Is CAI Qualified to Address Issues of the Greek Text?  A Surrejoinder to Robert Sungenis’ “Heos Who?”

Robert Sungenis of CAI has responded to my critique of his article on the meaning of the Greek phrase heos hou in Matt 1:25. In response I wrote an addendum to my previous article indicating that my next response would not be forthcoming until the publication of CAI's response to my book on Mary. That situation has changed with the recent falling out of the collaborators of that work. The combination of Sungenis' descent into Traditionalism, coupled with his former assistant's non-credentialed status, makes it extremely unlikely that either one will be able to publish the response in book form. Hence, my former resolve to wait until Sungenis' errors had been committed to the printed page before going public with my response has likewise changed. What follows is the response that I wrote within a week of Sungenis' response to my previous article--and which I asked a handful of associates to read to confirm that there actually was a response.

In his latest article, Sungenis digs in his heels more deeply—both exegetically and emotionally—and in doing so commits errors even more egregious than in his prior article, and betrays in clearer detail that he is in way over his head on this issue. This further clarification of his position has resulted in a plethora of new errors that are just as fundamental to his argument as those of his original article.

Citations of Sungenis’ original article will be prefaced by RS0, while citations of his latest responses will be prefaced by RS. Citations of my original critique to Sungenis’ article will be prefaced by ES. My latest response will be offset in black.

RS: Some time ago, CAI answered a question about the Greek phrase "heos hou" in our CAI Q&A section. This is the phrase that is translated "until" in Mt 1:25 ("And he knew her not until she had brought forth her firstborn son"). Since heos hou is Eric Svendsen's little pet project, he just couldn't resist in responding to Robert's initial answer. Now, it's our turn.

My article was in response to a gross misrepresentation of facts that was posted in a public forum by a Roman Catholic apologist to whom some people lend credence. My “little pet project” is nothing of the kind—the study of the construction heos hou was part of my doctoral work. Indeed, my work, which doesn’t once mention Robert Sungenis or anyone at his ministry, but dialogues almost exclusively with Roman Catholic scholars, has become the subject of CAI’s book-length critique, which seems to be much closer to a “little pet project” than is my work.

ES: If what Sungenis means by "has no effect on the meaning" of the construction is that both forms still retain conjunctive force, then no one can disagree. If instead he means that both forms are used in identical semantic ranges (as I suspect he means), then he is incorrect. In recent years, particularly with the advent of computer-aided research, New Testament scholarship has discovered with increasing frequency that the oft-assumed paradigms and rules for prepositions, conjunctions, and other various Greek constructions no longer hold up under scrutiny. I will expand on this as we proceed; but we need to bear in mind that computer-aided research in biblical studies has really only been around for a little over a decade. GRAMCord was one of the very first fully functional Greek grammatical search programs. I was one of the beta testers of this program while I was a graduate student at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, where it was heavily promoted and even required in some classes (such as D. A. Carson's Advanced Greek Grammar class).

RS: I don't know of any modern Greek software tool which makes the conclusions about heos hou that Svendsen does. Conclusions, such as Svendsen's, are drawn out completely by the person using the software. Appealing to Greek software tools, then, does not reinforce his position. Greek software only gives him the opportunity to research more easily the instances of the Greek grammar he seeks to investigate. But if the conclusion he draws from them has already been shaded by his insistence that heos hou is used only in the way he deems possible, then it is simply a case of Svendsen's biased interpretation of the evidence, not the evidence itself, that he brings forth from his research. >>

Statements such as this make me wonder whether Mr. Sungenis is more concerned with red herrings than with addressing facts. All throughout my discourse on this I consistently used the phrase “computer-aided research.” Not once did I suggest or imply that computers alone are sufficient to do the analytical work for the grammarian.

RS0: 1) ‘heos hou' is used 17 times in the New Testament (Mt 1:25; 13:33; 14:22; 17:9; 18:34; 26:36; Lk 13:21; 15:8; 22:18; 24:49; Jn 13:38; Ac 21:26; 23:12; 23:14; 23:21; 25:21; 2Pt 1:19) and ‘heos hou' is used 81 times in the LXX (Greek translation of the OT Hebrew)

ES: This is inaccurate. This is especially odd since Sungenis' assistant claims to have read my book. If he had, he surely would have known that there are eighty-five instances of this construction in the LXX, not eighty-one. One hopes this is not an example of the supposed inaccuracies ("whammies," as CAI calls them) that Sungenis' research assistant claims to have found in my book, Who Is My Mother, and to which he will be responding in his.

RS: I was referring to the number of verses in the LXX which contain heos hou, not the number of instances. There are four verses which contain two instances of heos hou. According to the Bible Works software's version of the LXX, and Rahlfs' Septuaginta, there are 81 verses which contain heos hou.

As I pointed out in my first response, I know exactly how the error was made—Sungenis mistakenly counted verses rather than instances. But the explanation he offers above does not account for the original discrepancy. He claims here that he was “referring to verses . . . , not the number of instances.” But that is demonstrably untrue. Notice in the paragraph above that Sungenis claims heos hou “is used 81 times in the LXX.” The phrase “is used x number of times” refers to "instances" and cannot refer to verses in which those instances occur. In order for the latter to be true, Sungenis would need to have said something like: "Heos hou is used in 81 verses/passages of Scripture." To say that it is used 81 times in the LXX means just that—regardless of verse divisions, heos hou occurs 81 times.

Sungenis erred, but that's not the worst part. It's really not a showstopper on his part simply to admit the counting error and go on. If that were the case, Sungenis loses nothing, and gains quite a bit of credibility that he can admit to a mistake here. But Sungenis for some reason can't do that—he can’t concede that he may have gotten this wrong. There apparently is far too much at stake for Sungenis to exercise judiciousness and simply admit the error. For whatever reason, it seems more prudent to Sungenis to “spin” his counting error as an error on my part. For my part, I simply misunderstood that he was referring rather to the number of verses, not the number of times the phrase actually occurs. Unfortunately, this is the kind of thing we are treated to throughout the rest of the article, as I will show below.

RS0: 2) ‘heos an' is used 19 times in the NT (Mt 2:13; 5:18; 5:26; 10:11, 23; 12:20; 16:28; 22:44; 23:39; 24:34) and 95 times in the LXX

ES: Again, inaccurate. The construction "heos an" occurs twenty times in the NT and 105 times in the LXX.

RS: <<Actually, six of the twenty have textual variants, and thus there is a question whether those five verses contain heos an, heos hou, or just heos. Many of the variant verses originate from Codex Sinaiticus, one of the more renowned Greek manuscripts. The verses with textual variants are Mt 5:26; 10:23; 24:34; 26:36; Mk 9:1; Lk 21:32. But here is the most important conclusion we can draw from these textual variants. The fact that the Greek writers of the varying manuscripts and their copyists have no problem in interchanging heos an with heos ou or heos shows once again that they saw no difference in meaning between the three forms. Yet Svendsen conveniently avoids mentioning this telltale sign, since obviously, it would undercut his thesis tremendously. In fact, I don't remember seeing any critical analysis of Greek manuscripts in Svendsen's treatment of this issue. Thus we already have one glaring problem in Svendsen's work, among others, as we shall see.

Sungenis has suggested here that if we can find instances of heos hou that act as textual variants where either heos an or heos alone appears in the NT, we have thereby established that heos hou is “interchangeable” in the minds of the scribes who composed these manuscripts with heos an or heos alone. Unfortunately, such a suggestion betrays a misunderstanding of how textual variants and scribal glosses came about. When scribes were copying a new manuscript from a parent manuscript, they rarely made intentional changes. In the majority of cases, the scribes either misheard (in the case of auditory copying) or misread (in the case of personal copying) a word or phrase, and wrote the resulting variant in its place. When they did make intentional changes, it was because of one of three reasons: (1) to make contextual sense, (2) to make grammatical sense, or (3) to make theological sense. Yet, in each case, the change is made precisely because the scribe sees a difference in the word or phrase in the text as opposed to the word or phrase in the variant he is supplying.

The point is, whether the change was intentional or unintentional, scribes never made the kind of changes that Sungenis suggests above; namely, that a scribe knowingly substituted one word for another simply because he saw them as interchangeable. Indeed, if they were really synonyms (hence, interchangeable), we would expect the scribe to make no change at all. Scribes were reverent copyists, taking every precaution to get the original wording right. That means if heos hou was the original reading, and the scribe intentionally changed it to heos an or heos alone, he would do so only on the assumption that there is a difference in the two constructions—he would never change it on the assumption that there is no difference between them, in spite of Sungenis’ odd insistence to the contrary.

Given Sungenis’ explanation above, one wonders whether he would treat other textual variants the same way. Is Sungenis willing to argue, for instance, that monogenes huios (“only begotten son”) is interchangeable with monogenes theos (“only begotten god”) in John 1:18? As a less theologically loaded example, does Sungenis wish to postulate that the reading, “watch yourselves, in order that you do not lose that which we have accomplished [eirgasametha]” is interchangeable with the variant reading, “watch yourselves, in order that you do not lose that which you have accomplished [eirgasasthe]” in 2 John 8, and that the copyists “saw no difference in meaning between” the two statements?

Sungenis, however, does point to one valid criticism of my work: The mention of textual variants in the text is usually important when the choice of a variant bears on the interpretation of the text in question. On reflection, I should have mentioned the textual variants in my work, if only to show that they have no significance in this matter. None of the variants to which Sungenis points is an instance that impacts the conclusions of my thesis; and so such mention, in this case, is superfluous.

RS: As for the 95 instances of in the LXX opposed to Svendsen's 105, it appears according to Bible Works software, we are both wrong, since they count 114 verses where heos an appears in the LXX, and some of them contain two uses of heos an (e.g., Dt. 28:20), so the total instances is actually higher than 114.

I confess, I do not know how Sungenis is arriving at these figures. Anyone with a computer software program can easily verify that there are indeed 105 instances of heos an occurring in 95 verses in the LXX. Eight of these verses contain two instances and one verse contains three instances, for a total of 105 instances. Again, Sungenis gets the count wrong even after he has been corrected on this.

RS0: 3) ‘heos otou' [sic] is used 4 times in the NT (Mt 5:25; Lk 13:8; 22:16; Jn 9:18) and 14 times in the LXX

ES: Once again, inaccurate. The construction "heos hotou" occurs five times in the NT, not four.

RS: Apparently, I did not include Luke 22:18, since that contains a textual variant. Svendsen should know, but seems quite unaware, that the total number of instances depends on which Greek manuscript one is using.

Yes, the count most certainly does depend on the Greek text one is using. The standard Greek text for scholarly inquiry is the Nestle-Aland text. Is Sungenis using some other Greek text? If so, why? When one does scholarly research and cites readings, variants, occurrences counts, etc., it is assumed in scholarly works that the NA text is being used, unless otherwise indicated (else terms such as “variant reading” are utterly meaningless—variant reading from what?).

RS0: 4) ‘heos'(without a couplet [sic]) is used 106 times in the NT and 1564 times in the LXX

ES: As you might expect by now, this is, once again, inaccurate. The number of instances of heos alone-that is, without the particle (what Sungenis oddly calls a "couplet")-is 104 times in the NT and 1,454 times in the LXX.

RS: First of all, there is nothing wrong with calling heos with the additional word a "couplet," since we are obviously dealing with two words in one phrase. Hence, Svendsen's use of sic, at this point, becomes rather sickening. However, I do thank him for alerting me to the rough breathing mark on houtou [sic].

I didn’t say there was anything wrong with calling it a “couplet.” What I said was that it is an odd way to refer to it in that it betrays a marked unfamiliarity with NT scholarly nomenclature. That, in turn, reveals the work of an amateur; one who is not steeped in NT studies as an area of expertise. I am pleased, however, that Sungenis is giving me credit for pointing out the misspelling of hotou (not otou or houtou).

RS: As for our 106 as opposed to his 104, again, it is due to the textual variants of the Greek manuscripts - - something Svendsen fails to mention in any of his analysis of these Greek words.

Because variant readings are not to be included as part of a count of occurrence of a word or phrase, unless indicated in the count itself (e.g., “There are as many as ten occurrences of the construction xyz, five of which are based on dubious textual variants”). It is perfectly acceptable to cite the number of instances adopted in the NA text or Rahlf’s LXX text without mention of variants, if those variants are inconsequential to the point under discussion (I will explain this momentarily). Yet Sungenis has included the number of instances of the construction plus the number of instances that contain dubious textual variants and has presented them as the total number of instances, without any clarification. What scholarly work does this? All scholarly works with which I am familiar rely on the reading adopted by NA (for the NT) and Rahlf’s (for the LXX), and assume that the readings adopted—and only those readings—are to be included in the number of occurrences in any count.

As for not mentioning the variants in my discussion of this issue, there are several reasons why no variants are mentioned for the NT texts. First, they are irrelevant to the discussion since they do not have the significance Sungenis thinks they do. They do not show that these phrases are merely synonyms of each other—indeed, they likely show just the opposite, as we will show below.

Second, my stated purpose in this inquiry was to determine the likely meaning of the phrase heos hou at the time Matthew wrote his gospel (roughly A.D. 50). I examined every occurrence of that construction in all the writings produced from 100 B.C. to A.D. 100—a two hundred-year period that represents the era in which Matthew wrote his gospel. Scribal glosses occurred sometime after the fact, and there is just no way to know how long after the fact they occurred. It could have been 50 years or 200 hundred years for all we know. Obviously neither of those gaps can establish usage for Matthew’s day. Hence, textual variants are irrelevant not only because they do not show synonymous usage, but also because they are anachronistic.

Third, the variants mentioned in the NT are decidedly minor, and hence are not significant enough to mention. So insignificant are they that, aside from Matt 26:36 (which is excluded from the discussion on other grounds), the UBS text (which is the same Greek text as the NA text) does not even mention there are variants for these verses in its critical apparatus. The only verse whose original reading may be in question is Matt 26:36, which I have shown in my work is not an example of heos hou when it means “until,” but rather when it means “while.” Hence, it is irrelevant to the issue under discussion since it offers absolutely no support for either side (a statement to which Sungenis will later object, but which I will show to be accurate).

Fourth, I do go into quite a bit of depth on the variant readings of the LXX precisely because (1) they are less certain as to the original reading, and (2) the era in which the scribes may have made the change parallels the era in which Matthew wrote his gospel (most of the LXX was composed in the second/third century B.C., but scribal glosses and other variant readings came about later). Hence, it is important to examine the variants of the LXX.

RS: As for his 1,454, I don't know where he is getting that number, but that is inconsequential at this point, since the frequency alone is enough to cover the discrepancy. The Bible Works LXX actually says there are 1,710 uses of heos in the LXX and NT, some of the verses have two or three uses of heos, which accounts for Bible Works saying that heos appears in 1528 verses of the LXX and NT.

I’m not sure how the BibleWorks LXX would know how many instances there are of heos in the LXX and the NT (the LXX is not part of the NT). Be that as it may, Sungenis is once again counting the wrong thing. He’s simply adding up all instances of heos in the LXX and lumping them together, regardless of the fact that some of those instances are instances in which heos is part of a construction (heos hou, heos hotou, heos an). The problem is, he’s already counted those instances in his enumeration of those constructions. One can’t count the same instances of heos again, and then add all of them up to arrive at a completely inaccurate count—but that seems to be what Sungenis is doing.

RS0: According to Burton's Grammar (a popular Greek Grammar used by Protestants) it states the following regarding ‘heos hou' [sic]: "In the New Testament ‘heos' is sometimes followed by ‘hou' or ‘otou' [sic]. Heos is then a preposition governing the genitive of the relative pronoun, but the phrase ‘heos hou' or ‘heos otou' [sic] is in effect a compound conjunction having the same force as the simple ‘heos'. The construction following it is also the same, except that an never occurs after ‘heos hou' or ‘heos outo' [sic]." It is clear from this Protestant Greek grammar, that there is no difference between ‘heos', ‘heos hou' or ‘heos otou' [sic]. They all have the same force and the same meaning.

ES: Sungenis appears to think that the really important point here is that Burton is a "Protestant Greek grammar." It doesn't seem to matter to him that he has completely misunderstood Burton's point. Sungenis thinks the word "force" here is to be equated with "nuance" or "meaning," as though Burton is saying that heos hou has the same "meaning" as heos alone. Far from it. Rather, Burton (as is clear even in the quotation above-which, by the way, is §330 in Burton; Sungenis doesn't cite the reference) is referring to the part of speech heos is, with or without the particle. Since the particles hou and hotou are genitives, heos technically acts as a preposition that governs the genitive. However-and this is Burton's point-the construction heos hou or heos hotou retains the same conjunctive "force" that heos has when it occurs by itself. Burton's point is not that heos hou has the same nuance as heos alone-only that is acts as the same part of speech; namely, a conjunction. If Sungenis had spent less time gloating over the fact that he found a "Protestant" grammar (whatever that is; Greek is non-partisan), and more time attempting to understand his sources, he might have noticed that I included a detailed analysis of heos hou retaining its conjunctive force in my book on Mary.

RS: Svendsen's argument is completely bogus. No one, including Burton, uses the word "force" to denote a part of speech or a grammatical form. If one wants to talk about parts of speech he refers to parsing, or some other relevant term, but not "force."

This is demonstrably (not to mention, embarrassingly) false. The word “parsing,” in Greek studies, is reserved for the parts of a word, not how it acts syntactically in a sentence. Parsing, for instance, identifies the Greek word luete as the present active indicative, second-person plural form of luo. Parsing identifies hou as a genitive particle. Parsing—at least so far as Greek studies are concerned—does not refer to whether a word is a conjunction, an adverb, a preposition or the like. For that, phrases such as “syntactical force,” “conjunctive force,” adverbial force,” and the like are used regularly in Greek studies. Sungenis claims, “no one, including Burton, uses the word "force" to denote a part of speech or a grammatical form.” Here is a short list of the “no ones” to which Sungenis denies existence:

On Adverbial Force:

“Since we were interested only in content words, we did not assign stems to the function words, although they were included in the dictionary and given canonical forms. Thus there were no stems for the verb "to be" nor for particles, pronouns, or conjunctions. Prepositions were generally not given stems, but some, having originally been adverbs, occasionally keep their adverbial force, especially in composition, and these were sometimes assigned stems” (Cora Angier Sowa, Ph.D. and John F. Sowa, “Thought Clusters in Early Greek Oral Poetry”; http://www.minervaclassics.com/clumps.htm; Dr. Sowa’s Ph.D. is in Classical Philology from Harvard University).

“This genitive usually modifies an adjective (although rarely it will be connected to a noun), and as such its adverbial force is self-evident. The genitive limits the frame of reference of the adjective.” (Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 127).

“Although the cognate acc. is also known as acc. of the inner object, this description presupposes a strongly adverbial force. But only rarely is the cognate acc. functioning adverbially (e.g., Luke 2:9; perhaps Matt 6:19) rather than as direct object.” (Ibid. 189, fn 51).

“[Eph 2:8] is the most debated text in terms of the antecedent of the demonstrative pronoun, touto. The standard interpretations include: (1) “grace” as antecedent, (2) “faith” as antecedent, (3) the concept of a grace-by-faith salvation as antecedent, and (4) kai touto having an adverbial force with no antecedent (“and especially”) (Ibid., 334).

“There are exceptions to the adverbial force of prepositions. Some function at times adjectivally” (Ibid., 357).

“One needs the broader picture here: Prepositional phrases are routinely attached to verbs, and hence adverbial in nature. When the infinitive occurs after a preposition, the preposition combines with the infinitive for an adverbial force” (Ibid., 589).

On Adjectival Force:

A. Adjectival Genitive: This broad category really touches the heart of the genitive. If the genitive is primarily descriptive, then it is largely similar to the adjective in functions. “The chief thing to remember is that the Genitive often practically does the duty of an adjective, distinguishing two otherwise similar things… .” However, although the genitive is primarily adjectival in force, it is more emphatic than a simple adjective would be (Ibid., 78).

“An appositive, strictly speaking, is substantival, not adjectival. Thus, adjectives or participles in second attributive position are not generally appositives, but usually have an adjectival force” (Ibid., 48, fn. 41).

“While the force of the genitive is generally adjectival, the force of the dative is basically adverbial” (Ibid., 76).

On Nominal (noun) Force:

“Another difference between an adjectival gen. and an adjective is that a gen. does not lose its nominal force in that it can take adnominal modifiers, while an adjective usually takes only adverbial modifiers” (Ibid., 78, fn 20).

On Semantic Force (the category to which Sungenis claims the word “force” exclusively applies:

“Or to pigeonhole, without comment, orgizesthe in Eph 4:26 as a conditional imperative is a tacit assumption that such imperatives can be joined by kai to another imperative with a different semantic force; but there are no undisputed instances of this in the NT” (Ibid., 2).

“the article-noun-kai-noun construction is frequent in the NT, infrequent (and not carrying the same semantic force) in the LXX” (Ibid. 26, fn. 32). [NOTE: Wallace here confirms what Sungenis denies; namely, my thesis that it is simply not a given that Greek constructions in the NT bear the same semantic range as those same constructions in the LXX].

On Conjunctive Force (the specific category which I affirm and Sungenis denies):

“The R[elative] P[ronoun] is often used after a preposition. Frequently, such prepositional phrases have an adverbial or conjunctive force [heos hou is just such a case]. In such instances, the RP either has no antecedent, or else its antecedent is conceptual, not grammatical” (Ibid., 342).

On en ho in 1 Pet 3:19: "It may be significant, however, that every other time en ho is used in 1 Peter it bears an adverbial/conjunctive force (cf. 1:6; 2:12; 3:16 [here, temporal]; 4:4)" (Ibid., 343).

“Relative Pronouns:. . . Adverbial/Conjunctive Uses: after a preposition; adverbial/conjunctive force; no antecedent, or antecedent is conceptual” (Ibid. 739).

Sungenis is clearly wrong on this point, and once again betrays that he is woefully unfamiliar with grammatical terms and phrases.

RS: When Burton wants to refer to a part of speech or grammatical form, he uses the word "construction," not "force." This is easily seen in the distinction Burton makes in #330 "...heos hotou is in effect a compound conjunction having the same FORCE as the simple heos. The CONSTRUCTION following it is also the same..."

Sungenis embarrassingly betrays the understanding of a neophyte to Greek studies. It is just as embarrassing to have to respond to confused neophyte ramblings. I am accustomed to interacting on these issues with scholars, to whom these things do not have to be explained. The word “force” is used in Greek studies as a virtual synonym for “usage.” That is a fact. It is generic in nature, and it cannot be forced into the exclusive category Sungenis creates. In the vast majority of cases—even in Burton—“force” denotes syntactical usage. Burton follows standard nomenclature in this regard; and Sungenis’ silly suggestion to the contrary would be laughed at by anyone who is steeped in these discussions. Here is Burton’s use of “force”:

30: “The Imperfect is also used of a past necessity or obligation when the necessary deed did take place. Here also, of course, the Imperfect has its usual force [i.e., its usual usage as that part of speech]. Luke 13:16; 24:26; John 4:4; Acts 1:16; 17:3.” 

71. PERIPHRASTIC FORM OF THE FUTURE. A Future tense composed of a Present Participle and the Future of the verb eimi, is found occasionally in the New Testament. The force is that of a Progressive Future [i.e., its usage parallels that of a progressive future], with the thought of continuance or customariness somewhat emphasized.”

100: The Infinitive mellein with the Infinitive of another verb dependent on it has the force of a Future Infinitive of the latter verb [i.e., functions syntactically as that part of speech].

113: In this case the action denoted by the Aorist Infinitive is, by the nature of the case, future with reference to that of the principal verb, but this time-relation is not expressed by the tense.  The Aorist Infinitive is here as elsewhere timeless. These instances, though closely akin in force [i.e., in usage] to those of indirect discourse, are not usually included under that head. Cf. G.MT. 684.

432. To the Greek mind there was doubtless a distinction of thought between the participle which retained its adjective force [i.e., usage as an adjective] and its distinctness from the copula, and that which was so joined with the copula as to be felt as an element of a compound tense form. . . .  (b) It may be a Predicative Participle retaining its adjective force [i.e., usage as an adjective]. So probably the examples under 429, especially Gal. 1:22.”

329: “When the heos clause refers to the future or to what was at the time of the principal verb the future (322-326), it frequently has the force of [i.e., the same usage as] a conditional relative clause. See Matt. 18:30 ; Luke 15:4.”

We have shown that grammarians regularly use the word “force” to denote “usage.” We have seen that fact in Wallace’s grammar (“conjunctive force”—the very phrase I proposed, and the very one Sungenis denies that anyone uses), Burton’s “adverbial force” and “adjective force” (again, usages denied by Sungenis), as well as a number of other different ways this word can be used, most of which refer to syntactical force, or “usage,” in a sentence. Hence, it is the context that determines just what “force” means in relation to Burton’s §330. Here again is that passage:

330: “In the New Testament heos is sometimes followed by hou or hotou.  Heos is then a preposition governing the genitive of the relative pronoun, but the phrase heos hou or heos hotou is in effect a compound conjunction having the same force as the simple heos.”

It should be obvious to anyone familiar with the nomenclature of Greek studies—as well as the immediate context of this passage—that what Burton means by “force” is “usage.” Clearly, what Burton is saying here is simply that heos hou and heos hotou retain the conjunctive force of heos alone—so that they both still mean the conjunctive “until”—even though the addition of the particle technically changes heos to a preposition that governs the particle. He is not saying that the semantic range of heos hou is precisely that of heos alone—that thought does not even enter his mind, and any suggestion to the contrary simply betrays the mind of a neophyte.

RS: Since the very reason Burton is even bringing up the issue is due to the meaning of heos that he began investigating in #321-329, naturally the question would arise whether heos coupled with a particle would in anyway change the meaning of the simple heos. Burton answers that question by saying NO, the couplets have the same force as heos, no more, no less.

No; rather in §330 Burton is addressing whether there would be a change in usage, i.e., does it still act as a conjunction even though it has now been combined with a relative pronoun? Burton is simply not interested in nuances of meaning at this point. Burton has addressed the meaning of heos in §321, where he provides the general or primary meanings only:

RS: If, indeed, there was such a strong difference between heos and a heos couplet (Svendsen's assertion), we would expect a detailed grammar such as Burton's to alert us to that fact.

I never claimed there is a “strong difference” between heos hou and heos alone; that’s merely Sungenis’ straw man. I said there is a difference in nuance; there is a difference in the semantic range of each, though undoubtedly their respective semantic ranges share a good deal of overlap—both primarily mean “until,” and both can mean “while.” Why doesn’t Burton alert us to the difference in meaning that exists between an article + noun + ka i+ noun, and an article + noun + kai + article + noun—or, indeed any of the other constructions I have mentioned in this article? The reason is because it was not his purpose to exhaust the nuances of grammatical constructions in the Greek language.

RS: As it stands, Burton sees no difference. And here's the rub: I don't know of any other Greek grammar who sees it, including the renowned A. T. Robertson.

Just as a side note, Sungenis’ mention of Burton and Robertson causes one to wonder whether he has any knowledge of grammars written more recently than 80 years ago. As it stands, Burton does not address the issue of the semantic range of various heos constructions in his grammar. And here’s the rub; for the record, Burton never once indicates that when heos means “until” it can imply continuation of the main clause at the onset of the subordinate clause. Sungenis has dug himself into a hole on this one. He insists that Burton sees no difference between the semantic range of heos hou and heos alone, but rather (based on §330) that the former has the exact meaning as the latter. Very well then. What does Burton say about the meaning of heos alone? Here again is his §321:

321. Heos is properly a relative adverb which marks one action as the temporal limit of another action. It does this in two ways, either (a) so that the beginning or simple occurrence of the action of the verb introduced by heos is the limit of the action denoted by the principal verb, or (b) so that the continuance of the former [the action introduced by heos] is the limit of the latter [the action of the main verb]. In the former case heos means until, in the latter, while, as long as.

Notice that Burton gives only two meanings to heos: (a) when the subordinate clause terminates the action of the main clause (in which case it means “until”), and (b) when the main clause continues during the action of the subordinate clause (in which case it means “while, as long as”).  Let’s apply each of these meanings to Matt 1:25:

(a)   “And he did not know her until she gave birth to a son.”

(b)   “And he did not know her while/as long as she gave birth to a son.”

Obviously Burton’s (b) cannot be applied in this case, as it would be senseless for Matthew to write that Joseph abstained from normal marital relation while Mary was in the process of childbirth (as though anyone in his right mind would attempt sexual relations with his wife during childbirth). And even if we were to apply this meaning, Burton makes it quite clear in his explanation of (b) above that the continuance of action of the clause introduced by heos (namely, “gave birth”) is the limit of the main verb (“did not know her”). In other words, they occur and terminate at the same time. However long Mary’s childbirth continues, that is the limit of Joseph’s abstinence with her. So even if we were to apply (b), it does not help Sungenis’ case, since Mary’s giving birth and Joseph’s abstinence from knowing his wife sexually would, in this usage, occur and terminate simultaneously.

And so Burton’s (a) (“until”) is to be applied in the case of Matt 1:25. What exactly does Burton say about his (a) usage? “The beginning or simple occurrence of the action of the verb introduced by heos is the limit of the action denoted by the principal verb.” In other words, the simple action of Mary’s “giving birth” is the “limit” of Joseph’s action of abstinence from sexual relations with his wife. Again, Sungenis’ case is not help, for in both of Burton’s categories above (a and b), the action of the main clause (Joseph’s abstinence) terminates no later than the end of the action of the subordinate clause (Mary’s giving birth). Burton makes no exceptions to these categories. So, when Sungenis insists that Burton’s use of “force” implies that heos hou and heos alone mean the exact same thing—and that Burton’s grammar has exhausted the meaning of heos—we must point him back to §321 where Burton defines the meanings for heos, and let him live with the results.

I have tried to help Sungenis by allowing that both heos and heos hou have a semantic range far greater than Burton’s treatment intends to convey. But he seems so desperately bent on garnering support for his view of Mary that he has ended up precluding his view as a nonviable option based on Burton’s grammar.

RS: Svendsen's attempt to answer this deafening silence by shifting the definition of "force" from "meaning" to a "part of speech" is merely a desperate attempt to ward off contradictory evidence to his lone thesis. Again, let me stress, I don't know of ANY Greek grammar that makes the distinction between heos and its couplets that Svendsen makes, and he certainly hasn't cited any, which proves my point.

And so far, Sungenis has not cited any support from Barton’s grammar that would allow heos to bear the meaning “until and continuing.” If Sungenis insists on relying upon Barton’s grammar, then his view is precluded. As a matter of record, my “lone thesis,” as Sungenis characterizes it, has undergone the examination and scrutiny of a panel of non-partisan, non-evangelical scholars with no axe to grind, and has passed that examination with a mark of distinction, and has been acclaimed and commended by renowned NT scholars who are experts in Matthew (such as Craig Blomberg), as well as other NT scholars, theologians, and historians (click here to see a list).

ES: Now a brief word on grammars. Even if Sungenis and company could find a grammar that lumps all instances of heos and all heos/particle combinations under one semantic umbrella, it means very little. All grammars are general treatments only, and no grammar purports to be an exhaustive study on any word or phrase. I've already mentioned computer-aided research above. Grammars are prime examples of where more recent, computer-aided NT scholarship overturns older works that simply did not have the advantages we have today.

RS: No, this is also incorrect. Access to all the biblical passages of a particular Greek word or phrase were available for the old grammars and the new. If the grammars, such as Burton's, don't cite all the instances that is because they don't need to, since doing so would be redundant.

Since Sungenis hasn’t understood my point here it seems unnecessary to respond to him. Nowhere do I claim that older grammarians did not have access to all biblical passages in which a construction occurs. My point is not that Burton doesn’t cite all instances. My point is that his purpose is not to define all nuances of every conceivable Greek construction. His purpose—and the purpose of all like grammars for that matter—is merely to address the primary or general usage of words and phrases. How does Sungenis explain the ongoing articles on understanding Greek syntax that show up within NT studies and Greek grammatical studies all the time? If Burton took care of it 100 years ago, then that should be the end of all inquiry, according to Sungenis’ way of thinking. There should be no need for articles, no need for journals—and in particular, no need for newer grammars—because Burton has exhausted the usage of Greek language!

RS: More importantly, surely Burton, and all the other grammars, knew of all the instances of heos hou in the New Testament. There aren't that many of them to investigate - less than two dozen.

Sungenis just keeps writing away, making irrelevant point after irrelevant point about something that was never the intent of these grammars.

RS: Surely if there was a distinction between heos hou and heos an expert grammarian like Burton, or anyone else of his caliber, would be able to discover those difference quite easily.

Do we find reference to the Canon of Apollonius in Burton (regarding nouns in regimen)? Do we find reference to Granville Sharp’s rule regarding the article governing two nouns in regimen in Burton? Do we find reference to Colwell’s rule regarding definite predicate nouns in Burton? Do we find reference to McGaughy’s rule regarding einai connecting two substantives in Burton? Do we find reference to Goetchius’ qualifications of McGaughy’s rule in Burton? Do we find reference to Porter’s aspectual theory in Burton? Do we find reference to the Moeller/Kramer rule regarding consecutive accusative substantives in Burton? Does Burton make reference to Reed’s qualifications of Moeller/Kramer? Shouldn’t an expert like Burton have discovered all these rules on his own and reported them in his grammar? Sungenis simply continues to betray his neophyte understanding of these things.

RS: As it stands, NONE of them saw a difference, even though they had all the instances of heos hou at their fingertips. Burton did not need Logos or BibleWorks software to locate heos hou. Yet Svendsen, in his utter desperation to protect his thesis, has no choice but to call into question these traditionally authoritative sources, otherwise his dissertation falls like a house of cards, at least on the issue of heos hou.

Again, my thesis was placed under critical examination by NT scholars, who, quite unlike Sungenis, recognize the general helpfulness of grammars but also understand the necessity of going beyond a grammar to determine usage of a construction—something that continues to elude Sungenis, no doubt because he is a neophyte in this area of study. I have already shown that NT scholarship has examined my work, and has commended my work. Sungenis does not mention this because it’s easier to criticize a work if his readers are under the illusion that there is no support for it.

ES: Even a hard and fast rule such as Colwell's rule regarding anarthrous predicate nouns has been extensively modified due to more recent, computer-aided scholarship.

RS: Colwell's rule was not even fully accepted by the old grammars. Even Colwell knew his theory had holes in it, since the Greek article has escaped all attempts to pigeonhole it into one's pet category. Modern software has not cracked the code of the infamous Greek article. Even Wallace's treatment of the article is not altogether satisfactory.

As though Sungenis, who has shown he has very little understanding of this area of study, would be in a position to critique Wallace’s treatment of Colwell’s rule? And yet, amazingly enough, Wallace, who is a grammarian sees fit to include Colwell’s rule in his grammar—yet it doesn’t appear in Burton’s. Why not? Was it because Burton was unable to examine this relationship for himself? Or, perhaps was it because inclusion of these kinds of usages was not part of Burton’s intent when writing his grammar? Notice also that I have not once disagreed with Burton’s treatment of heos—I have only suggested that he didn’t go far enough; which is absolutely verifiable since he doesn’t mention that heos can mean “until, and continuing” (a meaning that is absolutely crucial to Sungenis’ view of Matt 1:25). Yet, Sungenis (whose training in this area is demonstrably deficient) criticizes me (who sat at the feet of men like D. A. Carson on these very issues) for suggesting that Burton was not exhaustive in his treatment, and at the same time has gone on record disagreeing with Wallace, who is a highly respected modern-day grammarian! The irony of this is almost painful.

ES: It would be only a slight exaggeration to say that older rules are being overturned daily by new studies in this area. Sungenis is relying on works that predate the very ability to look at every instance of these Greek constructions, so numerous are they.

RS: As I said above, Burton and company had access to all the uses of heos hou. As we can tell by the analytical lexicons and concordances that his generation of exegetes produced, none of the instances of these phrases would have been a surprise to them.

And he also had access to all the uses of nouns in regimen, and all uses of articles governing two nouns, and all uses of the definite predicate noun, and all uses of einai connecting two substantives, and all uses of Greek aspect, and all uses of consecutive accusative substantives. Why didn’t Burton comment on these?

RS: Even according to Svendsen's own calculations, there are only 102 instances of heos hou in both the LXX and the New Testament. Using a mere concordance, one could look up all 17 instances in the New Testament, and analyze them, in about the space of two hours. The 85 remaining in the LXX may take a week. But Svendsen acts as if all this knowledge is hidden away somewhere in secret chambers to which only the sophisticated computer geeks, such as himself, have access. Svendsen's whole thesis is built on a house of cards, and as we will see, it doesn't take much wind to blow it away.

I wasn’t referring to the construction heos hou. I was referring to all conceivable Greek constructions. For all practical purposes, they are indeed limitless. And, depending on the construction, it can take years to examine each occurrence, because the Bible is not the only literature to check. Does Sungenis really not know this?

ES: What's worse is that such an appeal to Burton-who wrote his grammar over 100 years ago-betrays that Sungenis has not kept up with current NT research methods in Greek grammatical studies. Does he have anything to contribute from this century? Burton-and any other antiquated grammar for that matter-needs to be supplemented by more recent and more extensive Greek studies. To illustrate my point further, the very first paragraph in that section of Burton's grammar states the following:

321. "Heos is properly a relative adverb which marks one action as the temporal limit of another action. It does this in two ways, either (a) so that the beginning or simple occurrence of the action of the verb introduced by heos is the limit of the action denoted by the principal verb [such is the case in Matt 1:25], or (b) so that the continuance of the former is the limit of the latter [e.g., John 9:4]. In the former case heos means until, in the latter, while, as long as."

RS: This is a simple case of Svendsen not understanding what he is reading. The use of heos limiting the action of the main verb is covered in Burton's section "a." The meaning of heos continuing the action of the main verb is addressed in Burton's section "b." It just so happens that heos, when it continues the action of the main verb, is sometimes better translated as "while" or "as long as," rather than "until."

Note that Sungenis has just contradicted Burton’s 321 above. Burton specifically states, “In the former case [a] heos means until, in the latter [b], while, as long as." Sungenis recognizes that Burton’s (a) can’t apply to Matt 1:25 since the action of the main clause (“did not know her”) is terminated by the action of the subordinate clause (“she gave birth”). So he attempts to fit Matt 1:25 into Burton’s (b) category. Yet Burton is very specific about the meaning of passages that fall into both categories. In the case of (a) heos means “until.” In the case of (b) heos means “while, as long as.” Burton doesn’t make any exceptions here; yet Sungenis, knowing that heos in Matt 1:25 cannot mean “while” or “as long as,” introduces a third category that Burton doesn’t mention: namely, a usage of heos that means “until” (Burton’s cat. a), but that retains the element of continuance (Burton’s cat. b—which, by the way, Sungenis badly misunderstands). What is Sungenis suggesting by such a statement? That Burton was not exhaustive after all? That there really are other nuances of heos that Burton does not mention? Isn’t this the very thing he has been denying all along? Here is Sungenis’ explanation:

RS: The LXX translations into English do the same thing with heos. Depending on the context, the meaning of heos will shift between the two possibilities. The fact that heos continues the action of the main verb cannot be dismissed by claiming that heos can sometimes be translated "while" in English. There are many instances, in both the LXX and the NT, in which translating by using "while" or an "until" that is meant to continue the action is a mere judgment call on the part of the translator.

Yes, I agree that there are—and I have mentioned this fact in my book; which is why I said in my first response that Sungenis would have received more support for his view from my book than from Burton. But that’s the whole point, isn’t it? That Burton simply does not address every nuance of heos in his grammar. That the only way you can establish the entire semantic range is to look outside of Burton to the primary sources themselves. And when we do that, we see there are uses and nuances of heos alone and heos with the particle that Burton simply does not address in his grammar. Sungenis is forced to abandon Burton at this point and rely on his own observations of the LXX literature. Yet this is precisely what he denies is a valid thing to do when it comes to my research! Again, the irony is almost painful.

RS: In any case, the translation "while" merely shows that heos continues the action of the main verb rather than limiting it. This is evidence against Svendsen's thesis, not for it.

Now allow me address why I stated earlier that Sungenis badly misunderstands Burton’s usage (b). Burton is not saying that heos can mean “and continuing.” Far from it. The reason he says that the meaning is “while/as long as” is precisely because the action of the main clause continues into the action of the subordinate clause (e.g., “go over there while I pray”), but does not continue after the action of the subordinate clause is completed (which is what would be required in Sungenis’ view of Matt 1:25). Indeed, Burton denies that possibility by stating that the continuance of the action of the subordinate clause “is the limit of” (i.e., terminates) the action of the main clause. For instance, in the phrase “sit here while I go over there to pray,” there is no thought that the disciples would continue to “sit here” after Jesus is done praying. Rather, as Burton indicates, the opposite is true; namely, that the continuance of the action of Jesus praying “is the limit” (i.e., terminates) the action of the disciples “sitting here.” When the former is completed, the latter terminates as well. Hence, the meaning “while/as long as.” If we were to apply this in the case of Matt 1:25, what we’d have is Joseph abstaining from sexual relations with Mary only “while” she gave birth to a son. That suggests that Joseph was having sexual relations with Mary during the period before her labor, and immediately afterwards as well. Obviously this does absolutely nothing to help Sungenis’ case.

RS: Accordingly, when Burton then says in paragraph 330 that heos; heos hotou; heos hou have the same "force," he means that, just like heos, the phrases heos hotou and heos hou will shift between terminating the action of the main verb or continuing the action, depending on the context. It's really very simple.

If it’s really that simple, then it devastates Sungenis’ case, since Burton doesn’t allow for Sungenis category (c). Hence, Sungenis has painted himself into a corner. In his attempt to refute my thesis, he has insisted that Burton is exhaustive in his treatment of heos; but then he has to create a new category of usage that Burton does not mention in order to find an application for his understanding of Matt 1:25. Which will it be? Is Burton exhaustive in his treatment of heos (in which case, Burton offers contrary support for Sungenis’ understanding of Matt 1:25); or does Burton need to be supplemented by our own observations of usage that we find in the primary literature (in which case, we find that the semantic range of heos hou is different than that of heos alone, and that in the NT era heos hou excludes Sungenis’ understanding of Matt 1:25)? Either way, Sungenis doesn’t fare well.

RS: The only way Svendsen can vindicate himself is by making Burton look like an inept Greek grammarian.

On the contrary, the way I vindicate myself is to read Burton aright and with understanding, and to avoid misinterpreting both his stated categories for heos, and his limited, general usage intent for his grammar. Burton himself indicates as much in the title, preface and introduction of his Grammar. The title of the grammar is Moods And Tenses Of New Testament Greek. The title alone betrays that it is not an exhaustive work, but one that will treat moods and tenses. If that weren’t enough, Burton goes on to tell us in the preface of the grammar:

“The first edition of this work appeared as a pamphlet in 1888. In issuing this revised and enlarged edition, it seems desirable to state somewhat more fully than was done in the former preface the purpose which it is hoped the book will serve. . . . . Its main purpose is to contribute to the interpretation of the New Testament by the exposition of the functions of the verb in New Testament Greek, so far as those functions are expressed by the distinctions of mood and tense. . . .  If such a book does not solve all the problems of New Testament grammar, it should, by its treatment of those which it discusses, illustrate to the student the right method of investigation and so suggest the course which he must pursue in solving for himself those problems which the book leaves unsolved. My aim has been to provide a book fulfilling these conditions.”

Burton’s stated purpose for his grammar is to deal with the distinctions of mood and tense in the Greek verb. Neither heos nor the particle hou is a verb; hence Burton has not provided an exhaustive treatment of either. Burton goes on to tell us that he has not dealt with every question of Greek grammar, but frankly admits that the student will have to solve those “which the book leaves unsolved” for himself. Here is an excerpt from Burton’s introduction:

“For practical convenience forms are grouped together, and the significance of each of the distinctions made by inflection discussed by itself. The present work confines itself to the discussion of mood and tense, and discusses these as far as possible separately. Its question therefore is, What in the New Testament are the functions of each tense and of each mood?”

Again, Burton’s stated purpose is to deal with the mood and tense of the Greek verb (as the title suggests). Sungenis has painted himself into a corner of badly understanding both Burton’s statements and his purpose. It is doubtful that Sungenis’ pride will allow him to admit to his misreading of Burton, and we can no doubt expect even more “hack and glue” of Burton’s grammar in his response.

RS: The mere fact that in paragraph 321, Burton also cites the use of heos in the classics, such as Hadley's Greek Grammar; Goodwin's Greek grammar; and the Journal of Biblical Literature, and thus he is familiar with the uses of heos in the LXX, and none of those grammars say that heos can only terminate the action of the main verb.

Both categories (a) and (b) in Burton unquestionably terminate (“limit”) the action of the main clause. I have no doubt that Burton was familiar with other grammars. So what? This proves only that Burton did not intend to be exhaustive in his treatment of grammar. Indeed, in the passage just mentioned, Burton explicitly states, “On heos in Hellenistic Greek see G. W. Gilmore in J.B.L. 1890, pp. 153-160.” But if Burton considered his work to be exhaustive, why is he telling his readers to see another work on the use of heos in Hellenistic Greek? It’s one thing to cite sources you’ve used; another to instruct your readers to read another work. When I think I have exhausted the ideas of another writer on any given issue, I cite that writer in a footnote. If I merely touch on a larger issue that writer is addressing, I instruct my readers in a footnote to “see” the work of that writer to gain a better understanding of the issue. That is standard scholarly usage in citations.

Sungenis claims that Burton is exhaustive in his treatment of heos—I have shown that to be an impossible claim. However, if one does believe Burton to be exhaustive, then he must also live with the fact that Burton does not allow for Sungenis’ category (c), because Burton doesn’t mention it. It’s that simple. When you paint yourself into a corner, it becomes less and less comfortable to live with the ramifications.

RS: In addition to what I said above, I appealed to Burton only to show that heos hou has the same "force" as heos. It is Svendsen who is accusing Burton and the other grammars of not knowing that heos can continue an action as opposed to terminating it.

We have already shown that Sungenis doesn’t understand the meaning of “force.” We have also shown that Burton doesn’t address every nuance of heos because that is not his intent. As an example of the latter, we have further shown that Burton’s treatment does not allow for Sungenis’ understanding of heos in Matt 1:25.

RS: Apparently Svendsen is on a ‘search and destroy' mission, trying to make it look like I am plagiarizing Burton when I am not. This is another attempt of his to agitate the atmosphere of this discussion. If I was plagerizing [sic] Burton, then how did Svendsen know that I was quoting from Burton? The answer is easy, at least for someone without an axe to grind - - I already stated I was getting the information from Burton in my opening remarks.

Sungenis did not state he was getting all his information from Burton. He cites Burton at one point and completely fails to give the bibliographic information. For the rest of his points, he does not attribute them to Burton at all. There are no qualifiers, such as “Burton says,” no page number references, nothing at all to indicate he is citing Burton. I have extensive experience in documentation and citation of sources, not only through my years as a graduate student who wrote a rigorously examined master’s thesis through Trinity, and then as a doctoral student who wrote a rigorously examined dissertation, but also as the CEO of an international documentation and training corporation which I founded. I know what plagiarism is, and if Sungenis thinks he has done proper citation he is sorely mistaken. His style of writing and citation practices would never be accepted at the schools I’ve attended.

RS: Here is a rehash of Svendsen's bogus argument that "force" does not refer to "meaning" but to a "part of speech." As for the issue of grammatical searches, as I said above, Svendsen is trying to make these past grammarians look like incompetent boobs in an effort to support his own biases. He's trying to convince us that of all the grammarians of past years, no one had ever noticed, as Svendsen has noticed, the difference in meaning between heos and heos hou. This just simply passed by all of them unawares, as brilliant as some of them were. If you believe that, then I've got some Florida swamp land I want to sell you.

Will Sungenis likewise sell his swampland to those who believe that Burton doesn’t address a whole host of nuances and usages of grammatical contractions, such as Granville Sharp’s rule, Colwell’s rule, McGaughy’s rule, the canon of Apollonius, etc.—oh yes, and Sungenis’ own understanding of heos in Matt 1:25? Or perhaps Sungenis believes that Burton was completely exhaustive in his treatment of heos (in which case, Burton disallows the usage Sungenis needs for Matt 1:25), but not exhaustive in anything else? On what basis would he conclude this? I have not suggested in my presentation that Burton was wrong about anything he says in his discussion on heos—only that he was incomplete. However, that does not imply that Burton was right about everything he treats in his grammar. One need only to peruse the introduction of Wallace’s grammar to see the deficiencies and errors of past grammarians, including Burton and Robertson. Indeed, I am familiar with very few recent grammars that don’t correct the past grammars on this or that point. Sungenis, on the other hand—and well out of step with the assumptions of more recent grammarians—seems to hold past grammarians as somehow infallible.

However, since Sungenis appeals so freely to past grammars, Here is Smyth’s grammar, whom Sungenis has cited elsewhere in support of his views.

§2428. “Conjunctions meaning until may have, as an implied or expressed [p. 549] antecedent, mechri toutou up to the time. Thus, mechri toutou La_sthenês philos  ônomazeto, heôs proudôken Olunthon Lasthenes was called a friend (up to the time when) until he betrayed Olynthus D. 18.48.

§2429. “With conjunctions meaning until, when the principal clause is affirmative, it is implied that the action of the verb of the principal clause continues only up to the time when the action of the verb of the until clause takes place. Thus, in the passage cited in 2428, it is implied that Lasthenes ceased to be called a friend after he had betrayed Olynthus.

a. “When the principal clause is negative, it is implied that the action of the verb of the principal clause does not take place until the action of the until clause takes place; as in ou proteron epausanto heôs tên polin eis staseis katestêsan they did not stop until they divided the city into factions L. 25.26 . In sentences like dei mê perimenein heôs an epistôsin we must not wait until they are upon us (I. 4.165), by reason of the meaning of perimenein the action of the principal clause ceases before the action of the until clause takes place.

In this section, Smyth is discussing the use of heos when it means until. His point is introduced in the first sentence; namely, that when heos (or any other conjunction for that matter) means “until,” there is an implied time limit of the action of the main clause once the “until” has been reached. Hence, in the case of an affirmative main clause, when it says, “Lasthenes was called a friend (up to the time when) until he betrayed Olynthus” (2428), “it is implied that Lasthenes ceased to be called a friend after he had betrayed Olynthus” (2429). And in the case of a negative main clause (such as in Matt 1:25), “it is implied that the action of the verb of the principal clause does not take place until the action of the until clause takes place” (2429a). That Smyth’s meaning regarding the negative is that the action of the main verb ceases once the until is reached is made clear by the examples he gives: “they did not stop until they divided the city into factions” (implying that they did stop after that point). Indeed, the only exception he gives to this rule is when the action of the main clause ceases even before the action of the subordinate clause: “In sentences like . . . we must not wait until (heos) they are upon us . . . , by reason of the meaning of [“wait”] the action of the principal clause ceases before the action of the until clause takes place.”

Hence, once again, to appeal strictly to Greek grammars is devastating to Sungenis’ view. Sungenis’ diachronic approach to Greek grammar (according to which the semantic range of any word or phrase remains constant throughout the life of the language) cannot dismiss Smyth for being a Classical Greek grammar, since Sungenis’ view is that once the meaning of a word or phrase has been established in a grammar regardless of era, that meaning should rule the day. Hence, Sungenis is defeated by his own selected approach, since both Smyth and Burton contradict his view of heos hou.

The synchronic approach to Greek (according to which one’s proper recognition of etymological changes in the language over time dictates that any analysis of words or phrases is confined to a specific era) is to be preferred, and it is the approach of the vast majority of Greek grammarians today. Using the synchronic approach, I am free to fine-tune the findings of both Smyth (who addresses a different form of Greek) and Burton (who, as an old-school grammarian of koine, employed the diachronic approach to Greek and ignored the subtle differences in nuances of words and phrases in any given era). In other words, even though both Burton and Smyth agree with me against Sungenis, honesty and integrity of scholarship dictates that I not use either in my favor, since Smyth (as a Classical grammar) and Burton (as a diachronic grammar) are less relevant than a detailed analysis of a word or phrase in the specific era that word or phrase occurs. Sungenis, on the other hand, is not free to do this.

RS: First of all, we're not talking about complicated constructions such as "infinitive + eis + the anarthrous accusative noun." We are talking about heos as opposed to heos hou, a very simple comparison.

Sungenis states this as though it is just a given that a grammarian would be interested in “simple” constructions and not “complicated” ones. Is the use of the article governing two nouns all that complex? Is the use of two nouns in regimen either both having or lacking the article all that complex, Is the use of the definite predicate noun all that complex? Why weren’t these included in Burton’s grammar as well? Most of these are included in Wallace’s grammar. Sungenis just seems to be making it up as he goes along without giving us concrete criteria upon which to judge whether a grammatical construction is simple enough to include in Burton, even though most of them are included in Wallace. Is Sungenis now “accusing” Burton of not being exhaustive?

RS: It doesn't take a rocket scientist to compare one against the other, especially since the investigator only has two possible outcomes, that is, either heos and heos hou continue the action of the main verb or they do not.

But evidently it takes a bit more than those who have in the past claimed to be equivalent to a rocket scientist. Sungenis continues with his misreading of Burton’s category (b), so there is little need to comment further.

RS: Second, and this is as an aside, the meaning of "infinitive + eis + the anarthrous accusative noun" is dependent on the interpretation of the one doing the analysis. If he comes in with a bias, as Svendsen invariably does, then it will corrupt the actual meaning (and that is assuming that there is some special meaning to the "infinitive + eis + the anarthrous accusative noun").

It is convenient that Sungenis fails to mention here that the significance I identified in this construction was given a letter grade of A- and made required reading for the class by no less a scholar that D. A. Carson, who is a Greek grammarian. His comments regarding that point in my paper were: “very thoughtful!!” Does this sound like the actions of a Greek grammarian who disagrees with the validity of the observation? Sungenis is desperately trying to poison the well in an attempt to advance his own points; but in each case my work has been submitted for critical examination—and passed with flying colors—and his has not. That speaks volumes.

Moreover, Sungenis is attempting to argue in relativistic terms that the evidence of usage itself can never yield firm conclusions, but is always subject to the whims of the one doing the analysis. In the preface of his grammar, Daniel Wallace notes two tendencies of neophyte Greek students that the student of Greek should guard himself against:

“Typically, by the time a student finishes intermediate Greek, disillusion and demotivation have set in via ‘death by categories.’ . . . But with such an approach for the NT, the student can easily get the artificial impression that the syntactical labels will almost naturally attach themselves to the words in a given passage, thus rendering exegesis as a black-and-white science. Once a little exegesis is under the student’s belt, however, the opposite (and equally false) impression emerges: exegesis is the art of importing one’s views into the text by picking a syntactical label that is in harmony with one’s preunderstanding. The former attitude views syntax as a cold and rigid taskmaster of exegesis, equally indispensable and uninteresting; the latter assumes that the use of syntactical labels in exegesis is simply a Wittgensteinian-like game that commentators play” (Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, x).

Wallace here denies what Sungenis has asserted, categorizing such an assertion as one that is made by a Greek student who has not yet reached maturity of understanding. Wallace goes on:

“Both the semantics and the “semantic situation” of the categories are frequently developed. That is, rather than mere definitions for labels, the nuancing of the category (semantics) and the situations (e.g., contexts, lexical intrusions, etc.) in which such a usage generally occurs also are analyzed. Such analyses show that syntactical description is not a Mad Hatter word-game and that the idioms of the language do offer some controls on exegesis. At times, structural clues that intermediate students might overlook are given (e.g., the historical present is always in the indicative mood and all clear examples of historical presents in the NT are in the third person). Often this discussion mulls over the semantics of a construction, thereby helping the student gain insights into the exegetical significance of various syntactical patterns” (Ibid., xi).

Wallace affirms what I have been stating all along regarding the subtle nuances of syntactical constructions that are not addressed in grammars, but are left to the independent study of the exegete himself. Such is the case with heos hou. In a related footnote (51), Wallace makes this observation:

“Precisely because of a lack of linguistic sensitivity, many students of the NT commit exegetical blunders. Knowing how to translate and/or syntactically tag a construction is not the same as knowing how to articulate the semantics of such a construction.”

Sungenis is guilty of the latter tendency in his push to make the analysis of the grammar completely dependent upon the interpreter.

RS: There is no standard Greek grammar dropped from heaven that gives us the meaning of "infinitive + eis + the anarthrous accusative noun." The meaning, if it can be reached, is reached by trial and error, and even then we may not know for sure. Greek grammarians, as I noted above, haven't even unlocked all the nuances of the Greek article.

Amazing. My point all along has been the necessity of investigating every occurrence of a grammatical construction in the relevant literature in order to determine the usage. I have insisted all along that Greek grammars have not exhausted every nuances of every Greek construction. This is just the point for which Sungenis in this dialogue has gone to the carpet denying! Now he affirms it! Indeed, Sungenis has treated Burton as though his grammar did drop from heaven! I’ll let the glaring contradiction stand on its own.

RS: Third, appeal to the complexity of the Greek grammar actually weakens Svendsen's case, since one would be forced to ask: "If its so complicated, Dr. Svendsen, then how can you be so sure about your conclusions regarding heos hou?

I didn’t suggest it was complicated; I suggested it was involved. How can I be sure? By examining all its occurrences and establishing patterns of usages—the same procedure that is used by all grammarians to establish any and all rules of usage. If Sungenis doesn’t know how to do this, then he should stay out of the fray, and not try to pass himself off as one who is “in the know” on these things.

RS: If Dr. Svendsen retorts that it is simple in the case of heos hou, then we can ask: "then why bother us with all this "infinitive + eis + the anarthrous accusative noun" matter?

Sungenis seems to think that we should just assume that grammatical constructions of words bear the same meaning as the words used by themselves, unless a grammar specifically suggests otherwise. As I’ve already shown, that is a naïve view of Greek grammar.

ES: Indeed, in many cases, inquiries were (in past times) limited to biblical literature, with little thought that further research on the same construction in all available Hellenistic literature of that era (such a task must have seemed mind-boggling to pre-GramCord grammarians!) might yield even greater nuances of the construction in question. And indeed, this is just what has happened in countless instances in which long-established grammatical "rules" have, in more recent times, easily been overturned. Sungenis writes his article(s) as though he is completely unaware of this fact.

RS: Oh really? Is that why Burton names no less than five references to classical Greek literature when he is speaking about the meaning of heos in section 321?

How is that relevant? Burton doesn’t merely cite these grammars; he actually instructs his readers to “see” them. That suggests rather that Burton has not exhausted the uses of heos. Moreover, Sungenis continues to ignore the fact that one of the uses of heos that Burton doesn’t address in his grammar is the very one Sungenis needs to support his view of Matt 1:25 (“until, and continuing”). Sungenis’ point here is self-defeating, because his proposed usage of heos in Matt 1:25 is excluded on those same grounds. Is that really what he wants to do?

ES: Again, Sungenis appears to be blissfully unaware of all this. He informs the questioner above that Genesis 26:13 is a fair example of heos hou to establish the semantic range of heos hou in the NT, and consequently the meaning of Matthew 1:25. Such a statement is grossly irresponsible, and it betrays an inexcusable ignorance of how grammatical studies and exegesis are done. There are indeed some words that are Hebraisms-that is, the consistent meaning of a word or phrase in the LXX may be adopted by the NT writers due to influence by that literature. However, heos hou is not one of them. A true Hebraism is a word with a specialized meaning that permeates the LXX, and is also clearly found in the NT.

RS: "Blissfully unaware"? No, sir. I am fully aware of the issues Svendsen describe above. I went to Protestant seminary, too, remember? I also read Carson's books (and by the way, even though he wrote a book on Exegetical Fallacies, he has his own fallacies he needs to work on, but I won't get into that right now).

Once again, Sungenis doesn’t appear to catch the strange irony of his standing in judgment of the work of a NT scholar who is also a Greek grammarian—and this after he has chided me (earlier in this correspondence) for “accusing” Burton of not knowing what he’s doing. The difference is, I never accused Burton of being incompetent, yet that is just what Sungenis has done with both Carson and Wallace.

RS: Here's the problem with Svendsen's argument. He thinks that just because some LXX words had developed a different shade of meaning (as all languages commonly do), he now thinks he has the license to apply this difference to whatever words he arbitrarily chooses. He has no proof that heos hou changed it meaning from heos, and he has no Greek grammarians to back him up.

On the contrary; I have both. I have proof for the etymological change of heos hou (one can see that proof for himself by reading my work on Mary), and I have support from NT scholars who are also Greek grammarians (such as Craig Blomberg), and who have examined my work and commended it. Sungenis, on the other hand, has absolutely no unexamined proof for his own view.

ES: And we've already seen Svendsen's failure to address the issue of textual variants; as well as his arbitrary dismissal of heos on the basis that it is sometimes translated "while." And there are more problems, as I will show below.

Sungenis’ charges here have been fully addressed above, where we have shown that Sungenis simply does not understand the significance of textual variants.

RS: While we are on the subject of textual variants, I think it is rather revealing that one of the most important pieces of evidence in this whole discussion Svendsen never mentions, that is, the fact that the very verse we are debating, Matthew 1:25, has a textual variant regarding heos hou. According to the Nestle Aland Greek text (the standard in the industry), one major manuscript, Codex Vaticanus (B) omits hou. It only has heos.

I am grateful that Sungenis at least admits that the NA text is the standard in the field (a point I made above and one which militates against his previous explanation that the number of instances depend on the Greek text one is using—why would he be using any text but the NA text?). As for the variant reading; once again, variant readings cannot be included as examples of usages for a given era, not only because they were composed at a later time, but also because they came about by mishearing or misreading, and not at all by a scribe intentionally substituting one word for the other on the basis that they are synonymous terms.

RS: In fact, it is very significant that heos and its couplets have a proportionately high frequency of textual variants compared to other adverbs and particles in the NT. All of this weakens Svendsen's argument considerably, but we don't hear a word from him about this important matter.

How in the world would it weaken my argument given that variants occur by mistake, not by intention? The very fact that Sungenis sees this as an “important matter” indicates he doesn’t have a firm grasp on the principles of textual criticism.

RS: Speaking of Carson, he calls what Svendsen is doing "Appeal to Selective Evidence" on page 98 of Exegetical Fallacies. He writes: "...but also as an instance where there has been so selective a use of evidence that other evidence has been illegitimately excluded."

Now Sungenis is misunderstanding Carson. I have examined every single occurrence of heos hou in all the literature of the era in which Matthew wrote his gospel. Combined with Carson’s warning regarding semantic obsolescence, my treatment is a balanced work.

RS: Or we might better characterize Svendsen's error as "assuming the part equals the whole."

How is the fallacy of composition relevant to this issue?

Not only are there precious few instances of heos hou that bear the meaning Sungenis proposes for Matt 1:25, even in the LXX, but there is not even one clear instance of that meaning for this construction in the NT itself. That automatically disqualifies it as a Hebraism.

RS: Let's examine the record. As for the LXX, the following are some of the instances where heos hou continues the action of the main verb. (e.g., Gn 26:13; 2Kg 6:25; 1Ch 6:32; 2Ch 21:15; 29:28; Ps 56:2 (57:1); 71:7 (72:7); 93:14,15 (94:13,15); 111:8 (112:8); 141:8 (142:7)). Although the New Testament doesn't have as many, that is only because, on a per capita basis, there are proportionately less instances of heos hou in the NT as opposed to the LXX. The NT passages in which heos hou continues the action of the main verb are Mt 14:22; 26:36; 2Pt 1:19. Of these, only Mt 26:36 has a textual variant, as I noted above.

The instances in the LXX in which heos how implies no termination of the main clause are Ps 71[72]:7; 93[94]:14,15; 111[112]:8; 141:8 [142:7]; 2 Chron 29:28; 4 Macc 7:3; Cant 2:17 and 4:6; with an additional three that might as readily be examples of termination of the action of the main clause (Ps 56:2 [57:1]; Ps 122[123]:2; Dan 2:9). Hence there are seven or eight clear examples of this usage, and possibly three additional examples. Sungenis includes a number of others in his list, all of which I deny are examples that support his view of Matt 1:25. If he thinks differently, let him prove it.

As for the NT, there are no instances in which heos hou, when it means “until,” denotes the action of the main clause continuing after the action of the subordinate clause, in spite of Sungenis’ three proposed examples above. If he thinks the usage in those passages supports his understanding of the usage in Matt 1:25, then let him prove it.

Regarding Mt 14:22 as a primary example, here we have an instance in which heos hou, as it continues the action of the infinitive proagein ("to go before") which can either be translated "while" or "until." In fact three Greek interlinears I checked all translate it as "until" (The Revised Standard Interlinear by Alfred Marshall; The King James Inerlinear by Alfred Marshall; and The King James Interlinear by George Ricker Berry). Moreover, various English translations render the phrase as "until" or "till" (The American Standard Verions, 1901; The Douay-Rheims; The Darby Bible; and Youngs Translation).

Matt 14:22 is an example of Burton’s category (b), where the translation is properly “while” or “as long as.” The verse reads: “Immediately Jesus made the disciples get into the boat and go on ahead of him to the other side, while he dismissed the crowd.” The NIV, NASB, KJV, NKJV, Amp, NLT, and others all translate it as “while.” But even if we were to translate it as “until,” it proves nothing for Sungenis’ case. According to Burton, both “while” and “until” terminate the action of the main clause. Hence, Sungenis’ proposed meaning is excluded by Burton. More importantly, the lexicon of BAGD cites both Matt 14:22 and Matt 26:36 as examples of heos hou meaning “while.” It’s not merely my judgment call. The standard lexicon in NT scholarly circles says the same thing.

ES: The bottom line in determining what heos hou really means-and just as significantly, when it means that-is to examine every instance of the construction in the era in which you want to establish a semantic range. When we do this for heos hou in Matt 1:25, the overwhelming evidence is that the normal Greek speaker of Matthew's day would have understood Matthew to imply that Mary and Joseph engaged in normal marital relations after the birth of Jesus.

RS: Correction: "In the normal understanding of Protestant exegesis, which ignores the Patristic and Conciliar determination of what meaning of heos hou is to be adopted in reference to Matthew 1:25, the meaning which terminates the action is chosen because it is the only one which supports the Protestant contention that Jesus had blood siblings."

Sungenis gives us no idea who he’s quoting here, so it’s impossible to verify the quotation. In any case, it’s not necessary to examine the quote since no matter who it is, it’s wrong-headed. Why the anachronistic “Patristic and Conciliar determination of what meaning of heos hou” should even come into play in exegesis of the NT is unclear. The meaning of the NT is determined by exegesis of the words and phrases used in the time they were used; not by what selective citations of later patristic writers indicate the meaning should have been. Does Sungenis now wish simply to claim “denominational infallibility” and be done with further exegesis and discussion? If so, let him plainly say so now so that we don’t waste any more time pointing out his exegetical errors. As it turns out, Sungenis will indeed claim just that (below).

RS: That such is the case, Svendsen has inadvertently admitted, for once he admits that heos hou CAN have the meaning of continuing the action of the verb, then he simply has no basis for disclaiming that possibility for Matthew 1:25, unless he can prove, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that heos hou, in the NT, cannot continue the action. As we have seen above, Svenden's "proof" is anything but.

Has Sungenis read my part of the discussion? I have not conceded that heos hou, when it means “until,” can imply continuation of the action of the main clause after the “until” has been reached. Quite the opposite. There is absolutely no example of that usage in all the literature of the Hellenistic period in the two centuries surrounding the birth of Christ. That’s a fact. And so I have indeed proven that heos hou in the NT, when it means “until” (Burton’s cat. a), always terminates the action of the main clause.

RS: Burton has already admitted that heos does not merely "limit" the action of the main verb, but also continues it. It makes little difference whether we translate the continuation by "while" or some other term, as I have shown above from Mt 14:26. The context, and other factors, will help us determine which English translation is the best, but in any case, heos hou is not LIMITING the action in Mt 14:26. The point remains that heos continues the action of the main verb, and that fact is uncontroverted by Burton.

This is again based on Sungenis’ misreading of Burton, which we have shown time and again to be wrong. Both categories of Burton—a and b—terminate the main clause. Moreover, Sungenis is relying on neither category, but creates one of his own (cat. c) which is not treated in Burton.

RS: Obviously, one can see that Svendsen has built his whole argument around his concept of "semantic range," but as I have shown, he has not proven that heos hou fits into the arbitrary category he has created for himself.

I have proven it; and Sungenis has done nothing to disprove it.

RS: The meaning he assigns to heos hou is solely dependent on his biased examination of the evidence.

An examination that withstood the scrutiny of a committee of non-evangelical NT scholars, as well as over a dozen other independent commendations from other scholars. To which committee of NT scholarship has Sungenis’ view been submitted?

RS: As we have seen, since he misconstrues the English translation "while" as discounting the meaning of heos which continues the action of the verb rather than terminate it, one can easily see that Svendsen's "semantic range" is a totally bogus argument.

In addition to the points I’ve already made about this, does it occur to Sungenis that the translation “while” does not fit Matt 1:25? “Joseph refrained from sexual relations with her while she gave birth”? Is that how Sungenis wishes to translate Matt 1:25? If not, then what is truly “bogus” is his red herring regarding heos hou when it means “while.” Those usages are simply irrelevant to the meaning of Matt 1:25.

ES: In the case of heos hou, there are approximately seven or eight instances out of eighty-five (in the LXX), zero instances out of seventeen (in the NT), and zero instances out of approximately fifty (in all non-biblical literature between 100 B.C. and A.D. 100) that conform to this usage. If one can call that "a significant number," then I think anything could be included in that category.

RS: As I have shown, there are at least three instances in the New Testament. Out of 17 occurrences, that is 18%.

Sungenis hasn’t shown any instances of this construction in the NT that conforms to the usage he proposes for Matt 1:25.

RS: Svendsen has already given us a "blank check" by admitting that both heos and heos hou can continue the action of the verb.

Only in the era before 100 B.C.

RS: His attempt to limit this admission by an appeal to "semantic range," has not been proven.

Of course it has. What is gratuitously asserted may be gratuitously denied; but anyone wanting the hard evidence is encouraged to read my book on Mary.

RS: As for adelphos, it is used over 400 times in the NT.

I’m beginning to think Sungenis has defective software. The combined instances of both the masc. adelphos and the fem. adelphe does not exceed 369.

RS: It its literal sense, it can refer to an immediate family member; a near or distant relative; or even a neighbor (cf., Mt 5:47). The NT has a liberal use of "brothers" in various contexts, and in various instances distinguishes a blood relative or tribal neighbor from a sibling.

There is no example in the NT of an adelphos or adelphe referring to a blood relative apart from referring specifically to a biological sibling.

RS: Even in instances where it is often assumed that "brother" refers to a sibling, this may not be the case. For example, Peter and Andrew are referred to as "brothers" (cf., Mt 4:18; 10:2; Mk 1:16; Lk 6:14; Jn 1:40; 6:8) but this may refer to the tribal sense of the word.

Irrelevant. A “tribal” brother is not what is referred to in the references to the brothers of Jesus—as all NT scholars agree. This is nothing more than another irrelevant red herring from Sungenis.

RS: Another case concerns the "brothers" of Jesus. Jn 7:5 states that Jesus' "brothers" did not believe in Him. Yet Ac 1:14 indicates that Jesus' "brothers" were praying with Mary and the Apostles in the upper room. Unless all of these "brothers" experienced a dramatic conversion from the time of John 7 (which took place six months prior to Jesus' final Passover) to Ac 1:14, which was fifty days after Jesus' resurrection, then they are not speaking of the same group of men.

Well, I think being an eyewitness of the resurrected Christ might be just enough to convert his brothers. Aside from this, Sungenis again is simply giving us unsubstantiated speculation with which no NT scholar agrees. Sungenis’ view sadly forces him to wade into waters that no NT scholar would dare tread. But that is just what untenable positions force their adherents to do.

RS: Not only is the time constraint make [sic] a conversion unlikely, but since the NT gives no evidence that all, or even some, of the "brothers" of John 7 converted, the evidence leans against assuming so.

Since we know that within that time frame the Resurrection took place, and that Jesus’ brothers were eyewitnesses of that Resurrection, why would Sungenis feel a need to speculate that they must be a different group? Is this his idea of exegesis?

RS: The OT equivalent to adelphos is ach. It also has a wide range of meaning.

Yes, indeed; a much wider one than the NT allows. Again, we have a prime example of how etymological changes of an LXX Greek word result in semantic obsolescence by the time the NT is written.

RS: Although in a preponderance of passages ach refers to a brother from the same immediate family (e.g., Ex 28:1, 2, 4; Dt 13:6; 25:5), in a significant number of places it refers to a near relative, or sometimes even a distant relative, including a cousin or uncle, and even friends or allies.

I have snipped the rest of this paragraph as well as the two that follow since they deal exclusively with the use of adelphos in the LXX, and since I don’t dispute the semantic range Sungenis suggests for that word in that time period. That semantic range, however, is demonstrably different from the semantic range of the same word in NT times. When it refers to a blood relative in the NT, it always refers to a sibling.

ES: ...or the "before" clause of Matt 1:18-to show that the birth of Christ took place before normal marital relations ensued;

RS: The phrase "come together" is from the Greek: sunelthein (corresponding to paralabein = "to take to himself" in verses 20, 24) and is used 30 times in the NT and does not refer to sexual relations (w: Mk 6:33; Ac 1:6; 1Co 11:17-34); the only possible exception is a textual variant in 1Co 7:5. Of the LXX's six uses of sunelthein, Ws 7:2 is the only possible exception.

All of which I acknowledge in my book. And if that were the whole story, we might drop the matter. However, it’s not the only relevant evidence. The lexicons of both Liddell and Scott and BADG give “sexual intercourse” as within the semantic range of the word in the NT era, and both ascribe this meaning to Matt 1:18!

There is a good reason why these lexicons ascribe the connotation of sexual relations to this instance of the word. Contextually, if we take this simply as a reference to Joseph and Mary taking up residence together without thought of ensuing sexual relations, Matthew’s point regarding the virgin birth is then lost. If he is attempting to show (as he surely is in this passage) that the birth of Christ was a virginal birth, then the phrase “before they came together” must mean “before they engaged in sexual relations” (just as Irenaeus understood it), and cannot mean “before they began to reside together platonically”; for if the latter is true then it would be no more remarkable—nor significant for that matter—that Mary became pregnant before they came together, than it would be if she became pregnant after they came together.

As a side-note, because Sungenis values the patristic witness on the meaning of words and phrases in the NT, it is noteworthy to mention that Chrysostom (Homily on the Gospel of St. Matthew 4:5), Jerome (Against Helvidius 1:4), and Irenaeus (Against Heresies 3.21) subscribed to the view that synelthein means sexual relations in Matt 1:18.

 ...or the use of the word prototokos ("firstborn") in Luke 2:7 rather than the word monogenes ("only born"; cf. Luke 7:12; 8:41-42; 9:38).

RS: Whether the word "firstborn" suggests that Mary had other children besides Jesus cannot be proven.

Not conclusively, but the preponderance of evidence clearly suggests it. If every time Luke wants to refer to an only child he uses monogenes ("only born"; cf. Luke 7:12; 8:41-42; 9:38), then it is certainly odd that he would use a term for Jesus that can—and, in the majority of cases, does—imply other children. The term would surely cause confusion among his readers, so why use it? Why not use the normal term for “only child” if that is what he believed about Jesus? The simplest answer is that Mary had other children after Jesus, and that Jesus was just what Luke says he was—“her firstborn son.”

I have omitted the next three paragraphs from Sungenis’ discussion on prototkos because I acknowledge it all in my book, and because it has no bearing on my argument.

RS: Unlike other Scriptural passages where siblings are listed along with the natural firstborn (Ex 6:14-16; 1Ch 3:15), neither Matthew nor Luke (2:7) ever do so with Jesus. For example, we do not find the brothers of Jesus listed as, "Jesus, Mary's firstborn, and then James the younger, Joses, Simon, and Judas."

There is a very good reason for this. In their lists of Jesus’ brothers, the NT writers are at pains to establish distance between Jesus and the rest of his biological family precisely to make the point that biological relations are absolutely inconsequential in the kingdom. In most cases, the point is to show that even Jesus’ own family is opposed to his mission. Hence, it is little wonder that we don’t find the example Sungenis is seeking.

RS: A related matter regards the Greek word monogenes, which is normally translated "only" in reference to an only son or daughter (Lk 7:12; 8:42); or "only child" (Lk 9:38). The remaining six passages refer to Christ as the "only begotten" son of God (Jn 1:14, 18; 3:16; 18; Hb 11:17; 1Jn 4:9). One might argue that if Jesus was the only child born to Mary, he would have been called a monogenes ("only child") rather than a prototokos ("firstborn"). This argument fails on several counts:

Sungenis lists potential objections to his view here that I don’t argue. Hence, I have omitted from the discussion the four paragraphs that follow the one above.

RS: In addition to the above remarks I made to refute Svendsen's idea, even IF there were no instances in the NT or other Greek literature, it doesn't mean that heos hou no longer conveys that the action continues. In other words, unless Svendsen can find a clear indication from the intervening Greek users between the LXX and the NT, which shows, without doubt, that heos hou no longer refers to a continuation, then Svendsen cannot make a case from silence.

This is really just a silly argument. Sungenis suggests here that we can’t rule out a meaning from the semantic range of a word just because there are no clear examples of the word bearing that meaning, otherwise it’s an argument from silence. I refer all interested readers to D. A. Carson’s book, Exegetical Fallacies, and you’ll see clearly that Sungenis is simply committing the fallacy of semantic obsolescence. Does Sungenis wish to propose this same argument for the word martus—the test case Carson uses to show how the etymological changes of a word throughout the span of a mere century changes its semantic range (drastically, in some cases)? Once again, Sungenis betrays that he is not qualified to write on these issues.

RS: Svendsen cannot just arbitrarily say that heos hou has changed its meaning. If the form heos hou suddenly dropped from existence in the NT, then perhaps Svendsen has the beginnings of making a case.

Sungenis continues to show that he just has no clue about that which he writes. Semantic obsolescence assumes that the form of the word or phrase stays the same, but that the semantic range of the word or phrase changes. There’s no need for it to “drop from existence.”

RS: But the fact is that heos hou, proportionally speaking, occurs as frequently in the New Testament as it does in the LXX. Svendsen has already admitted that heos retains its ability to make the verb continue in the New Testament.

Sungenis keeps saying this as though this is what I have said. It is most certainly not something I have said. There are no instances of continuation (in the sense that Sungenis proposes) in the NT, and there is a mere handful in the LXX. The LXX evidence shows that even in the second/third cent. B.C. heos hou was rarely used in the way Sungenis suggests. There are no instances of that usage in the two centuries surrounding the birth of Christ—not in the NT, nor in any of the literature of that day! That speaks volumes. Sungenis seems to think that “while” is to be equated with “until,” even though they are different in meaning as Burton clearly indicates. He also completely ignores the Hellenistic literature of the NT era, which shows beyond any reasonable doubt that heos hou was not being used in that way anymore.

RS: Moreover, he has found no Greek grammarian to support his case that heos and heos hou are used differently in the New Testament; and he simply ignores the instances in the New Testament in which heos hou continues the action, giving the lame excuse that they only refer to "while." All in all, Svendsen simply does not have a case.

Lame excuse? All grammarians that I have read classify Matt 14:22 and 26:36 as instances in which heos hou means “while.” Does Sungenis have any support from grammarians for his view that the “continuance” aspect (misunderstood though it may be by Sungenis) is to be applied to heos hou when it means “until”? Absolutely not, and I suspect he never will find support for that, because it is contrary to NT usage.

ES: By the time we reach the first century B.C., heos hou no longer bears the connotation required by the Roman Catholic interpretation of Matt 1:25. By the time we reach A.D. 50 (the approx. date Matthew wrote his gospel), anyone speaking or writing heos hou intending the "continuance" nuance would sound just as strange to his contemporaries as someone today speaking and writing in King James English would sound to us. It would be one thing to speak King James English when quoting a Bible passage. It would be quite another to speak it as a normal mode of communication. The latter, in essence, is what Sungenis is asking us to believe about Matthew when he writes Matt 1:25.

RS: Asking? No, I'm telling you to believe it, because, aside from the historical revisionism Svendsen invents above, that is what the Greek allows and that is the faith of the Holy Roman Catholic Church.

Now we finally come to the heart of the matter. Here is Sungenis’ real reason for believing in a usage of heos hou that doesn’t exist in the NT. Not because the Greek allows it (it doesn’t); but because it is the teaching of the “Holy” (which of late is anything but “holy”), “Roman” (will the same apologists who chide Evangelicals for using the word “Roman” as a qualifier to “Catholic” now chide Sungenis for doing the same?), “Catholic” (which is anything but catholic) “Church.” In other words, Sungenis has claimed the privilege of infallibility, which has undercut the need for any further discussion of exegesis. If it’s infallible, no exegesis in needed. I have stated in my book and I’ll state it again here. NT exegesis for the Roman Catholic interpreter is not, at the end of the day, an exercise in ascertaining the meaning of the biblical text through fair examination of the Greek words, the literary context, and the original intent of the writer. Far from it; it consists rather in listening to what the Roman Catholic Magisterium has already said the meaning is, and then looking for ways that that meaning can be defended from Scripture. The fact that such strained exegesis must be applied to the Marian texts in order to arrive at the conclusion at which Roman Catholic interpreters would like us to arrive suggests that the Roman Catholic interpretation of these texts is tenuous at best. Yet even some who do attempt exegesis of the text seem to do so almost out of a sense of obligation, as though this exercise is solely for the benefit of those who are reluctant to accept an untenable view—all the while seeming to be completely unaware that it is painfully obvious to those of us who do not hold prior loyalties to Rome that such “exegesis” comes not from the text itself but from an a priori belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity. The text is simply made to “fit” the foregone conclusion.

RS0: In conclusion, two things cannot be asserted regarding ‘heos' and ‘ heos hou': (1) that ‘heos', and ‘heos hou', (as well as ‘heos otou' [sic], ‘ heos an') always terminate the action of the main verb; and (2) that ‘heos' and ‘heos hou' are used differently in Greek grammar.

ES: Unfortunately, Sungenis has demonstrated neither of these points. Sungenis' point (1) is a straw man. I have never asserted that heos "always terminates the action of the main verb."

RS: I never said that Svendsen did. I was addressing my remarks to a general audience. Svendsen just happens to intrude into our website on occasion.

In light of the fact that Sungenis and Co.’s book on Mary is advertised as a full-length critique of my book, I find it difficult to believe that Sungenis thinks I have “intruded” on his website. Sungenis says this as though his study of this issue is completely without regard to my published views on it.

ES: Nor have I ever asserted that heos hou always terminates the action of the main verb. There are a few instances in the LXX where it clearly does not. All I have ever asserted-and continue to assert-is that heos hou in all the literature of the two centuries surrounding the birth of Christ, when it means "until," always terminates the action of the main clause. That is an irrefutable fact.

RS: As we have seen, it is only an irrefutable fact in the mind of Svendsen.

When there are no exceptions to the contrary, I think it might be more than just my imagination at work here.

RS: As we have seen, Burton is in full agreement that heos and heos hou not only serve the same function, but both limit and continue the action of the verb. Svendsen's appeal to the translation "while" does nothing to alter this basic fact.

We’ve addressed this error sufficiently above. Burton says nothing of the kind.

RS: Not only does this show us that the Greek transcribers saw no difference between heos and heos hou in regards to continuing the action of the verb (otherwise they would not have replaced one with the other), but it also shows that ALL the heos conjunctive forms are interchangeable. This puts a gapping hole in Svendsen's thesis.

Sungenis simply repeats his error regarding textual variants.

RS: "Over reliance on grammars"?? Hardly. The whole world depends on Greek grammars. But Eric Svendsen? Oh, he's a different case. He apparently has knowledge about heos hou that no one in all of Greek historical analysis has ever seen, and he claims to get this by an exhaustive research into all the uses of heos hou.

I have also addressed this error sufficiently above.

RS: More of his ingratiating rhetoric. Analysis is wonderful, but there is one thing Svendsen fails to tell his audience. The analysis is only as good as the person doing the analysis. Svendsen already proved this for us by citing the discrepancy in the Granville Sharp rule. Those who created the Granville Sharp rule apparently have a different understanding of it than Svendsen does. So who is right?

Aside from my previous mention of the critical review of my work (which should allay any concern Sungenis might raise regarding analysis), Sungenis now introduces an epistemological question: “Who’s right?”  He doesn’t give us any reason for thinking he’s right; only a post-modernist, relativistic “know one can know anything with certainty, therefore everyone needs an infallible interpreter.” He seems oblivious to the fact that this question would preclude his own view as well.

RS: Well, of course, Svendsen thinks he is right. If you don't believe so, then reread Svendsen's rhetoric about how he's discovered all the things that everyone else in the world has missed.

Sungenis again fails to mention all the endorsements from those who would be willing and able to tear my work apart if it weren’t valid. Again, who are the endorsers of Sungenis’ views in this discussion? I dare say, no reputable scholar would be willing to risk his reputation by putting his stamp of approval on the neophyte presentation Sungenis has given us here.

RS: You would think that not finding anyone in the world of Greek grammar who has ever stated that heos and heos hou can have different meanings would make Svendsen think twice before asserting it. But no, Svendsen actually uses the absence of witnesses in order to place himself as the only one in all of history to discover this supposed nuance of Greek grammar.

Once again, Sungenis misrepresents me. There is not a difference of meaning between heos and heos hou; there is a difference in semantic range between the two. There is much overlap in that range, but the range is different for each one. And unless Sungenis wants to add to his list other grammatical rules, such as Granville Sharp’s rule, Colwell’s rule, McGaughy’s rule, etc.—none of which was discovered before its respective founders discovered it—this is a completely nonsensical point.

RS: All I can say is: "Thank you, Eric Svendsen, Ph.D. You have made our effort in refuting you in our book that much easier by exposing your weak arguments. Please feel free to give us more of them, since we would like to make our book the strongest it could possibly be."

Robert Sungenis, M.A. Ph.D (cand)
Catholic Apologetics International
August 2, 2002

Sungenis has shown himself to be an unqualified critic of my research. His work betrays that he is unfamiliar with the standard nomenclature of this field of study, that he does not know how to read the sources correctly, and that he does not understand related fields such as textual criticism. He has gone on record assailing me for “accusing” Burton of incompetence (something I have never done), and at the same time stands in judgment on the abilities of known and respected grammarians like Carson and Wallace. He has repeatedly claimed that Burton’s grammar exhaustively deals with heos, even though Burton does not include the meaning of heos that Sungenis needs to support his view of Matt 1:25. In other words, Sungenis makes Burton the "normative" grammar but, as "John4_34" from the NTRMin Discussion Board has aptly put it, he is not willing to be normed by his own norm.

Sungenis has had ample opportunity to prove his case for his proposed usage of heos hou and adelphos in the NT, and he has been unable to find even one clear independent example that would demonstrate that his usage is within the acceptable semantic range of either during the NT era. He has appealed to the anachronistic patristic witness of the former, while ignoring even earlier patristic witnesses that contradict his thesis. Finally, he has appealed to "infallible mother church," as he ultimately must, in an attempt to sidestep the exegetical difficulties his position creates, and to establish fail-safe redundancy in his argument: "even if I can't prove my position exegetically, I'm still right because the church says I'm right." Such an appeal betrays the real motive behind Sungenis’ feigned exegetical exercises—he's not interested in getting at the meaning of the NT writers in a sincere desire to be persuaded by the truth; rather, he's simply looking for some "wiggle room" that would allow him and his readers to continue holding to an exegetically untenable position.

As I mentioned in the Addendum of my last article in this series, the only question that remains is, If Sungenis does manage to publish his proposed book, can we expect him to include my name in the list of credits on his Acknowledgements page? After all, without my input it seems certain that his book would have gone to press with a host of errors that he will now be forced to correct.

Eric Svendsen, Ph.D.

Aug 6, 2002