You are on page 1of 13

19

MELDING IN THE SEPTUAGINT


AND NEW TESTAMENT
PAUL DANOVE
This study investigates the grammatical phenomenon, melding,
which arises in particular contexts in which two or three verbs of communication, one of which usually is , govern the same object complement.
The study establishes the syntactic, semantic, and lexical requirements of
the verbs of communication that participate in melding, develops the
distinctive characteristics of this phenomenon, and considers its implications for translation and the formulation of lexicon entries for the Greek
words of the Septuagint and New Testament.1

1. Syntactic, Semantic, and Lexical Requirements of Verbs that Participate in Melding


Verbs of communication in the Septuagint and New Testament have
multiple usages associated with differing connotations; and each usage
imposes on its complements specific syntactic, semantic, and lexical
requirements. Most of the frequently occurring verbs of communication
have a usage which requires completion by three complements that designate the agent of communication, the experiencer of communication, and
the content of communication.2 In the active voice, the subject designates
the agent, the indirect object designates the experiencer, and the direct
object designates the content. The most common verb with this usage is
(say):3
1
This study develops topics introduced in P. Danove, Linguistics and Exegesis in the
Gospel of Mark: Applications of a Case Frame Analysis and Lexicon (Sheffield 2001)
85-90.
2
A majority of the verbs that have these requirements also have a second usage which
requires three complements that designate the agent, the experiencer, and the topic about
which something is communicated. Generally this topic receives lexical realization as an
accusative case noun phrase (N+acc) or as a prepositional phrase (P). A few of these verbs
also have a third usage which requires an agent, an experiencer, and both a topic and content. The second (topic) usage does not participate in melding. The third (topic plus
content) usage twice participates in melding with respect to the content component;
and these are treated under the first usage.
3
The analysis employs A. Rahlfs, Septuaginta (Stuttgart 1935) and K. Aland et al., The
Greek New Testament (Stuttgart 1993). Codex Vaticanus [B] serves as the basic text for the
LXX; and contributions from other manuscripts [Sinaiticus (S), A, R, V, Syro-hexaplaris
(Sy)] are noted when they diverge from B.

Filologa Neotestamentaria - Vol. XVI - 2003, pp. 19-31


Facultad de Filosofa y Letras - Universidad de Crdoba (Espaa)

20

Paul Danove
; And God said to Cain,
Where is Abel your brother? (Gen 4:9)
, ... But I say to you, Love your enemies... (Matt 5:44)
... A messenger of the Lord said
to Gad to say to David... (1 Chr 21:18)
... And they said nothing to anyone... (Mark 16:8)

In the first two examples, the direct objects relate the exact content of
Gods and Jesus speech through quotes; whereas, in the latter two examples, the third complements (to say to David... and nothing) designate
the content of discourse. This usage of may be represented by the
following syntactic, semantic, and lexical description:
SYN.

1
(2)
[3]*
1=subject, 2=indirect object, 3=object, ( )=indef. null com., [ ]=def. null com.

SEM.

Agt Exp Con**


** Agt = agent, Exp = experiencer, Con = content

LEX.

N
N/P N/V***
*** N = noun phrase, V = verb phrase, P = prepositional phrase

This description characterizes the requirements of in the active


voice according to its syntactic (syn.), semantic (sem.), and lexical (lex.)
properties. The subject or first complement, 1, lexically realizes the agent
(Agt) either by a noun phrase (noun or pronoun, N) or by the verbal
ending. The indirect object or second complement, 2, lexically realizes
the experiencer (Exp) by a noun phrase (N) or a prepositional phrase (P).
The direct object or third complement, 3, lexically realizes the content
(Con) by a noun phrase (N) or by a clause or other verb phrase (V). The
parentheses, ( ), in the syntactic description indicate that the second complement may be omitted (null) even when the preceding linguistic context
does not specify its semantic content. In such cases, the indirect object is
granted an indefinite interpretation, someone or whoever might hear:4

Indefinite null complements receive development in Charles J. Fillmore, Pragmatically


Controlled Zero Anaphora, Berkeley Linguistics Society 12 (1986) 95-107, and are treated
in other linguistic approaches under the designations, unspecified noun phrase deletion
in Bruce Fraser and John R. Ross, Idioms and Unspecified N[oun] P[hrase] Deletion,
Linguistic Inquiry 1 (1970) 264-5, and pragmatically controlled model-interpretive null
anaphora in Ivan Sag and Jorge Hankamer, Toward a Theory of Anaphoric Processing,
Linguistics and Philosophy 7 (1984) 325-45.
4

Melding in the Septuagint and New Testament

21

... The Lord said [to whoever might hear], From


Bashan I will bring [them] back... (Ps 67:23)
... . But some of them
said [to whoever might hear], By Beelzebul...he casts out the demons. (Luke 11:15)

The brackets, [ ], indicate that the third complement may be omitted


(null) only if the preceding linguistic context specifies its definite semantic content:5
, . And the plain will be destroyed
just as the Lord said [that it would be destroyed] (Jer 31:8)
, . He did not want
to enter, but his father, going out, was urging him [to enter] (Luke 15:28)

2. Melding as a Distinct Grammatical Phenomenon


melding occurs with verbs of communication that have a usage
with exactly the same syntactic and semantic requirements as those noted
for , including the requirement that an omitted third complement
must have its definite semantic content specified in the previous context.6
5
Definite null complements receive development in Charles J. Fillmore, U-Semantics,
Second Round, Quaderni di Semantica 7 (1986) 49-58, and are treated in other linguistic
approaches under the designations, definite object deletion in Anita Mittwoch, Idioms
and Unspecified N[oun] P[hrase] Deletion, Linguistic Inquiry 2 (1971) 255-9, latent object in Peter Matthews, Syntax (Cambridge, 1981) 125-6, and contextual deletion in D.
J. Alletron, Valency and the English Verb (New York 1982) 34, 68-70.
6
Thus, this study does not address verbs of communication that require three arguments
but permit their third complement to be omitted even when its semantic content has not
received prior clarification: (cry out, cf. 1 Kgs 12:24t; Ezek 9:1; Mark 1:24; Luke
23:18); (declare solemnly: Gen 43:3b; Exod 19:23; 2 Kgs 17:13; Zech 3:6; Acts
2:40; 20:23; Heb 2:6); (teach: Jer 38:34; Matt 5:2; Heb 8:11); (confess:
Isa 45:24); (pledge: Deut 29:18); (preach the good news: Jer 20:15; Rev
14:6); (pray: 2 Macc 9:13); (call: 2 Sam 19:5; Matt 8:29; 14:30; 15:22; 20:30, 31;
21:9; 27:23; Mark 3:11; John 1:15; 7:28, 37; 18:40; 19:6, 12; Acts 16:17; 19:28; Rev 6:10; 7:2, 10;
18:2, 18, 19; 19:7); (speak: Gen 17:3; 23:8; 34:8, 20; 39:17; 41:9, 17; 42:22; 43:19; 50:4;
Exod 6:12, 29; 7:9; 12:3; 14:1; 16:11, 12; 15:1; 30:11, 17, 22, 31; 31:1, 12; 32:7, 13; 40:1; Lev 1:1;
4:1, 2; 5:14, 20; 6:1, 12, 17, 18; 7:22, 23, 28, 29; 8:1; 9:3; 10:8, 19; 11:1, 2; 12:1; 13:1; 14:1, 33; 15:1;
17:1; 18:1; 19:1; 20:1; 21:1, 16; 22:1, 17, 26; 13:9, 23, 24, 26, 33, 34; 24:1, 13; 25:1; 27:1; Num
1:1, 48; 2:1; 3:5, 11, 14, 44; 4:1, 17, 21; 5:1, 5, 6, 11; 6:1, 22, 23; 8:1, 5, 23; 9:1, 9, 10; 10:1; 13:1;
15:17, 35; 16:5, 20, 23, 24, 26; 17:9, 16; 18:25; 19:1; 20:7; 23:26; 24:12; 25:10, 16a, 16b; 26:1, 3,
52; 27:6, 8, 18; 28:1; 30:2; 31:3, 25; 33:50; 34:1, 16; 35:1, 9; Deut 1:6; 2:17; 9:13; 20:5; 27:9; 32:48;
Josh 20:1, 2; 22:15, 21; Judg 7:3; 9:1; 1 Sam 18:22; 25:40; 26:14; 2 Sam 3:18; 7:7; 19:12; 24:12;
1 Kgs 5:19; 8:15; 9:5; 12:3, 7, 10a, 10b, 12, 14, 24d, 24r; 13:12, 18, 22; 18:29, 31; 20:2, 6, 19,
23; 22:13; 2 Kgs 1:3, 7; 7:8; 8:1, 4; 9:2; 20:2; 21:10; 1 Chr 21:9, 10; 2 Chr 6:4; 10:7, 9, 10, 12, 14;
18:12; 32:6; Esth 3:8; Odes 7:36; Hagg 2:1; Zech 2:8b; 6:8; Isa 7:10; 20:2; 28:11; Jer 25:3; 34:12,

22

Paul Danove

It is restricted to verb phrases that have four characteristics: (1) a verb of


communication is followed by (or another verb of communication)
or even by two verbs of communication; (2) at most one of the verbs is
finite in form and the other[s] participial in form; (3) the verbs are not
coordinated by a conjunction; and (4) only the last verb has its third
complement lexically realized.
melding is deemed a distinctive grammatical phenomenon based on the unique manner in which it links the syntactic, semantic, and
lexical requirements of its participating verbs. In the Septuagint and the
New Testament, only melding and coordination (by a conjunction)
permit a second (and, on occasion, a third) verb to intrude prior to the
lexical realization of the initial verbs required third complement when
this complements definite semantic content has not received prior contextual clarification. It differs from coordination, however, in placing a
novel restriction on the lexical realization of the verbs second (experiencer) complements.
Like coordination, melding permits one or two verbs to intrude
between an initial verb of communication and the lexical realization of
the third complement whose definite semantic content has not received
prior clarification. melding has 591 occurrences (419 in LXX and
172 in NT) in association with 21 verbs of communication: (ask);
(announce, tell); (announce, tell);
(answer, respond); (ask, beg); (reveal, inform);
(discuss); (explain); (command);
(command); (promise); (ask); (ask);
(urge, order); (proclaim); [a second] (say);
(implore); (command); (urge);
(command); and (command).7 Among these, 576 occurrences
16; 51:25; Bar 2:20; Ezek 33:10, 30a, 30b; 37:11; Dan 3:36; OGDan 3:36; OGBel 34; Matt 13:3;
14:27; 23:1; 28:18; Luke 14:6; John 8:12; Acts 8:26; 26:31; 28:25; Rev 4:1; 17:1; 21:9);
(testify: John 1:15, 32); (swear: Gen 24:7; Josh 14:9; Judg 15:13 [A]; 21:1, 18; 1 Sam 6:2;
19:6; 28:10; 2 Sam 3:35; 1 Kgs 1:13, 17, 30; 2:8, 23, 35n; 1 Macc 7:15, 35; Jer 45:16; 47:9; Heb
6:13); (pray: 2 Chr 30:18; Tob 3:1; Isa 37:15; 38:2; 44:17; Jer 39:16; Matt 26:42;
Luke 22:41); (prophesy: 1 Kgs 22:12; 2 Chr 18:11; 20:37; Jer 33:9; 39:3; 44:19; Jude
14); (speak with: Luke 4:36; Acts 7:26); and (call: Mark 10:49; Luke 8:54;
Acts 16:28; Rev 14:18); (testify falsely: Mark 14:57).
7
The study omits four verbs of communication whose rare occurrence prevents a determination whether their null third complements must be definite: (insist: Luke
22:59); (urge, press: Gen 19:3, 9; Deut 1:43; 1 Sam 28:23; 2 Kgs 2:17; 5:16;
Amos 6:10; Jon 1:13; Luke 24:29); (advise: 2 Macc 7:25, 26 [R]; 3 Macc 5:17; 7:12
[A]; Acts 27:9); and (advise: 4 Macc 12:2). Five verbs of communication with
the same syntactic and semantic properties as do not appear with intruding verbs of
communication: (tell), (explain), (command), (say in
advance), and (say).

Melding in the Septuagint and New Testament

23

(410 in LXX and 166 in NT) appear in the format, verb of communication + . The intrusion of a verb of communication other than
between an initial verb of communication and its third complement also
appears on eleven occasions (7 in LXX and 4 in NT): + [a
second] ; + or (reply) or
(say); (ask) + ; and + . Finally,
on four occasions (2 in LXX and 2 in NT), two verbs of communication
intrude between an initial verb and its third complement: +
+ [a second] ; and + [a second] + .
melding differs from coordination in that it imposes a restriction on the number of second complements that may receive lexical realization among linked verbs. For two linked verbs, coordination permits
the lexical realization of neither, one, or both second complements even
when they have the same lexical realization. This is apparent in the coordination of two verbs that permit their second complements to receive
lexical realization as a dative case noun phrase:8
... Moses commanded Joshua and
said to him, Be brave... (Deut 31:23)
... Jonathan responded to Saul and said to him, David requested... (1 Sam 20:28)

melding, in contrast, imposes the restriction that, among linked


verbs with the same lexical realization for their second complements, at
most one verb may have its second complement lexically realized. For
example, on 503 occasions, melding links a verb of communication
and ; and the verb of communication, like , permits the lexical
realization of its second complement as either a dative case noun phrase
(N+dat) or a prepositional phrase (P/). In these occurrences,
either the first verb (234) or (103) or neither verb (166) but never
both verbs have their second complement lexically realized.9 The same
See also Gen 42:7; Exod 6:2; 2 Sam 4:9; 24:13; 2 Kgs 25:24; 2 Chr 23:14; 1 Macc 13:35.
Second complement of the verb of communication lexically realized and second complement of null (234 occurrences = 209 in LXX and 25 in NT): (N+dat:
Gen 45:26; Exod 13:8; Lev 14:35; 2 Sam 11:10; 17:16; 1 Kgs 21:17 [A]; 2 Kgs 6:13; 7:10;
8:7); (N+dat: Gen 38:24 [R]; 47:1; Num 11:27; 1 Sam 19:2, 11; 25:14; 2 Sam 2:4;
17:16 [A]; 1 Kgs 12:6 [R]; 21:17; 2 Kgs 4:31; 6:13 [R]; 2 Chr 34:18; 1 Macc 5:38; P/: 2
Sam 15:13); (N+dat: Gen 23:14; 41:16a; Deut 1:14, 41; Josh 1:16; 7:20; 9:24; 1
Sam 9:8, 19; 20:3; 21:5; 22:14; 25:10; 2 Sam 15:21; 19:44; 1 Kgs 1:36; 2:1; 12:16; 2 Kgs 7:19;
1 Esdr 6:12; Job 1:7; 40:1; Zech 1:11; Matt 12:38; 14:28; 20:13; 21:27; 25:37, 45; Mark 3:33;
9:19; 10:51; 11:33; 15:2, 9; John 1:26; Acts 8:34; 25:9; P/: Gen 23:5; 1 Sam 14:12; 2 Sam
19:43; 2 Chr 10:16; Hab 2:2; Luke 6:3); (N+dat: Josh 4:7); (P/:
Mark 11:31; Luke 20:14); (N+dat: Mark 8:15); (N+dat: Gen 2:16;
8
9

24

Paul Danove

restriction holds in the eight occurrences in which a verb of communication is linked with a verb of communication other than and
28:1, 6; 32:5, 18, 20; 43:16; 44:1; Lev 6:2; Num 28:2; 34:13; 36:5; Deut 1:16; 2:4; 3:18, 21;
27:11; 31:10, 25; Josh 1:10, 11; 3:3, 8; 4:17; 6:10; 8:4, 18; Judg 19:30; 21:10, 20; Ruth 2:15; 1
Sam 18:22; 2 Sam 11:19; 13:28a; 18:5a, 12; 1 Kgs 2:35l; 13:9, 17; 22:31; 2 Kgs 5:5; 16:5; 17:35;
22:12; 23:21; 2 Chr 18:30; 34:20; Tob 14:3 [S]; Sir 24:8; Amos 2:12; Jer 42:6; 43:5; 45:10; Ezek
10:6; 1 Macc 5:19, 42; Matt 17:9; P/: 2 Chr 19:9; Luke 14:5); (N+dat: 1 Esdr
9:53); (N+dat: Gen 8:15; 9:8; 23:3; 39:14; 42:14, 37; 43:3a, 5; 50:24; Exod 3:12; 6:6; Josh
1:1; 2:4; 4:1, 15; 6:7; Judg 8:9 [A]; 13:6; 15:13; 1 Kgs 2:30; 12:23, 24y; 13:31; 2 Kgs 17:26; 2
Chr 32:12; Ezra 8:22; Ps 70:10; Jer 35:1; 50:26; 51:20; 1 Macc 2:17; Mark 8:28; 12:26; P/:
Gen 21:22; 31:29; 34:4; 47:5; Exod 5:10; 6:10; 7:1, 8; 9:8; 10:1; 12:1, 43; 13:1; 19:21; 35:4; Lev
23:1; Num 3:40; 7:4; 14:7, 26; 15:1, 37; 17:27; 18:1; 20:23; 28:2; 32:2, 25; Deut 1:9; Josh 2:3;
9:11; 21:2; Judg 19:22; 1 Sam 7:3; 11:14; 12:6; 26:6; 2 Sam 3:17; 17:6; 1 Kgs 1:11, 13; 12:23,
24y; 13:21; 20:17; 2 Kgs 22:10; 2 Chr 11:3; Job 34:31; Hagg 2:2, 20, 21; Zech 1:14, 17; 2:8a;
3:4; 4:4, 6; 7:3; Jer 33:12; 35:13; Luke 14:3); (N+dat: 1 Kgs 12:6; Matt 10:5); and
(N+dat: Gen 26:11; Exod 1:22; 5:6; 31:13; Josh 4:3; Jer 39:13). Second complement
of the verb of communication null and second complement of lexically realized (103
occurrences = 46 in LXX and 57 in NT): (N+dat: Gen 27:37, 39; 31:14, 31, 43;
40:18; 42:22; Num 22:18; 23:26; Deut 27:14; Ruth 2:11; 1 Sam 1:17; 1 Kgs 2:22; Ezra 10:2;
Tob 2:14; 5:1, 10; Cant 2:10; Joel 2:19; Isa 14:10; Dan 2:5, 26; 3:16; 5:13; 6:13; 7:16; DanTh
2:5, 26, 47; 3:14, 16a; 1 Macc 2:17; 15:33; Matt 11:4; 12:39, 48; 13:11; 15:3, 15, 28; 16:2, 17;
17:4; 19:27; 21:21, 24; 22:29; 24:2, 4; 25:26, 40; 26:33; 27:21; 28:5; Mark 6:37; 8:29; 9:5; 10:3,
24; 11:14, 22; 14:48; 15:12; Luke 1:19, 35; 3:11, 16; 4:8, 12; 7:22; 10:41; 11:45; 13:2, 8, 14,
25; 15:29; 17:37; Acts 19:15; Rev 7:13; P/: Judg 18:14; 1 Sam 26:6; 2 Sam 14:18; 2 Kgs
1:10; 2 Chr 34:15; Amos 7:14; Zech 1:10; 3:4; 4:5, 6, 11; 6:4; Matt 3:15; Luke 5:22, 31; 7:40;
8:21; 20:3; 24:18; Acts 4:19); (N+dat: Luke 13:27; P/: 1 Sam 20:21; Luke 20:2).
Second complement of the verb of communication null and second complement of null
(166 occurrences = 117 in LXX and 49 in NT): (N+dat: Mark 6:25); (1
Sam 27:11; 2 Sam 19:9); (2 Kgs 9:18, 20; 10:8; 1 Macc 5:14; Acts 5:22; 22:26);
(Gen 18:9, 27; 24:50; Exod 4:1; 19:8; 21:5; 24:3; Num 11:28; 32:31; Deut 21:7;
25:9; 26:5; 27:15; Josh 24:16; Judg 7:14; 20:4; Ruth 2:6; 1 Sam 1:15; 4:17; 9:21; 10:12; 14:28;
16:18; 22:9; 1 Sam 26:14b, 22; 30:22; 2 Sam 1:16; 13:32; 19:22; 20:20; 1 Kgs 1:28, 43; 3:26, 27;
18:24; 21:4, 11; 2 Kgs 1:12; 3:11; 7:2, 18; 2 Chr 29:31; Ezra 10:12; Neh 8:6; Tob 2:3; 5:3, 13
[S]; Esth 7:3; Job 1:9; Hag 2:12, 13, 14; Zech 1:6, 12; 6:5; Isa 21:9; Jer 11:5; 51:15; Ezek 9:11;
Dan 2:7; 4:30; DanTh 2:7, 8, 10, 27; 3:95; 4:19a, 19b, 30; 5:10 [A], 17; 6:14; 1 Macc 1:19; 8:19;
10:55; 13:8; Matt 4:4; 11:25; 13:37; 15:13, 24, 26; 16:16; 17:11, 17; 19:4; 20:22; 21:29, 30; 25:9,
44; 26:23, 25, 66; 27:25; Mark 12:35; Luke 1:60; 5:5; 7:43; 9:19, 20, 41, 49; 10:27; 11:7; 17:17;
19:40; 20:39; 22:51; 23:40; Acts 5:29; 8:24, 37; 15:13); (Matt 16:7; 21:25; Luke
5:21; 12:17); (2 Macc 7:6); (2 Kgs 14:6; 17:27; 2 Chr 25:4);
(Heb 12:26); (Exod 32:5; 36:6; 2 Chr 36:22; Ezra 2:20; Esth 6:9, 11; Jon 3:4; Matt
10:7; Mark 1:7); (Gen 17:17; 23:10b; Exod 15:1; 32:12; Num 11:27; 14:15, 17; Deut 9:4,
28; Judg 15:2; 1 Sam 10:18; 20:18; 27:1; 2 Chr 32:17; Hagg 1:2; Jer 35:11; 37:2; 50:2a; Ezek
16:44; 28:9; Luke 7:39); (Ezra 1:1); and (Exod 36:6; Deut 27:1).
The verb, with the connotation rebuke, requires only two complements, an agent
and a patient (what is acted upon) and so does not constitute a verb of communication as
defined above. Thus, the occurrence of + in
... (he rebuked the unclean spirit saying to it..., Mark 9:25) does not
constitute an instance of melding; and the occurrence of + +
in ... (but the other responding, rebuking
him, was saying..., Luke 23:40) constitutes an occasion of melding only with respect
to the first and third verbs.

Melding in the Septuagint and New Testament

25

both verbs have the same lexical realization of their second complements:
either the initial verb of communication (2), the following verb of communication (3), or neither verb (3) but never both verbs have their second
complement lexically realized.10 The restriction even holds in the three
occurrences of three linked verbs that permit the same lexical realization
of their second complement: only the first (1) or second (2) but never two
verbs have their second complement lexically realized.11 Thus, in these
514 occurrences, two or three linked verbs that permit the same lexical
realization of their second complement never appear with more than
one of these complements lexically realized; and both or all three verbs
govern the same concluding third complement. This indicates that their
syntactic, semantic, and lexical requirements not merely are linked as in
coordination but are melded in such a manner that both or all three verbs
lexically realize only one first, second, and third complement as if they
constituted a single verb.
The same restriction, however, does not extend to the second complement when the linked verbs do not permit the same lexical realization
of their second complements. This appears with 77 occurrences of
melding in which the initial verb, unlike , permits the lexical realization of its second complement only as an accusative case noun phrase
(N+acc), a genitive case noun phrase (N+gen), or an prepositional
phrase (P/); and the final verb, like , permits its lexical realization
only as a dative case noun phrase (N+dat) or a prepositional phrase
(P/). In the 76 occurrences of two such linked verbs, either the initial
verb (70 occurrences) or second verb (2 occurrences) or neither verb (2
occurrences) or both verbs (2 occurrences) may appear with their second
complement lexically realized.12 The one occurrence of melding
10
Second complement of the initial verb lexically realized and second complement
of the second verb null (2 occurrences in NT): + (N+dat: Luke 23:3)
and + (N+dat: Heb 6:13). Second complement of the initial verb null
and second complement of the second verb lexically realized (3 occurrences in LXX):
+ (N+dat: Jdth 6:17); + [a second] (1 Sam
10:16a; 22:22). Second complement of the initial verb lexically realized and second complement of the second verb null (3 occurrences = 2 in LXX and 1 in NT): +
(Matt 8:8); + (2 Macc 7:8); + [a second]
(Judg 14:12).
11
Second complement of the initial verb lexically realized and second complement of
the second and third verb null (1 occurrence in LXX): + + (P/:
Gen 23:10). Second complement of the initial and third verb null and second complement
of the second verb lexically realized (2 occurrences in NT): + +
(N+dat: Matt 22:1); + + (P/: Luke 14:3).
12
Second complement of verb of communication lexically realized and second complement of null (70 occurrences = 38 in LXX and 32 in NT): (N+gen: Deut 3:23;
1 Kgs 8:47; 2 Chr 6:37; Luke 5:12); (N+acc: Gen 24:23; 43:7; 2 Kgs 19:10 [A]; Jer

26

Paul Danove

with three verbs has the second complement of only one verb lexically
realized.13 These occurrences clarify that melding restricts the lexical realization of the second complement of two or three linked verbs only
when these complements permit the same lexical realization.
3. Melding and Verbs of Indirect Discourse
Thirteen of the 21 verbs that participate in melding have the
capacity to express direct discourse (i.e., a quote) through the lexical realization of its third complement as a clause with a finite verb (V+finite)
both inside and outside of the context of melding: ;
; ; ; ; ; ;
; ; ; ; ; and .14 These

23:33; Matt 12:10; 17:10; 22:23, 41; 27:11; Mark 9:11; 12:18; 14:60; 15:4; Luke 3:10, 14; 9:18;
18:18; 20:21, 27; 21:7; Acts 5:27; P/: Judg 1:1; 18:5 [R]; 20:18 [A], 27 [A], 28);
(N+acc: Gen 24:47; 32:18, 30 [R]; 37:15; 40:7; 44:19; Exod 3:13; 13:14; Deut 6:20; Josh 4:6,
21; 1 Sam 19:22; Jer 43:17; P/ 2 Sam 5:19; 1 Chr 14:10; Matt 15:23; 16:13; Luke 23:3;
John 4:31; 9:2, 19; 12:21; Acts 1:6; P/: Judg 20:18, 23; 1 Chr 14:14); (N+acc: Gen
24:37; 50:5, 25; Exod 13:19; 1 Sam 14:28; 1 Kgs 2:42; 2 Kgs 11:4); (N+acc: Deut
13:7; Matt 8:31; 18:29; Mark 5:12, 23; Luke 7:4; Acts 2:40). Second complement of verb of
communication null and second complement of lexically realized (2 occurrences in
LXX): (P/: Zech 4:4, 14). Second complement of verb of communication
null and second complement of null (2 occurrences in NT): (Luke 22:64);
(Acts 16:15). Second complement of verb of communication lexically realized
and second complement of lexically realized (2 occurrences = 1 in LXX and 1 in NT):
(N+acc / N+dat: Mark 8:27); (N+acc / P/: 2 Macc 7:21).
13
In the melding of + + (Gen 43:7), the second has
its second complement lexically realized as N+acc. This singular occurrence also conforms
to the restriction that only one of the two verbs that permit the same lexical realization of
the second complement have it lexically realized.
14
On at least one occasion, each of these thirteen verbs expresses direct discourse outside of the context of melding through the lexical realization of its complement as
a clause with a finite verb (V+finite) that accommodates a quote: (Exod 19:3;
20:22; Judg 13:10; 2 Sam 24:13; 1 Kgs 18:11; Ps 51:1; Amos 3:9 [R]; Jer 4:5, 16; 26:14; 27:2);
(Gen 46:31; Judg 13:10 [A]; 14:2; 1 Sam 14:43b; 2 Sam 11:5; 13:34; 17:21 [R]; 2
Kgs 4:7; 5:4; Amos 3:9; Isa 48:20 [A,S]; Luke 8:20); (Gen 29:26 [R]; Judg 5:29,
29b [A]; 1 Sam 9:17; 12:3a; 20:28; 21:6; 23:4; 29:9; 2 Sam 4:9; Ps 101:24; Job 3:2; Cant 6:1;
Isa 3:7; Dan 4:19; 5:17; Mark 7:28; 9:17; Luke 4:4; 8:50; 13:15; 17:20; John 1:21, 48, 49, 50;
2:18, 19; 3:3, 5, 9, 10, 27; 4:10, 13, 17; 5:7, 11, 17, 19; 6:7, 26, 29, 43, 68, 70; 7:16, 20, 21, 46,
47, 52; 8:14, 19, 33, 34, 39, 48, 49, 54; 9:3, 11, 20, 25, 27, 30, 34, 36; 10:25, 32, 33, 34; 11:9;
12:23, 30, 34; 13:7, 8, 26, 38; 14:23; 16:31; 18:5, 8, 20, 23, 30, 34, 35, 36, 37; 19:7, 11, 15, 22;
21:5; Acts 3:12; 5:8; 9:13; 10:46; 11:9; 21:13; 22:8, 28; 24:10, 25; 25:12); (Acts 21:39);
(Mark 2:6); (Lev 24:2; Num 34:2; Deut 31:23; Josh 1:9; Judg 4:26;
2 Kgs 11:15; 2 Chr 23:14; Neh 7:2; Tob 14:8 [S]; Ps 118:4; Lam 1:10; Matt 4:6; Acts 13:47);
(Gen 38:21; 1 Sam 14:37; 17:56; 2 Kgs 8:9; Jdth 10:12; Sus 40; 2 Macc 7:7; 14:5;

Melding in the Septuagint and New Testament

27

verbs account for 576 (97.5%) of the 591 occurrences of melding.


The eight remaining verbs that participate in melding account for
only fifteen occurrences (2.5%) and always appear as the first of two or
as the first and second of three linked verbs: ; ; ;
; ; ; ; and . Outside of the context of melding, however, these verbs express only
indirect discourse and permit the lexical realization of their third complement only as verb phrases that can accommodate indirect discourse:
clauses (V+); clauses (V+ ); (co)relative clauses (V+ ); interrogative clauses (V+ ); manner clauses (V+ ); clauses (V+
); infinitive phrases with subject accusatives (V+i), or complementary
infinitive phrases (V-i).15 In their fifteen occurrences in melding,
however, these eight verbs are followed by a concluding verb of direct
discourse whose third complement is lexically realized as a clause with
a finite verb (V+finite) that accommodates a quote: (Mark 6:25);
(Josh 4:7); (2 Macc 7:6); (Mark 8:15);
(Heb 6:13; 12:26); (1 Esdr 9:53); (Exod
36:6; Deut 27:1); and (Gen 26:11; Exod 1:22; 5:6; 31:13; Josh
4:4; Jer 39:13). This indicates that melding permits an extension of
the typical usage of verbs of indirect discourse to accommodate a third
complement quote of direct discourse.
4. Implications of Melding for Translation
This discussion resolves the verbs that participate in melding
into three groups and considers guidelines for translation according to
the semantic requirements of each group.
Among the 591 occurrences of melding, 576 link two or three
verbs that accommodate the expression of direct discourse; and both or

Matt 22:35; Mark 5:9; 7:5; 8:23, 29; 9:16, 21, 28, 33; 10:17; 12:28; 13:3; 14:61; 15:2; Luke 8:30;
18:40; John 18:7); (Gen 43:27; Judg 4:20; 13:6; Ezra 5:9; Tob 6:7; 7:3; 1 Macc 10:72;
Isa 41:28; Jer 6:16; 18:13; 31:19; Mark 8:5; Luke 14:18, 19; 19:31; John 1:19, 21, 25; 5:12; 16:5;
Phil 4:3); (Prov 1:21; Hos 5:8; Zeph 3:14; Dan 3:4; Matt 3:1; 4:17; Rev 5:2);
(Gen 15:2; Exod 2:13; Tob 3:10; Amos 1:6; Dan 2:27; and many others); (Num 5:19,
21; Neh 13:25); (1 Sam 10:17; Dan 3:4); and (Esth 5:1e; 1 Macc
13:3; Isa 13:2; 35:4; Matt 8:5; Acts 9:38; 16:9; 1 Cor 4:16; 1 Thess 5:14; 1 Pet 5:1).
15
The eight verbs elsewhere permit only the following lexical realizations of verb phrase
third complements: (V+; V+i; V-i); (V+; V+ ); (V+ ; V+
; V+; V+ ); (V+ ); (V-i); (V-i); (V+i;
V-i); and (V+ ; V+i; V-i). These verbs also permit the lexical realization of
their third complement as noun phrases (N) and prepositional phrases (P).

28

Paul Danove

all three verbs permit the same lexical realization for their third complement. Among these, 499 occurrences are associated with eight verbs
of direct discourse that also permit the same lexical realization of the
second complement and meld in such a manner that both or all three
verbs together appear with only one first, second, and third complement
lexically realized: ; ; ; ;
; ; ; and . English style, in contrast
to Greek style, avoids multiple verbs of communication that govern the
same object complement and, in general, prohibits the repetition of the
same verb with the same complement (as in two consecutive forms of
). Thus, English style recommends a simplification of two or three
such linked verbs in translation. Since the linked Greek verbs function as
a single predicator and each of these linked verbs has at least one English
translation with the same syntactic, semantic, and lexical requirements as
the translations of the other linked verbs, stylistic considerations recommend that these 499 occurrences of linked Greek verbs be translated by a
single English verb that governs all of the lexically realized complements
of the linked Greek verbs. The linked Greek verbs then would be translated according to three hierarchical rules: (1) never is translated and
is translated only when both of two linked verbs are forms of ;
(2) the finite verb is translated unless it is or in which case the
first participle is translated as a finite verb; and (3) when the finite verb
of the clause is not a verb of communication (and so doesnt participate
in melding) and the linked verbs of communication are participles, the first participle is translated.16 The following examples illustrate
translations according to these rules, with the untranslated Greek words
underlined:17

16
Although these rules respect the semantic requirements of the participating verbs,
this discussion recognizes that literary, rhetorical, or other considerations may recommend
the translation of more than one linked verb in particular contexts. The inclusion of the
three occurrences of in the first two rules reflects its identical function to in
these contexts.
17
The remaining six verbs follow the same rules of translation: e.g.,
(and Jonathan told David, Saul is
seeking to kill you, 1 Sam 19:2); , ...
(and they were discussing among themselves, If we say..., Mark 11:31);
(and you were commanding the prophets, Do
not prophesy!, Amos 2:12);
(but going forth proclaim, The reign of [the] heaven[s] has come near, Matt
10:7); [] (but they said to him,
[He is] John the Baptist, Mark 8:28); and
, ... (Jesus sent these twelve commanding them, Do not go forth onto a road of Gentiles..., Matt 10:5).

Melding in the Septuagint and New Testament

29

. and they announced to


him, Your son Joseph is alive (Gen 45:26)
,
; and Jesus responded to the lawyers and Pharisees, Is
it permitted or not [permitted] to heal on the Sabbath? (Luke 14:3).

The 77 occurrences of melding associated with the remaining


five verbs of direct discourse consistently appear with lexical realizations
for their second complement that differ from those of the previous eight
verbs: ; ; ; ; and . Each of
these verbs, however, may be translated by an English verb whose lexical
realizations for the second complements are in accord with those of the
previous eight verbs. As a result, the distinction between the first eight and
these five verbs does not carry over into English. Thus, these verbs may be
translated by a single verb according to the rules for the first group with
the additional rule that (#4) redundant second complements are reduced
to a single second complement, with the more specific lexical realization
of the second complement being maintained if they differ in specificity.
Again, two examples illustrate the application of these rules:18
. , ... he begged him, Lord, if you wish... (Luke
5:12)
, ;
he was asking his disciples, Who do human beings say that I am? (Mark 8:27)

The remaining fifteen occurrences of melding appear with eight


Greek verbs that are restricted elsewhere to the expression of indirect
discourse. All of these verbs, however, may be translated by English verbs
that accommodate both direct and indirect discourse. As a result, the distinction among these and the first two groups of Greek verbs disappears.
Thus, they too may be translated according to the same four rules:19
18
The remaining three verbs follow the same rules of translation: e.g.,
, , ... (and his disciples asked him, Rabbi, who
sinned...?, John 9:2); , ...
(and Joseph begged the sons of Israel, On the visitation..., Gen 50:25); and
, ... (but the demons were urging him, If
you cast us out..., Matt 8:31).
19
The remaining six verbs follow the same rules of translation: e.g., ,
... (she asked, I want that you give me immediately..., Mark
6:25); , (Moses
stated clearly, And he will comfort his slaves, 2 Macc 7:6); ,
... (but now he has promised, Once again I will shake..., Heb 12:26);
, , (and the

30

Paul Danove
... and you
will inform your son, The Jordan River left off... (Josh 4:7)
, , ... and he was ordering them, Watch,
beware... (Mark 8:15)

These considerations indicate that the semantic requirements of all


591 occurrences of the linked verbs that participate in melding
may be satisfied by the reduction of two or three linked verbs to a single
English verb and translation according to the same four rules.
5. Implications of Melding for the Formulation of the Lexicon
Most Greek dictionaries of Septuagint and New Testament vocabulary
do not distinguish whether verbs (and other words) permit the omission
of required complements either only when their definite semantic content
has received previous clarification or even when their definite semantic
content has not received previous clarification. Incorporation of this
distinction and a discussion of melding into the lexicon, however,
would permit three clarifications in the usage of Greek vocabulary.
First, Greek presents paired verbs that have similar connotations and
require the same number of complements but are distinguished only by
whether or not they require a complement to have a definite semantic
content when omitted. Thus, such words may be synonymous in meaning
but not true semantic synonyms. This is the case for two paired sets of
verbs of communication which, in one usage, are distinguished only in the
definite / indefinite requirement for omitted third complements: /
(beg, pray) and / (say, speak). Here the latter
verbs of these pairs properly have the connotations, say a prayer and
say something when their third complements are indefinite and null.
This distinction also extends to verbs that do not express communication, such as / , which, with the connotation, receive,
are distinguished only by whether or not they require their third (source)
complement to have a definite semantic content when omitted (null).
Second, notations concerning requirements for definite semantic content for particular null complements would prevent potential ambiguities
Levites were ordering all the people, This day is holy: do not be sad!, 1 Esdr 9:53);
... ... (and Moses...
commanded, Keep all these commandments...!, Deut 27:1); and
(and you, command the sons
of Israel, Watch and keep my Sabbaths!, Exod 31:13).

Melding in the Septuagint and New Testament

31

in translation. For example, five of the thirteen verbs that express direct
discourse have a majority of their occurrences with omitted third complements precisely in the context of melding: (301 of
332); (6 of 8); (32 of 41); (28 of 34);
and (9 of 14).20 Such a preponderance of occurrences within the
context of melding has the potential to obscure their requirement
that third complements be definite when null. Given the previously noted
differences in English and Greek style, translation of these occurrences
without careful attention to the third complement of the final linked verb
has the potential to introduce into the English translation ambiguities
not present in the Greek text.
Third, eight of the verbs that participate in melding are restricted
to the expression of indirect discourse outside of this context. Inclusion of
a note about melding into the lexicon entries for these verbs would
clarify that these verbs in fact are reserved to the expression of indirect
discourse and that the occurrences with V+finite third complements are
a function of an intruding grammatical construction and not a function
of the verbs themselves.
These considerations indicate that attention to the phenomenon of
melding has implications both for translation and the grammatical
description of Greek verbs of communication.
Paul DANOVE
Dept. of Theology and Religious Studies
Villanova University
800 Lancaster Avenue
Villanova, PA 19085-1699 (USA)

20
The remaining verbs have half or fewer of their intransitive occurrences in the context
of melding: (11 of 70); (20 of 83); (1 of 3);
(62 of 156); (9 of 26); [a second] (119 of +7000); (1 of 2); and
(11 of 23).