Catholic Apologetics International
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.
Robert's initial answer will be in dark blue. Svendsen's comments will be in red. Robert's rebuttal will be in light blue.
CAI's Continued Misrepresentations of the Phrase Heos Hou in Matthew 1:25
As many of you know, Robert Sungenis of CAI has been promoting a book that he and one of his assistants are writing as a response to my book, Who Is My Mother? When he first announced his intentions to write the book, I predicted at that time (through an article that was posted on this web site) that we could expect, at best, an inept attempt at a response due to the utter lack of experience and expertise on the part of its primary author. Sungenis assured the world that he personally would be "helping" its primary author with the Greek, and that we should not fear for the quality of the work.
More recently, Sungenis has provided us with a sampling of both the kind and quality of research that is being conducted for this book. He has written an article in the Q&A section of his web site purporting to answer a question regarding the Greek construction heos hou as it relates to Matt 1:25 and the question of whether or not Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Christ. Sungenis' comments are in blue and my responses are in black:
Question: Why can't we use ‘heos hou' of Genesis 26:13 (LXX) where he "grew until he became very wealthy" which does not have to mean that he ceased to have his wealth increase after he had become wealthy? Yes it does not demand that he DID continue to grow in wealth, but it seems reasonable to argue that the usage here was definitely NOT intending or enforcing the notion that his wealth ceased to further grow after he became wealthy.
You can use them, and they are good examples - all of them. Notwithstanding, let me add some information to the ongoing ‘heos hou' debate: ‘Heos' is a relative adverb. ‘Hou' is a relative pronoun. When used together, ‘heos' changes to a preposition which governs the relative pronoun. Essentially, this means that hou really has no effect on the meaning of the couplet, the operative word in the couplet being ‘heos'.
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).
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.
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)
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.
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.
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
Again, inaccurate. The construction "heos an" occurs twenty times in the NT and 105 times in the LXX.
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.
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.
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
Once again, inaccurate. The construction "heos hotou" occurs five times in the NT, not four.
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.
4) ‘heos'(without a couplet [sic]) is used 106 times in the NT and 1564 times in the LXX
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.
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. 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. 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.
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.
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.
First of all, I am not "gloating." Svendsen's deragatory remark is one of his usual attempts at making a tempest in a teapot. I simply point out the fact that Burton is a grammar used by Protestants quite frequently. Westminster Seminary where I attended, considered it one of the better grammars. It is still used today because it is one of the more better organized grammars. Second, and more importantly, 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." 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..."
Burton says the same thing when he compares the word achri with the heos couplets in #331: "Causes introduced by achri....have in general the same CONSTRUCTION and FORCE as clauses introduced by heos, heos hou, and heos hotou." "Force" refers to the impact a particular word or phrase has on the sentence. 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. We know this is the case by observing in the following paragraphs that Burton neither sees a necessity, nor does he even suggest that a possibility exists, that heos coupled with a particle in anyway changes the meaning. 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. 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. 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.
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.
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. 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. 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. 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.
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.
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.
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.
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. 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.
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."
One wonders why Sungenis didn't rather cite or refer to this paragraph, since it is really the only paragraph in that section that deals specifically with the meaning of heos. Here Burton states that there are two basic meanings of heos: (a) "until" (which, according to Burton, limits the action of the main clause to the time denoted by the action of the subordinate clause; and (b) "while" (which, according to Burton, shows contemporaneous action). Matt 1:25 falls under Burton's category (a) "until," and certainly not category (b) "while, as long as." Burton doesn't cite any instance in which heos means "while" and implies continuation of the main clause.
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." 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. 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. 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.
The only way Svendsen can vindicate himself is by making Burton look like an inept Greek grammarian. 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.
Sungenis could have made a better case for himself by referring to my book, rather than to Burton, since I allow that heos does sometimes imply continuation. As it is, the use of Burton actually militates against Sungenis, providing what amounts to no support for his view of Matt 1:25, and, indeed, some evidence to the contrary.
As noted above, Svendsen has misconstrued what Burton is saying.
If I were as zealous as Sungenis to find contrived support from my view, I'm certain I could score many points simply by foregoing any mention of the fact the grammars are general treatments only, and are not to be used in the unqualified way Sungenis uses them-namely, without being supplemented by extended studies on specific grammatical constructions. I could have done this as well; but honesty in scholarship compels me to concede a point that might help Sungenis' case, but that Burton does not mention; namely, that heos, when it occurs alone or with the particle an, can indeed be used to show no reference to continuation or termination of the main clause by the action of the subordinate clause. Again, if Sungenis had just read my book, he would have found evidence more favorable to his own position than Burton offers. The fact that he prefers to misread Burton indicates in my mind that he is interested only in an "appearance" of evidence for his view, and not in dealing with his sources in a fair and evenhanded way.
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.
The only other contingency here is the use of ‘heos an'. This is a special case in Greek. When the clause introduced by heos depends on a verb of future time, and refers to a future contingency, it takes the Subjunctive mood with the use of ‘an', both in classical and New Testament Greek (Mt 5:18). Sungenis is no doubt relying on Burton's § 322 for this, but again fails to cite Burton, writing instead as though this were his own thought.
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 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.
However, in the process Sungenis fails to recognize that Burton's intended observation is one of mere grammatical form rather than meaning. Burton's intent is simply not what Sungenis hopes to get out of it. That task is left to others who, having a much greater advantage over Burton (who wrote over a century ago), and using more recent, computer-aided research, have spotted grammatical idiosyncrasies that Burton has missed (partly due to the general nature of grammars, and partly due to the inability to find all instances of a construction in days of old). In-depth research on even one grammatical construction can take years-and there are virtually endless possibilities for grammatical constructions. The point is, no one grammarian is going to catch them all-such would be an impossibly daunting task.
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.
As an example of this, when I attended D. A. Carson's Advanced Greek Grammar class many years ago, I was assigned the grammatical construction "the infinitive + eis + the anarthrous accusative noun." Carson gave me an A- on the paper and made the paper required reading for the rest of the class, largely because I had uncovered a nuance for that construction that bears on the interpretation of Heb 6:6 ("to renew them to repentance"). But what grammarian of old would have thought-or even have the ability-to compare every instance of the infinitive + eis + the anarthrous accusative noun? The point, again, is that there are endless possibilities for researching grammatical constructions-and most of these are spurred on by a personal exegetical study of a particular biblical text-so it should come as no surprise to anyone that older scholarship, who did not have computer-aided research, would simply not be able to uncover all possible nuances of all possible constructions.
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. 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 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"). 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. 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? 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?
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.
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?
Nearly fifteen years ago, when Carson wrote Exegetical Fallacies, even then he was able to point out many examples where computer-aided research had already begun to overturn earlier established works. One of the fallacies he addresses in his book is the fallacy of semantic obsolescence. This occurs when one finds a word or phrase in an older writing (such as the LXX) and attempts to superimpose the meaning of that word or phrase onto a later writing (such as the NT). It was a common practice in older grammars to find the various nuances of a word in both Testaments and combine them into an acceptable semantic range for that word. In more recent times, scholars have rejected that approach because it commits the fallacy of semantic obsolescence. It is a much more sound practice to determine what a word or phrase means in the era in which it is written. If that word or phrase is a NT word or phrase, then one begins by looking at its nuances in the NT and the surrounding Hellenistic literature to see how it was used by the normal Greek speaker of the writer's day. That becomes the semantic range for that word or phrase for that era. If one wants to discover the etymology (evolution) of the word or phrase, then it is valuable to look at how it was used in the LXX and the other literature of that era. Note well, however, that finding instances of the word or phrase in that literature does not constitute a semantic range for that word or phrase in all eras. All it does is show how the etymology of the word or phrase took place. 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.
"Blissfully unaware"? No, sir. I am fully aware of the issues Svendsen describes 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). 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 its meaning from heos, and he has no Greek grammarians to back him up. 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.
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. 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.
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." Or we might better characterize Svendsen's error as "assuming the part equals the whole." In any case, as one can easily see, Svendsen is much too ingratiating towards his own abilities and exegetical prowess; and he is often unaware of his own exegetical fallacies. In other words, Svendsen's argument regarding semantic domain holds no weight, since he hasn't proven that heos and heos hou fit into that semantic category, and, in fact, he has no way of proving that they do, as we will see below.
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.
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.
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"), 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).
I will address Matthew 26:36 below, since it presents even more problems for Svendsen.
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.
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." 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.
Or, when the clause introduce [sic] by heos depends on a verb of past time and refers to what was at the time of the principal verb conceived of as a future contingency, it takes the Subjunctive mood without an in the New Testament (eg., Mt 18:30).
Sungenis has lifted this right out of § 324 of Burton, but nowhere gives him credit for it, or even indicates that it is not his. More importantly for our purposes, Sungenis continues to cite Burton even though the points are completely irrelevant to the discussion of the meaning of heos hou in Matt 1:25.
There he goes again!
Lastly, no determination of the meaning of ‘heos', ‘heos hou', ‘ heos otou' [sic] , or heos an can be made without the context of the passage being involved. As ‘heos' can be used either to terminate or to continue the action of the main verb (as its linguistic equivalent "until" does in English and many other languages, including Hebrew), so does ‘heos hou', ‘heos otou' [sic] or ‘heos an'.
If Sungenis is using the word "continue" as Burton uses it, then he fails to make his point. What Burton means by "continue" is that heos can sometimes mean "while, so long as." He doesn't use it in connection with a distinction in the nuances of heos when it means "until"-indeed, Burton doesn't so much as mention that there even is such a nuance (although there certainly is, as Sungenis would be quick to assert, and I would be just as quick to concede), precisely because that is not Burton's purpose.
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.
However, that nuance extends to the construction heos hou in the LXX only. Due to semantic obsolescence, it is a grammatical fact that there is not even one instance in which heos hou or heos hotou bears a "continuation" nuance (when it means "until") in the NT or in the contemporaneous Hellenistic literature of that era. The semantic range for heos hou in that era excludes the "continuance" nuance that the construction bore in earlier times.
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. The meaning he assigns to heos hou is solely dependent on his biased examination of the evidence. 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.
Of the above references, ‘heos', ‘heos hou', ‘heos otou' [sic], and heos an are used a total of 1,900 times in LXX and NT Greek.
Again, inaccurate. Heos in all its forms occurs only 1,710 times in the LXX and the NT; 1,564 times in the LXX and 146 times in the NT.
I've already discussed these discrepancies above.
Although the preponderance of these usages are clearly designed to terminate the action of the main verb, in a significant number of cases, heos and its associated conjunctions is clearly designed to continue the action of the main verb. 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.
As I have shown, there are at least three instances in the New Testament. Out of 17 occurrences, that is 18%. Since I count 11 instances in the LXX (as opposed to Svendsen's 8), then there are about 14% of cases in which heos hou continues the action of the verb in the LXX. Thus, the 18% we find in the New Testament is very close to the 14% we find in the LXX, and thus the proportions are about what we would expect if no change occurred in the meaning of heos hou.
The decision on whether heos terminates or continues the action of the main verb depends on several factors, e.g., whether one or the other makes logical sense; agrees with the context; agrees with the grammatical construction of the passage; does not contradict other known facts; etc.
I suspect the clause "does not contradict other known facts" has likely been introduced as a blank check to fill in "as needed" things such as the anachronistic testimony of Jerome vs. Helvidius. I somehow doubt that the "other known facts" will include things like the NT writers' mention of the adelphos ("brothers") and adelphe (sisters") of Jesus-a word that is never used in NT times to refer to biological relatives outside of biological siblings;
Svendsen has already given us a "blank check" by admitting that both heos and heos hou can continue the action of the verb. His attempt to limit this admission by an appeal to "semantic range," has not been proven. As for adelphos, it is used over 400 times in the NT. 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. 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. Without other evidence to the contrary, there is no way to disprove this possibility. The possibility is heightened by the fact that (a) Peter is the only one of the two who is designated as the "son of Jonah" (Mt 16:17), and (b) James and John, in the same context, are both specified as having Zebedee as their father (cf., Mt 4:21; 20:20; 26:37; Mk 10:35; Lk 5:10). 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. Not only is the time constraint make 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.
The OT equivalent to adelphos is ach. It also has a wide range of meaning. 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. Only the context of the passage will show which meaning is in view. For example, Lot is called Abraham's "brother," although from the context it is known that he was his nephew (Gn 14:12-14); Laban calls himself Jacob's "brother," although he was a brother-in-law (Gn 29:15); the cousins of the daughters of Eleazar are called "brothers" (1Ch 23:21-22). "Brothers" of a man can come in multitudes of "three-thousand" (1Ch 12:29); "one hundred twenty" (1Ch 15:5-6); and "seventy" (Jg 9:5).
Other Scriptures also show that "brother" could refer to any male relative (Ex 2:11; 10:23; 16:15; Nm 14:4; 18:2; 20:14; Dt 19:18; 22:1-4; 23:7; Jg 9:1, 5, 18, 21, 56; 2Kg 10:13; 1Ch 6:44; 25:7-31; Nh 5:7; Jr 34:9; Ez 11:15; 47:14). These passages prove that the Hebrew word for "brother" (and its LXX Greek translation, adelphos), were not limited to siblings from the same immediate family. Thus, the Evangelists could refer to Jesus' cousins or near relatives with "brothers" or "sister" and be perfectly consistent with the traditional usage of those terms.
Ach is also used to describe those from other nations (Dt 23:7). In some places ach is distinguished from a kinsman by the Hebrew word sheer, as in Nm 27:11; Lv 21:2, but even then, sheer represents either a relative or immediate family member (Lv 25:49). Sheer literally means "the remainder of his flesh" and is sometimes translated as "flesh" (Pr 5:11; Jr 51:35; Mc 3:2-3). As such, it refers to any remaining relative who is not in the context's specified circle of relatives. Thus, the distinction between ach and sheer is contextual, not lexical, and as such, exhibits no limitation on the application of ach.
...or the "before" clause of Matt 1:18-to show that the birth of Christ took place before normal marital relations ensued;
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.
...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).
Whether the word "firstborn" suggests that Mary had other children besides Jesus cannot be proven. "Firstborn" translates the Greek word prototokos. Although it refers primarily to a child not preceded by another child in birth (LXX: cf., Gn 25:25; 48:18); it is also applied to a child of honor, a child who is not the first born into the family (cf., 1 Ch 26:10; Gn 41:52/Jr 31:9 (LXX 38:9); 1Sm 16:11/Ps 89:20, 27-28 (LXX 88:20, 27-28)). Prototokos appears nine times in the New Testament (Mt 1:25; Lk 2:7; Rm 8:29; Cl 1:15, 18; Hb 1:6; 11:28; 12:23; Rv 1:5). Of these, seven refer to Christ. The remaining two are Hb 11:28, which refers to the firstborn killed in Egypt; and Hb 12:23, containing the plural noun protokon, which refers to the saints in heaven. None of the NT references to "firstborn" use it in association with or in opposition to blood-siblings. In each case regarding Jesus, the NT uses "firstborn" to indicate a preeminent status, not to the first child born from Mary.
Regarding an only child, according to the Encyclopedia Judaica (v. 6, cl. 1309), the word "firstborn" referred to the first male child irrespective of subsequent siblings. "Firstborn" was a Mosaic legal term which determined the son's specific duties and privileges within the family and the community. The ceremony which so situated the firstborn was to take place on the 31st day after his birth. He was at that point legally and ritually the "firstborn," even if he turned out to be the only child. Among non-Catholic scholars, Michaelis and Herrick indicate that "firstborn" does not occur before the Septuagint (circa 3rd century B.C.). But in the instances where it does occur after this time, the idea of birth or origin is less prominent, such that privilege, rather than birthright, is the intended meaning. (Wilhelm Michaelis, TDNT, s.v. prototokos", 6: 871).
The reference to Israel as God's "firstborn" does not refer to being born first (Ex 4:22-23). It refers, rather, to the special relationship between God and his chosen people. This unique filial relationship is also mentioned in the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha works (cf. Jubilees 2:20; 18:2; 19:28) as well as in rabbinic Judaism (Ex 4:22, Rabba).
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."
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:
(a) Jesus is called the prototokos in reference to God just as much as he is called the firstborn in reference to Mary (Rm 8:29; Cl 1:15, 18; Hb 1:6; Rv 1:5). Yet Christ is also called the monogenes in reference to God (Jn 1:14, 18; 3:16; 18; Hb 11:17; 1Jn 4:9). This means that He can be referred to either as monogenes or as prototokos, since the two terms overlap in meaning. An interesting fact in this regard is that the Council of Constantinople, Canon 2, declares as dogma that Christ had two generations, one from God and one from Mary;
(b) the argument assumes that unless a child was specifically titled monogenes, then the child was not an only child, but that is not logical. The argument conveniently eliminates all the instances in Scripture which do not call an only child a monogenes;
(c) in a related matter, the argument fails to notice the specific reason Luke refers to a certain son or daughter as "an only child." In all three narratives the child is either dead, dying, or demon possessed (Lk 7:12; 8:42; 9:38). The sense of urgency for the healing touch of Jesus is heightened by Luke's mentioning that the child was an only son or daughter, since becoming childless is life's greatest tragedy for a mother and father. Hence, Luke is not using monogenes as mere descriptive filler for the story, and thus he certainly would not feel compelled to mention that a son or daughter was an only child unless it added some dramatic effect to the plot. We see the same logic in the Septuagint's use of monogenes in reference to Jephthah's only daughter (Jg 11:34) or Sarah, Raguel's only daughter (Tb 6:11). Their status as an "only child" is mentioned because it is needed to show the seriousness of the situation. In fact, Scripture contains no reference to a child as monogenes unless the story-line exhibits a dramatic reason for saying so;
(d) it assumes that there is only one definition for monogenes, i.e., that it refers exclusively to "only," as in an only child. But monogenes can also mean "unique" or "special." Such meanings occur in classical Greek, as well as the LXX (Ws 7:22), and as such, it is the primary meaning of the New Testament passages cited above referring to Jesus as the monogenes of God (i.e., He is the special son of God), especially since God does not have any more divine sons in addition to Jesus.
Be that as it may, the decision on the meaning of heos hou in Matt 1:25 is even simpler than Sungenis suggests. Simply look up every instance of the construction in the NT and see if any of the other instances bears the required meaning. None does. If you are more enterprising, look up all the instances of this construction in the Hellenistic literature of the NT era to see whether any of those instances bears the required meaning. Again, you will find none. The reason you will find none is because the "continuance" nuance for heos hou when it means "until" no longer exists in NT times.
Oh really? 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. 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. 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. 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.
Indeed, even in the LXX it occurs only a few times out of eighty-five instances. What that tells us is that the semantic range was fading even then, and the "continuance" nuance was quickly becoming the victim of etymology and semantic obsolescence.
As I have shown earlier, the frequency in the LXX of heos hou which refers to a continuation is 14%. In the New Testament it is 18%, thus there is no "fading even then" of the meaning of heos hou. The only victim here is the phrase heos hou, since it has to suffer under the biased exegetical knife of Svendsen.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
As we have seen, it is only an irrefutable fact in the mind of Svendsen.
If Sungenis had read my work he would have known this. If Sungenis has an example contrary to my proposed usage for this era, let him produce it- he can't because it doesn't exist.
First of all, I don't consider Svendsen an authority on this topic with which I have to reckon. I only do so gratuitously. Second, I've already shown the instances in the New Testament, and proportionately the same in the LXX, in which heos hou does continue the action of the main verb.
Point (2) is based on Sungenis' misunderstanding of Burton. Burton simply does not address the various nuances of meaning of heos hou. The most he does is point out that it has the same conjunctive force as heos alone. Indeed, if we were to argue from Burton alone, it would be § 321, not § 322 that applies in this case. As we have already shown, Burton's § 321 leaves us with the impression that all instances of heos (that mean "until") terminate the action of the main verb. If we were to allow Burton's general comments to win the day, it would be utterly devastating to Sungenis' view. Honesty, however, compels us to recognize that Burton's grammar gives general or primary usage only, and does not address the various nuances within the general usage.
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.
Throughout this article I have called attention to several very basic errors in Sungenis' presentation that are difficult to explain given that the writer claims to know Greek. The errors include:
Heos hou and heos hotou are variant forms of the same particle and are treated as such by grammarians. Yet Sungenis separates them as though they are of two different classes. It is one thing to separate them for the purpose of enumerating their instances; quite another to leave them separated in your conclusions (e.g., Sungenis never demonstrates that he knows heos hou and heos hotou are in a different class than heos an). That leads me to believe that the writer is unfamiliar with the relationships of Greek particles.
I don't have to mention the different "classes" because nothing we are speaking about requires that I do so. Moreover, I covered heos an because there are textual variants that replace heos hou with heos an. For example, in Mt 26:36, Codices B, 067 have heos hou; Codices D, K, L, W, Delta, Theta, 074 contain heos an; Codices Aleph, C, 28, 33 simply have heos; and Codex A and Papyrus 53 have heos hou an.
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 consistently-in both his quotations of Burton and his own reflection-
transliterates heos hotou as heos otou, ignoring the rough breathing mark
on hotou. This is an error so basic that it could be spotted by someone with
a week's worth of Greek training. It would be easy to overlook a mere typo;
and if that were all it was there would be little need to point it out. But
Sungenis' transliteration is consistently wrong, and he never once gets it
right. That leads me to believe that the writer doesn't know even basic Greek.
Now we know why Jesus told the Pharisees that they strain the gnat and swallow the camel.
Sungenis seems to be unfamiliar with the language of Greek grammar, referring to the grammatical construction as "heos with the couplet," rather than heos with the particle. The research betrays the work of a novice rather than someone steeped in current NT and Greek studies.
I leave the reader to judge Svendsen's picayune remarks. To me, all it shows is someone who so desperate to disparage his critic that he has to start grasping at any straw he can. As I explained above, I use the word "couplet" because the heos conjunctions, except for heos, come in pair words. Very simple. A child could understand it, but Svendsen, blinded by his own hatred for the Catholic Church, remains as obtuse as ever.
Sungenis is consistently wrong on the number of instances for each construction cited. I know exactly why he is wrong in most cases. It is because he has counted the wrong thing. He has counted the passages where the construction occurs instead of the instances in which they occur. Some passages contain two instances of the same construction; yet this has passed Sungenis' notice, and in the process, we are again treated to a sampling of the quality of the research in which CAI engages.
No, it didn't pass my notice, since I have the same Bible software Svendsen does. I explained this above.
Sungenis' over-reliance on grammars to establish a rule that can be established only by a careful examination of every instance in its context and in its literary era, shows that he has not received sufficient training in exegesis and Greek grammatical research methods to weigh in on this discussion. Perhaps he received the training during his time at Westminster; but his current practice betrays a woeful misunderstanding of the genre of grammatical studies. Grammatical rules are established by usage.
"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. As I have shown above, his whole premise of "semantic range" is misapplied and unproven in regards to heos hou. He misses the instances in the NT where heos hou continues the action. He misses the equal proportion in the LXX and NT of heos hou which continues the action. He misses the textual variants that either put doubt into or disprove his thesis. He misapplies and misinterprets the English translation "while." He misses the fact that Burton not only admits that heos continues the action, but he cites 5 Greek grammars on classical literature that say the same. In short, Svendsen simply is not up to the task.
When it can be shown that a particular Greek construction always denotes x in a literary timeframe, taking into account all the literature used in that era and finding no exceptions, that establishes a "rule" of usage. For instance, if I am Granville Sharp, and I want to see if there is any significance to the construction of two nouns governed by the same article and separated by kai ("and"), I would simply do a search on that grammatical construction, examine every instance of it, and observe whether there is some common denominator, or pattern of usage that ties them all together. As it turns out, there is indeed a pattern of usage for Granville Sharp's rule (though not the popularized version of it). That is just what I have done in my research of heos hou in the NT era. This is how grammatical studies are done. They are not done by running to the oldest grammar one can find and carelessly pulling tendentious excerpts from it that end up not even addressing the issue at hand.
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? 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. 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.
My question is, Who conducted the research that underlies this article? Was it Sungenis' "helping hand," or was it the work of his under-qualified assistant whose work he promised to check? If it was Sungenis, then I confess I have been giving him much more credit than he deserves, so basic are some of the errors in his article. If it was his assistant, then my predication about his abilities has been realized, and Sungenis is relying uncritically on the research of someone who is in way over his head. Either way, it is a fair indicator of what we can expect when the final version of the Queenship publication is eventually released.
Eric Svendsen, Ph.D.
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 1, 2002
Catholic Apologetics International