Exploring the function of relative sentences in New Testament Greek

The traditional view of the function of relative sentences in the Greek New Testament differed markedly from that in many modern languages. This view was challenged in the mid-1980s and a number of striking correspondences with a variety of modern (and some classical) languages were pointed out, despite some differences. The purpose of this article is, amongst others, to explore functional aspects of the relative sentence against this background, and to provide further substantiation for the new view and some new perspectives in the light of recent literature. The conclusion is that the view of the functions of the relative sentence, as developed in the mid-1980s, still seems valid. The view is also supported to a large extent by recent literature, especially with respect to the relative sentence’s adjectival use, despite differences relating to nuances and terminology. However, recent New Testament grammars still distinguish so-called ‘conditional’, ‘concessive’, ‘causal’, ‘final’ and ‘resultative’ relative sentences as part of their adverbial use, despite strong evidence to the contrary. The conclusion reached is that relative sentences seem to have the following functions in New Testament Greek, which correspond to their functions in numerous modern languages: (1) Identifying a referent(s) with or without an overt nominal antecedent. (2) Providing background or additional information for a nominal or sentential antecedent in the form of a parenthesis, explanation or concession, or some combination of these. (3) Qualifying a verb with regard to time, location or manner. (4) Functioning as a conjoined sentence.


Introduction
The relative construction, which commonly consists of an antecedent and a relative sentence, is a pervasive phenomenon in the languages of the world, but occurs in a variety of syntactic forms.In view of this, Comrie (1989:142) argues that a functional (semantic, cognitive) definition should be given of the relative construction (in his terms, 'relative clause') which is independent of language-specific syntax.Assuming that restrictive relative sentences are more central to the notion of the relative construction than are non-restrictives, he defines the relative construction as consisting necessarily of a head and a restricting clause (Comrie 1989:143).Whereas the head has a potential range of referents, the restricting clause 'restricts this set by giving a proposition that must be true of the actual referents of the overall construction.'Compare his example, which is repeated here as (1): 1   (1) I ate [the potato [that Hasan gave to Sinan]].
In (1), the head 'potato' has a range of potential referents, which is limited to one potato by the relative sentence, of which the proposition 'Hasan gave the potato to Sinan' is true (Comrie 1989:142).It should be noted that Comrie's definition includes not only relative constructions that contain finite relative sentences, but also non-finite (e.g.participial) constructions, such as 'leaving on Flight 738' in the sentence 'Passengers leaving on Flight 738 should proceed to the departure lounge.'It includes also restrictive attributive adjectives like 'good' in the sentence 'The good students all passed the examination' (Comrie 1989:143-144).
The relative construction is also an important feature of Hellenistic (and Classical) Greek, exhibiting a variety of functional, syntactic and stylistic features.It was pointed out by Robertson (1919:954) already that relative sentences introduced by the relative pronoun, apart from the adverbial uses, are the most frequent subordinate sentences in the Greek New Testament (NT), and probably almost equal in some authors to all the other classes together.It is also regarded by Robertson (1919:954) as the chief means of periodic structure in the NT (cf.his example from Ac 1:1-2, where three relative sentences occur in close proximity: v. 1: ὧν ἤρξατο ὁ Ἰησοῦς ποιεῖν 1.To simplify the discussion and for ease of reference, the following conventions are followed in the numbered examples in this article: τε καὶ διδάσκειν ['that Jesus began to do and teach'] v. 2: ἧς ἡμέρας…ἀνελήμφθη ['the day on which … he was taken up'] and οὓς ἐξελέξατο ['whom he chose']) (Robertson 1919:954;cf.also Robertson's other examples: 1 Cor 15:1 -2 and Rm 9:4f.) A survey of the literature indicates that the traditional description of the function of the relative sentence in the Greek NT used to differ markedly from that in modern languages.In the mid-1980s, however, the traditional view was challenged by the author (Du Toit 1984, 1986), who pointed out a number of striking correspondences between the function of the relative sentence in NT (and Classical) Greek and in a variety of modern languages.The purpose of this article is, amongst others, to explore functional aspects of the relative sentence against this background, and to provide further substantiation for the new view and also new perspectives in the light of recent literature.In this regard it makes use, amongst others, of material on relevant literature after the mid-1980s which was presented by the author in an unpublished paper at the Meeting of the Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas (SNTS) in 2014 (Du Toit 2014).The article aims also to arrive at a comprehensive description of the main functions of the relative sentence in NT Greek in the light of the above.

The function of relative sentences in some modern languages
In many modern languages, the notion of 'restriction' has played an important role in describing the function of relative sentences.In English, for example, the distinction between 'restrictive' and 'non-restrictive' relative sentences has been recognised for decades already (cf.Chomsky 1977:65;Loetscher 1973:362-366;Smith 1964:248;etc.).Radford (2009) gives the following example of a restrictive relative sentence (in his terms, 'relative clause'): (2) I saw the [man [who/that they arrested]] on TV.(p. 226) According to Radford (2009:226), the function of the relative sentence in (2) is to restrict the class of men referred to in the sentence to the one whom they arrested.Radford (2009:226) distinguishes also a second type of relative sentence, namely, appositive relative sentences, a term which is often used synonymously with 'non-restrictive' (also 'descriptive' and 'explanatory') for this type of relative sentence (cf.Comrie 1989:138;Lehmann 1984:270-280;Quirk et al. 1985Quirk et al. :1239Quirk et al. -1244;;etc.).Compare his examples, which are repeated here as (3a-c): (3)a.According to Radford (2009:226), appositive relative sentences in English generally serve as parenthetical comments or afterthoughts which are set off in a separate intonation group from the rest of the sentence in the spoken language.This corresponds to a remark by Lehmann (1984:263) that appositive relative sentences in languages generally have an 'Intonationsbruch' ['breach in intonation'] between the post-nominal relative sentence and the antecedent-noun, whereas in restrictive relative sentences the intonation is continuous at this point.
Appositive relative sentences in English are indicated by parentheses, a comma or a hyphen in the written language (see examples [3a-c] above) (Radford 2009:226).In German, the writing convention is followed to use a comma after the antecedent in appositive as well as restrictive relative sentences (Lehmann 1984:47).
The notion of 'restriction' has also been used successfully in describing the function of relative sentences in a variety of other modern (as well as ancient) languages.
Although the focus in this article is on relative sentences introduced by the above relative pronouns, instances are also briefly discussed where relative sentences are introduced by relative adverbs, such as ὅπου ['where'], οὗ ['where'], ὅθεν ['from where'] and ὅτε ['when'], and occasionally by τίς

Restrictive relative sentences
In older literature on the Greek NT, functional aspects of the relative sentence are not commonly discussed in terms of restriction, as in the case of modern languages (see above).
In the few cases where 'restriction' is used in older literature, it normally plays a relatively minor role in the overall description of the relative sentence.For example, Burton (1894:119)  However, the distinction between restrictive and explanatory relative sentences is not used in the major part of his discussion (Burton 1894:117-129 Another instance of the use of 'restriction' in older literature, albeit in slightly different terms, occurs in Dana and Mantey (1957:272), who state (under the heading 'Adjectival Clauses') that a relative sentence (in their terminology, 'relative clause') is sometimes used 'to directly limit (my italics) or define a substantive, performing a pure adjective function.'In (5) below the relative sentence is said to 'limit' λόγου ['word'], a notion that is synonymous with 'restricts': (5) John 15:20: μνημονεύετε [τοῦ λόγου [οὗ ἐγὼ εἶπον ὑμῖν]].
['remember the word that I said to you'] 2.In numbered Greek examples, such as this one, the core of the relative construction (usually a noun, but sometimes quantifiers, demonstrative pronouns, etc.), which usually determines the number and gender of the relative pronoun, is indicated by italics.Dana and Mantey (1957:224-225) also point out that the Greek articular modifying participle could also be used restrictively (or non-restrictively).
In more recent literature, the use of 'restriction' is more common.Young (1994:231), for example, refers to restrictive relative sentences (in his terminology, 'relative clauses'), but defines them as identifying a head noun (see Du Toit 2014:9 for further information).
The grammar of Wallace (1996:660-662) 14 and v. 15: v. 14: 'you suffered the same things from your own country men as they did from the Jews, v. 15 who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out, and displease God and oppose all men') (cf.also Gilliard 1989:482, 488, 490f.).
Porter's arguments are not discussed in any detail here.The issue illustrates, however, one of the challenges involved in the interpretation of ancient written texts, where phonological data is not available as is the case in modern languages.Furthermore, punctuation was variable and not fixed in early Greek manuscripts, with relatively fixed punctuation not occurring until well after development of the codex.Secondly, there are no manuscripts of this por tion of 1 Thessalonians that predate the major codexes (Porter 2013:85).
Du Toit (1984Toit ( :56-73, 1986:6-16:6-16) applies the notion of 'restriction', as used in the literature on modern languages, to relative sentences in the NT and points out its usefulness in the light of the many correspondences between Greek and modern languages in this regard.He argues, however, for a modification in the use of the term and proposes the use of 'identification' instead.This view was influenced by the work of Ebert (1973:5) on English, who argues that, viewed within a speech-act model, restriction was only typical of a specific subgroup of relative sentences that are normally classified as 'restrictive', namely, relative sentences describing 'types', and that their real function was that of identification.Identification could, however, take place by means of restriction, amongst others.Compare her example given in ( 6): (6) Fred knows [a girl [who has been to the Relative Clause Festival]].(Ebert 1973:6) In ( 6) the relative sentence does not restrict the class of unspecified girls as such, but rather identifies who the girl is (for a more detailed discussion of Ebert's ideas, see Du Toit [1984Toit [ :51-52, 1986:4]:4]).
'Identification' seems to work well also in the case of free relatives, where there is no overt antecedent whose reference can be 'restricted'.Free relatives are usually discussed in literature on the NT as part of the 'substantival' use of the relative sentence (cf.

Appositive relative sentences
Since the term 'identifying' seems preferable in the case of relative sentences normally referred to as 'restrictive', the term 'appositive' will be used here for a function of relative sentences that is often referred to as 'non-restrictive' (cf.Porter 2013:86;Voelz 2006:401-403;etc.).The term 'appositive' seems appropriate in view of its inherent notion of 'apposition', and is often used in literature on modern languages (for example, Lehmann 1984:270-280;Radford 2009:226;etc.),although 'non-restrictive' is preferred by some scholars (for example, Chomsky 1977:65).
Some NT grammars refer to a function of the relative sentence, which could also be classified as 'appositive', namely, instances where the relative sentence is used in parenthetical expressions.However, this usually plays only a minor role in their description of relative sentences.Blass and Debrunner ([1913] 1967:243), for example, make brief mention of this use at the end of a general discussion on parenthesis (Blass & Debrunner ([1913] 1967:242-243), which forms part of a section on sentence structure.Other uses of the relative sentence are discussed as part of the section on 'Moods' (Blass & Debrunner ([1913] 1967:191-192).According to Blass and Debrunner (1913] 1967:243), parenthetical relative sentences occur in two situations in the NT, firstly, where the structure of the sentence is not interrupted, as in ( 11): ( The parenthetical nature of the relative sentence in ( 11) corresponds to the one in Radford's (2009:226) English example, which is quoted in (3a) above and repeated in ( 12): (12) [John [(who used to live in Cambridge)]] is a very good friend of mine.
b. [Sam, {whom Jack had given a blow on the head}], went down and started screaming.(Loetscher 1973:363) c. [Chuck, {who can't even write}], was elected judge.(Loetscher 1973:362) Du Toit (1984Toit ( :345, 1986:16) :16) defines the function of appositive relative sentences in NT Greek also as providing background or additional information for an antecedent.This could be expressed in the form of a parenthesis, explanation, concession (or some combination of these), or as an afterthought.This definition seems valid in the examples of Blass andDebrunner ([1913] 1967:242-243), quoted in ( 11) and ( 13) above.In both cases the appositive relative sentence could be interpreted as giving background information for their antecedent in the form of an explanatory parenthesis.
The above examples of the relative sentence's appositive function refer to instances where the antecedent is a nominal expression.Appositive relative sentences can also have a sentence as antecedent, as in ( 15): ( Du Toit 1984:297, 2014:11) In ( 15) the relative pronoun οὗ could be interpreted as a sentential relative with the meaning 'of which' (as reflected in the translation), and the relative sentence as referring to the preceding sentence τοῦτον τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἀνέστησεν ὁ θεός ['God raised this Jesus to life'] as its antecedent, providing additional information on it.In this interpretation, the function of the relative sentence corresponds to that in the English example from Radford (2009), which is quoted in (3c) above and repeated in ( 16): The relative sentence in (15) could also be interpreted as an appositive relative sentence providing background information for τοῦτον τὸν Ἰησοῦν ['this Jesus'] as its antecedent.
In this case the translation would be: 'God raised this Jesus to life, of whom all of us are witnesses.'However, the former interpretation seems preferable in the context (cf.also Winer [1855] 1882:479 on this verse).It is often difficult in practice to distinguish between different functions of the relative sentence in contexts that are not transparent in this regard.
In NT (and Classical) Greek and English only appositive sentences can have nominal elements as well as sentences as their antecedent.Identifying relative sentences, on the other hand, have only nominal elements as their antecedents.
These so-called uses of the relative sentence are not discussed in any detail here, save to say that they are pseudo-adverbial, and that the examples given in the literature are all identifying or appositive relative sentences.The pseudo-adverbial uses are pragmatic distinctions on account of the content of certain relative sentences and main sentences and are not significant distinctions at the level of sentence grammar.For a detailed discussion, see Du Toit (1984Toit ( :63-74, 1986:6-15):6-15).

Continuative relative sentences
It is argued by some scholars that relative sentences seem to function like a conjoined sentence in certain cases, and that this constitutes another function of the relative sentence.['many of the Jews and devout proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas, who spoke to them and kept urging them to continue in the grace of God'].(p.479) In ( 22), the relative sentence seems to be conjoined to the previous sentence and equivalent to 'and they spoke to them and kept urging them to continue in the grace of God.' The relative sentence in ( 22) could also be interpreted as an appositive relative providing background information for the antecedent τῷ Παύλῳ καὶ τῷ Βαρναβᾷ ['Paul and Barnabas'].
This use of the relative sentence has also parallels in English.Loetscher (1973:366)  In this case, the relative sentence does not seem to provide background information, but rather to be part of the description and on the same level as 'Paul invited us to his home'.
According to Levinsohn (2000:191) such 'continuative' relative sentences typically describe an event that involves the referent of the relative pronoun and occurs subsequent to the previous event or situation in which the referent featured.
['many came to him in his guestroom/place where he was staying, and he testified and explained to them the kingdom of God'] However, it could also be argued that relative sentences like the ones in ( 22) and ( 24) are not relative sentences in the real sense of the word.For example, although they are introduced by forms of ὅστις and ὅς, which usually function as relative pronouns introducing relative sentences, they seem to have a rather loose connection to their referents, compared to identifying and appositive relative sentences.They seem also close to independent sentences introduced by ὅστις and ὅς.
Lastly, the anaphoric relationship that obtains between ὅστις and ὅς and their referents could be regarded as the same as the relationship between a nominal expression in the first of two conjoined sentences and a coreferential demonstrative or personal pronoun in the second sentence.The issue clearly requires further research.
There is general agreement amongst linguists that coordination is a poorly understood and challenging phenomenon, and there is much debate in the literature on the syntax of coordinate constructions (J.Oosthuizen, pers. comm., 16 June 2014).For a detailed discussion of various issues relating to the syntax of coordination, compare Zhang (2010).

Conclusion
The view of the functions of the relative sentence in the Greek NT, as developed in the mid-1980s, still seems to be valid.This is supported to a large extent by more recent literature on the Greek NT in as far as the relative sentence's adjectival use is concerned, despite some differences relating to nuances and terminology.However, recent NT grammars still distinguish so-called 'conditional', 'concessive', 'causal', 'final' and 'resultative' relative sentences as part of the relative sentence's adverbial function, despite strong evidence to the contrary.
It seems, then, that relative sentences in the Greek NT have the following four functions, which correspond to those in numerous modern languages: 1. Identifying a referent(s) together with a nominal antecedent.This applies also in cases where relative sentences are introduced by relative adverbs.In the case of free relatives, the relative sentence identifies the referent on its own, without an overt antecedent (= the 'identifying' function).2. Providing background or additional information for a nominal or sentential antecedent in the form of a parenthesis, explanation or concession, or some combination of these (= the 'appositive' function).
3. Qualifying a verb with regard to time, location or manner, like an adverb (= the 'adverbial' function).4. Functioning as a conjoined sentence (= the 'continuative' function), although the validity of this function is debatable.
The functions of the relative sentence in NT Greek could be represented as above in Figure 1.

FIGURE 1 :
FIGURE 1: Functions of the relative sentence in New Testament Greek.
The use of ὅς in direct questions, perhaps in Matthew 26:50b: ἑταῖρε, ἐφʼ ὃ πάρει ['friend, what are you here for?'], is controversial.(see also Boyer 1988:252-253) 2. Ὅστις .), all of which are introduced by relative pronouns, are non-restrictive, this does not hold true of all such relative sentences.Evidence seems to show that there are, in fact, many examples in the NT where the relative sentence is restrictive in such cases (cf.for example, [4] and [5] above).Greek text at the end of verse 14, which is taken by almost all English translations before 1989 as an indication of a non-restrictive clause (cf., for example, the translation of the Revised Standard Version [RSV] of the last part of v. Voelz (2006:401-403) (referred to briefly by Du Toit 2014:9), broadens the application of the notion of 'restriction' to include also attributive participles.He points out, for example, that the attributive participial phrase δοκοῦντα ἀσθενέστερα ὑπάρχειν ['that seem to be weaker'] in 1 Corinthians 12:22: τὰ δοκοῦντα μέλη τοῦ σώματος ἀσθενέστερα ὑπάρχειν ἀναγκαῖά ἐστιν ['the members of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable'] restricts τὰ μέλη τοῦ σώματος ['the members of the body'] to a subcategory of all members of the body, some of which are not weaker.This is parallel toComrie's  (1989:143-144) example of the attributive phrase 'leaving on Flight 738' in the English sentence 'Passengers leaving on Flight 738 should proceed to the departure lounge' quoted above.ἡμᾶς ἐκδιωξάντων καὶ θεῷ μὴ ἀρεσκόντων καὶ πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις ἐναντίων ['who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets and drove us out and do not please God and are hostile to all people'] are restrictive or non-restrictive with respect to the Jews [τῶν Ἰουδαίων] mentioned at the end of verse 14.He argues for regarding them as 'restrictive', despite the comma in the ; cf.Robertson 1919:953-954 for a different view).