Você está na página 1de 21



Dominic P. Venuso

Box 2713 zdvenuso@tiu.com


Submitted to Dr. D. A. Carson in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the course NT 8721 Advanced Greek Grammar at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School

Deerfield, Illinois April 2013



Does “γγελος κυρου” refer to “an angel of the Lord” or to “the angel of the

Lord”? In Mark 15:39, what did the Centurion mean when he confessed: “ληθς οτος

νθρωπος υἱὸς θεοῦ ἦν”? These are some of the exegetical questions that highlight the

potential importance of Apollonius’ Corollary. In this paper, I will be doing an inductive

grammatical study to determine the validity of Apollonius’ Corollary in the Gospel of Mark. 1

First, we will define the rule, then we will walk through the various kinds of texts where the

rule could potentially apply, and finally, we will draw some conclusions.

The Rule

In general, both of the rules tied to Apollonius’ name recognize a close

relationship between a noun and the genitive noun that qualifies it. 2 Apollonius’ Canon holds

that the head noun and the genitive noun will generally either be both articular or both

anarthrous. 3 Apollonius’ Corollary holds that “when both nouns are anarthrous, both will

  • 1 Hedges did his major work in the Pauline literature. According to Daniel Wallace, unpublished research has also been done on the Petrine epistles and in some narrative material. These studies confirmed Hedges original work. To continue this research, in this paper, I will be investigating the rule in the Gospel of Mark (a corpus that, to my knowledge, has not been done yet).

  • 2 Different grammarians label the relationship different ways. When referring to the whole structure, the nouns are said to be in regimen. The noun is variously called: the head noun, the governing noun, or nomen regens. The genitive is called: the genitive noun, the governed noun, or nomen rectum.

  • 3 A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1934), 780–782. For exceptions, see Sanford D. Hull, “Exceptions to Apollonius’ Canon in the New Testament: A Grammatical

usually have the same semantic force.” 4 The semantic force may be definite, qualitative, or

indefinite. David Hedges’ work concluded that Apollonius’ Corollary, “though not an

absolute rule, had general validity.” 5 Specifically, he found:

On the average, absolute agreement was observed in 74% of the cases, while 20% of the pairs differed by only one semantic step [e.g., Q-D] and only 6% differed by two steps. It was further determined that in general if the construction involved θες, the nouns were probably both definite (68%), if the construction involved only a preposition, they were probably both qualitative (52%), and if the construction involved neither proper nouns, θες, prepositions, nor equative verbs, then the nouns, though agreeing, had about

an equal chance of being any of the three definiteness classes. 6

The Texts

An Accordance search was run to collect all of the instances of an anarthrous

head noun modified by an anarthrous genitive noun in the Gospel of Mark. 7 This search

rendered 47 hits in 40 verses. 8 As I work through the texts inductively in this paper, I will

first eliminate the false positives. Then, I will group the texts according to Hedges’ various

Study,” Trinity Journal 7, no. 1 (Spr 1986): 3–16.

  • 4 Daniel B. Wallace, The Basics of New Testament Syntax an Intermediate Greek Grammar (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 250.

  • 5 David William Hedges, “Apollonius’ Canon and Anarthrous Constructions in Pauline Literature: An Hypothesis”, 1983.

    • 6 Ibid., 66–67.

  • 7 See Appendix 1 for a diagram of the construct search. It is theoretically possible that this search could have missed a couple of extremely rare cases of nouns in regimen that are greatly spread apart, which could only be found by many years of reading through Mark.

    • 8 See Appendix 2 for a complete list of the results.


structural categories. 9 Under each heading, I generally will order them first by definiteness

and then canonically.

False Positives

Cases of apposition were not counted, thus removing three hits (Mark 1:1;

Mark 2:26). 10 Mark 1:30 had an article that was far enough out of range to not be detected by

my parameters. I am also excluding genitives that modify words that follow them (Mark

6:43). With these false positives excluded, this leaves us with 42 hits in 37 verses to


Texts Containing Proper Nouns Or Kριος

There are three occurrences of this category in three verses. Because proper

names are always definite, and because the genitive nouns in all three of these instances are

proper nouns, the genitive nouns in these passages are all definite. The only question is: what

is the definiteness of the head nouns? In Mark 6:3, we find the question, “οχ οτς στιν

τκτων, υἱὸς τς Μαρας καὶ ἀδελφς ακβου καὶ Ἰωστος καὶ Ἰοδα καΣμωνος;”.

Here the people are specifically identifying Jesus as “δελφς ακβου” (“the brother of

James”)—the head noun is definite. In Mark 10:47-48, we find two occurrences of the same

phrase: “υἱὲ Δαυδ”. In this phrase, the head noun is in the vocative, specifically imploring

9 Hedges, “Apollonius’ Canon and Anarthrous Constructions in Pauline


10 Accordance counts Mark 1:1 as 3 hits, even though only one hit (“υοθεο”) needs to be explained for our purposes.


Jesus by addressing him as, “son of David.” They also are both definite. Therefore, all three

of these instances are definite-definite.

Texts Containing Θες 11

There are two instances of this category in Mark. In Mark 1:1 (in some

manuscripts) Jesus is given the Messianic title, “υοθεο.” The monadic nature of this title

means that it is definite-definite. In Mark 11:22, we find the abstract (and therefore

qualitative-definite) head noun “πστιν.” 12 Both of these cases are similar to the previous

category in that they essentially use θες as God the Father’s proper name. This means that

the genitive nouns are also definite.

Texts Where The Head Noun Is An Object Of A Preposition

There are five cases where it is so clear that they are definite-definite I will

not provide arguments, but simply list them. Mark 10:6 appeals to the pattern that God

established “πδὲ ἀρχς κτσεως” (“from the beginning of the creation”). In Mark 12:10,

the prophecy is cited which says that Jesus has become “ες κεφαλν γωνας” (“the chief

cornerstone”). The phrase, “π᾿ ἀρχς κτσεως” in Mark 13:19 (like 10:6), refers to the

definite starting point of the creation. Mark 13:27 contains two constructions of nouns in

11 If one was especially interested in this category, it would certainly be necessary to consider a larger corpus since the only instances of texts containing θες in Mark are referring to God.

12 Technically, the abstract noun could be counted either as definite or

qualitative, but there is probably no meaningful difference between the two choices; Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, 794; Basil L Gildersleeve and Charles William Emil Miller, Syntax of Classical Greek from

Homer to Demosthenes


(New York: American Book Company, 1900), 259.


regimen which depict a definite span: “π᾿ ἄκρου γς ως κρου ορανο” (“from the

ends of the earth to the ends of heaven”).

Beyond these clear cases, I had some difficulty in deciding between

qualitative and either definite or indefinite. In Mark 1:4, “ες φεσιν μαρτιν” (“for the

forgiveness of sins”) seems best to be understood as definite-definite, since on the whole it is

referring to a definite purpose for the baptism of repentance (although, again, the abstract

element certainly admits the qualitative option). The phrase, “ογρ βλπεις ες πρσωπον

νθρπων,” in Mark 12:14 is an idiom for “you are not swayed by appearances”, and should

probably be taken as definite-definite (“the face of men”). While it could be definite-definite,

“ες χερας νθρπων” in Mark 9:31 is probably qualitative-qualitative, referring not

literally to “the hands of men” but to human captivity or bondage, emphasizing the quality of

each of the nouns. In Mark 5:25, “ν ῥύσει αματος” seems most likely to be indefinite-

qualitative: “a discharge of blood.”

This section showed greater diversity than the previous two structural

categories. There were seven that were definite-definite, one qualitative-qualitative, and one


Texts Where The Head Noun Is The Subject Or Object Of An Equative Verb

One instance here is definite-definite (Mark 3:17): Jesus gave James and John

the new nickname, “υοβροντς” (“Sons of Thunder”). One is qualitative-qualitative

(Mark 1:17): Jesus uses the metaphor, “ποιήσω ὑμᾶς γενέσθαι ἁλιεῖς

ἀνθρώπων” (“I will make you to become fishers of men”). One is

indefinite-qualitative (Mark 4:37): “λαλαψ μεγλη νμου” (“a great windstorm”).


Texts With Combined Categories

One (a case of a preposition and κριος) is clearly definite-definite (Mark

11:9): “ν νματι κυρου” (“in the name of the Lord”). Though Harner has disputed it, I

also think that “υἱὸς Δαυδ στιν” in Mark 12:35 is definite-definite (this is a combination of

equative verb and proper noun). Harner argues for a qualitative force to the head noun

because of the contextual emphasis on Davidic decadency. 13 However, this emphasis is

maintained even if we take the head noun as definite. Because of the idea of a monadic “son

of David,” it is best to take it as a definite.

In Mark 15:39, we come to the most exegetically significant instance of an

anarthrous head noun modified by an anarthrous genitive noun in Mark. This one is a

combined category of equative verb and θες. The centurion, upon seeing how Jesus died,

confesses, “ληθς οτος ὁ ἄνθρωπος υἱὸς θεοῦ ἦν” (“Truly this man was the son of

God”). I agree with those who argue that there is one meaning for the centurion and one for

Mark. 14 There is a great deal of debate about what the centurion would have meant, though

he probably means it in an indefinite or qualitative sense. When one considers the flow of

Mark’s gospel, it is clear that Mark uses it as definite-definite, since it is the climactic

Christological confession in his book. 15 Note that, assuming the inclusion of “υἱὸς θεο” in

  • 13 Philip B. Harner, “Qualitative anarthrous predicate nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1,” Journal of Biblical Literature 92, no. 1 (Mr 1973): 79.

  • 14 Vincent Taylor, The Gospel According to St. Mark: The Greek Text with Introduction, Notes, and Indexes (London: Macmillan, 1952), 597.

  • 15 R. T. France, The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text (The New international Greek Testament commentary; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002), 659– 660; Philip G. Davis, “Mark’s Christological Paradox,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament, no. 35 (1989): 11–12.


1:1, Mark starts his gospel by ascribing two titles to Jesus: “Christ” and “Son of God.” The

book is then divided into two halves where each title is developed. Each half comes to a

climax with a human confession (Mark 8:29; 15:39). There is room in either case for the

human speakers to not be speaking with the full understanding of their confession (this is

clearly what is going in Peter’s case, Mark 8:31–33), while Mark still means the confessions

in their fullest sense.

Texts Containing No Special Structural Features

Of the texts that have no special structural features, eight are definite-definite.

The first is Mark 1:6, where we learn that John the Baptist was clothed with a specific kind

of garment: “τρχας καμλου” (“the hair of the camel”). In Mark 4:31, Jesus speaks of

“κκκσινπεως” (“a grain of mustard seed”). While the English gloss requires an

indefinite article, the construction is definite-definite because the first noun is a generic noun

and the second denotes a particular plant. Mark 7:4 mentions a specific tradition,

“βαπτισμος ποτηρων” (“the washing of the cups”). Mark 7:7 condemns teaching as

doctrine, “ντλματα νθρπων” (“the commandments of men”). While this might seem

like a rare occurrence of a move from definite to more indefinite (i.e. definite-qualitative),

verse 8 reinforces the idea that it is definite-definite, by having the parallel idea of “τν

παρδοσιν τν νθρπων.” After the feeding of the four thousand, Mark 8:8 reports that

after everyone ate their full, they still took up “περισσεματα κλασμτων” (“the leftover

fragments”), which amounted to seven basketfuls. Similarly, Mark 8:19-20 twice refers back

to these baskets of fragments as, “κοφνους κλασμτων πλρεις” (“the baskets full of the


fragments”). Finally, Mark 13:8 warns that the signs of verses 6-8 are only “ρχὴ ὠδνων”

(“the beginning of the birth pains”).

There are a number of instances where at least one of the nouns is qualitative.

Only one instance in this category is qualitative-qualitative. 16 Mark 4:5 warns that the seed

sown on the rocky ground sprang up because it had no “βθος γς” (“depth of soil”). Seven

instances are indefinite-qualitative. In Mark 1:4, John the Baptist preaches “βπτισμα

μετανοας” (“a baptism of repentance”). The genitive noun in this instance is abstract, and

functions as an attributive genitive, and so, in terms of definiteness, is qualitative. 17 Mark

10:4 alludes to Moses’ permission of “βιβλον ποστασου” (“a certificate of divorce”).

Mark 11:17 contains two: “οκος προσευχς” (“a house of prayer”) and “σπλαιον λστν”

(“a den of robbers”). 18 In Mark 14:3, we read of “λβαστρον μρου” (“an alabaster jar of


A number of the hits in this paragraph could potentially be understood as

indefinite-qualitative (the genitives of content and material, for example, were tempting to

handle this way). Ultimately, I decided to count these as indefinite-indefinite thinking of

them as basically meaning “a cup of some water” or “a herd of some pigs” for example. 19

  • 16 I should say, one clear case. One could argue that some of these indefinite- qualitative constructions are better taken as qualitative on the whole. As I will note later, this is one of the most challenging areas to make a distinction.

  • 17 The approach taken in determining the definiteness of the genitive in this case is paradigmatic of how I have handled the genitives in many of the examples in this category. To save space, I have decided not to rehash it all in every instance.

  • 18 One could conceivably identify these as qualitative-qualitative, emphasizing the character of a house or a den, respectively. I went with the more straightforward indefinite. Cf. Harner, “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns,” 78.

    • 19 There is a danger in depending too heavily on glosses, however, “some”


Mark 2:21 mentions “πβλημα ῥάκους” (“a piece of cloth”). In Mark 5:11, we read of

γλη χορων” (“a herd of pigs”) into which the demons wish to be cast. Mark 9:41 talks of

“ποτριον δατος” (“a cup of water”). Mark 13:7 prophecies of “κος πολμων” (‘rumors

of wars”). In Mark 14:13, Jesus tells the disciples to look for a man carrying “κερμιον

δατος” (“a jar of water”). Finally, in Mark 15:36, someone fills “σπγγον ξους” (“a

sponge with sour wine”).

This category showed the greatest diversity. I counted eight that were definite-

definite, one that was qualitative-qualitative, seven that were indefinite-qualitative, and six

that were indefinite-indefinite.

proved to be a helpful gloss for me in working through so many examples to test whether or not an indefinite understanding made sense, not only here, but elsewhere in the paper.



The following table shows the number of hits each level of definiteness

received according to the structural categories outlined above:







Proper Noun


















Equative Verb
























An inductive study of the construction in Mark confirms Hedges’ original

assessment that though the rule is not absolute, it is generally valid. I found that it held true

about 79% of the time (versus Hedges’ 74%).

There are three relatively minor differences between what Hedges found in

the Pauline literature and what I have found in the Gospel of Mark. They are easily

explainable by small differences in judgment or by the difference in the size of the samples.

First, I did not find any examples of two-step difference in definiteness (e.g. definite-

indefinite). The choice was always within a one step difference. Second, I found no clear

cases where the genitive noun was less definite than the head noun. The only potential ones

would be instances where the first is definite and the second could be taken as qualitative

(e.g. Mark 7:7). Third, the rule held true in 100% of the cases containing a proper noun or


where κριος or θες essentially functioned as a proper noun (including when additional

structural features were present). For Hedges, there were more exceptions.

The most notable difference from Hedges is that I found far fewer qualitative-

qualitative constructions than Hedges. For example, Hedges found that in the case of

constructions with no special structural distinctions, the definiteness was usually shared but

had about an equal chance of being any of the three classes. In my results, there was only one

instance of qualitative-qualitative in that category. There was a roughly equal chance of

definite-definite, indefinite-indefinite, and a one step difference. Why such a different result?

Honestly, this may be due to my lack of clarity regarding the qualitative class (something I

have mentioned before, and that relates to my final point). Another possibility is that it may

instead be a result of the different genres. This is something that might be good to do further

research on. It is conceivable that in heavily theological discourse you will find more

qualitative constructions than in historical narrative.

What is the significance of this paper’s findings? In a traditional or strict

understanding of the rule, the exceptions are frequent enough that one must consider deictic

and lexical clues to decide the definiteness of either of the nouns in regimen. So, the rule as

traditionally stated offers little in terms of exegetical help. Practically, Apollonius’ corollary

is helpful mainly as a working hypothesis for the cases where all else is equal. However, if

we broaden our understanding of the rule to distinguish only between two options—the two

ends of the spectrum (indefinite-qualitative and qualitative-definite)—then the rule is helpful.

In every example we have surveyed in Mark, the nouns were always within a one step

difference of definiteness. In Mark, even the most questionable constructions were always a


decision between one-step differences. It is in these instances of potentially two-step

differences that exegetically significant questions arise (e.g. the meaning of “γγελος

κυρου”). In this broader understanding of the rule, one should only be willing to understand

any given instance of the construction as having a two-step difference in definiteness if there

are strong reasons to do so.

Finally, building on the last point, I want to point out that one of the

challenges I often came up against in working through the texts was making a distinction

between qualitative and indefinite, and between qualitative and definite. When Wallace

defines the three, he rightly points out that there is some overlap in the categories. 20 The

category of qualitative, in particular, ranges along the spectrum of indefinite to definite. In

reading through Harner, I noticed that he would often treat the qualitative as something

almost in a different category altogether from the definite and indefinite. 21 To illustrate the

problems with the qualitative class, note that there are genitives that would seem to be

placing the emphasis on the quality of a thing (attributive genitives, genitives of material and

content) that in fact can take the article, and so are formally definite (e.g. Jhn 21:8; Col 1:22;

2:3, 9, 11). Furthermore, traditionally, abstract nouns are understood to be qualitative, but

they may also take the article and therefore be technically definite (e.g. Acts 11:23). In Mark,

the clearest example I found of this sort of thing was in Mark 7:7-8, with “ντλματα

νθρπων” and “τν παρδοσιν τν νθρπων.” So, in general, I think more work could

be done on investigating how to understand the categories of definite, qualitative, and

20 Wallace, The Basics of New Testament Syntax an Intermediate Greek Grammar, 243–244.

21 Harner, “Qualitative anarthrous predicate nouns,” 79.


indefinite. Especially, more work could be done on understanding the qualitative category

and how it relates to genitive constructions.










Mark 1:1 ρχτοεαγγελου ησοΧριστοοθεο].

Mark 1:4 γνετο ωννης [] βαπτζων ν τῇ ἐρμκακηρσσων βπτισμα μετανοας ες φεσιν μαρτιν.

Mark 1:6 καὶ ἦν ὁ Ἰωννης νδεδυμνος τρχας καμλου καζνην δερματνην περτν σφν ατοκαὶ ἐσθων κρδας καμλι γριον.

Mark 1:17 καεπεν ατος ὁ Ἰησος· δετε πσω μου, καποισω μς γενσθαι λιες νθρπων.

Mark 1:30 δπενθερΣμωνος κατκειτο πυρσσουσα, καεθς λγουσιν ατπερατς.

Mark 2:21 Οδες πβλημα ῥάκους γνφου πιρπτει πὶ ἱμτιον παλαιν· εδμ, αρει τπλρωμα π᾿ ατοτκαινν τοπαλαιοκαχερον σχσμα γνεται.

Mark 2:26 πς εσλθεν ες τν οκον τοθεοῦ ἐπὶ Ἀβιαθρ ρχιερως κατος ρτους τς προθσεως φαγεν, ος οκ ξεστιν φαγεν εμτος ερες, καὶ ἔδωκεν κατος σν ατοσιν;

Mark 3:17 καὶ Ἰάκωβον τν τοΖεβεδαου καὶ Ἰωννην τν δελφν τοῦ Ἰακβου καὶ ἐπθηκεν ατος νμα[τα] βοανηργς, ὅ ἐστιν υοβροντς·


Mark 4:5 καὶ ἄλλο πεσεν πτπετρδες που οκ εχεν γν πολλν, καεθς ξαντειλεν διτμὴ ἔχειν βθος γς·

Mark 4:31 ς κκκσινπεως, ς ταν σπαρῇ ἐπτς γς, μικρτερον ν πντων τν σπερμτων τν πτς γς,

Mark 4:37 καγνεται λαλαψ μεγλη νμου κατκματα πβαλλεν ες τπλοον, στε δη γεμζεσθαι τπλοον.

Mark 5:11 ν δὲ ἐκεπρς τῷ ὄρει γλη χορων μεγλη βοσκομνη·

Mark 5:25 Καγυνοσα ν ῥύσει αματος δδεκα τη

Mark 6:3 οχ οτς στιν τκτων, υἱὸς τς Μαρας καὶ ἀδελφς ακβου καὶ Ἰωστος καὶ Ἰοδα καΣμωνος; καοκ εσν αἱ ἀδελφαατοῦ ὧδε πρς μς; καὶ ἐσκανδαλζοντο ν ατ.

Mark 6:43 καὶ ἦραν κλσματα δδεκα κοφνων πληρματα καὶ ἀπτν χθων.

Mark 7:4 καὶ ἀπ᾿ ἀγορς ἐὰν μβαπτσωνται οκ σθουσιν, καὶ ἄλλα πολλά ἐστιν παρλαβον κρατεν, βαπτισμος ποτηρων καξεστν καχαλκων [κακλινν] _

Mark 7:7 μτην δσβονταμε

διδσκοντες διδασκαλας ντλματα νθρπων.

Mark 8:8 καὶ ἔφαγον καὶ ἐχορτσθησαν, καὶ ἦραν περισσεματα κλασμτων πτσπυρδας.

Mark 8:19 τε τος πντε ρτους κλασα ες τος πεντακισχιλους, πσους κοφνους κλασμτων πλρεις ρατε; λγουσιν ατ· δδεκα. 20 τε τος πτες τος τετρακισχιλους, πσων σπυρδων πληρματα κλασμτων ρατε; καλγουσιν [ατπτ.

Mark 9:31


δδασκεν γρ τος μαθητς ατοκαὶ ἔλεγεν ατος τι υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρπου παραδδοται ες χερας νθρπων, καὶ ἀποκτενοσιν ατν, καὶ ἀποκτανθες μεττρες μρας ναστσεται.

Mark 9:41 ς γρ ν ποτσῃ ὑμς ποτριον δατος ν νματι τι Χριστοῦ ἐστε, μν λγω μν τι ομὴ ἀπολστν μισθν ατο.

Mark 10:4 οδεπαν· πτρεψεν Μωϋσς βιβλον ποστασου γρψαι καὶ ἀπολσαι.

Mark 10:6 πδὲ ἀρχς κτσεως ρσεν καθλυ ποησεν ατος·

Mark 10:47 καὶ ἀκοσας τι ησος Ναζαρηνς στιν ρξατο κρζειν καλγειν· υἱὲ Δαυδ ησο, λησν με. 48 καὶ ἐπετμων ατπολλοὶ ἵνα σιωπσ· δπολλμλλον κραζεν· υἱὲ Δαυδ, λησν με.

Mark 11:9 καοπρογοντες καοἱ ἀκολουθοντες κραζον· ν νματι κυρου·

σανν· ελογημνος ὁ ἐρχμενος

Mark 11:17

καὶ ἐδδασκεν καὶ ἔλεγεν ατος· ογγραπται τι οκς μου οκος προσευχς


πσιν τος θνεσιν; μες δπεποικατε ατν σπλαιον λστν.

Mark 11:22 καὶ ἀποκριθες ὁ Ἰησος λγει ατος· χετε πστιν θεο.

Mark 12:10 οδτν γραφν τατην νγνωτε· λθον ν πεδοκμασαν οοκοδομοντες, γενθη ες κεφαλν γωνας·


Mark 12:14 καὶ ἐλθντες λγουσιν ατ· διδσκαλε, οδαμεν τι ληθς εκαομλει σοι περοδενς· ογρ βλπεις ες πρσωπον νθρπων, λλ᾿ ἐπ᾿ ἀληθεας τν δν τοθεοδιδσκεις· ξεστιν δοναι κνσον Κασαρι ο; δμεν μδμεν;

Mark 12:35 Καὶ ἀποκριθες ὁ Ἰησος λεγεν διδσκων ν τῷ ἱερ· πς λγουσιν ογραμματες τι χριστς υἱὸς Δαυδ στιν;

Mark 13:7


ταν δὲ ἀκοσητε πολμους καὶ ἀκος πολμων, μθροεσθε· δεγενσθαι, λλ᾿ οπω ττλος. 8 γερθσεται γρ θνος π᾿ ἔθνος καβασιλεα πβασιλεαν, σονται σεισμοκαττπους, σονται λιμο· ρχὴ ὠδνων τατα.

Mark 13:19 σονται γρ αἱ ἡμραι κεναι θλψις οα ογγονεν τοιατη π᾿ ἀρχς κτσεως ν κτισεν θες ως τονν καομγνηται.

Mark 13:27 καττε ποστελετος γγλους καὶ ἐπισυνξει τος κλεκτος [ατο] κ τν τεσσρων νμων π᾿ ἄκρου γς ως κρου ορανο.

Mark 14:3 Καὶ ὄντος ατοῦ ἐν Βηθανίᾳ ἐν τοκίᾳ Σμωνος τολεπρο, κατακειμνου ατοῦ ἦλθεν γυνὴ ἔχουσα λβαστρον μρου νρδου πιστικς πολυτελος, συντρψασα τν λβαστρον κατχεεν ατοτς κεφαλς.

Mark 14:13 καὶ ἀποστλλει δο τν μαθητν ατοκαλγει ατος· πγετε ες τν πλιν, καὶ ἀπαντσει μν νθρωπος κερμιον δατος βαστζων· κολουθσατε ατ

Mark 15:36 δραμν δτις [κα] γεμσας σπγγον ξους περιθες καλμῳ ἐπτιζεν ατν λγων· φετε δωμεν εἰ ἔρχεται λας καθελεν ατν.

Mark 15:39 δν δὲ ὁ κεντυρων παρεστηκς ξ ναντας ατοῦ ὅτι οτως ξπνευσεν επεν· ληθς οτος ὁ ἄνθρωπος υἱὸς θεοῦ ἦν.



Davis, Philip G. “Mark’s Christological Paradox.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament, no. 35 (1989): 3–18.

France, R. T. The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text. The New international Greek Testament commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002.

Gildersleeve, Basil L, and Charles William Emil Miller. Syntax of Classical Greek from

Homer to Demosthenes


New York: American Book Company, 1900.

Harner, Philip B. “Qualitative anarthrous predicate nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1.” Journal of Biblical Literature 92, no. 1 (Mr 1973): 75–87.

Hedges, David William. “Apollonius’ Canon and Anarthrous Constructions in Pauline Literature: An Hypothesis”, 1983.

Hull, Sanford D. “Exceptions to Apollonius’ Canon in the New Testament: A Grammatical Study.” Trinity Journal 7, no. 1 (Spr 1986): 3–16.

Robertson, A. T. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1934.

Taylor, Vincent. The Gospel According to St. Mark: The Greek Text with Introduction, Notes, and Indexes. London: Macmillan, 1952.

Wallace, Daniel B. The Basics of New Testament Syntax an Intermediate Greek Grammar. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000.