Exegesis means to “draw out of” a text what it means, in contrast to eisegesis, to “read into” a text what one wants it to mean. The process is complex and forms the heart of hermeneutical theory, which seeks first to determine the author’s intended meaning and then to apply it to one’s life. This is a single task, and the two aspects - meaning and significance - cannot be separated, since the determination of meaning (what the biblical text “meant”) is already done from the standpoint of modern perspectives or significance (what Scripture “means” to us today).

Exegesis proper could be subdivided into linguistic and cultural aspects.

• Linguistic is concerned with the alignment of terms or concepts that together form the propositional statements.

• Cultural aspects relates to the historical and sociological background behind those statements.

Another way to put it is that grammar and semantics provide the locutionary aspect (the meaning or message), the syntax the illocutionary aspect (what the text does) and the homiletics the perlocutionary aspect (how the text affects the readers). All three aspects are interdependent and cannot truly exist apart from the others. Nevertheless, we must consider them separately, for the linguistic rules differ for each.

Naturally, the person who does not know the original languages will have a perceptibly greater difficulty in dealing with grammar and syntax. Most of the material below will assume a basic knowledge of Hebrew and Greek. However, the task is not completely hopeless for those who have never studied the languages. The problem is that they must then depend on secondary sources, mainly translations and the better commentaries.

The Preliminary Task: Establishing the Text#

Before we can begin serious exegesis of a scriptural passage, we must establish the text itself. Many different manuscripts of both Old and New Testaments exist, at times having quite dissimilar readings. Two processes enable us to establish the original reading:

• First, text criticism compares the various readings and decides which one was probably the basis of the others.

• Second, decisions are made as to whether letters or phrases belong with the previous or following term (more so in Old Testament study).

In the ancient world there was neither punctuation nor spaces between words. In addition, Hebrew writing used no vowels. In many instances a letter can be either a suffix of the previous word or a prefix of the succeeding word. Also, phrases like “in love” can belong either with a previous clause (Eph 1:4-5 KJV) or a following clause (Eph 1:4-5 NIV).

Text criticism is necessary when we note wide disparities between the versions on individual passages. Determining the correct reading is often an almost impossible task. We must remember that the class of professional scribes did not develop until quite late within both Judaism and the early church. In the New Testament era text copyists were amateurs and made all the errors one would expect in a text. They added or subtracted words, substituted alternate readings, and smoothed out rough grammar. There were sight errors, reversed letters and deliberate changes to add significant theological points or to harmonize seeming contradictions.

Moreover, text criticism is certainly an inexact science. Old Testament study before 1947 delineated three major textual traditions:

• The Masoretic Text (MT) compiled by the Masoretes, a group of Jewish scholars who added the vowel points and codified the oral tradition, from the sixth to the ninth centuries A.D.

• The Septuagint (LXX), the Greek Old Testament translated from the third to the first centuries B.C.

• The Samaritan Pentateuch (SP), the official Bible of the Samaritan sect at Shechem.

Readings from the Targums (Aramaic paraphrases, see chap. 14), the Peshitta (the Syriac version) and the Vulgate (Jerome’s Latin version) have been regarded as secondary and as reflecting one of the other traditions. At first the discovery of the Qumran scrolls was thought to strengthen the importance of the Septuagint, since several “LXX readings” were found in the Qumran material. Therefore, there was little shift in the alignment of the evidence.

Textual criticism of the New Testament is usually regarded as much more stable, due to the greater number of manuscripts (over 5,000) and the vast amount of work accomplished by scholars such as B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort at the end of the nineteenth century, or Kurt Aland and Bruce Metzger in more recent times. The manuscripts likewise have been subdivided into text families or types, based on the style of changes but even more on the geographical distributions: Alexandrian, Caesarean and Byzantine.

However, while it may seem to have greater stability, several challenges to the eclectic method developed by Westcott and Hart have made it necessary to temper the conclusions.

• First, proponents of the “majority text” (such as Pickering and Hodges) have argued that the vast majority of the manuscripts are in agreement behind the Textus Receptus (TR) of Erasmus, the version used in the Authorized Version, and that the text-family approach ignores the presence of TR readings in many of the church fathers. Although this challenge must be respected and taken seriously, I agree with D. A. Carson (1979) and Gordon Fee (1978) that a much stronger case can be made for the eclectic method.

• Second, many scholars agree that the entire methodological apparatus of text criticism is overdue for an overhaul and that the evidence for the text types is particularly suspect. Most today recognize the tentative and subjective nature of most decisions.

There are great similarities between the criteria for text-critical decisions in the Old and New Testaments. The main thing to remember is that no reading is proven by any single criterion. Rather, all the variants must be evaluated on the basis of all the criteria, and the most probable reading will be the one that best fits the whole.

1. External criteria#

External criteria are those rules that relate to the documents themselves. These weigh the distribution of the variant readings, judge the relative merits of the manuscripts within which the readings are found and detect “biases” (tendencies) in the transmission habits of the texts.

Many believe these have less merit because of the secondary nature of such judgments, based as they are on prior decisions regarding the date and geographical nature of the various manuscripts. Nevertheless, those who have done primary research on manuscripts state that it is indeed possible to give a basic “grade” to the quality of individual readings, so long as one realizes the subjective nature of such decisions.

When we study various possibilities for the original text of a particular passage, it is advisable to use the following procedure.

Determine the relative dates of the textual sources.#

This is more easily done for the New Testament but still has value for the Old. For instance, the Targumim for the Writings portion of the Old Testament stem from a later period, and there is a considerable amount of text-critical work to be done on the Septuagint itself before it can be compared to other recensions.

Ernst Wurthwein and Tov relate the major exception to this rule: the Masoretic Text is the most recent of the major versions of the Old Testament, yet at the same time it is the most trustworthy, that is, it contains the oldest traditions. Many of the oldest extant copies at Qumran (such as 1QpHab) have undergone extensive revision due to the theological proclivities of the community, while others (such as 1QIsa) are very accurate.

Dating for New Testament manuscripts is a fairly exact science, and several manuscripts are dated fairly close to the first century. For instance, Bodmer Papyrus I1 (P66), containing portions of John 14—21, can be dated around A.D. 200, relatively close to the actual writing of that Gospel. The earlier manuscripts are not automatically superior to older ones, as we have seen; nevertheless, they are immensely helpful.

Determine the temporal and geographical distribution of the manuscripts behind each of the variants.#

If a reading is found in major manuscripts from several sectors of the early church, it is more likely to be original. Of course, this must be combined with the first criterion. For instance, the longer ending of Mark 16:9-20 is omitted in Alexandrian readings (Codexes Sinaiticus, Vaticanus), in the Old Latin codex Bobiensis (itk), several Armenian manuscripts, as well as in Origen and Eusebius. It is found primarily in the “wilder” (expanded or longer) Codex Bezae or Byzantine (Ephraemi, Alexandrinus) readings. Therefore, most scholars doubt its authenticity (as part of Mark’s original Gospel).

Determine the genealogical relationship of the manuscripts behind each reading.#

This is the most tenuous of the criteria, based as it is on theories of text type. Theoretically, a reading found in several text families is superior to one from a single family.

In Old Testament research Wurthwein states that the Masoretic Text should be given greater weight, and decisions against a Masoretic Text reading should be made with great care. Tov takes the opposite pole, stating that no one version should have greater status than another. On the whole a mediating position is best.

We should recognize the general weight of the manuscript evidence but not make it the only deciding factor. If the Masoretic Text itself contains a possible reason for a change (such as theological preference or smoothing out a “rough reading”), we will go with the Septuagint or the Samaritan Pentateuch. In some cases it will be fairly conclusive. For instance, all the important ancient New Testament versions omit the story of the woman caught in adultery from John 7:53—8:12; only Codex Bezae and later sources (such as the Byzantine texts) include it. All three of the above criteria strongly support the omission of the story.

Note the relative quality of the manuscripts.#

We look for the degree of divergence in a text or text family, that is, which ones generally contain shorter readings, fewer theological additions and common errors.

We have already noted the general consensus that the Masoretic Text is superior to the others. The same could be said for Codex Vaticanus (B) in the New Testament. This is not conclusive by any means. However, if all other criteria are equal, the presence of the Masoretic Text or B behind a reading is at least a solid point in its favor.

2. Internal criteria#

Internal criteria are rules that relate to the construction and inner clarity of the text itself. These, of course, also are subjective, depending as they do on the reader’s apprehension of the text and what “must” be the case in it. Yet as John Hayes and Carl Holladay state, “In spite of their complexity they are commonly sensible, for they are primarily attempts to reverse the process of composition and transmission”.

When we are aware of the types of changes that occur, it makes sense to erect criteria that aid in detecting such changes.

The more difficult reading is more likely.#

It makes sense to think that later scribes would smooth out difficulties rather than add them. Of course, this too cannot stand by itself, for there are many ways an error could be made in a text, and “smoothing” difficult passages is only one of them. Nevertheless, when one is aware of the ways a scribe could write the wrong form or term in a text this rule can be helpful. In fact, many have made it the primary criterion for text-critical decisions.

For instance, later scribes noted the clumsy wording of Philippians 3:16 (lit., “only unto what we have attained, let us walk in the same”) and added “by the same rule, think the same thing” to smooth out the staccato phrase. The clumsier reading is definitely more likely for this verse; it is highly improbable that later scribes would omit the last half of the verse and produce so clumsy a reading.

The shorter reading is preferred.#

It was far more common to add material to a text than to reduce it. Therefore, if all else is equal the shorter text has greater likelihood of being correct. Scribes would clarify the subject or explain difficult terms. Often they would harmonize one text with another in order to avoid a seeming contradiction. One of the most common additions occurred when one scribe added a comment in the margin and the next scribe, thinking he had accidentally deleted part of the text, included it.

Of course, in cases of haplography the longer passage is preferred, and the rule is hardly absolute. Nevertheless, it is a valuable signifier helping the student to note the likely Urtext (original reading).

The reading that best fits the author’s style, and especially the immediate context, is more probable.#

This is often called the criterion of intrinsic probability (the first two are the criteria of transcriptional probability). Tov considers this the one pertinent criterion. Yet it too remains problematic, and Fee calls it “the most subjective of all the criteria”.

An author’s “style” is difficult to identify, for the type of statistics scholars often use (e.g., taking the number of times a word is used as an index to an author’s preferred choice of terms) seldom applies to works as short as the biblical books. Writers are just not that predictable. Therefore, scholars differ in their evaluation of and use of style as a text-critical criterion. The immediate context is more valuable, but again few readings are settled easily by such considerations. Scribes often would change a reading so it would better fit their ideas regarding the context.

Moreover, this criterion often clashes with the “more difficult reading” criterion, since context often guided the choice or changes by later scribes as well. In virtually every example Tov gives (such as Is 45:1-2; Deut 31:1; 32:8; 1 Sam 17:8; Jon 1:9) the more difficult reading favored one reading while the context favored the other. However, as Fee notes, intrinsic probability still has some limited value, for it can eliminate one or two of the possibilities and strengthen some of the other criteria.

Conclusion#

In conclusion, we must study the various possibilities on the basis of a grid determined by the three criteria discussed. The reading that most coherently meets these rules is the probable original reading.

The New Testament scholar will use the Nestle-Aland text and study in depth both external and internal criteria, utilizing the extensive apparatus. The nonexpert should use the UBS text, which grades the readings, study closely the explanations provided by Metzger (1971), then use the information discussed here and work with, rather than accept wholesale, the arguments of Metzger or the commentators.

This does not affect the integrity of the original and that no doctrine would be left unsupported if a favorite reading must be abandoned because of a more valid variant. This does not mean, as one sometimes hears, that no doctrine is affected by textual variants. That would not be true. Rather, any doctrinal statements in the Scriptures that are affected by textual variants are adequately supported by other passages.

Grammatical Analysis of the Text#

Grammar is the architectural blueprint of communication, telling how the various parts of an utterance relate to each other. In fact, grammar is the key to word meaning, and semantic analysis (word study) is dependent on it, since words have meaning only as they relate to the other words in a sentence.

The first stage of determining the inner cohesion of the text is to analyze the relationships between the individual units or terms in the text. It is interesting to contrast the emphasis on Hebrew or Greek grammar in seminary exegesis courses with the space actually given to grammar in hermeneutics texts or in commentaries.

What do you do if you have no knowledge of Greek and Hebrew? That is difficult but not insurmountable. You can memorize the alphabet, get an interlinear Bible and use the deeper commentaries. One of my purposes in this section is to provide a working knowledge of the basics of grammar so you can see how well older commentaries handle the issues. Use this chapter as a resource tool as you use the commentaries. Mainly, think grammatically and ask how the words relate to one another.

I will summarize the broad contours and select some critical examples in order to illustrate areas where grammar is often misused. Moreover, I will again discuss Hebrew and Greek side by side, for the areas of necessity overlap and a comparison will prove educational.

1. The Historical Development#

Understanding the historical development of the languages is critical for a proper understanding of grammar. A failure to understand the diachronic or historical dimensions of Hebrew and Greek has led to a misuse of grammar time and again. Further, the influences of the surrounding languages are formative in their development. Both biblical Hebrew and Greek demonstrate this. Therefore, a basic understanding of these phenomena will prove indispensable.

Biblical Hebrew#

Biblical Hebrew is part of the Northwest Semitic language group, composed of ancient Amoritic (of the Mari texts) and the Canaanite dialects: Ugaritic (seen in the Ras Shamra tablets), Phoenician (from which all these dialects derived their alphabet), Moabite (found primarily on the Mesha Stone) and Aramaic (seen in Jer 10:11; Dan 2:46—7:28; Ezra 4:8—6:18; 7:12-26). Also important is East Semitic, spoken in ancient Mesopotamia and the main language of the Near Eastern world from 1700-700 B.C. This group is composed of Akkadian, the lingua franca of the region in the second millennium; Babylonian, the language of the Code of Hammurabi (Old Babylonian) and of Nebuchadnezzar (New Babylonian); and Assyrian. Due to the political and economic domination of this language group throughout much of the biblical period, it has particular importance.

These all share certain linguistic features such as the noun and verb root of one to three consonants utilizing prefixes, suffixes or stem changes to indicate usage in the sentence. The case and tense systems are also quite similar (see Moscati 1969). We should also include Egyptian, traces of which often can be found in the Old Testament.

Therefore, one of the most important tools for serious exegesis of the Old Testament is comparative linguistics. Much work needs to be done, and great care must be taken in using the results. Since the study is still in the formative stages, many have overdone the parallels. One of the best examples of overkill is Michel Dahood’s three-volume commentary on the Psalms (Anchor Bible), which found Ugaritic parallels in virtually every verse.

Utilizing the sister language can uncover the potential background and meaning of many obscure Hebrew words and syntactical arrangements. Further, many phrases or terms seem to have been directly borrowed from the surrounding religions, so such an approach becomes doubly valuable. In doing so, however, we must be careful to search all the potential parallels and select the one that best answers the problem rather than settle for any possible parallel (too often the one that best suits our purpose!). This principle will recur several times in our survey of hermeneutics, for it is also a problem of semantic research and the use of parallel passages.

The major problem in developing a Hebrew grammar is that our understanding in some ways is still in its infancy. Scholars are still trying to unlock the developmental stages of the language from the Pentateuch to Chronicles and into the New Testament period. This in fact is the primary reason why no major grammar (at the level of Blass-Debrunner-Funk for biblical Greek) has appeared; most feel that it is too difficult to discover rules that can cover the various levels of Hebrew grammar at the different stages of its development. Nevertheless, it is possible to supply basic rules for interpretation that cover most instances, and I will attempt to summarize those here.

Greek New Testament#

The Greek of the New Testament has been very heavily debated. In the last century many believed that the New Testament contained a “Holy Spirit” Greek due to the obvious differences between the New Testament and classical Greek writings. However, Adolf Deissmann, in his monumental study of the papyri, proved that the Greek of the New Testament was actually the common, colloquial (Koine) Greek of the marketplace (1908). Several have challenged this thesis, primarily Nigel Turner, who argues that the New Testament is a unique combination of Greek and Semitic sources (1963:9). However, a nuanced form of Deissmann’s theory still best fits the evidence.

The Koine period began with Alexander’s conquests. Prior to Alexander several dialects competed in Greece, with Attic Greek (the dialect of Athens with its poets and philosophers) the language of diplomacy. Alexander made Attic the universal language, though traces of the others, especially Ionic, appear in later Koine Greek. This classical dialect was characterized by great subtlety of expression and a sophisticated but rigid system of particles and prepositions, each of which had a specialized meaning. The vast array of tenses and moods were used with an almost scientific accuracy.

However, the masses of conquered peoples had trouble learning all the subtle nuances, and the language gradually lost its precision. Minute differences between prepositions, cases and tenses began to disappear. The movement was away from the sophisticated, synthetic mode of the classical to an analytic style capable of greater emotional expression. To be sure, a movement back to a stylized classical form, called “Atticism” and characterized by the rigid rules of the older period, did occur, but it was restricted to the intelligentsia.

The New Testament writers followed popular writing styles. Of course there were differences of style. The best Greek is that of Luke, James and the author of the epistle to the Hebrews. At times Paul can approach elegance, and 1 Peter exhibits quite good Koine style. The roughest Greek occurs in 2 Peter, Revelation and the Gospel of John.

we cannot properly understand the language of the New Testament until we note the influence of Semitic grammar and septuagintal Greek on the writers. It is impossible to discuss this difficult subject in depth, but no survey would be complete without acknowledging the presence of both. The writers for the most part were Jews for whom Greek was the second language, so they often saw Greek through Semitic eyes. So at times grammar and word usage reflects this. Also in the Gospels and Acts the use of primitive traditions may reflect a strong Semitic origin, and many translation Semitisms reflect either Semitic originals or the Septuagint. The latter especially would influence the style, as in the hymns of Luke 1:46-55, 68-79. On the whole, it is important to recognize such influences and avoid a misuse of grammar.

2. The Verb System#

Hebrew#

Hebrew, unlike many other Indo-European languages, preferred aspect to time sense. There are two tenses:

• the perfect, stressing completed action

• the imperfect, emphasizing incomplete events

An exception to this is with verbs denoting state of being or mind (such as “I am clean,” “I love”), where the perfect is used for the present state. With regular verbs, however, only context can tell whether it should be translated a past (“I did”), perfect (“I have done”), pluperfect (“I had done”) or future perfect (“I will have done”). Only context can tell whether the imperfect should denote a future (“I will do”), repeated or habitual action in the past (“I used to do”), present (“I do”) or conditional (“if I do”). Again, there is no time sense in the verb; such must be inferred from the context.

The verbal system centers on the seven “stems,” which are named to signify the perfect tense, third person masculine singular form of the verb pl in the various stems, such as niphal due to the prefix n- and piel due to the doubling of the middle consonant.

Briefly, the grammatical use of each stem indicates the following syntactical functions (taken from Lambdin 1971; Waltke and O’Connor 1990; and van der Merwe et al. 1999).

1. The Qal is the basic or simple stem, used for both transitive (“I do”) or stative (“I am old”) statements.

2. The niphal is more often passive (“I am helped”) but at times reflexive (“I help myself”), though some verbs occur only in the niphal for the active force.

3. The piel (active) or pual (passive) stems change intransitive or stative verbs into transitive verbs (called a “factitive” use, for example, “to be holy” → “to sanctify”; “to learn” → “to teach”), and are also used with verbs whose roots are nouns (such as “word” → “to speak,” or “blessing” → “to bless”) or in a resultative sense (e.g., “to stretch” → “spread out”). Seldom if ever do they intensify (the traditional distinction).

4. The hithpael adds a reflexive (“sanctify oneself”) or reciprocal (“bless one another”) force, though with some verbs it becomes virtually an active (“pray for others”).

5. Finally, the hiphil (active) or hophal (passive) stems are causative (“to make righteous”), and at times permissive (“see” → “allow to see”).

Mood in Hebrew is fairly complex. The imperative is similar in form and function to the imperfect. It is used to designate a simple direct command (such as “do it” or “love God”) while the imperfect is used for strong injunctions (“you must do it” or “you shall love the LORD your God”). The jussive and cohortative resemble the imperfect and imperative in form and function. The jussive is the third person indirect imperative (“let him do it”) and the cohortative is the first person indirect imperative (“let us do it”). When two imperatives (or imperative followed by jussive or cohortative) are found together, often there will be a sense of condition.

Infinitives and participles are verbal nouns and adjectives, respectively. There are two infinitive forms. The infinitive construct often functions like the English gerund, standing as the subject (“helping the child is good”; cf. Gen 2:18) or object (“I enjoyed helping the child”; cf. Deut 10:10). Most frequently, it is found with prepositions used with lĕ for purpose or result (“I worked so that I might feed my family”), with kĕ or bĕ in a temporal clause (“when he worked . . .”), with min, bal or bĕlî in a causal clause (“because he worked . . .”) or with bal or kĕ in a concessive construction (“although he worked . . .”). The infinitive absolute functions as an adverb. Frequently, it is used emphatically to repeat and stress the verbal idea (“killing he will kill,” meaning “he will surely kill”; cf. Gen 2:17; Amos 9:8).

The infinitive absolute is sometimes employed to complement the verb and give attendant action (“He heard and followed . . .”) and can even stand for the main verb itself, often as an imperative (Is 14:31) but also as a finite verb (“consuming fire” [Num 4:24]) or a noun (“shepherd,” “seer”). With an article it can function as a relative clause (see “he who touches” [Gen 26:11]) but often also stands by itself as a main verb (such as “he sacrificed and burned incense” [1 Kings 3:3]) with the accent on durative or continuous action.

Greek#

The Greek verbal system is similar to Hebrew in some respects. Greek too is characterized by inflection more than by word order or helping verbs. Like Hebrew, tense does not have time sense but rather stresses kind of action. While ancient grammars centered on time sense for tenses, the scene changed at the beginning of the twentieth century with the emergence of aktionsart (kind of action) in Germany (Bruggman) and Britain (Moulton). It achieved its highest form in Blass-Debrunner-Funk’s grammar with five “aspects”:

1. punctiliar (aorist)

2. durative and iterative (present)

3. perfective (perfect)

4. perfectivizing (verbs with prepositional prefixes)

A quiet revolution was taking place in linguistic circles that took an empirical approach, sought a synchronic analysis of actual usage and stressed a descriptive over a prescriptive approach. They thought of language as functional, as a tool for communication rather than a set of rules. Thus they separated aspect (a point of view centering on a verbal situation) from aktionsart (an objective type of action) on the basis of modern linguistic theory.

Under aspect theory, let us see how the tenses operate.

• The perfective aspect is seen in the aorist tense, viewing the action “as a complete and undifferentiated process.”

• The imperfective aspect is seen in the present tense (and the imperfect, called an “augmented present form with secondary endings”), viewing the action as ongoing or in progress (whatever the temporal situation).

• The stative aspect is seen in the perfect (and pluperfect) tense, viewing the action as a “given (often complex) state of affairs.”

He then adds a pragmatic aspect from discourse analysis, recognizing three “planes of discourse” served by the tenses, with the aorist providing background (the narrative basis of the discourse), the present foreground (introducing key characters and significant events) and the perfect frontground (discrete and complex features in the context).

My suggestion is to consider aspect theory a valuable supplement to traditional theory and ask all of the questions (from traditional and aspect theories) when studying a context, then see which works best.

The following kinds of action can be distinguished, either in the form or the function of the verb:

1. continuous or durative force, utilizing the present (“I am doing”), imperfect (“I was doing”) or future (“I will be doing”) tenses

2. iterative or repeated action again with the present (“I do often”), imperfect (“I used to do”) or future (“I will do”) tenses

3. punctiliar force, perceived either as a single act, utilizing the aoristic or simple present (“I do”) and aorist (“I did”) tenses, or action perceived as a whole, using the global aorist (“the temple was built in forty years”);

4. action viewed as complete, with the results seen either as existing (perfect tense, “he has done”) or complete (pluperfect tense, “he had done”).

Tense is very misused, and the student must be extremely careful not to read too much rigidity into its use in the New Testament, such as seeing the aorist as a “once-for-all” tense. The aorist never means “once for all” and often has no sense of completed action.

Voice is equally problematic. No longer can it be said that the middle voice is mainly reflexive. More often than not, the force is more indirect, involving the subject in the results of the action as well as in the process. At times the reflexive idea is strong (such as “he hung himself” [Mt 27:5]) but at other times the middle voice is virtually equivalent to an active (such as Acts 12:4, where Herod “put [Peter] in prison”). Consulting a lexicon, we would find it readily apparent that pauomai often appears in the middle with active force (such as “the waves . . . ceased” [Lk 8:24]).

In both form and function the subjunctive is related to the future. This is true in hina clauses (most frequently = future purpose) and in deliberative questions, where the stress is on potentiality (see Mk 12:4). Yet this must be tempered in conditional sentences. A similar caution must be made against the assumption that a first-class condition with ei is virtually causal (Turner 1963:115) and should be translated “since.” As Zerwick shows, the degree of reality must be inferred from the context (1963:103). The reality of the hypothesis is assumed for the sake of argument, but not the truth of it. The context can give the clause virtually a causal force (e.g., Phil 2:1) but often the statement is in fact untrue (as in Mt 12:26-27 or Mk 3:24-25).