kate,cw takes its object in the dative.
The diagram I have drawn reflects the understanding that ti,ni is relative, functioning
as an instrumental dative, not object, with euvhggelisa,mhn: “if you hold fast the
word by which I preached the gospel to you.” The noun lo,gw|, though functioning
as object of kate,cete, would then be dative by attraction. BDAG, on the other
hand, takes ti,ni as attributive to lo,gw| (ti,j, 1.b.), but I cannot find a coherent
grammatical construction reflecting this function.
1Co 15:31 nh, — I have diagrammed the word as an adverbial modifier to kau,chsin,
which I am taking as an accusative with oaths. An alternative would be to take the
word as a preposition, with kau,chsin as its object. The meaning would be the
same.
1Co 16:4 tou/ kavme. poreu,esqai — It is very difficult to decide how to construe
the grammar. The genitive case makes it appear as epexegetical to a;xion, but that
construction leaves h|= without a subject. Robertson (Word Pictures) suggests
“collection” as the subject, but that construction leaves the neuter gender of a;xion
unaccounted for. The logic I have followed is that the first grammatical priority is for
the clause to have a subject, hence I have diagrammed the infinitive phrase thus, even
though it is in the genitive case.
1Co 16:5 Makedoni,an — Since e;rcomai is an intransitive verb, I am taking the
accusative adverbially rather than as direct object.
1Co 16:6 tuco,n — BDAG: “actually the acc. absolute of the neut. of the aor. ptc.” Used
conditionally, this would be essentially equivalent to eiv tu,coi.
1Co 16:21 Pau,lou — I will be the first to admit that it looks awfully strange to set a
genitive-case noun in apposition to a dative-case adjective. But embedded in that
adjective is the idea of a possessive personal pronoun that justifies (indeed, requires)
the genitive case for the appositive, strange as it may appear.
2Corinthians

2Co 1:12 — [KAI] had grave accent.

2Co 1:17 — MHTI on conjunction rather than interjection widget.
2Co 1:18 — The o[ti clause is very difficult to construe. The expression is akin to an
oath formula, something like: “As God is faithful, our word was not. . .” or, more
loosely, “I call upon God’s faithfulness as witness to the fact that our word was not. . .
.” The best reflection of the Greek wording I could come up with is to treat the o[ti
clause, which must be understood as a noun clause, not an explanation, as expressing
something like a dative or accusative of reference: “God is faithful with reference to
the fact that our word was not. . .” I used the subordinate clause symbol, which comes
downward at the appropriate angle for a clause containing a finite verb, but then I
built the o[ti clause onto that symbol with a stilt. See v. 23 for a similar construction.
2Co 1:23 — Similar to v. 18. o[ti appears to introduce a noun clause connected with
witness: Paul calls upon God as witness that [o[ti] . . . . Accordingly, I have built the
o[ti clause on a stilt resting on a symbol connecting it as a modifier to “witness.”
2Co 2:3 me cai,rein — Several reliable versions take the infinitive as transitive and the
pronoun as its object: “who ought to make me rejoice.” BDAG does not show a
transitive sense, however, and the discussion clearly indicates that the lexicographer
is seeing the Corinthians in an adverbial connection, not as the subjects of the
infinitive. My diagramming follows BDAG: “in whom I ought to rejoice.” The
relative pronoun, as it regularly is in these compact constructions, is in the case
required by the preposition rather than the case that reflects its function in the relative
clause.
2Co 2:3 u`mw/n — In my opinion this word should be read as a Predicate Genitive of
Possession (“my joy is yours”), not Predicate Genitive of Source (“my joy is from
you”). The thought connection would be clearer if I had supplied an elliptical $cara,
%, “my joy is your (joy),” but then the pronoun would have been diagrammed
adnominally, losing its true usage as Predicate Genitive. [Note: The NLT appears to
prefer the source interpretation, rendering “My happiness depends on your
happiness.” I believe the context is clear enough, however, that Paul’s intent is almost
exactly the other way around: he is confident that the Corinthians will delight in
seeing him rejoice and will therefore act toward that end.]
2Co 2:5 i[na mh. evpibarw/ — My understanding of the sentence is this: if Paul had
put it baldly, he would have said, “If anyone has grieved anyone, it’s not me he has
grieved but all of you.” But he did not want to be so harsh, so he inserted “in part,” or
“in a measure.” It makes no sense to take that phrase as qualifying “all of you”; how
can you do something to part of a group and at the same time to all of a group? So
Paul must be limiting the degree of the grieving, not the number of people grieved.
This factor calls for an elliptical repetition of the verb for this phrase to modify. Then
Paul adds a further note, explaining why he has qualified his bald statement: in order
not to lay too heavy a burden on the offender. This is the part of the sentence that is
hard to diagram. A full expression of the thought would probably have added a whole
parenthetical clause such as “I add this qualifier in order not to be too hard on the
man,” but a sentence diagram needs to adhere as closely as possible to the actual
 words of the text. So I have simply placed the purpose clause as a modifier to the
qualifying phrase avpo. me,rouj, as awkward as it seems.
2Co 2:9 appositive incorrectly connected to EGRAYA; should connect to TOUTO
2Co 2:9 — An alternative diagramming of the i[na clause would treat it as a noun clause
on a stilt, with i[na diagrammed as an introductory conjunction. This sort of diagram
would better reflect the clause’s function as an appositive to tou/to, but it would
obscure the clause’s ultimate adverbial connection back to e;graya.
2Co 2:13 recast dative infinitive phrase on adverb widget
2Co 3:1 MH on conjunction rather than interjection widget
2Co 3:2-3 verse reference did not include v. 3.
2Co 3:10 reconstrued the opening KAI.
2Co 4:1 kaqw.j hvleh,qhmen — The versions are divided over whether to construe
this clause with the participle (as I have done, following what seems to be the slightly
predominant preference among the versions) or with the main verb.
2Co 4:3 ptc diagrammed on wrong widget.
2Co 4:6 evn prosw,pw| ÎVIhsou/Ð Cristou/ — It seems that this phrase could
construe equally well with gnw,sewj, fwtismo,n, or e;lamyen. Further, if
do,xhj be taken as objective genitive (“knowledge of God’s glory”) rather than
descriptive (“glorious knowledge of God,” which is how I have taken it), then this
phrase could also construe well with do,xhj. None of these options, however, would
change the essential meaning of Paul’s words. Each of these potential head nouns
refers to the same reality, which is knowledge about God that comes like light out of
darkness. The diagramming I have done reflects an understanding that keeps
“knowledge” at the center of Paul’s thought, with the modifiers all pointing back to
that key word.
2Co 4:13 ptc diagrammed on wrong widget; also reconstrued to modify verb
2Co 5:4 kai, — I am taking the word in the sense of “also,” “in addition.” The thought
reflected by the diagramming may be somewhat loosely rendered this way: “Another
reason we groan is that we are burdened....” The kai, seems to me to signal the
addition of a further consideration, but not until the end of the clause (in the participle
barou,menoi) does Paul add another of the same kind as something he has already
said (the earlier explanatory participle being evpipoqou,ntej). Everything else in
the clause is simple repetition of what has already been said. This construction would
make kai, and the participle fit together as bookends enclosing the whole unit, which
seems entirely reasonable to me. However, I admit that the versions do not read the
verse this way. The only attractive alternative I can see is that suggested by BDAG:
treat kai. ga,r as a unit, functioning as the introductory conjunction essentially
equivalent to a simple ga,r.
2Co 5:5 wrong clause widget: had SVO rather than S-LV-P.
2Co 5:6-8 — The adverbial participles in v. 6 seem to be setting up for a verb that Paul
never expresses, the construction having been interrupted by the parenthesis of v. 7.
So the opening de, of v. 8 has nothing explicit with which to coordinate. Thus I have
diagrammed an elliptical main clause for vv. 6-7 to modify and for v. 8 to coordinate
with.
2Co 5:12 ptc on wrong widget
2Co 5:14 hOTI clause oddly connected
2Co 6:1-10 — I have diagrammed as a single sentence, contrary to the punctuation of
NA27, because of the participles in vv. 3-4. These participles cohere very naturally
with verse 1; therefore I have treated this whole section as one unit.
2Co 6:2b — I have diagrammed the nouns as predicates rather than subjects because of
the lack of the article. Both nouns were just mentioned; it seems to me that if Paul
considered them to be subjects here, the use of the article (anaphoric) would have
been most natural. On the other hand, the subject is most often the topic already under
discussion, so diagramming the other way around is perfectly viable in my opinion.
2Co 7:4 — I am taking the opening clauses in the Semitic idiom “x is to y,” meaning “y
has x.” The meaning here would be “I have great confidence toward you,” etc.
2Co 7:5 SARX had grave accent.
2Co 7:5 u`pe.r evmou/ — The prepositional phrase could perhaps be construed as
modifying the whole series of accusatives. The middle item (ovdurmo,n) is rather
difficult to see as modified by this phrase, and it seems awkward to construe the
phrase with only the first and last (NIV to the contrary notwithstanding).
2Co 7:13 — perissote,rwj and ma/llon could perhaps be interchanged within the
diagram.
2Co 7:15 avnamimnh|skome,nou — At first glance one might think this participle
is best taken as genitive absolute; the subject would be elliptical. However, the
participle’s referent is in the governing clause in the genitive case (auvtou/), so it
seems best to me to take it as a simple adverbial participle. Any who may think this
construction inferior because the participle is not nominative are insufficiently
acquainted with the range of the participle’s adverbial usage. In English such a
construction would be viewed as “dangling” and substandard; in Greek it is perfectly
good style.
2Co 8:15 (sulle,xaj) — I have supplied the participle based on the verb used in the OT
text from which Paul quotes. o` sulle,xaj means “the one who collected.”
2Co 8:24 evndeiknu,menoi — Along with the versions, I am taking the participle as
imperatival.
2Co 9:2 — An alternative construction would take h[n as direct object of kaucw/mai
and the o[ti clause in apposition to it.
2Co 10:1 interchanged AUTOS and EGW.
2Co 10:9 i[na mh, — This expression can hardly be taken as anything other than a
subordinating conjunction. However, the governing clause is elliptical. It seemed
better to me to diagram it as an introductory conjunction than to supply a main clause
with no subject or predicate expressed.
2Co 10:11 extra accent on hOIOI not removed.
2Co 11:2 parqe,non — The accusative could alternatively be construed as direct object
of parasth/sai. The supplied object I have in mind in the diagram is u`ma/j: “to
present (you) to Christ (as) a pure virgin.”
2Co 11:15 — A clear example that the nominative after w`j is not always the subject of
an elliptical verb. That construction here would mean “his servants disguise
themselves as servants of righteousness (disguise themselves).” But, of course,
servants of righteousness do not disguise themselves. The nominative is clearly
predicate: “his servants disguise themselves so as (to appear to be) servants of
righteousness.”
2Co 11:21 w`j o[ti — It seems simplest to treat this expression as a simple conjunction
introducing a noun clause, though the thought is more subtle than that. See BDAG,
o[ti, 5.b.
2Co 12:14 tri,ton tou/to — The word order may initially suggest that this phrase
modifies e;cw rather than evlqei/n, as though Paul were saying, “For the third time
I am ready to make this particular visit that I have been planning, but that has been
aborted twice so far.” The diagramming reflects the understanding that Paul is saying,
“I am ready to come to you for the third time,” that is, to make a third visit. The
discussion at 13:1-2 appears to be conclusive in favor of this construction, word order
notwithstanding.
2Co 12:16 — Several constructions are possible. The sense according to which I have
diagrammed (following the punctuation of NA27) is this: “But I accept that fact (i.e.,
that your love to me is less than my actions toward you warrant, v. 15), and still I did
not burden you. However, some may claim that in some crafty way I took advantage
of you deceptively.” The passage then goes on to adduce evidence against any such
charge. An alternative reflected in some of the versions (RSV, NRSV, ESV, all of
which are in the RSV line) takes “I did not burden you” as a subject clause with
e;stw: “Let it be granted that I did not burden you, still some may claim that I took
advantage of you.” Yet a third alternative that occurs to me as I diagram but is not
reflected in any of the versions available to me is this: coordinate the ouv and avlla,
clauses. This would yield a sense that has Paul raising a two-pronged hypothetical
case in this verse, to be argued against in vv. 17-18. The sense would be this: “But
suppose that I myself did not burden you, but, crafty as I am, I took advantage of you
by deception.” The idea in the overall context would be that the craftiness consisted in
Paul’s seeming to be very selfless in his own conduct but then sending his
companions in to collect the material goods for which he had disclaimed any desire
(remember that the offering for the poor saints is a major matter in this epistle). This
fits well with the fact that vv. 17-18 detail the doings of Paul’s companions,
complementing the emphatic evgw, in v. 16. Against this view, however, is the fact
that e;stw does not seem very naturally to introduce a hypothetical case, especially
in the absence of o[ti to introduce the case; it seems more declarative of an actual
fact, which would limit its applicability to either the preceding verse or the
immediately following clause in this verse. The absence of o[ti, by the way, is also a
point against the rendering of the RSV line of versions. All things considered, the
most natural reading seems to me to take e;stw de, as a rather clipped and curt way
of dismissing the Corinthians’ lack of love as irrelevant to Paul’s financial practices
(no wallowing in self-pity here!), followed up by a reaffirmation of Paul’s dealings:
he did not burden the Corinthians himself. The emphasis of evgw, introduces a
dichotomy between himself and his co-workers, setting up what he is about to say
about them, apparently in answer to false charges about the purposes of their fund
raising in Corinth, which charges Paul introduces explicitly before proceeding to
refute them.
2Co 12:17, 18 introductory negatives diagrammed on wrong widget.
2Co 12:17 tina — Paul apparently began the sentence with a verb in mind that would
have taken tina as object; hence the accusative case. For example, “I did not instruct
any of those whom I sent to you [to do such-and-such], did I?” However, the clause
 he actually wrote places this person into a prepositional phrase, diV auvtou/. Hence
I have diagrammed tina independently; not belonging to any clause, since no clause
for it was ever expressed.
2Co 12:21 pa,lin — I must admit that I am attracted to NLT’s rendering, which
construes this word with the main verbs, not the participle. This “again” would hark
back to Paul’s “painful visit.” However, I have diagrammed in deference to all the
other versions available to me as I work.
2Co 13:2-3 — The thought I am diagramming is this: “I have previously said and am
[now] saying in advance—just like [I said previously] when I was with you the
second time, [I am saying in advance] now also, when absent, to those who sinned
previously and to all the rest, that....” The awkwardness is in the elliptical repetition
that seems to be the only way to adequately construe w`j and the participles.
2Co 13:4 eivj u`ma/j — Several versions construe this phrase with duna,mewj. The
connection with zh,somen seems to me to yield better sense (“we will live for
you,” cf. NIV; also RSV, NRSV, and ESV, though the thought is different) although
the word order may weigh slightly against it.

Galatians

Gal 1:4 evnestw/toj — The order of the words suggests that, contrary to the wording
of the versions, this participle should be taken as attributive to ponhrou/. The neuter
singular of ponhro,j can be taken substantivally, referring to something evil. A
strictly formal rendering would be “the age of the present evil.” This is not
substantially different in meaning from the rendering of most of the versions, “the
present evil age,” especially if “of the present evil” be taken as a descriptive genitive
expressing a quality qualifying the head noun (however, it seems to me that the more
appropriate expression for evil in the abstract, as opposed to some more concrete
manifestation of evil, is ponhri,a). The translators may well be understanding this
participle as I do but simply smoothing the translation into a more attractive English
phrasing. At any rate, it seems that perhaps the early scribes may have had some
difficulty with the expression; the Received Text reads tou/ evnestw/toj
aivw/noj ponhrou/.
Gal 1:6 prep phr diagrammed on incorrect widget.
Gal 1:7 reconstrued the articular participles.
Gal 1:11 to. euvagge,lion — I am taking this noun as an accusative of reference:
“with respect to the gospel.”
Gal 1:13 th.n evmh.n avnastrofh,n — I am taking this phrase as an accusative of
reference: “with respect to my conduct.”
Gal 2:4 — Paul has apparently omitted a verb for the opening prepositional phrase to
modify. Something like the NIV’s “This matter arose” seems to be the simplest
ellipsis to supply.
Gal 2:6 prep phr diagrammed on incorrect widget.
Gal 2:6 — The diagramming is difficult, because Paul seems to start the sentence one
way, but then, after a parenthetical digression and before getting to the main verb, he
starts over again, but with a different construction. I have supplied what seems to be
 the most appropriate main clause for the opening construction to modify: “I received
nothing.” The ga,r toward the end of the verse might be taken as parallel to the
opening de, on the assumption that Paul is actually breaking off the sentence
completely and making a brand new start, but it seemed simpler to me to diagram it
as I have done.
Gal 2:13 corrected accent on [KAI]
Gal 2:16 corrected accent on [DE]
Gal 2:20 o[ — BDAG describes the usage here as direct object (o[j, 1.g.g.). It seems to
me rather a cognate accusative, which can function either as an adverb or as an
object. I defer to BDAG by diagramming it and its antecedent as objects.
Gal 3:15 kekurwme,nhn — The participle could alternatively be construed as
modifying diaqh,khn.
Gal 3:16 — The diagramming of the abbreviated quotations looks strange; the
conjunction symbols show no first element. This seemed to me the simplest way to
show that Paul is simply breaking in on the quotation at the word kai,. Someone who
wished to diagram in a way that clearly shows correct grammar would need to supply
the ellipsis. Following Gen. 13:15 (which seems the most likely source for Paul’s
quotation), the ellipsis would be soi. dw,sw auvth,n. The words kai. toi/j
spe,rmasin and kai. tw|/ spe,rmati would then be diagrammed as direct objects
coordinate with the elliptical soi,.
Gal 4:8 ALLA hanging disconnected.
Gal 4:14 recast hWS phrases according to policy
Gal 4:19-20 — It seems that Paul opens this sentence with a vocative but then, rather
than expressing the sentence he had in mind (perhaps what he asked in v. 21ff.?),
broke off his thought and instead expressed his desire to be with them (rather than
having to deal with these issues in writing). The de, marks the break in thought; there
is no previous clause with which it marks a coordination. In the diagram I have
simply supplied a minimal elliptical clause for the first part of the sentence in order to
have something to coordinate with the second part.
Gal 4:21 introductory OUK was on conjunction widget
Gal 4:22 — I did not diagram the o[ti clause as a quotation because Paul does not appear
to be quoting a text, either directly or indirectly, but rather stating a fact of Biblical
history.
Gal 4:24 avllhgorou,mena — I am taking this participle as a substantive: “which are
things spoken allegorically.” A periphrastic construction is also possible; perhaps
even a predicate adjective use can be defended.
Gal 4:25 to. ~Aga,r — The neuter article is puzzling. BDAG suggests that Paul is
engaging in a play on words, since Hagar in Arabic could mean “stone” (Mt. Sinai
looks like a huge stone). If that is the case, then the article is perhaps signaling that he
intends a`ga,r to be read as a transliterated common noun rather than as a proper
noun: “And the stone (that Hagar’s name refers to) is Mount Sinai.” At any rate, it is
hard to see any other way to diagram than as I have done, which is consistent with
Robertson’s suggestion that the article simply presents Hagar’s name in a shorthand
fashion referring to the mountain rather than the woman (Word Pictures in the Greek
NT).
Gal 4:29 — The elliptical clause I have in mind is essentially a repetition of the kernel of
the w[sper clause, something like “The fleshly (legalists) persecute the spiritual.”
Gal 5:3 poih/sai — The infinitive could alternatively be construed as modifying the
noun ovfeile,thj.
Gal 5:8 — prep phr on incorrect widget
Gal 5:14 reconstructed hWS SEAUTON according to policy and in conformity to Rom
13.
Gal 6:6 ptcp diagrammed on incorrect widget.
Gal 6:7 KAI changed to adverb.
Gal 6:14 evmoi, — Those who accept the idea that the dative case can express the
subject of an infinitive will want to diagram this word accordingly. So far I remain
unconvinced of this usage, though I will admit that this passage presents one of the
more attractive opportunities for it.

Ephesians

Eph 1:4 evn avga,ph| — Many exegetes prefer to construe this phrase with the
following material rather than the preceding. I follow the punctuation of NA27
without hesitation, believing that the evidence favoring the construction shown in the
diagram is no weaker than that favoring the alternative. To any who may be inclined
to think that a believer’s lifestyle pattern has nothing to do with his unblemished
standing before God, I would suggest a careful reading of Paul’s statements about
love elsewhere (especially Phi 1:9-11), along with 1Jo 4:16-17. Those who choose to
construe the phrase with verse 5 may well be correct, but, in my opinion at least, there
is nothing theologically inferior about construing it with verse 4.
Eph 1:6 prep phr diagrammed on incorrect widget.
Eph 1:8 evn pa,sh| sofi,a| kai. fronh,sei — The versions are divided over whether
to construe this phrase with what precedes or with what follows. The punctuation of
NA27 is ambiguous. A clear sequence of thought can be made out either way. The
interpretation of this phrase and of the phrase evn avga,ph| in verse 4 may well be
related. I am consistently construing each with the preceding material rather than with
the participle that follows; others may wish to do the opposite in both cases.
Eph 1:11 ENERGOUNTOS — was diagrammed on angled rather than square widget.
Eph 1:13 second EN hWi was not connected to its antecedent.
Eph 1:13 evn w|- (second occurrence) — The phrase could alternatively be construed as
a simple repetition of the first occurrence, which modifies evsfragi,sqhte.
Eph 1:18 tou.j ovfqalmou,j — This noun could also be construed as a second object
of dw,h|, with pefwtisme,nouj functioning as object complement.
Eph 1:18 eivde,nai — The infinitive phrase could alternatively be construed as
modifying dw,h|.
Eph 1:18 klhronomi,aj — The genitive could alternatively be construed as modifying
plou/toj.
Eph 1:23 PLHROUMENOU was diagrammed on an angled rather than square widget.
Eph 2:1-7 — The sentence is not perfectly coherent grammatically. As I understand it,
Paul begins with the object of the verb he intends to write (which he finally does
 write in v. 5), attaching an adverbial participle phrase (o;ntaj nekrou,j). But he
expands so extensively on the idea of being dead in sins that, when he finally comes
to the verb he intended, he feels it necessary to restate the opening object and
participle, to restore his main line of thought for the reader/hearer to follow. In the
meanwhile, however, he has switched persons: initially he had “you,” but now, having
switched to the first person in v. 3, he has “us.” Further, he tosses in a conjunction
(de,, v. 4), pointing up a contrast with what immediately precedes. This conjunction
introduces the grammatical complication that it coordinates the main clause Paul
originally intended with a subordinate clause he developed in the process of working
up to the main one. It seemed to me that the best way to diagram was simply to
supply an elliptical main clause with minimal elements for the subordinate material to
modify, and then to diagram the explicit clause in its grammatical connections with its
surroundings so that it is no longer the main clause of the sentence. Some will want to
read the o;ntaj nekrou,j phrases as accusative absolutes and diagram accordingly.
The word order of the second phrase, and its inclusion of kai,, make this
understanding very viable. On that reading, an elliptical object of the primary verbs
will have to be supplied.
Eph 2:2 tou/ pneu,matoj — One may think at first that “spirit” should be appositional
to “ruler,” but I am diagramming strictly according to the case, which requires the
head noun to be genitive. Upon further reflection, it is not at all unattractive to view
“spirit” as equivalent to “air,” and to see Paul signaling that he is not talking so much
about the physical atmosphere (though the physical realm probably should not be
dismissed entirely) as the moral atmosphere. As I understand Paul’s language, Satan
is described here as the ruler of the moral atmosphere that prevails among disobedient
humanity. On this reading, the word pneu,matoj would not refer to an individual
personal being; that reference is in the word a;rconta.
Eph 2:3 h`mw/n — The genitive could alternatively be construed as modifying
sarko,j.
Eph 2:3 failed to remove add’l accent from ANESTRAFHMEN.
Eph 3:1 evgw. Pau/loj — As I understand the language, Paul wrote these words with
the verb of v. 14 in mind, but his digression turned out longer than he had planned,
and he ended up finishing the sentence without ever getting to the verb. I have
diagrammed by simply supplying the rest of the kernel from v. 14.
Eph 3:2 — It is not at all easy to discern exactly what the eiv clause modifies. It seems to
cohere most naturally with u`pe.r u`mw/n tw/n evqnw/n, so I have put it there
even though the idea of a subordinate clause modifying a prepositional phrase seems
very odd to me, and the conditional element is not exactly clear even here.
Eph 3:13 h[tij — The pronoun’s antecedent is plural; I take the singular form as looking
forward to the singular predicate (do,xa). The pronoun could also be construed with
the idea of not losing heart as its antecedent. Again, the gender and number of the
pronoun look forward to the predicate; cf. Eph 6:2 for a good parallel.
Eph 4:13 tou/ Cristou/ — The genitive could alternatively be construed as modifying
plhrw,matoj.
Eph 4:18 — pred adj ptcps were not on ptcp widgets.
Eph 4:21 avlh,qeia — I am inclined to view this noun as the predicate of its clause
rather than the subject, the subject being an elliptical repetition of the infinitive phrase
 “that you put off.” The diagram reflects deference to the mass of versions, which all
seem to take avlh,qeia as subject. My view would be translated “as is [the] truth in
Jesus, that you put off....” On this reading the three infinitives (avpoqe,sqai,
avnaneou/sqai, and evndu,sasqai) would be viewed as statements of objective
reality rather than as statements of command (the related commands begin in v. 25). If
the infinitive phrases construe only with evdida,cqhte, they could be either
statements of fact or commands—one can be taught that something is true, or one can
be taught that he must do something. But on my view that the infinitive phrases also
belong to the clause “as is the truth in Jesus,” the command interpretation is not
nearly so viable. Facts are the truth, but the idea that a command is the truth is rather
strange. The parallel passage in Col 3:9-10 presents the same three actions in
language whose only natural interpretation is factual.
Eph 4:32 DE had grave accent.
Eph 4:32 — Some will want to consider the datives to be indirect objects rather than
direct objects.
Eph 5:13 pa,nta — Some versions take this word as modifying the participle rather than
as subject. However, the order of words, with pa,nta intervening between article and
the substantival participle that it supposedly modifies, strikes me as unusual. A
cursory check for neuter plural participles within 3 words of an agreeing form of pa/j
confirms that the common word order for “all the things being reproved” would be
pa,nta ta. evlegco,mena. Hence I have taken the article as governing pa,nta
rather than the participle, leaving the participle anarthrous and best construed
adverbially.
Eph 5:13 u`po. tou/ fw/toj — The prepositional phrase could alternatively be
construed as modifying fanerou/tai.
Eph 5:21-22 — I am ignoring NA27’s punctuation before v. 21, since v. 21 provides
another participle in the series that began in v. 19. Instead, following the versions, I
am beginning the new sentence at v. 22, taking gunai/kej, in accordance with the
pattern followed through the remainder of this section, as the subject of the new
sentence (vocative is also possible). In this instance the verb must be supplied
elliptically from the immediately preceding context.
Eph 5:27 — The diagramming for the last half of the verse looks a little odd, but there is
no other way to show the coordination properly. Mh, and avlla, coordinate a
participle phrase with a i[na clause whereas ordinarily coordinate elements are
grammatically alike. The untidiness of the diagram merely reflects the untidiness of
the language.
Eph 5:28 [KAI] had grave accent.
Eph 5:31 put EIS phrase on better widget.
Eph 6:3 — The i[na clause could perhaps be diagrammed as a quotation standing in
apposition to evpaggeli,a|, though doing so would lose the purpose connection
back to the main clause.
Eph 6:5: diagrammed KATA SARKA on better widget.
Eph 6:24 prep phr diagrammed on incorrect widget.

Philippians
Phi 1:7 me, u`ma/j (first occurrence) — It is possible to interpret either pronoun as
accusative of general reference and the other as direct object. The versions strongly
but not unanimously (see NRSV) prefer the construction I diagrammed.
Phi 1:8 — It is unusual to have a subordinate clause modifying a noun rather than the
verb. But semantically the w`j clause supplies the fact to which God testifies, so it
seems best to diagram it as modifying the noun. The fact that the noun includes a
verbal idea helps to justify the diagramming.
Phi 1:11 karpo,n — I am taking this noun as a retained object.
Phi 1:14 evn kuri,w| — This phrase could easily modify pepoiqo,toj rather than
avdelfw/n, as I have it. The versions are approximately equally divided on this
question. I made my decision based on the fact that Paul elsewhere qualifies the word
“brother” with “in the Lord” (Eph 6:21, Col 4:7, Phm 16), but I did not find any
parallels where a participle is immediately preceded by evn @tw/|# kuri,w|. I
will admit, though, that I do like the thought sequence better with the phrase
modifying the participle. However, objective considerations should override
subjective, especially in marginal cases.
Phi 1:18 ti, — Diagramming is difficult in the absence of explicit sentence elements. The
simplest thing is to supply a linking verb, and the interrogative pronoun with a linking
verb almost always functions as predicate, since it is the word that expresses the
question being asked, not the topic under discussion.
Phi 1:22 $gi,netai% — I am supplying this verb in the sense “take place.” Paul seems
to be saying “If (for me) to live takes place...” that is, “If I am to go on living....”
Phi 1:27 — Changed grave accent to acute.
Phi 1:28 prep phr diagrammed on incorrect widget.
Phi 1:28 kai. tou/to avpo. qeou/ — I am taking tou/to (neuter gender) as referring,
not to swthri,aj (feminine gender), but to the whole concept of suffering
courageously for Christ. This whole business is from God, because suffering for
Christ is part of what God has graciously given to us (v. 29). Most of the versions
construe “this” with “salvation,” which is by no means rendered impossible by the
gender difference, but the flow of thought seems to me clearer the way I have done it.
Phi 1:29 to. u`pe.r Cristou/ — I am taking the article as introducing the infinitive that
Paul is about to write, assuming that he simply repeats it resumptively when he
actually writes the infinitive a few words later. I am not familiar with any use of the
article where it governs a prepositional phrase functioning adverbially; if such a usage
does exist, then the article should probably be viewed as being used that way here,
rather than the way I have assumed.
Phi 2:7 w`j — w`j is often one of the more difficult particles to diagram. I understand
the full expression of the thought here to be “with reference to (bodily) form, he was
found to be as man is.” (This language does not deny the reality of his full humanity,
but it does leave room for aspects of his being beyond the human.) I could have
diagrammed it that way, with the implied “to be” as the complement to “was found”
and “as man is” as a subordinate clause modifying “to be.” However, this seems to
me more complicated than necessary. Without the word w`j, a;nqrwpoj would
function as a simple predicate nominative. The addition of w`j implies that there is
some difference between Christ’s manhood and that of the ordinary variety (not that
 Christ was less than fully human; the expression makes room for dimensions of his
person beyond the human). This is a fairly common function of w`j: to inject at least
a slight element of non-reality without changing the fundamental grammar of the
construction. See the entry for w`j in section IX of the policies guide regarding the
way I diagrammed the word here.
Phi 2:12 — The mh, . . . avlla, section might alternatively be construed as modifying
the imperative katerga,zesqe.
Phi 2:12 w`j — I am taking the word in a temporal sense here: “when.”
Phi 3:7 ALLA — corrected grave accent.
Phi 3:8 prep phr diagrammed on incorrect widget.
Phi 3:8 — The clause kai. h`gou/mai sku,bala could alternatively be construed as
coordinate with the opening clause. In that case the i[na clause would probably best
be construed with both of the h`gou/mai clauses. The key thought link that ought to
be observed in whatever construction one might see is the contrast between zhmi,a
(“loss”) and kerdai,nw (“gain”): Paul accepts loss in order to secure gain.
Phi 3:10 tou/ gnw/nai — The infinitive phrase could be construed in other ways. What
I am seeing in this verse is an expansion on Paul’s earlier dia. . . . th/j gnw,sewj
Cristou/. It seems appropriate, then, to take the infinitive phrase here as modifying
the same verb that is modified by the earlier prepositional phrase that the infinitive
expands upon.
Phi 3:17 h`ma/j — The clause could also be construed with h`ma/j as the object and
tu,pon as object complement. The word order seems to me to make that option less
desirable, however.
Phi 3:21 tou/ du,nasqai — I am taking the infinitive as a genitive-case noun
modifying evne,rgeian.
Phi 4:8 — For some reason the occurrences of TIS were in subject slots rather than on
adjective widgets.
Phi 4:13 — prep phr was diagrammed on incorrect widget.
Phi 4:14 mou th/| qli,yei — The versions are divided as to whether to take qli,yei as
the object of the participle (“having participated in my affliction”), to understand both
the pronoun and the noun as adverbial modifiers to the participle (“having
participated with me in [my] affliction”), or to take the noun as adverbial and the
pronoun as modifying the noun (“having participated [with me] in my affliction”).
My impression is that the pronoun seems most naturally to modify the noun,
eliminating the second option. I do not feel strongly about the remaining options,
though the first does have the very slight advantage of not needing to supply elliptical
elements for clarity of thought. The meaning of Paul’s words would be that the
Philippians’ gift represented their taking some hardship upon themselves, so that in
this way they share the afflictions, material and otherwise, that have come upon him.
Phi 4:16 — I have supplied a genitive absolute participle (“when I was”) in order for the
phrase “in Thessalonica” to have the clearest head word to modify. The preposition
evn seems to focus the thought on Paul’s location, not the destination of the
Philippians’ gift. In English, we would express the destination with to: “You sent to
Thessalonica”; in Greek the more natural preposition for that thought would be eivj
(though evn is occasionally used this way: see BDAG 3.) The rendering of many
versions “even in Thessalonica you sent” certainly cannot be taken as expressing the
 Philippians’ location; the location must be Paul’s. So the diagram simply makes
explicit what is at least implied by all the English versions that use “in” (which is, to
the extent of my checking, all of them). Some versions go further and make the
reference to Paul explicit, such as the NIV: “even when I was in Thessalonica, you
sent me aid....”
Phi 4:19 evn Cristw/| VIhsou/ — This phrase could modify the verb rather than the
noun plou/toj. Word order and consistency with Paul’s thought elsewhere linking
Christ with God’s wealth (Eph 2:7, 3:8, Col 1:27, 2:2) were factors contributing to the
choice I made. The meaning of the sentence does not change significantly if the other
construction is correct.
Phi 4:21 evn Cristw|/ VIhsou/ — The phrase could alternatively be construed as
modifying the verb.

Colossians

Col 1:5 tou/ euvaggeli,ou — re-construed in light of Eph. 1:13 (see note).
Col 1:5 tou/ euvaggeli,ou — The phrase could alternatively be construed as
modifying avlhqei,aj, but the parallel in Eph. 1:13, where euvagge,lion can be
understood only in apposition to lo,goj, inclines me to construe those two together
here as well.
Col 1:11 — I have ignored the period in this verse, since what follows is an additional
adverbial participle in the series.
Col 1:17 pro. pa,ntwn — The phrase could alternatively be construed as adverbial to
evstin.
Col 1:19 — hOTI clause was disconnected.
Col 1:19 pa/n to. plh,rwma — A number of versions take this phrase as a reference to
the Godhead, eliminating the need for the admittedly awkward elliptical occurrence
of “God” (or “the Father”) as the subject of the verb. To me it seems slightly more
awkward, however, to understand “all fulness” as an expression referring to God
Himself. I am not aware of any parallel to such language, though certainly it is not
impossible. I do not feel strongly about the preference reflected in the diagram; the
passage is genuinely difficult.
Col 1:20 auvtou/ — Most of the versions construe this word with staurou/ (“his
cross”). I have followed the NIV in construing it with ai[matoj. One of the policies
followed in these diagrams is, wherever natural, to reflect the Semitic pattern where,
in an expression “X of Y of Z,” in which Z is a personal pronoun, Z functions as a
second modifier for X, not a modifier for Y. (E.g., “the word of the power of him”
does not mean “the word of his power” but rather “his powerful word.”) This
particular example is unusual in that the Y term is ordinarily more abstract than
“cross.” The majority of versions may well be correct, but since the Semitic model
does yield equally good sense, and since there is a clear example of it earlier in the
sentence (“the son of his love” = “his beloved son”), I have adhered to the policy here
also.
Col 1:22 de, — It is hard to diagram this word. It is usually a coordinating conjunction,
but there is no preceding finite verb to coordinate with the one it introduces
 (avpokath,llaxen). It does not coordinate this sentence with the preceding whole
sentence; the opening kai, in v. 21 serves that function. It seems clearly to mark a
contrast between “now” in this clause and “formerly” in the opening participial
section. Attempting to highlight that connection, I have diagrammed it as a modifier
to “now.”
Col 1:26 evfanerw,qh — Semantically, this indicative verb is coordinate to the
previous participle (avpokekrumme,non) and joined to it by de,. Ordinarily one
expects coordinate items to be grammatically as well as semantically parallel. The
diagram here reflects the semantics rather than the grammar, which there does not
seem to be a good way to reflect. Those with access to Grassmick’s book will notice
that he diagrammed it the same way as I did.
Col 2:13 u`ma/j nekrou.j o;ntaj — I have diagrammed this as an accusative
absolute. A case can be made that the construction is not absolute; it is accusative
because the pronoun is conceived as the object of the verb sunezwopoi,hsen. The
point is well taken, but there is a second pronoun serving as the object of that verb. If
this word is also the object, then the language is redundant (which is, of course, quite
possible). On that view, the best way I can think of to diagram would be to put both
pronouns in the object slot and then diagram o;ntaj as a simple adverbial participle.
Col 2:17 TWN MELLONTWN — diagrammed on angled rather than square widget.
Col 2:21 — Recast imperatives as appositive to STOICEIA; also improved connection of
rel. clause in v. 22.
Col 3:1 kaqh,menoj — The participle could alternatively be construed with evstin as
a periphrastic.
Col 3:4 ZWH — Appositive incorrectly connected to hUMWN.
Col 3:7 oi-j( tou/toij — One of these pronouns could be taken as masculine, referring
back to ui`ou,j in verse 6. My personal inclination is to do this with the relative
pronoun, but I do not find any versions reading the passage so.
Col 3:11 — Major reworking of OUK . . . ALLA section, including correction of wrong
widget.
Col 3:16 tw|/ qew|/ — The dative could alternatively be construed as modifying
ca,riti.
Col 3:22 — The participle fobou,menoi needs a verb form to govern it. The best
construction I could think of to supply is a repetition of the verb, but in participle
form (u`pakou,ontej), to avoid additional independent clauses. On this approach,
an additional occurrence of the same participle is needed to balance the coordinate
construction. The elliptical participles can be avoided if one is willing to diagram
fobou,menoi as a modifier connected somewhere in the “in sincerity of heart”
clause.
Col 4:3 a[ma kai, — BDAG appears to treat this expression as an adverbial unit.
Col 4:10 — Corrected wrong conjunction widget.
Col 4:12 (o` w;n) — I have supplied this attributive participle in order to have a verb
form to govern the adverbial participle avgwnizo,menoj. The thought connection I
see is that the participle supplies either the evidence that, the degree to which, or the
respect in which Epaphras is a servant of Christ. These are adverbial thought
connections, not adjectival or nominal ones that would justify diagramming
avgwnizo,menoj more simply as attributive or appositional to dou/loj.
Col 4:17 — The i[na clause could also be diagrammed as a second object of ble,pe,
coordinate to th.n diakoni,an. I have diagrammed it as a purpose clause.

1Thessalonians

1Th 1:5 — I could have diagrammed more simply by setting up the evn phrases as a
large coordinate system revolving around “not only...but also.” But the word order
seemed to me to weigh against that option in favor of what I have done.
1Th 2:1ff. diagram had extraneous widget.
1Th 2:3 — OUK diagrammed twice.
1Th 2:8 ou[twj — The adverb could alternatively be construed as modifying
euvdokou/men.
1Th 2:13 — The construction of the o[ti clause and the reference of dia. tou/to are
interrelated. If dia. tou/to looks backward to the previous material as the basis of
what is about to be said (as it most often does), the o[ti clause modifies
euvcaristou/men, with an essentially causative sense: “Because of how arduously
we labored among you, we thank God that/because you accepted our message so
eagerly.” A number of versions take (or seem to take) this approach; NASB is
especially explicit in its wording. However, dia/ tou/to can alternatively look
forward to what will eventually be given as the basis of the action about to be stated.
1Ti 1:16 is a good example: “For this reason I was shown mercy, that in me first
Christ Jesus might demonstrate all longsuffering. . . .” In this passage, nothing in the
previous material makes sense as the referent for tou/to, which rather looks forward
to the purpose clause that comes after the verb. A number of versions (e.g. ESV,
NIV[?], NRSV) manifest this understanding of the syntax, in which the o[ti clause
functions in apposition to tou/to. The diagram follows the latter option, though I
consider the former perfectly viable as well. On the former construction, the first kai,
would have to be construed as modifying euvcaristou/men.
1Th 3:9 h|- — The usage is cognate accusative, but the pronoun is attracted to the dative
case of its antecedent. With some verbs the cognate accusative functions like a direct
object, but with this verb it is adverbial and is diagrammed accordingly.
1Th 3:12 th|/ avga,ph| — It is tempting to take the dative with only the second verb,
understanding the sense to be, “May the Lord make you to increase (in number?) and
to abound in your love. . . .” But 2Th 1:3 makes it clear that a collocation of
avga,ph and pleona,zw is perfectly natural, so it is probably best to see the verbs
as simply reinforcing one another and to construe the dative with both.
1Th 4:2 — Recast noun clause more accurately.
1Th 4:3 — Based on the anarthrous state of qe,lhma, the opening clause could as well
be construed with qe,lhma as subject and tou/to as predicate. My diagram takes
“God’s will” as the topic under discussion and “this” with its extended appositive as
the statement made about that topic.
1Th 4:6 — The two instances of kai, in the kaqw,j clause could alternatively be
construed as a paired conjunction: “both . . . and. . . .”
1Th 4:12 — The i[na clause might be construed equally well with the series of
infinitives. To be perfectly honest I cannot quite explain why it seems slightly more
 natural to me to construe it with the governing infinitive, “to aspire.’ I think it is
because the concept of aspiration lends itself to the purpose idea that the i[na clause
expresses more clearly than the infinitives do, which seem to be epexegetical or
possibly even complementary. But this is no major distinction in thought flow; if the
i[na clause were taken as the purpose of the three infinitives, that purpose idea would
still extend back to the governing verb and probably all the way back to
parakalou/men in v. 10, which, by the way, is yet a third possibility for where the
i[na clause might be connected.
1Th 4:15, 17 oi` perileipo,menoi — The participle might be taken as a further
appositive to h`mei/j oi` zw/ntej, but it seems to me better to see it as limiting
rather than renaming oi` zw/ntej. The idea is this: oi` zw/ntej distinguishes all the
recipients of the letter from their brothers and sisters who have died; oi`
perileipo,menoi imposes the further limitation of remaining alive at the Lord’s
return. This understanding of the construction leaves allowance that some of h`mei/j
oi` zw/ntej might not be among oi` perileipo,menoi. I must admit, though, that
the second occurrence of the phrase (in v. 17) does not lend itself so well to this
understanding, since in that verse h`mei/j oi` zw/ntej seems more equivalent to
oi` perileipo,menoi. So to my way of thinking, either construction is admissible.
1Th 5:8 de, — I have diagrammed as I have, rather than coordinating v. 8 with the two
verbs of v. 7, because the introductory ga,r in v. 7 construes only with those verbs,
not with the verb of v. 8.
1Th 5:15 — The clause introduced by mh, could also be construed as complementary to
o`ra/te rather than adverbial. The verse has an additional challenge regarding the
coordination of the main verbs. There are two imperatives joined by avlla,, but there
is also a conceptual contrast between the subjunctive and the second imperative. I do
not find a way to diagram so as to capture both parallels; I have given preference to
the grammatical.
1Th 5:18 — The ga,r clause could be construed with all three imperatives. I have
construed it with only the last based on the fact that tou/to is singular rather than
plural, an admittedly fragile consideration. Additionally, Paul’s writings overall
demonstrate that he has a strong pre-occupation with thanksgiving to God as one of a
very few of God’s ultimate goals for human life. That factor seems to me to justify an
interpretation that with this clause Paul is singling out thanksgiving for special
commendation.
1Th 5:23 o`lotelei/j — It is easier to think of this adjective as functioning adverbially,
but the masculine plural form seems to require an object complement function.
1Th 5:23 o`lo,klhron — The versions reflect three different ways to understand the
syntax: as an attributive to “spirit, soul, and body,” as adverbial, or as a predicate
adjective. I diagrammed the predicate construction (object complement), consistently
with o`lotelei/j, explained above.

2Thessalonians

2Th 1:3 eivj avllh,louj — The phrase could alternatively be construed as modifying h`
avga,ph.
2Th 1:8 evn puri. flogo,j — The phrase could alternatively be construed as modifying
dido,ntoj. The diagram follows the punctuation of NA27 and most of the versions.
2Th 1:9 auvtou/ — The pronoun could alternatively be construed as modifying
ivscu,oj.
2Th 1:10 — prep phr on incorrect widget.
2Th 1:11 o[ — The antecedent is unclear. It seems best to me to construe the pronoun
with the idea of God’s just repayment expressed in vv. 5-7a (and expanded in vv. 7b-
10).
2Th 1:12 — Whether to treat tou/ qeou/ h`mw/n kai. kuri,ou VIhsou/ Cristou/
as a Granville Sharp construction referring to a single person (“our God and Lord,
Jesus Christ”) or as referring to two divine persons (“our God and the Lord Jesus
Christ”) is a difficult question. The former is strongly attractive on theological
grounds, and the non-repetition of the article adds further support. A.T. Robertson
(Word Pictures) gives a succinct and helpful discussion. To his observations I would
add that, other than his frequent epistolary conclusion “the grace of our Lord Jesus
Christ be with you,” Paul rarely refers to the grace of the Son without also including
the Father. So, with some reluctance, I have cast my vote with the strong, though not
unanimous, consensus of the versions (including the KJV) in treating “God” and
“Lord” as distinct persons in this passage.
2Th 2:3 — The main clause to be supplied is something to the effect of, “The day of the
Lord will not arrive.”
2Th 2:4 lego,menon — One’s first instinct might be to diagram this participle as a
neuter substantive (object of evpi,), with qeo,n as its predicate and pa,nta as its
modifier: “over every thing being called God.” But pa,nta is masculine (unless it be
taken as neuter plural, which seems highly unnatural with the singular participle). The
object of the preposition, then, must be “every God,” with the participle as its
modifier: “over every so-called God,” as many versions render it. The real difficulty
is whether to construe the participle with one or both nouns. I have construed it only
with qeo,n, since the idols really are objects of worship (though not legitimate ones)
and therefore do not need this qualifier. The neuter gender of se,basma is not
relevant to this question, since an attributive to both nouns would be able to agree
only with one. pa,nta, on the other hand, makes good sense with both nouns, so I
have diagrammed it accordingly.
2Th 2:4 — Recast hOTI clause as predicate accusative (was appositive).
2Th 2:5 — Introductory OU was on a conjunction widget rather than interjection. (See
help files III.5. for policy.) Wonder how many other times I did this?
2Th 2:6-7 — Corrected verse labels (had 1Th).
2Th 2:9-10 — The evn phrases could alternatively be construed as adverbial, modifying
evstin.
2Th 2:9 yeu,douj — The versions vary on how to construe this word. Most take it only
with “wonders”; some take it with “signs and wonders,” and some (most notably the
NIV) with all three nouns: “power, signs, and wonders.”
2Th 2:10 — recast ANQ hWN clause as modifying APOLLUMENOIS.
2Th 2:10 — The avnqV w-n clause could alternatively be construed as adverbial to
evstin, a thought connection that seems to be supported by vv. 11-12. The diagram
reflects what seems to be the consensus of the modern versions.
2Th 2:14 o[ — I have construed this neuter pronoun with a feminine antecedent,
swthri,an. The antecedent Paul seems to have in mind is not that particular noun in
isolation, but that noun including its modifiers: the whole concept of salvation by
sanctification of the spirit and believing the truth. The diagram simply connects the
pronoun back to the head noun of the expression.
2Th 2:17 ta.j kardi,aj — The versions are divided as to whether to construe this object
with only the first verb or with both.
2Th 2:17 — The final prepositional phrase might also be construed with both verbs rather
than with the second only, as I have diagrammed it.
2Th 3:10 kai, — This word actually seems to qualify “when”: “also when we were with
you,” in addition to now, as we write. But I am not aware of any diagramming
convention that will let me connect it directly to o[te.

1Timothy

1Ti 1:3 — This sentence, as written, has no main clause. An elliptical main clause might
be formulated in several different ways, so I felt it best just to mark both subject and
verb with an (X). Most of the English versions express “remain” as the main verb, in
the imperative. This certainly yields the correct overall sense, but it is not possible to
take prosmei/nai as an imperative (middle voice) or an imperatival use of the
infinitive within the syntax of the sentence, especially due to its placement between
the verb “exhorted” and its adverbial participle “when I went into Macedonia.”
1Ti 1:6-7 — The precise relationship among the participles is difficult to determine. It is
attractive to see noou/ntej as concessive to qe,lontej: “Wanting to be teachers of
the law even though they do not understand...” And yet a causal or explanatory
connection back to the main clause (which would make noou/ntej somewhat
parallel to qe,lontej) is also attractive: some have turned aside from faith because
they want to be teachers of the law, and their talk is useless because they do not
understand what they are talking about.
1Ti 1:11 tou/ qeou/ — The noun could alternatively be construed as modifying
euvagge,lion.
1Ti 1:13 o;nta — The lack of the article may appear to present this participle as
adverbial, with a concessive relationship back to the governing clause. Taking it this
way, though, leaves nothing either grammatically or semantically parallel to the
clause introduced by avlla, (see note below). I take the participle adjectivally and
explain the lack of the article by noting that Paul’s thought can easily be taken as
indefinite: “me, someone who was formerly...” The word may be thought of as an
appositive, but there is no easy way to diagram it so while keeping it coordinate with
the avlla, clause that follows.
1Ti 1:13 — The coordination indicated by avlla, is not strict: the first member is a
participle and the second is a finite verb. I diagrammed in what seemed to be the least
objectionable way.
1Ti 1:14 — The versions seem to divide over whether the final phrase modifies just
avga,phj (“love that is in Christ Jesus”) or both pi,stewj and avga,phj (“faith
and love that are in Christ Jesus”). The diagram reflects the fact that the article is
 singular. However, the phrase still may modify both nouns, which in Paul’s mind may
very well cohere as a single virtue.
1Ti 1:16 — Recast hINA clause, along with other reformatting, including correcting
TWN MELLONTWN to a square rather than angled widget.
1Ti 1:20 — Connected final relative clause differently.
1Ti 2:9-10 — The somewhat complicated diagramming with the repetition of kosmei/n
e`auta,j allows for a neuter singular antecedent for the relative pronoun o[ in v. 10.
1Ti 3:2-6 — Diagramming with the repetition of dei/, to.n evpi,skopon, and ei=nai
allows for the clearest connection of the modifiers: the negatives early in the passage
and especially the closing purpose clause, which can be construed in no other way
than with dei/ and the final complement alone. This approach, however, loses the
virtue of the easy visual identification of the long and varied series of complements.
The loss is regrettable but it seems unavoidable to me. Two other matters: te,kna
e;conta evn u`potagh|/ could be taken as yet another item in the series, but most
of the versions seem to treat it, as also seems slightly better to me, as explicative of
tou/ ivdi,ou oi;kou kalw/j proi?sta,menon. Especially if one views “house”
as including an extended household with servants and employees, a separate
complement related to the children could be perfectly admissible (this is especially
attractive in light of the formulation in v. 12). Finally, the phrase meta. pa,shj
semno,thtoj could be adverbial to e;conta, describing how the man maintains his
relationship with his children, or it could be a further description of the children’s
behavior. Several of the versions, as well as the punctuation of NA27, reflect the
latter understanding, which I have shown in the diagram.
1Ti 4:6-7 — I have followed the punctuation of the majority of versions rather than that
of NA27 in beginning a new sentence at verse 7. Further, along with several versions,
I see no reason to begin a new sentence in the middle of verse 7. Verse 8 certainly
coheres better with 7b than it does with 7a. But 7a and 7b cohere very well with each
other, and it seems to me that there is little to gain by a punctuation that separates
them.
1Ti 4:10 — The o[ti clause could be construed differently, if eivj tou/to is taken to
point back to v. 8. In that case the o[ti clause would be explanatory to “toil and
strive.”
1Ti 5:1-2 — Recast hWS clauses in conformity to policy VII.9.
1Ti 5:9 evtw/n — The best way to construe this word seems to be as predicate genitive
rather than as genitive of comparison with e;latton. Cf. Mar 5:42, Luk 2:42, 3:23,
8:42. The genitive of comparison after e;latton would be the indeclinable
e`xh,konta. BDAG takes the neuter singular of e;latton as indicating an adverbial
connection, which is the reason for its being diagrammed as modifying the participle
rather than the noun.
1Ti 5:16 — Both the opening conditional clause and the closing purpose clause could
easily be taken to modify both independent clauses. BibleWorks’ diagrammer in its
current state, however, does not provide a way to show that connection in this context
without introducing visual confusion. Since each of these dependent clauses does
seem to cohere slightly better with one independent clause than with the other, I have
taken that approach to the diagram, at least for now.
1Ti 5:18 avlow/nta — The participle could easily be taken to modify the noun bou/n:
“...an ox that threshes.” Along with the majority of respected versions, it seemed
better to me to take it adverbially: “...an ox while it is threshing.”
1Ti 5:25 e;conta — e;cw can function essentially like a linking verb (see BDAG,
e;cw, 10).
1Ti 6:1 tou/ qeou/ — The phrase could alternatively be construed as modifying both
o;noma and didaskali,a. For a parallel to didaskali,a tou/ qeou/, see Tit.
2:10. Interestingly, some versions supply “his” with “teaching” (KJV, NKJ, CSB),
some supply “our” (NAU, NIV) and others omit any pronoun.
1Ti 6:2 — I have taken pistou,j as object and despo,taj as object complement (“the
ones having believers as masters”) in agreement with some versions and based on the
word order, which places pistou,j between the participle and its article. A simple
adjective modifying despo,taj would be less likely to appear within the participial
phrase separated from its head noun, though such a construction is by no means
impossible.
1Ti 6:5 to.n nou/n, th/j avlhqei,aj — I have diagrammed these as retained objects,
per A.T. Robertson (Word Pictures). An adverbial connection seems to me equally
possible.
1Ti 6:5 nomizo,ntwn — Lacking a coordinating conjunction, this participle seems to
me best taken as adverbial to the preceding pair, further explicating these men’s utter
failure to understand truth. However, a coordinate series of three participles is not
impossible, and the relative clause used by many versions (“who suppose”) seems to
reflect such a construction.
1Ti 6:7 o[ti — BDAG includes a consecutive sense: “so that” (o[ti, 5.c.), which is
reflected in the diagram.
1Ti 6:15 — Recast “king of kings and lord of lords” section (including correcting to
square rather than angled widgets); improved connection of rel clauses.
1Ti 6:19 — had prep phr on incorrect widget.

2Timothy

2Ti 1:1 — Incorporated adjectival prep phr widget, which did not exist when originally
diagrammed.
2Ti 1:5-6 — Relative clause curve connected to wrong slot in v. 6.
2Ti 1:8-12 — Diagram was shifted right, violating right margin; substantial tweaking of
appearance.
2Ti 1:13 — Incorporated adjectival prep phr widget, which did not exist when originally
diagrammed.
2Ti 1:16-18 — Appearance improvements; corrected grave accent.
2Ti 2:4 ouvdei.j strateuo,menoj — It is difficult to tell which word modifies the
other. To the English mind, ouvdei,j (“nobody”) is a noun and would seem to be the
head word. But in Greek ouvdei,j is an adjective, and, though usually substantival, it
is often attributive. I am taking it attributively here, negating the subject, which is the
substantival strateuo,menoj. See the entry for ouvdei,j in section IX. of the
diagramming policies document.
2Ti 2:8 kata. to. euvagge,lion — The prepositional phrase could alternatively be
construed as modifying evghgerme,non.
2Ti 2:8-10 — recast prep phr w/ new widget. Also recast hINA construction, requiring
significant reformatting.
2Ti 2:9 w|- — I think it is worth considering whether this may be a masculine pronoun
with VIhsou/n Cristo,n as its antecedent. I have diagrammed according to the
reading of all the major versions.
2Ti 2:14 ouvde,n — Cf. note on 2:4.
2Ti 2:15 ovrqotomou/nta — This seems to me to supply an adverbial idea explaining
why Timothy would be unashamed. There are several other ways the three
accusatives describing Timothy could be interrelated.
2Ti 3:7 — Supplied missing word (KAI).
2Ti 3:8 — Corrected diagramming of the ptcp KATEFQARMENOI; fixed grave accent
on KAI.
2Ti 3:8 to.n nou/n — I am taking this as a retained object; it could also be diagrammed
adverbially as an accusative of reference.
2Ti 4:3 — The o[te clause could alternatively be construed as adverbial.
2Ti 4:3 th.n avkoh,n — I am taking this as a retained object. BDAG suggests “having
their ears tickled” (see also Robertson’s Word Pictures). If the verb is taken in the
sense “itch,” then this accusative is probably better taken as an adverbial accusative
of reference.
2Ti 4:3-4 — Reference read “1Ti.”

Titus

Tit 1:2 evpV evlpi,di — The phrase can alternatively be construed as parallel to kata.
pi,stin. . . .
Tit 1:5 — The w`j clause makes good sense modifying both subjunctives, but the further
expansion of the thought in v. 6 indicates that the focus is now on ordaining elders. It
would still be possible to construe the w`j clause with both subjunctives if the two
subjunctives are viewed as expressing a single idea: “straighten out the remaining
matters by ordaining elders in each city.”
Tit 1:10 — I am venturing to depart from the versions here. The construction I am
presenting would come out roughly this way in translation: “For they (the ones
contradicting, v. 9) are many, and [they are] insubordinate, vain talkers and deceivers.
Especially those of the circumcision [are such], whom it is necessary to silence....”
Most of the versions seem to omit the textually questionable @kai,#; this is the best
sense I can make of the passage including it.
Tit 1:12 i;dioj auvtw/n — I am diagramming auvtw/n as intensifying i;dioj: “their
very own.” NRSV seems to reflect this understanding.
Tit 2:7 peri. pa,nta — I am following the punctuation of NA27 here.
Tit 2:8 lo,gon u`gih/ avkata,gnwston — I am following the consensus of English
versions here. For a different construction cf. NAS.
Tit 2:9 ivdi,oij despo,taij — The forward position of the phrase allows it to be
construed alternatively with both infinitives.
Tit 2:13 tou/ mega,lou qeou/ kai. swth/roj h`mw/n — The placement of
mega,lou and h`mw/n appears to me to allow the reading that both words modify
both nouns: Jesus Christ is our great God and our great Savior. In addition to the
question of what modifies what, there is also reflected here, obviously, a theological
conviction that not all will accept. Since in my view it is impossible to diagram in a
theological vacuum, my practice is to follow my convictions, and disagreeing users of
the work will make due allowance for any differences.
Tit 3:9 zhth,seij, etc. — Various groupings of the four nouns are possible. For example,
e;reij and ma,caj are conceptually similar and might be grouped as a pair modified
by nomika,j; this would leave open the possibility that the fronted mwra,j could
modify the the first two nouns as a pair. It is even possible for both adjectives to
modify the whole series of four nouns. Given the variety of possibilities and the lack
of clear indication of an arrangement more complex than a simple series of four, I
have construed the grammar as simply as possible.

Philemon

Phm 1:3 — The avpo, phrase could alternatively be construed as modifying the
elliptical verb.
Phm 1:4 pa,ntote —This word could modify the participle poiou,menoj, but the
pattern of Paul's greetings suggests that it belongs here. Cf. esp. 1Co 1:4 and 2Th 1:3.
Phm 1:5 h[n—In connection with the phrase pro.j to.n ku,rion VIhsou/n, the
pronoun may refer only to pi,stin; with the phrase eivj pa,ntaj tou.j a`gi,ouj, it
may refer only to avga,phn. Both “faith” and “love” make sense in reference to
“the Lord,” but “faith” in the sense of trust makes sense only with the Lord as its
object, suggesting that perhaps the other word (“love”) is also intended to be taken
only with the other object (“the saints”). This view yields a chiastic construction: the
inner terms are “faith toward the Lord” and the outer terms are “love to all the saints.”
Several modern versions reflect this view. On the other hand, pi,stij could be taken
in the sense of “faithfulness.” In that case is it not necessary to understand the
pronoun as referring to only one antecedent at a time: “love and faithfulness toward
the Lord and to all the saints” yields perfectly good sense.
Phm 1:6 sou — The pronoun could alternatively be construed as modifying koinwni,a,
but in the one parallel phrase I was able to locate (Phil 3:10, th.n koinwni,an tw/n
paqhma,twn auvtou), the genitive pronoun clearly modifies the nearer word.
Phm 1:6 eivj Cristo,n—The variety among the translations shows that this modifier is
difficult to construe with confidence. I have taken the view that Paul is saying that the
good things in us are ours either in Christ or for Christ’s sake; they are not in us
inherently or for ourselves.
Phm 1:7 pollh,n—It is possible that this adjective modifies only cara,n, but it seemed
most natural to me to construe it with both cara,n and para,klhsin.
Phm 1:9-10 parakalw/ — Though it looks odd to have two verbs in one verb slot, this
seemed to me the best way to account for the redundant repetition of the verb in v. 10.
An alternative would be to break off the clause of v. 9 and diagram parakalw/ in v.
10 as a new clause, coordinate with parakalw/ in v. 9.
Phm 1:9 presbu,thj and de,smioj—These seem like simple appositives to Pau/loj,
but the adverbial nature of nuni, seems to require an elliptical verb. Hence I have
supplied the linking verbs, treating these nouns as predicates.
Phm 1:12 auvto,n—I am following the punctuation of NA27 in treating this as an
appositive rather than an adjectival modifier (intensive pronoun) to the relative
pronoun.
Phm 1:12 evma, —Incorrect diagramming symbol.
Phm 1:17 evme, — I have diagrammed the pronoun as a direct object, understanding
the elliptical verb to be something like “you would receive.” An alternative is to
understand the elliptical element to be a participle o;nta, with which evme, would
then construe as predicate accusative. The phrase would mean, in colloquial English,
“as being (i.e., as though he were) me.”
Phm 1:18 ti . . . se — The two accusatives could perhaps be understood as forming a
double accusative construction. I have diagrammed ti adverbially: “If he wronged
you in any way.”
Phm 1:19 — I have drawn the diagram so that the understood objects of the verbs appear
and also so that there is a point in the diagram that is common between the two verbs
where the subordinate clause can be connected. There are two separate elliptical
objects because e;graya has as its object the statement in the letter while
avpoti,sw has as its object the amount of money in question.

Hebrews

Heb 1:8 sou (2nd) — I am personally inclined to construe this pronoun with r`a,bdoj
rather than basilei,aj, but I defer to the strong consensus of the versions.
Heb 2:1 perissote,rwj — I am personally inclined to construe this word with dei/
rather than prose,cein, but I defer to the strong consensus of the versions.
Heb 3:3 kaqV o[son — It is hard to find a way to diagram this as a prepositional
phrase. It could be construed as qualifying plei,onoj, expressing how much more
glory Jesus has than Moses (or possibly as qualifying the verb). But how can it then
connect to the following clause? The preposition could perhaps be diagrammed with
an elliptical object, with o[son then functioning adverbially within the following
clause and connected to that elliptical object as a relative. But o[son seems more
intimately connected with the first clause. BDAG (kata,, B.5.a.d.) seems to allow it
the function of a conjunction simply introducing a subordinate clause (though o[soj,
3. appears to claim otherwise) and several versions render it so. All things considered,
that construction seems simplest to me.
Heb 3:6 ou- — The relative pronoun could alternatively be construed with Cristo,j as
its antecedent.
Heb 3:6 — The relative clause could alternatively be construed with h`mei/j as subject
(especially since the verb is first person plural) and oi=koj as predicate. The
diagramming reflects the fact that oi=koj is the topic under discussion and h`mei/j
is the new information asserted about that topic.
Heb 4:3 — It is difficult to discern which verb the genitive absolute modifies. The
thought reflected in my diagramming is this: “‘They will certainly not enter my rest,’
 even though the works were completed from the foundation of the world (i.e., even
though God has been resting since the beginning, implying that the rest has been
available from the beginning).” The second best option seems to me to be to construe
it with eivserco,meqa: “We who believed are entering into rest (i.e., we have not
yet arrived), even though the works were completed from the foundation of the world
(i.e., even though God has been resting since the beginning).” In other words, “We
who believe are headed there, though God has already been there for a long time
now.” The logic is not abundantly clear to me in either case, but the way I have
diagrammed seems slightly less obscure, and it enjoys the advantage of connecting
the participle to the nearest head verb.
Heb 4:12 kai. dii?knou,menoj — It is difficult to decide whether to construe kai, as
simply coordinating or as ascensive (“even piercing”). Since all the other occurrences
of kai, in the verse are clearly coordinating, I have diagrammed this one in the same
way. The grammatical coordination, though, does not rule out a logical subordination
of this participle to the preceding adjective, tomw,teroj. For example, a speaker
could characterize someone as “heavy and slow” (grammatically coordinate) and
expect the hearer to infer a logical cause-effect connection: “heavy and [therefore]
slow.”
Heb 5:4 — The ouvc...avlla, coordination is difficult, since the members are not
grammatically parallel. I have diagrammed in what seems to me to be the simplest
defensible way. An alternative construction for the final clause would modify the
main verb: “Just as Aaron received/took the honor.”
Heb 6:8 evggu,j — BDAG categorizes the word as either an adverb or a preposition
with genitive object. When used with the genitive, I diagram it as a preposition. This
verse, however, presents the difficulty that the genitive precedes, which obviously is
not the ordinary construction with prepositions (except for a few specific
prepositions, which are therefore sometimes called postpositions). An alternative
construction, then, would diagram evggu,j as an adverb and kata,raj as an
adverbial modifier to it. By the way, this is the only verse in the NT where this word
follows its genitive. It is modified by the dative twice in Acts (9:38 and 27:8), unless
in those passages it is a preposition with a dative object. If that were the case, then
27:8 would be another instance of a preposed object, but taking the word as an adverb
in those passages seems much better to me. A case can perhaps be made for taking the
word always as an adverb, construing an associated genitive or dative as its modifier.
Heb 6:13 ovmo,sai — On the infinitive used as direct object with e;cw, see BDAG,
e;cw, 5. In this construction, e;cw means essentially “to be able.”
Heb 6:13 ouvdeno,j, mei,zonoj — The ordering could be reversed, with mei,zonoj
modifying ouvdeno,j.
Heb 6:14 eiv mh,n — BDAG seems to treat the phrase as an adverb (eiv, 7). On that
basis, the phrase could perhaps be diagrammed as an adverbial modifier to the
compound independent verbs of the quotation.
Heb 7:8 — I am reading the o[ti clause as retained object after the passive verb.
Heb 7:11 e[teron avni,stasqai i`ere,a — I am strongly inclined to view i`ere,a as
predicate noun rather than accusative of general reference: “for another to arise as
priest” rather than “for another priest to arise.” However, I have diagrammed in
deference to the strong consensus of the versions.
Heb 7:21-22 — I have ignored NA27’s sentence punctuation at the end of v. 21 for the
sake of correlating kaqV o[son (v. 20) and kata. tosou/to (v. 22) within the same
sentence.
Heb 9:6 (ei;seisi) — As best I can tell, this would be the present active indicative third
person singular of ei;seimi, the elliptical verb corresponding to the plural
eivsi,asin in the previous clause. The lemma is not the linking verb eivmi,, but
ei=mi, “I go.” Liddell and Scott (Intermediate Edition) give the third singular
indicative of ei=mi as ei=si, and I assume that the accent on the prefixed form
recedes back to the prefix as it does on the lemma.
Heb 9:12 ouvde, — I have split this word into its two parts, ouv and de,, in order to
show the coordination most clearly. The New American Standard version reflects the
construction I am showing: “and not through the blood of goats and calves, but
through His own blood, He entered the holy place....”
Heb 9:19 kata. to.n no,mon — I have construed this phrase with evntolh/j based on
BDAG, kata,, B.7.c, which states that kata, may be used as a periphrasis for the
genitive case. The ESV and NIV are versions that reflect this construction. It would
also be possible to construe the phrase with the participle (lalhqei,shj), since one of
the law’s provisions is that it must be read to the people. Numerous versions reflect
this construction. BDAG does not appear to reference this verse, however, and this
fact perhaps indicates that they view the phrase as having the more common adverbial
use here. Had they viewed it as adnominal they probably would have included a
reference to this passage in the section noted above.
Heb 9:25 ouvdV — See note on Heb 9:12. I have done the same sort of thing here. The
construction I am suggesting reads, “...and [it is] not [the case] that he should offer
himself often...”
Heb 10:16 le,gei ku,rioj — One might think that the author of Hebrews is lifting these
words out of the OT quotation and treating them as the clause governing meta. to.
eivrhke,nai. This avoids the need to add a governing clause before “Their sins and
their lawless deeds I will not remember any longer at all.” The versions, however,
strongly agree in supplying a governing clause at this point, to the effect of “Then he
adds.” While the former option is grammatically attractive to me, what the versions
do seems to me to have two strong supports. First, it allows the focus to fall
specifically on the clause about the full and final forgiveness to which the whole
passage is leading. Second, Hebrews omits a fair-sized chunk of the OT quotation
between verses 17 and 18. The awkwardness that seems to be involved in supplying
the elliptical clause is greatly mitigated by the realization that a reader who knows the
OT passage well would sense the lurch from v. 17 into v. 18 and realize that v. 18
recounts what was said “after [vv. 16-17] was said.”
Heb 10:19 e;contej — The participle could alternatively be construed as modifying
only the first of the hortatory subjunctives, prosercw,meqa. In general, I construe
modifiers with as many coordinate head words as makes reasonable sense, and I have
followed that guideline here. In this case, however, there is a consideration that
appears to me almost strong enough to override that general policy: the content of the
participle clause (“having confidence to enter and a great priest”) is especially
relevant to that first subjunctive (“let us approach”). A secondary consideration that
may be relevant is the absence of a connective kai, between the first two
 subjunctives: perhaps the author intends a strong enough break to prevent the opening
participial clause from modifying more than the first subjunctive. So it is with some
hesitation that I follow the guideline rather than deviate from it here. In support of my
diagramming are the considerations that the participial clause does make sense with
all three subjunctives, and the expression “over the house of God” (understood as
referring to the people of God—see 3:6) does cohere especially well with the third
subjunctive and its development.
Heb 10:22 ta.j kardi,aj, to. sw/ma — It is not apparent in the versions that these
nouns are objects of the respective participles. BDAG, however, reads the participles
as middle voice with these nouns as their objects. The most direct translation of this
construction would be “having sprinkled our hearts” and “having washed our body.”
The versions are perhaps choosing wording that avoids any implication that the
believer somehow does his own priestly work of cleansing.
Heb 10:25 kai, — The conjunction appears to introduce an elliptical clause coordinate to
something previous. I have supplied a repetition of the participle parakalou/ntej;
the most attractive alternative to me would be to supply a clause coordinate with the
three subjunctives, such as poiw/men tau/ta (“let us do these things”). The
question is what the writer has in mind that we should be doing all the more as we see
Christ’s return drawing near: encourage one another all the more, continue gathering
and encouraging one another all the more, consider one another all the more, or draw
near, hold fast, and consider one another all the more. If the coordination is to be
construed more broadly than to the immediately preceding participle, it seems best to
me to broaden out to include the whole set of exhortations.
Heb 10:38 evk pi,stewj — The phrase may alternatively modify o` di,kaioj: “The
one who is righteous by faith.”
Heb 11:4 diV h-j — The possibilities for the pronoun’s antecedent are qusi,an or
pi,stei. Robertson (Word Pictures), with some support among the versions, construes
the pronoun with qusi,an. NIV and NET construe it with pi,stei (as in v. 7, see
below). Either choice seems to yield reasonable sense. Maintaining consistency with
v. 7 seems to me the best option, and the construction in v. 7 that seems to make the
best sense and has the best support connects the pronoun with pi,stei.
Heb 11:7 diV h-j — The possibilities for the pronoun’s antecedent are swthri,an,
kibwto,n, or pi,stei. Robertson (Word Pictures) and several versions that make the
antecedent explicit concur in construing the pronoun with pi,stei.
Heb 11:11 — There is debate about whether Sarah is to be taken as the subject of the
clause (as the straightforward reading of the sentence suggests) or whether somehow
Abraham must be the subject, since katabolh.n spe,rmatoj seems to refer to the
male function more naturally than to the female. BDAG leaves open both
possibilities, and the versions are divided. I have diagrammed according to the least
complicated grammatical construction.
Heb 11:12 nenekrwme,nou — One might be inclined to treat this as an adverbial
participle with a concessive use (“From one man were begotten, even though he was
as good as dead”). However, the kai, presents a challenge to that view, and the
versions are probably correct in reading the construction as coordinate.
Heb 11:12 — On the diagramming of the subjects, see BDAG, w`j, 2.c.a.a.
Heb 12:3 tai/j yucai/j — The dative could alternatively be construed with ka,mhte.
Heb 12:15,16 — The mh, clauses could alternatively be construed as a coordinate series.
I think I detect a logical sequence, though: lacking God’s grace leads to the springing
up of a bitter, defiling root, which in turn leads to such outward manifestations of
ungodliness as those displayed by Esau. The purpose of avoiding each is to avoid its
outgrowth.
Heb 12:22 panhgu,rei — The versions are somewhat divided over whether this noun is
coordinate with evkklhsi,a| or whether it qualifies muria,sin avgge,lwn. I have
taken the latter view based on the absence of a conjunction introducing panhgu,rei.
Each of the other coordinations in this series includes the conjunction. A third
construction might be possible, in which the pair as a unit qualifies the “myriads of
angels.” It seems to me easier to interpret “firstborn” as referring to angels than to
redeemed humanity (unless this is a reference to Israel as distinct from Gentiles), but
“enrolled in heaven” seems a bit more naturally to refer to humanity. I am somewhat
attracted to this third option because it allows just one reference to the redeemed in
this long series (“the spirits of righteous men perfected”) rather than two non-
contiguous references. But I shrink from it based on both its weaknesses and
especially its lack of support from the versions.
Heb 12:24 krei/tton — The versions are divided on whether this word is substantival
(direct object) or adverbial. I have construed it as substantival, thinking that the best
interpretation points to the content of what Abel’s and Jesus’ blood speaks rather than
the efficacy with which it speaks. I take Abel’s blood as referring to Abel’s own blood
shed by Cain (as opposed to the blood of the offering which he brought), which the
Genesis record says cried out to God from the ground, obviously calling for
vengeance (the blood of Abel’s offering is not said to have spoken anything). Jesus’
blood, on the other hand, cries, “Forgive!” This interpretation can be maintained even
if krei/tton is taken adverbially, but “speaking something better than Abel’s” points
to what each man’s blood says more clearly than “speaking better than Abel’s” does.

James

Jam 2:8 — The quotation “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” could alternatively
be construed as appositional to no,mon. I am taking grafh,n in the sense of an
individual Scripture passage (see BDAG, grafh,, 2.a.; cf. 2.b.b.).
Jam 2:18 — The sentence has its challenges. The opening words seem to introduce the
words of James’s opponent, who wants to claim the validity of a faith that lacks
works. After the opponent’s brief statement comes what seems to be James’s reply,
“Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my
works.” But on this view James’s opponent seems to have his ideas backward: he
says, “You have faith, and I have works,” which seems to undercut his whole point,
which is that works are unnecessary. Logic would seem to demand that the opponent
argue, “You have works, and I have faith.” Most versions reflect this flow of thought
and leave the reader to puzzle out a workable meaning for the opponent’s statement
(see the commentary literature for various ideas). The view I have taken reads the
opening avlla, as confirmatory rather than adversative, and it construes the bulk of
the verse as a single quotation representing James’s argument: “You have faith [you
 say], and I have works. Show me your faith apart from works, and I will show you
my faith by works.” In other words, my works are better than your faith, because they
demonstrate that I have both faith and works, while your lack of works implies that
you may well have neither. This understanding is reflected in NASB and possibly in
ASV and KJV, since they do not capitalize “show.” I admit that this view requires a
less natural understanding of the thought flow, but in my opinion the gain in logical
clarity more than compensates.
Jam 2:18 mou — This pronoun could alternatively be construed as modifying tw/n
e;rgwn. I have construed it with th.n pi,stin, sensing an appropriate emphasis on
my faith.
Jam 2:21 VAbraa.m o` path.r h`mw/n — I have construed this phrase as a hanging
nominative rather than as a simple subject phrase because of the placement of ouvk,
which in this construction (introducing a question expecting a positive answer) must
stand at the head of its clause. This places the VAbraa,m phrase outside the clause
as a pendent element.
Jam 2:25 — On the hanging construction, cf. note on 2:21. The situation is the same here.
Jam 4:5 to. pneu/ma — The versions are divided over whether the noun is the subject
or object of the verb. Those translating it as subject include ASV, KJV, NKJ, NIV,
NET, and NLT, while ESV, NAS, NAU, RSV and NRS construe it as the object.
Jam 4:6 — The punctuation of NA27 appears to include the first clause of v. 6 (“but he
gives greater grace”) as part of the Scripture “quotation” beginning in v. 5. (I put
“quotation” in quotes because no such quotation with these exact words appears in
the OT.) However, none of the major versions reads the verse this way. My
diagramming construes the clause as loosely coordinate with the main clause of verse
5, though I must admit that I am attracted to NA27’s approach. At any rate, this is
certainly one of the NT’s more difficult sentences to understand.
Jam 4:12 o` duna,menoj))) — The participle phrase could alternatively be construed
as a modifier for the subject phrase. The appositive construction I have diagrammed
is in keeping with most of the major versions.
Jam 4:13-15 — A highly unusual sentence. The diagramming does not follow the
punctuation of NA27 or of any version that I am aware of. The overall structure is
difficult. :Age seems best taken as an interjection rather than the main verb (see
BDAG—though it could perhaps be construed as the main verb, with oi` le,gontej
as its subject despite the disagreement in number). Oi` le,gontej seems best taken
as vocative. (Cf. 5:1 for the same construction much abbreviated.) But where, then, is
the main clause? Poi,a h` zwh. u`mw/n (which I take as interrogative) seems to
fill the bill. I have kept verse 15 within this sentence because it coheres so perfectly
with verse 13, both grammatically and conceptually (I understand the words to mean
“instead of your saying...”), and also because it is difficult to supply a natural ellipsis
allowing it to stand alone. I admit that it is highly irregular for an opening vocative to
be interrupted by the main clause and then resumed after a further subordinate clause,
but the diagram as I have drawn it presents the most coherent structure I can find.
Jam 5:16 evnergoume,nh — The participle could also be adverbial; the diagram
reflects the interpretation of BDAG and several versions.
1 Peter

1Pe 1:6 w|- — The antecedent is a very difficult question. The pronoun could be
masculine and refer back to kairw|/ (v. 5, the nearest candidate), VIhsou/ Cristou/
(v. 3), or o` qeo.j kai. path,r (v. 3). Probably it does not refer to swthri,an (v. 5),
which is feminine (the same logic would also prevent its referring to other feminine
nouns in the preceding verses). If the pronoun is neuter, though, it could refer to the
whole idea that salvation is ready to be revealed. Other verbal ideas that a neuter
pronoun could reference are the fact that we are guarded by God’s power (v. 5), that
an inheritance is stored up for us in heaven (v. 4), or that we have been begotten anew
(v. 3). It is also possible that a neuter pronoun could refer to this whole package of
ideas. My slight preference (and hence the diagramming) is to take the pronoun as
neuter, referring to the fact that our salvation is ready to be revealed. The more
remote antecedents seem less likely, and the very nearest (“the last time”) seems
somewhat difficult to construe logically. The nearest antecedent that makes good
sense (and, on careful thought, may perhaps be seen to enjoy the most intimate
contextual connections) is the revelation of salvation.
1Pe 1:7 polutimo,teron — The lack of the article inclines me to diagram this as a
predicate adjective of an adverbial participle of eivmi,.
1Pe 1:11 ti,na — The versions are divided over whether to take this word as
substantival, referring to a person, or along with poi/on as a coordinate pair of
attributives to kairo,n.
1Pe 1:11 eivj ti,na))) — Construing the prepositional phrase with evdh,lou rather
than evraunw/ntej is consistent with BDAG, which suggests reading the
complement of evraunw/ntej as the indirect question and the eivj phrase as
belonging to evdh,lou.
1Pe 1:14 pro,teron — The diagram reflects BDAG, which says that this form, which
would ordinarily be understood as the neuter accusative used adverbially, may be
written with an article and function as an adjective (see pro,teroj, 1.b.b.).
1Pe 1:23 — It is questionable whether the prepositional phrases evk spora/j and dia.
lo,gou are to be construed in an appositional relationship. This would certainly yield
the simplest meaning, but if this is what Peter intended, it would have been clearer if
he had used the same preposition in both phrases. It is attractive to read the two
phrases as referring to different entities, the seed perhaps referring to the Holy Spirit.
That sense would yield a nice Trinitarian picture: God the father begetting us anew
(cf. 1:3) by the Holy Spirit through the operation of the Word of God, a common
scriptural designation for Christ. On the other hand, though, we have clear statements
equating “seed” (spo,roj) with God’s Word (Mat 13:19, Mar 4:14, Luk 8:11). On
that basis, the phrases are diagrammed in an appositional relationship.
1Pe 1:23 lo,gou zw/ntoj qeou/ kai. me,nontoj — The participles can be read as
modifying either of the nouns. The quotation adduced in the next sentence appears to
justify the very strong preference of the versions for construing them with lo,gou.
A.T. Robertson (Word Pictures) allows for either reading, and I confess to feeling
more than a little attraction to the alternative, based on the most natural reading of the
word order and the frequency with which the expression “living God” occurs in
 Scripture (approx. 28 times). Even so, I have diagrammed in deference to the
versions.
1Pe 2:5 eivj i`era,teuma — The diagram follows most of the versions in treating this
as an additional predicate along with oi=koj, this one modeled on the Semitic pattern
using the preposition. Cf. vv. 7-8 for a similar construction.
1Pe 2:10 oi[, oi` — The second one is pretty clearly the article, but the first could be
either the article or a relative pronoun (the accent either belonging properly to the
relative pronoun or, if the word is an article, being thrown back onto it from the
subsequent enclitic pote). Taking it as an article would bring the two parts of the
verse into closest parallelism, with the participle of eivmi, to be supplied. However,
I see no compelling reason not to conform to the parsing in the BibleWorks
morphology and take it as a relative pronoun.
1Pe 2:10 ouv, ouvk — I have construed the negatives in keeping with their use in the
Hosea passage on which Peter is drawing.
1Pe 2:13-14 $u`pota,gentej% — Supplying these participles is my best attempt to
provide separate verb forms for the individual w`j phrases to modify.
1Pe 2:15 ou[twj — I am not entirely satisfied diagramming this word as adverbial to
evstin, but neither do I see an attractive alternative. The best alternative would seem
to be to treat the adverb as the subject of evstin and diagram the infinitive phrase as
its appositive.
1Pe 2:16 w`j (2nd) — This word would seem to be construed naturally as introducing the
predicate accusative evpika,lumma, but the way I have diagrammed seems to
reflect a clearer parallelism of expression.
1Pe 3:7 — The final infinitive phrase could alternatively be construed as modifying
avpone,montej.
1Pe 3:20 ovli,goi( tou/tV e;stin ovktw. yucai, — Some might think that it would
be better to construe yucai, as subject, ovli,goi as attributive to it, and tou/tV
e;stin ovktw, as appositive to ovli,goi. Note, however, that ovli,goi is explicitly
masculine (it has a separate feminine form) and therefore must be construed as
substantival rather than attributive to the feminine yucai,.
1Pe 4:8 evktenh/ — Lacking the article, the adjective is construed most naturally as
predicate. The NET Bible captures the thought precisely: “Keep your love for one
another fervent.”
1Pe 4:11 w|- — The antecedent could alternatively be o` qeo,j.
1Pe 5:5 new,teroi, pa,ntej — The diagramming is not precisely parallel, since
new,teroi is construed as vocative and pa,ntej as subject. I have followed the
parsing in BNT, which tags the former as vocative case and the latter as nominative.
If I were going to make the clauses parallel, I would incline toward taking both
adjectives as subjects. The corresponding sentence addressed to elders (vv. 1-4) does
not set off “elders” in the vocative, but simply gives the word its appropriate
grammatical function with respect to the verb of that sentence.

2 Peter
2Pe 1:17 labw,n — The form of the participle (masculine nominative singular) does not
allow it to be construed as subordinate to any neighboring verb (“This is my beloved
son” cannot be construed as the main clause). Hence I see no choice but to treat the
participle as the main verb of its clause.
2Pe 1:19 bebaio,teron — A significant difference in interpretation hinges upon the
grammatical function of this adjective. The KJV appears to take it as a simple
attributive to “prophetic word,” which leads to the attractive interpretation that the
prophetic word (i.e., the Scripture) is more reliable than the apostles’ personal
experience. However, the predicate position of the adjective militates against this
view, and the modern versions (even the NKJV) do not assent to it. The ESV’s
rendering, though, does allow the same inference (i.e., that the Scriptures are more
reliable than personal experience) by taking the adjective substantivally as the direct
object, to which “the prophetic word” is then construed as an appositive. The more
common approach is to retain the comparative sense of the adjective and construe it
as predicate: “we have the prophetic word [to be, (i.e., made)] more certain.” This
construction yields quite a different sense: it says that the apostles’ personal
experience confirmed the Scriptures. This is not to say that personal experience is
more reliable than the Scripture; it says simply that personal experience (whether
one’s own experience or that of a trustworthy witness) does contribute something to
one’s conviction about the reliability of Scripture. This view does no disrespect to the
centrality of Scripture as the authoritative basis for human knowledge. Other passages
also highlight the value of eyewitness testimony and actual experience (e.g. Luk 1:2,
1Jo 1:1). Taking yet another approach, the NET Bible construes bebaio,teron as a
predicate adjective, with the comparative form expressing elative force: “We have the
prophetic word [as being] highly reliable” (my wording, to show grammatical details
most clearly). This understanding eliminates any question of comparison between
Scripture and personal experience, as is explained in the lengthy and helpful note. The
NET translators argue against the more common construction, though, on grounds
that appear weak to me. They suggest that “made more certain” is a meaning
unparalleled for this construction and would require a form of poie,w. They do have
a point: Peter’s words do not seem to be the most natural way to say “made more
certain.” But I do not think the construction they are looking for is one with poie,w.
In fact, I cannot find in the NT a construction with e;cw and poie,w that yields the
meaning “have [something] made [something].” This fact partly negates their
argument from the non-existence of a precise parallel: the construction they suggest
as more appropriate also appears to be non-existent! I think the construction they are
looking for is one with a perfect participle, such as in Luk 14:18f.: e;ce me parh|
thme,non This passage, by the way, comes close to being the very construction
whose existence they deny. But the perfect participle of the cognate verb (bebaio,w)
does not occur in Biblical Greek, perhaps because of the difficulty of reduplicating it,
and I am not aware of any especially close synonyms. So Peter’s comparative
adjective written as predicate may well be the nearest readily available expression for
the thought “made more certain,” which appears to me to fit the context beautifully.
Any objection that this interpretation elevates human experience above God’s Word
may easily be met with the simple observation that it is the Word, not the experience,
that Peter goes on to say deserves the believer’s careful attention. The function of
 experience is simply confirmatory. At any rate, diagramming bebaio,teron as
predicate adjective reflects the grammar of both the NET rendering and the rendering
of most of the other modern versions. The simple attributive of the KJV is not really
defensible grammatically, and the ESV’s rendering reads somewhat unnaturally to
me.
2Pe 2:1 — I am preferring the punctuation of the versions over that of NA27.
2Pe 2:2 ou[j — The versions are divided over whether the antecedent is polloi, or
yeudodida,skaloi. Some make one or the other antecedent explicit, and some
leave the connection ambiguous. I understand the verse to mean that the licentious
conduct of the many professing Christians who follow these false teachers will cause
Christianity to be slandered by those completely outside the movement.
2Pe 2:5 o;gdoon — On the predicate adjective use, see BDAG, o;gdooj.
2Pe 2:6 po,leij — The noun could alternatively be construed as the object of
kate,krinen.
2Pe 2:11 o;ntej — The versions are divided over whether to construe this word as
adjectival to a;ggeloi (as I have done) or as adverbial to fe,rousin.
2Pe 3:5 sunestw/sa — The feminine singular form suggests construing the participle
only with gh/ rather than as a periphrastic with the plural h=san with both
ouvranoi, and gh/ as subjects.
2Pe 3:6 w-n — Finding a plural antecedent is challenging. The diagramming reflects
what appears to be the consensus: the two antecedents are u[datoj and lo,gw|. I am
attracted to the idea that the plural reflects the two primeval bodies of water: above
the earth and under the earth, both of which were involved in the flood. However,
understanding w-n to refer only to water seems to make u[dati redundant.
Furthermore, the reference to “the same word” in the subsequent clause seems to
imply a sustained focus on the word of God, implying that the word has been
involved in both the preceding stages of the world’s existence: creation and the flood.
2Pe 3:7 — The diagram coordinates this clause with the immediately preceding material,
making it part of the truth that the ungodly ignore. I am also attracted to the idea of
coordinating it with the opening clause: what the ungodly willfully ignore are the
earth’s major events in the past (it is harder to say that someone willfully ignores
something that has not yet happened). But the same Scripture that records creation
and the flood both implies (Gen 8:22) and explicitly states (Psa 102:25ff.) the
impermanence of the earth as we know it, indicating also that fire will be the means
of its eventual destruction (Deu 32:22; Zep 1:18, 3:8). My diagramming is based on
the fact that this line of thought is highly defensible if not superior (the thought is not
so clearly parallel to the opening clause), supported by the consideration that the
mechanics of the diagram are simpler this way.
2Pe 3:7 tw/n avnqrw,pwn — This genitive could perhaps qualify both kri,sewj and
avpwlei,aj, but the other six instances of “day of judgment” in the NT lack a
qualifying genitive. One OT instance does have a qualifying genitive, but it is
subjective (“the day of the Lord’s judgment”), whereas this passage would require an
objective genitive. An unqualified kri,sewj leaves open dimensions of judgment
beyond that of ungodly humanity.
1John

1Jo 1:4 peplhrwme,nh — The participle could alternatively be construed as a

predicate adjective.
1Jo 2:1 di,kaioj — Since it lacks the article, I am somewhat inclined to diagram the
adjective as attributive to rather than appositional to “Jesus Christ.” However, I defer
to the very strong consensus of the versions, though perhaps they are simply opting
for smoother English wording, since “righteous Jesus Christ” seems rather strained.
1Jo 2:3 eva,n — Ordinarily conditional clauses are adverbial, but this one seems clearly
to function as a noun clause in apposition to tou,tw|. Here eva,n functions almost
equivalent to o[ti (“that”), with the added element of doubtfulness (some readers may
not be keeping God’s commands). BDAG does not acknowledge such a usage of
eva,n, but this is not very much different from a usage ascribed to eiv (BDAG, eiv,
2.).
1Jo 2:21 o[ti (3rd) — It is difficult to know whether this word introduces an additional
reason parallel to the preceding, or whether it introduces a noun clause parallel to
auvth,n as a second object of oi;date. The versions are divided.
1Jo 2:24 u`mei/j (1st)— I have construed this word as a pendent nominative because it
seems to me that its emphasis clearly goes with mene,tw (of which it cannot be the
subject, because mene,tw is third person singular) rather than the relative clause
where it could serve as the subject. Both John’s readers and the antichrists have
heard; there is no distinction on that point. What John wants to emphasize in the case
of his readers is that what they heard should abide in them.
1Jo 2:25 th.n zwh,n — The most natural way to understand most of the versions is to
take au[th at the beginning of the verse as referring proleptically to th.n zwh.n
th.n aivw,nion. It certainly seems, though, that John would have written “eternal
life” in the nominative case if that is what he had in mind, although the intervening
relative clause that refers to the promise in the accusative may provide ample
justification for the switch in case. I am thinking, though, that the switch in case has
the effect of disconnecting au[th from zwh,n, so that the reader refers au[th back
to the preceding material, which “promises” that those who allow the truth to abide in
them will abide in the Father and the Son. As I understand the thought, John is now
going on to say, “This [abiding in the father and the son] is what He has promised us:
eternal life.” On this understanding the appositional connection really is to the
relative pronoun in the accusative rather than to either of the nominatives. This
interpretation smoothes over what otherwise seems to be a somewhat unnatural lurch
to a new subject, although I will admit that it is no more violent a shift than we find
elsewhere in this epistle.
1Jo 3:20 — The o[ti clauses are difficult. They do not seem to provide a logically clear
appositive to tou,tw| (v. 19). A further complication is that the first o[ti in v. 20
does not appear to have a verb; immediately after o[ti comes an embedded
conditional clause, then where the verb introduced by o[ti is expected, one finds
instead another o[ti with its own verb. The verb of the second o[ti, however,
construes very naturally with the first o[ti and its subsequent conditional clause, so
the best sense I can make of the construction is to view the second o[ti as resumptive,
simply restating the first one. This is what several versions seem to do, and I have
 diagrammed accordingly. Another possibility that is fairly attractive to me is to supply
an elliptical “we know” with the second o[ti clause. The verse would then read,
“because if our heart should condemn [us], [we know] that God is greater than our
heart and knows all things.” I am not aware, though, of any versions that take this
approach. Some versions appear to take the first o[ti as the neuter of o[stij,
translating “whenever” or “in whatever,” as the continuation of v. 19 (see, e.g.,
NASB). This seems very unlikely to me. 1John uses o[ti more frequently than any
other NT book (3.5% of his words are o[ti; this is more than twice the concentration
in the book that uses it next most frequently, which is John’s gospel). Added to this is
the fact that John’s gospel and first epistle are near the bottom of the list in frequency
of usage of o[stij. The gospel does have 4 occurrences of the neuter singular of
o[stij, but all of them are objects of verbs of speech; there is no parallel to the
adverbial usage here. This sentence in 1John has two other occurrences of o[ti, and it
is very hard for me to think that John would have expected his readers to discern that
the middle one is not the common conjunction but is rather the relative pronoun used
in a way unexampled elsewhere in his writings.
1Jo 3:20 h`mw/n (1st) — It would be possible to construe the word as the object of the
verb, which takes the genitive. I follow BDAG here in taking it with kardi,a.
1Jo 4:12 teteleiwme,nh — The participle could alternatively be construed as predicate
adjective.

2John

2Jo 2 e;stai — I am at a loss for a really good way to diagram the word. Kai, seems
clearly to parallel it with the preceding participle, so I have diagrammed it as though
it were another attributive participle coordinate with me,nousan. I cannot find any
finite verb with which it would naturally coordinate, nor I cannot see how I might
diagram an ordinary clause baseline (perhaps supplying an elliptical relative pronoun
h[ as the subject) in coordinate relationship to the attributive participle me,nousan.
So I am left to diagram according to the sense rather than according to strict grammar.
2Jo 6 auvth|/ — Along with NIV, I am taking the pronoun as referring back to
avga,ph. If it is instead to be understood as referring to evntolh,, then probably
the i[na clause would be better construed as adverbial to hvkou,sate, expressing
purpose. I find it difficult, though, to follow the logic of the statement under that
construction. On the other hand, the circularity of logic in the NIV rendering may be
objectionable. It does not appear to me to be out of keeping with John’s thought,
however. It strikes me not as an objectionable redundancy but rather as a simple
reinforcement of basic truth: love means keeping God’s commands; God commands
that we love. So love (properly defined, of course) is the cardinal Christian virtue.
2Jo 7 — The opening o[ti might well be construed as introducing a subordinate clause
rather than opening a new sentence. If so, it would probably be diagrammed best as
modifying peripath/te in v. 5. I have simply followed the punctuation of NA27.
2Jo 12 gra,fein — On this construction of the infinitive with e;cw, see BDAG, e;cw,
7.a.e.
2Jo 12 peplhrwme,nh — The participle could alternatively be construed as a predicate
adjective (I have it as periphrastic).

3John

3Jo 3 kaqw,j — I have diagrammed this conjunction as introducing an object clause,

following BDAG (kaqw,j, 5). It seems to me that it would also make sense as
introducing a comparative clause modifying marturou/ntwn. The sense is not
redundant if John is making a distinction between the brothers’ testimony and his own
knowledge. On this interpretation the clause signals to Gaius that this testimony
comes to John as no surprise; it simply confirms what John already knows about
Gaius and causes John to rejoice that others have also taken note. The versions are
divided. The content of verse 4 seems to me to weigh slightly in favor of BDAG.
3Jo 13 gra,yai — On this construction of the infinitive with e;cw, see BDAG, e;cw,
7.a.e.

Jude

Jud 4 — Numerous other constructions involving the nominative-case words are possible.
Jud 4 to.n mo,non despo,thn kai. ku,rion h`mw/n — I am personally inclined
to construe mo,non only with despo,thn and h`mw/n only with ku,rion. The
sense would be “the only Master and our Lord,” with “Master” standing unqualified
—Christ is despot over all—and “Lord” qualified by h`mw/n—we have a special
relationship with Him as His people. However, I defer to the very strong consensus of
versions, whose rendering I do recognize as entirely possible.
Jud 18 o[ti e;legon — The clause could alternatively be construed as adverbial to
mnh,sqhte, expressing an explanation.
Jud 22 diakrinome,nouj — The participle could alternatively be diagrammed as
adjectival to ou[j, which is its referent either way.

Revelation

Rev 1:1 evsh,manen — I have diagrammed the word with an elliptical subject (rather
than coordinating it with e;dwken, with o` qeo,j as shared subject) in order to
leave open the possibility that VIhsou/j Cristo,j is to be understood as the subject.
Rev 1:1 dou,lw| — The noun could alternatively be construed as the indirect object of
evsh,manen.
Rev 1:4 o` h=n — Though h=n is indicative, I have diagrammed the phrase as a
substantival participle because it is clear that John intends a parallel to the other two
substantival participles, o` w;n and o` evrco,menoj. He uses the indicative
simply in order to put the verb into past time in contrast to o` w;n, an idea that
Greek cannot convey with a participle from eivmi,. A past time idea could be
conveyed with gi,nomai (geno,menoj), but the most natural interpretation of that
 word would be that God had come into existence in the past, implying a beginning
point to that existence. I do not know a more suitable diagramming symbol to use for
o` h=n than the substantival participle. A possible alternative would be the stilt for a
substantive clause. The article o` could be diagrammed either as the subject of h=n
or in the noun slot on which the stilt rests, in which case h=n would be diagrammed
with an elliptical subject.
Rev 1:4 (evstin) — Remember that neuter plural subjects generally take a singular verb.
Rev 1:5 o` ma,rtuj( o` pisto,j — In agreement with the versions, I depart from
NA27’s punctuation by diagramming o` pisto,j as attributive to o` ma,rtuj rather
than as a substantive in apposition.
Rev 1:6 evpoi,hsen — Somewhat similarly to h=n in v. 4, the indicative seems best
construed as though it were a participle.
Rev 1:6 tw|/ qew|/ kai. patri. auvtou/ — The phrase could alternatively be
construed as modifying evpoi,hsen.
Rev 1:8 o` h=n — Though h=n is indicative, I have diagrammed the phrase as a
substantival participle because it is clear that John intends a parallel to the other two
substantival participles, o` w;n and o` evrco,menoj. He uses the indicative
simply in order to put the verb into past time in contrast to o` w;n, an idea that
Greek cannot convey with a participle from eivmi,. A past time idea could be
conveyed with gi,nomai (geno,menoj), but the most natural interpretation of that
word would be that God had come into existence in the past, implying a beginning
point to that existence. I do not know a more suitable diagramming symbol to use for
o` h=n than the substantival participle. A possible alternative would be the stilt for a
substantive clause. The article o` could be diagrammed either as the subject of h=n
or in the noun slot on which the stilt rests, in which case h=n would be diagrammed
with an elliptical subject.
Rev 1:10 w`j — See the entry for w`j in section IX. of the diagramming policies.
Rev 1:13 ui`o,n — Ordinarily the dative is expected after o[moioj, but the grammar of
Revelation is well known to be often solecistic. In such cases one does best simply to
conform the construction to standard grammar rather than improvising something
awkward. On this particular passage, see BDAG, o[moioj, c.
Rev 1:15 w`j pepurwme,nhj — My diagramming (supplying elliptical ou;shj)
leaves open the question of the participle’s referent. See Robertson (Word Pictures)
for discussion of this very difficult problem. Robertson’s suggestion to supply th/j
calkoliba,nou, which would form a genitive absolute, seems unlikely to me, since
in Revelation circumstantial participles are rare and the genitive absolute is not found
at all (unless 17:8 be so construed). My intention was only to indicate a
grammatically viable construction with minimum ellipsis.
Rev 1:17-18 — The word ivdou, in v. 18 prevents the series of first-person verbs from
being diagrammed with the initial evgw, as the subject of a coordinate series.
Rev 1:18 zw/n — The participle could alternatively be construed as predicate adjective.
Rev 1:20 lucni,aj — It is tempting to diagram this noun as though it were in the
genitive, coordinate with avste,rwn, but since a construction consistent with the
accusative is available that does no violence to the sense, I opt for it as the lesser evil,
yet offering no objection to those who may choose the other.
Rev 1:20 — The second half of the verse might be diagrammed right in the predicate slot
rather than as an appositive to an elliptical predicate.
Rev 2:1 o` peripatw/n — The participle phrase could alternatively be construed as
modifying o` kratw/n.
Rev 2:2 e`autou.j avposto,louj — The words could alternatively be construed as an
object/predicate construction, if le,gw is to be taken in the sense “call” rather than
“say.”
Rev 2:2 eivsin — It is not easy to decide how to diagram the indicative. For the sake of
simple coordination, I have treated it as a participle; this certainly seems to be the
thought connection, and the grammar is just tolerable (cf. notes on h=n in 1:4 and
evpoi,hsen in 1:6).
Rev 2:5 — The eiv and eva,n clauses could alternatively be construed as modifying
both verbs. I am thinking that Jesus is coming regardless of the Ephesians’ response;
only the removal of the lampstand is conditioned upon the Ephesians’ failure to
repent.
Rev 2:9 — I supplied elliptical repetitions of oi=da in order to accommodate the
adversative clause avlla. plou,sioj ei= that coordinates only with ptwcei,an.
Rev 2:9 eivsin — See the note on 2:2 above. An alternative diagramming would have
written the verb only once, setting up the ouvk . . . avlla, coordination with the
predicate nouns.
Rev 2:10 h`merw/n — The genitive could perhaps be construed as modifying qli/yin,
especially since an adverbial connection would seem to indicate extent of time, which
is usually expressed by the accusative. But the expected case is not always used in
Revelation, the meaning of an adnominal genitive would not be at all clear, and the
versions strongly concur in favor of extent of time.
Rev 2:12 — Verse label should be 2:12-13.
Rev 2:12 — Revised construction of hOPOU clause.
Rev 2:12 o` pisto,j — The adjective could alternatively be construed as modifying o`
ma,rtuj, in which case the second mou would be a redundant modifier of ma,rtuj
as well.
Rev 2:16 — The eiv clause could alternatively be construed as modifying both verbs. I
am thinking that Jesus is coming regardless of the church’s response; only the
wielding of the sword is conditioned upon the church’s failure to repent.
Rev 2:17 kai. evpi. th.n yh/fon o;noma kaino.n gegramme,non — The words
could alternatively be construed as a whole clause with o;noma as its subject and an
elliptical verb supplied: “And on the stone a new name (will be) written.”
Rev 2:19 ta. e;rga sou ta. e;scata plei,ona tw/n prw,twn — The words could
alternatively be construed with e;rga in the accusative, as a further object of oi=da,
and plei,ona as its complement, or as indirect discourse with e;rga as accusative of
general reference with an elliptical infinitive. BNM/BNT prefers one of these
approaches, parsing the words as accusative.
Rev 2:20 — The o[ti clause could alternatively be construed as adverbial, leaving e;cw
with an elliptical object (“something”).
Rev 2:20 e`auth.n profh/tin — The words could alternatively be construed as an
object/predicate construction, if le,gw is to be taken in the sense “call” rather than
“say.”
Rev 2:20 dida,skei and plana|/ — See note on eivsin in 2:2.
Rev 2:20 — The infinitives at the end of the verse work better as a second accusative
with dida,skei than with plana|/ (an adverbial connection with this verb would be
better). The only way I can see to account for this detail would be to diagram the
infinitive twice: once with each verb. Since most commentators see the two verbs as a
hendiadys expressing the single idea of deceptive teaching, I have opted for the
simpler construction in spite of its weakness. Yet another option would be to diagram
the infinitive as an adverbial modifier to both verbs.
Rev 3:2 evnw,pion tou/ qeou/ mou — The prepositional phrase could alternatively
be construed as modifying eu[rhka.
Rev 3:7 kai, (2nd and 4th occurrences) — Ordinarily kai, is diagrammed as a
coordinating conjunction. In this context, however, I do not find an acceptable way to
diagram a coordinate relationship. One could indeed diagram the ouvdei,j clauses as
coordinate to the substantival participles, but how would the single article be made to
qualify the participles without also appearing to qualify the clauses coordinate to
them? The article could be diagrammed with each participle separately from its
coordinate clause, but that approach would require supplying the article elliptically
with the second participle. In all, it seemed least objectionable to me to diagram the
ouvdei,j clauses as subordinate.
Rev 3:8 h-n and auvth,n — An alternative construction would be to diagram the
relative pronoun as a pendant element (connected to its antecedent, of course), which
would in turn connect with a dotted line downward to auvth,n, which would appear
as the direct object of klei/sai.
Rev 3:9 eivsi,n and yeu,dontai — See note on eivsin in 2:2.
Rev 3:18 evgcri/sai — The KJV and NKJV have the imperative: “anoint your eyes
with eye salve,” but the text they follow (SCR) reads evgcri/son (aorist active
imperative) here. It is possible to read egcrisai as aorist middle imperative (since the
object is one’s own eyes), but the accent would be e;gcrisai, and the modern
editions of the Greek NT uniformly prefer the infinitive (except the Majority Text,
which reads i[na evgcri,sh|, interestingly agreeing in sense with the Critical rather
than the Received Text). An alternative construction of the infinitive would
coordinate it with avgora,sai as a second point of Jesus’ counsel to the Laodiceans.
This infinitive would have a double accusative: “I counsel you . . . to anoint your eyes
(with) eye salve.” I would guess that the order of the words is among the reasons why
none of the modern versions reads the text this way, and the diagramming follows the
versions.
Rev 3:19 evgw, — The pronoun could alternatively be construed as the subject of filw/.
Rev 3:20 — subordinate clause had extra subject slot to the left of the EAN clause(s).
Rev 4:1 hvnew|gme,nh — The participle could alternatively be construed as a
periphrastic (with an elliptical h=n) or as a substitute for a finite verb. The
construction I have in mind is “(There was) a door (which was) opened in [into?]
heaven,” reflecting the existential sense of the understood verb from eivmi,.
Rev 4:1 w`j — See the entry for w`j in section IX. of the diagramming policies. The
word could perhaps alternatively be construed along with the elliptical fwnh, in the
predicate.
Rev 4:1 sa,lpiggoj — The noun could alternatively be construed, along with its
associated w`j, as a predicate genitive.
Rev 4:2 evpi. to.n qro,non — The prepositional phrase could alternatively be
construed as modifying the elliptical linking verb: “On the throne there was someone
sitting.” The construction seems a bit awkward; hence I opted against it.
Rev 4:5 kaio,menai — The participle could alternatively be construed as a periphrastic
(with an elliptical h=san) or as a substitute for a finite verb. The construction I have
in mind is “(There were) seven lamps of fire (which were) burning before the throne,”
reflecting the existential sense of the understood verb from eivmi,.
Rev 4:7 w`j — See the entry for w`j in section IX. of the diagramming policies.
Rev 4:8 avna. pte,rugaj — On diagramming the distributive phrase, see the note on
Mat 20:9.
Rev 5:4 — An alternative construction of the o[ti clause makes ouvdei,j the subject and
a;xioj a predicate adjective. As I read it, supported by a few versions, the basic idea
is “No worthy one was found” rather than “No one was found (to be) worthy.”
Rev 5:8 ai[ — The pronoun could alternatively be construed with qumiama,twn as its
antecedent. I have construed it with fia,laj based on gender agreement, but to me
qumiama,twn makes slightly better sense, and, since Revelation does not follow
standard practice regarding grammatical agreement, the gender is not necessarily
determinative. Still, I am inclined to interpret according to normal grammar wherever
possible, and fia,laj as antecedent seems entirely possible to me.
Rev 5:10 tw|/ qew|/ — The noun could alternatively be construed as modifying the
object complements basilei,an kai. i`erei/j.
Rev 5:12 th,n — The article could alternatively be construed with du,namin only.
Rev 6:4 kai. i[na avllh,louj sfa,xousin — The clause could possibly be construed as
subordinate to labei/n: “to take peace from the earth so that they slaughter one
another.”
Rev 6:7 fwnh.n... le,gontoj — One expects a construction parallel to verses 3 and 5.
But in those verses, what is heard is the living creature; in this verse what is heard is
the voice. One could diagram an indirect discourse construction anyway, accounting
the fact that the participle agrees with zw|,ou rather than fwnh,n simply as
“Revelation grammar.”
Rev 6:13 seiome,nh — The participle could alternatively be construed as attributive to
sukh/.
Rev 7:4 — I am not satisfied with the diagramming, but no better approach has yet
occurred to me. cilia,dej is a noun rather than an adjective, so it does not seem
appropriate to combine it with e`kato.n tessera,konta te,ssarej as a single 4-
word adjective phrase. It is in the nominative case, but construing it along with
evsfragisme,noi as a nominative absolute loses what seems to be an obvious
appositional connection to avriqmo,n. So, on balance, it seems best to construe
cilia,dej as an appositive to avriqmo,n. But then what should be done with
evsfragisme,noi? If cilia,dej could be construed as part of the adjective, the
participle could be the appositive to avriqmo,n, modified by the quantity. But we
have already decided against treating cilia,dej as though it were an adjective.
Normally the noun naming the item existing in a quantity of 1,000 is expressed in the
genitive. BDAG describes the construction here in these terms: “In Rv the noun
 denoting what is counted may stand in the same case as cil. ... instead of the gen.” If
the noun were genitive, it would be construed as modifying cilia,dej. Should the
noun in the same case be so construed? I cannot quite bring myself to diagram a noun
agreeing in case with another noun as an attributive modifier to it when ordinarily
case agreement between two nouns indicates an appositional connection. So I have
diagrammed the participle as a substantive in apposition to cilia,dej. To my thinking,
the next best option would be, as mentioned above, to take the case agreement
between the two words as indicating that cilia,dej is being viewed as an adjective
and diagram it as part of the quantity serving as an attributive modifier to
evsfragisme,noi, which functions then as the appositive to avriqmo,n.
Rev 7:5 evsfragisme,noi — See discussion on Rev. 7:4.
Rev 7:8 evsfragisme,noi — See discussion on Rev. 7:4.
Rev 7:11 — I diagrammed e;pesan and proseku,nhsan with an elliptical subject
separate from oi` a;ggeloi in order to leave open the possibility that not only the
angels but also the elders and the living creatures participate in these actions.
Rev 7:17 zwh/j — The textual variant zw/saj (read by the TR but not the Byzantine
majority), agreeing with phga,j, suggests that zwh/j could alternatively be
construed as modifying phga,j.
Rev 8:12 to. tri,ton (4th occurrence) — I am construing the adjective as an adverbial
accusative of extent. BNM/BNT parses it as nominative; it could alternatively be
construed as appositional to h`me,ra.
Rev 8:13 le,gontoj — The participle could alternatively be construed as coordinate with
petome,nou.
Rev 9:1 evk tou/ ouvranou/ — The prepositional phrase could alternatively be
construed as modifying avste,ra.
Rev 9:1 peptwko,ta — The participle could perhaps be construed as indirect discourse.
It seems to me, however, that participle indirect discourse uses the present tense (or
the perfect with verbs such as i[sthmi that use the perfect tense with essentially
present-tense meaning) much more than the perfect.
Rev 9:8 leo,ntwn — See verse 17 for a parallel construction. The explicit repetition of
the pregenitive justifies supplying the ellipsis here.
Rev 9:9 pollw/n — The adjective could alternatively be construed as modifying
a`rma,twn.
Rev 9:17 e;contaj — The participle could alternatively be construed as indirect
discourse. Though construing it with the horses or both the horses and riders is not
impossible, the versions clearly prefer construing it only with the riders. This
construction does yield a nice chiasm: the horses and then the riders are mentioned,
followed by descriptions of the riders first and then the horses.
Rev 9:20-21 oi` loipoi, — Ordinarily I would have diagrammed the adjective as the
subject of both occurrences of meteno,hsan, splitting the baseline in the verb slot,
but there were substantial space efficiencies to be gained by diagramming as I did.
Rev 10:8 evn th|/ ceiri, — The prepositional phrase could alternatively be construed
as modifying to. bibli,on.
Rev 11:3 cili,aj — A note on Rev 7:4 discusses at length some issues regarding the
diagramming of the noun cilia,j. The word here is not that noun but rather the
 adjective ci,lioi. The accusative plural of the noun would be cilia,daj (not found in
NT but 119 times in LXX).
Rev 11:6 (tosa,kij) — For clarity, I have supplied the correlative corresponding to
o`sa,kij. It does not occur in the Greek Bible but may be found in the Liddell and
Scott lexicon.
Rev 12:2 tekei/n — The infinitive could perhaps be construed as modifying both
participles.
Rev 12:5 a;rsen — The neuter adjective could alternatively be construed as attributive
to the noun ui`o,n, since Revelation is not strict about agreement. BDAG calls the
construction appositional (a;rshn).
Rev 12:6 — The i[na clause could alternatively be construed as modifying e;cei or
e;fugen.
Rev 12:7 tou/ polemh/sai — The construction is difficult. The nominatives with the
infinitive are solecistic, so something non-standard must be done in the diagramming.
I have opted to treat the nominatives as subjects of the infinitive; an alternative would
be to treat the infinitive as a participle and diagram an absolute construction
modifying evge,neto. However, the genitive article would be difficult to handle in
that construction unless it were diagrammed along with the infinitive right in the
participle slot. A variation on the option I chose would be to diagram the genitive
infinitive phrase with its subjects as a modifer of po,lemoj rather than in apposition
to it.
Rev 12:9 evblh,qh (2nd occurrence) — I have diagrammed the word as a simple
redundant repetition of the verb of the clause. An alternative would be to treat it as a
separate verb coordinate with the first occurrence.
Rev 12:11 auvtw/n (1st occurrence) — The pronoun could alternatively be construed
after the Semitic fashion as modifying lo,gon.
Rev 13:3 (ei=don) — The only alternative I see to supplying this verb (repeated from
verse 2) is to construe the accusative mi,an as the subject of an elliptical linking verb
despite its case.
Rev 13:6 blasfhmh/sai — The infinitive could alternatively be construed as modifying
h;noixen.
Rev 13:10 ei; tij evn macai,rh| avpoktanqh/nai auvto.n evn macai,rh|
avpoktanqh/nai — The manuscripts present a challenging variety of readings,
reflected in turn in the versions. The versions should not be understood as all
attempting to translate the reading of NA27. This reading clearly parallels the
preceding statement, and its meaning seems clearly to be along these lines: “if anyone
is destined to be killed by the sword, by the sword he will be killed” (cf. NIV and
ESV). The grammar of the eiv clause is especially challenging: what verb could be
supplied that would take nominative tij as its subject and and infinitive as either
complement or adverbial modifier? Something like the passive of o`ri,zw? How
would the infinitive function with respect to such a verb? Retained object? Adverbial
modifier? I do not find an explicit parallel construction in the NT from which to draw
a model for supplying the ellipsis here. The diagramming reflects the idea of a passive
form of o`ri,zw with the infinitive as retained object. The elliptical verb I have in
mind for the main clause is dei/ or gi,netai (parallel to the present tense u`pa,gei
 in the preceding statement). A literal translation would be “If anyone [is destined] to
be killed with the sword, that he be killed with the sword [happens, or, is necessary].”
Rev 13:15 — By perusing the verions one may see that quite a number of alternative
constructions are possible.
Rev 14:5 a;mwmoi, eivsin — I wonder whether this clause ought to be construed as a
single element coordinate to the set of four previous clauses in these two verses (for a
similar construction, see the end of 16:6). On this construction the clause would be
understood as a blanket statement summarizing the previous clauses. The punctuation
of NA27 does not allow such diagramming, however, and my level of confidence
about this discourse structure is not high enough to warrant recasting NA27’s
punctuation.
Rev 14:8 pornei,aj — If qumou/ is to be understood in the sense “passion,” then
pornei,aj could be construed as its modifier.
Rev 14:8 auvth/j — The genitive could alternatively be construed as yet a third
modifier for oi;nou.
Rev 14:10 kai, (1st occurrence) — The word could perhaps be construed as modifying
auvto,j (“he also”), if the thought connection is back to the drinking of wine in v. 8.
Rev 14:10 qeou/ — The genitive could alternatively be construed as modifying oi;nou.
Rev 14:10 auvtou/ — The genitive could alternatively be construed as modifying
pothri,w|.
Rev 14:11 ei; tij... — The clause is semantically parallel to the substantival participle
oi` proskunou/ntej. However, I do not find a way to diagram grammatical
coordination between an eiv clause and a substantive participle so that e;cousin can
share the two as a pair of coordinate subjects. The elliptical main clause I have in
mind to govern the eiv clause is a repetition of “they have no rest” or some other
words to that effect.
Rev 14:11 auvtou/ (2nd occurrence) — The genitive could alternatively be construed as
modifying ca,ragma.
Rev 14:12 throu/ntej — The nominative case opens the slight possibility that this is to
be understood as appositional to u`pomonh,: the endurance consists in keeping
God’s commandments, etc. Note the rendering of ASV to this effect. Either the
thought connection is a bit loose (persons in apposition to an action) or the grammar
is (case disagreement); I am inclined to assume the latter.
Rev 14:13 i[na — The diagramming reflects an idea similar to BDAG, i[na, 2.g. An
alternative, suggested in BDAG, i[na, 3., would supply a main clause “They die,”
which the i[na clause would modify adverbially.
Rev 14:19 to.n me,gan — The adjective agrees with tou/ qeou/ in gender but with
th.n lhno,n in case. Variant readings th.n mega,lhn and tou/ mega,lou exist,
resolving the difficulty in opposite directions. The versions very strongly prefer the
connection to lhno,n.
Rev 15:4 o;noma — The noun could alternatively be construed as the object of both
verbs, as reflected in some versions. Since fobhqh|/ is subjunctive and doxa,sei is
indicative, it appears to me that the two clauses are a bit too distinct from one another
to share a single object.
Rev 15:4 — The three o[ti clauses could alternatively be construed as a coordinate
series. The second one is particularly difficult to construe as an explanation of the
 preceding clause, but the connection does not seem to me impossible by any means. A
further alternative would be to construe the first two as a coordinate pair and the third
as explaining the second.
Rev 16:19 auvtou/ — The genitive could alternatively be construed as modifying
ovrgh/j.
Rev 17:2 auvth/j — The genitive could alternatively be construed as modifying
oi;nou.
Rev 17:3 kaqhme,nhn — The participle could alternatively be construed as an
attributive modifier to gunai/ka.
Rev 17:4 ta. avka,qarta — The accusative could alternatively be construed as either
another object of e;cousa or in apposition to poth,rion.
Rev 17:5 gegramme,non —The participle could alternatively be construed as object
complement to o;noma.
Rev 17:8-9 — The electronic text of NA27 lacks the full stop that is in the printed edition
between verses 8 and 9.
Rev 17:8 — The coordination near the beginning of the verse could alternatively be
arranged with a single series of four clauses or with the first three grouped against the
fourth. My division reflects the fact that the last two clauses refer to events yet to
come.
Rev 17:12 basilei/j (2nd occurrence) — The nominative could alternatively be
construed as the predicate of an elliptical participle from eivmi,, (o;ntej), construed
adverbially and introduced by w`j.
Rev 17:15 — The four nominatives at the end of the verse could alternatively be
construed as a single coordinate series. I have subdivided it based on the position of
the verb in the middle of the sequence. I do not see any clear semantic basis for this
subdivision, however, unless perhaps the first two refer simply to large masses of
people, with emphasis on quantity, and the last two to people groups that are
distinguishable politically and linguistically.
Rev 17:16 — The basis on which I subdivided the series of four verbs is that the last two
refer to actions involving the consuming of the object (it is also significant, perhaps,
that the first two rhyme). A single series is certainly possible, with an increasing
intensity to each action in the sequence.
Rev 18:1 e;conta — The participle could alternatively be construed as modifying
a;ggelon.
Rev 19:1 lego,ntwn — The participle could alternatively be construed as indirect
discourse, with fwnh,n as its referent. Agreement is certainly an issue for that
construction, but the agreement as I have construed it is not perfect, either. I gave
priority consideration to the case agreement.
Rev 19:2 — The second o[ti clause could alternatively be construed as coordinate to the
first.
Rev 19:2 evk ceiro.j auvth/j — The prepositional phrase could alternatively be
construed as modifying ai-ma. The construction I diagrammed views her hand as the
focus of God’s vengeance (cf. BDAG, evkdike,w, 2.); the construction modifying
the noun views her hand as the agent by which the blood of God’s servants was shed.
Rev 19:6 lego,ntwn — The participle would certainly be simpler to construe as indirect
discourse, but, as in verse 1, I gave priority consideration to the case agreement.
Rev 19:8 kai. evdo,qh... — The clause could alternatively be construed as coordinate
with the last clause of verse 7.
Rev 19:9 avrni,ou — The genitive could alternatively be construed as modifying
dei/pnon.
Rev 19:11 to.n ouvrano.n hvnew|gme,non — The words could alternatively be
diagrammed as an object/complement construction.
Rev 19:12 gegramme,non —The participle could alternatively be construed as object
complement to o;noma.
Rev 19:15 qeou/ — The genitive could alternatively be construed as modifying
ovrgh/j.
Rev 19:16 evpi. to. i`ma,tion kai. evpi. to.n mh/ron auvtou/ — The
prepositional phrases could alternatively be construed as modifying
gegramme,non.
Rev 19:16 gegramme,non —The participle could alternatively be construed as object
complement to o;noma.
Rev 20:12 zwh/j — In an alternative construction, a predicate nominative may be
supplied (to. bibli,on), to which the genitive would be construed as a modifier.
Rev 21:7 auvtw|/, moi — The dative connection I have in mind is not the dative of
viewpoint but rather dative of possession. Some may choose to diagram the dative of
possession as modifying the noun possessed, but the fact that it often modifies a
linking verb that lacks a predicate noun or adjective inclines me to diagram it as
modifying the linking verb even where a predicate noun or adjective is present.
Rev 21:11 w`j — On diagramming w`j right along with the word it introduces, see the
entry for w`j in section IX. of the diagramming policies.
Rev 21:12 e;cousa (1st occurrence) — Construing the participle as equivalent to a
finite verb seems the most straightforward approach.
Rev 21:12 e;cousa (2nd occurrence) — The thought seems to flow best with the
participle construed as attributive to tei/coj. However, the grammatical disagreement
seems to me simply too strong to allow that connection, even though agreement in
Revelation is often loose.
Rev 21:12 pulw/nej (all 4 occurrences) — If one wishes to overlook the nominative
case, the nouns could be construed in apposition to pulw/naj.
Rev 21:14 e;cwn — Construing the participle as equivalent to a finite verb seems the
most straightforward approach.
Rev 21:15 me,tron ka,lamon crusou/n — The words could alternatively be
construed with ka,lamon crusou/n as the direct object phrase and me,tron as
object complement.
Rev 21:17 phcw/n — The genitive could perhaps be construed adverbially.
Rev 21:19 kekosmhme,noi — Construing the participle as equivalent to a finite verb
seems the most straightforward approach.
Rev 21:21 avna, — BDAG (avna,, 3.) and Robertson (Word Pictures) agree that
avna, can function as an adverb.
Rev 21:21 — The w`j clause could alternatively be construed as modifying kaqaro,n.
Rev 21:23 — The i[na clause could alternatively be construed as modifying crei,an.
Rev 21:27 pa/n — The adjective could alternatively be construed as modifying both
subjects.
Rev 21:27 avrni,ou — The genitive could perhaps be construed as modifying zwh/j.
Rev 22:1 evkporeuo,menon — The participle, along with its referent potamo,n,
could alternatively be construed as indirect discourse.
Rev 22:2 potamou/ —The grammar is most simply construed with potamou/
understood as coordinate with platei,aj. But it is not at all easy to discern what the
meaning of that expression would be. If these adverbs could be understood to
function as prepositions (actually postpositions), potamou/ would be their object.
Robertson (Word Pictures) notes one occurrence of evnteu/qen functioning as a
preposition, but BDAG makes no such allowance for either adverb. On balance, it
seems best to construe the genitive as modifying the adverbs (genitive of reference),
which yields the same meaning as if the adverbs were taken as prepositions with
potamou/ as their object.
Rev 22:7 bibli,ou — The genitive could alternatively be construed as modifying
profhtei,aj.
Rev 22:10 bibli,ou — The genitive could alternatively be construed as modifying
profhtei,aj.
Rev 22:18 bibli,ou — The genitive could alternatively be construed as modifying
profhtei,aj.