1.

The Runge Chart

1.1 Assumptions
Choice implies meaning
Every connection a unique constraint

1.2 The Question
Does this work for further connectives?

Cont. Dev. Corr. Fwd-P. Sem. Constraint
- - - - -
+ - + + -
- + - - -
- + - - Temporal
+ + - - -
+ + - - Causal
+ - - - Support
+ - + + Expectation
- - + - Correction
2.
2.1 Traditional Explanation
is a subordinating adverb that is attributed two main functions: comparison (suggesting an
analogy or comparison between two ideas)
1
and cause (the grounds or basis of an action).
2
The
latter is often associated with it beginning a sentence.
3
It always appears with the indicative mood.
BDAG also notes two disputed meanings of marking temporality and introducing direct
discourse.
4


2.2 Discourse Explanation
appears to fit within the category of Additive conjunctions suggested by Levinsohn and
Dooley.
5
It adds information from one clause to clarify another by means of comparison. The
unique constraint it appears to bring is that of specification of the respect in which the two are
similar (compared with a more general similar indicated by ).
In 1-2 Thessalonians, it is often partnered with in a counter-point construction or with non-
connective such that the explicit comparison delays and so makes prominent what follows it.

2.3 Examples
1Th. 1:5
[] ,
1
[] .
that our gospel did not come to you in word only but rather in power and in the Holy Spirit and
deep conviction, just as you know what sort [of people] we were among you for your sake.
The first few uses of in 1 Thess appear in the phrase , which likely functions here, in 2.2,
2.4, as a rhetorical slowing device bringing attention to what follows it. In this usage it draws a comparison

1
Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Accordance digital
ed.; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 675; Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other
Early Christian Literature (ed. Frederick William Danker; 3rd edition. Accordance digital ed.; Chicago; London:
University of Chicago, 2000), 493; F. Blass and A. Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early
Christian Literature (trans. Robert W. Funk; 4th ed.; Cambridge; Chicago: Cambridge University Press, 1961) 453(1).
2
Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 674.
3
BDF 453(2).
4
BDAG 494.
5
Robert A. Dooley and Stephen H. Levinsohn, Analyzing Discourse: A Manual of Basic Concepts (Dallas: SIL
International, 2000), 47.
between the information Paul is relating and what the Thessalonians already know. The specific respect to
which he is referring is then made prominent i.e. their character amongst the Thess. (1.5); their
proclamation in Thessalonica despite suffering in Philippi (2.2); their lack of greed as motivator (2.5)

1Th. 2:4 , ,
.
5
,
, , ,
but rather just as we are approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel, so we speak, not as
pleasing to men but rather to God the tester of our hearts.
5
For when we came not in flatter speech,
just as you know, nor in motive of greed God is witness
marks a specific comparison sandwiched between two point-counterpoint sets in 2.3-4. The
(2.4) is the counterpoint to the point introduced by ...... in 2.3, with the clause being left-
dislocated to bring further prominence to the authentication of Paul when resumed in the clause.
6
To
correct the notion that their appeal was motivated by error or impurity or with deceit (2.3), Paul draws the
specific similarity between their approval by God and their declaration of the gospel (2.4). 2.5 employs the
comparison of imparted/known information to place prominence upon the purity of their motivations.

1Th. 2:13 ,
,
.
14
, ,
, ,
And for this reason we also give thanks to God ceaselessly, that receiving the word of God heard
from us you welcomed it not as mans word but rather just as it truly is, Gods word, which is also
at work in your believers.
14
For you became imitators, brothers and sisters, of the churches of God
in Christ Jesus being in Judea, because you too suffered the same things from your own countrymen
just as they also under the Jews
In 2.13, the appears in a counter-point construction to correct a possible mistake by showing a specific
point of comparison between their acceptance of the word and what that word truly is. Similarly to the
construction it appears to primarily be a device for rhetorical delay to add prominence to what
is delayed. 2.14 makes explicit the comparison between the Thessalonians and the believers in Judea in that
they suffered the same things from as the Judeans from .
7


6
Steven E. Runge, Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament: A Practical Introduction for Teaching and Exegesis
(Lexham Bible Reference Series; Peabody: Logos, 2010), 291.
7
F. F. Bruce, 1 & 2 Thessalonians (Accordance digital ed.; WBC; Waco: Word, 1982), 45.

1Th. 3:4 , , .
for even when we were with you, we were telling you in advance that we were about to suffer
affliction, just as it was and as you know.
Paul employs here to make a matter-of-fact conclusion to his fears about the Thessalonians faith.
8

The specific comparison is between the suffering Paul warned them of and what was (). This
actualising of his warnings brings about the climactic causal clause for sending Timothy in 3.5 (marked by
).

1Th. 4:1 , , ,
1

, , .
Finally therefore, brothers and sisters, we ask and urge you in the Lord Jesus, that just as you
received from us how you ought to walk and please God, just as you also are walking, that you
might abound more and more.
The two comparative clauses here function as points of departure,
9
comparing the present exhortation with
the previous one received (A), and their current behaviour compared with the previous exhortation (B).
10


1Th. 4:6 ,
, .
not to sin against and take advantage of a brother in this matter, because the Lord is the avenger
concerning all these things, just as we also said ahead of time to you and testified to you.
See also: 1 Thess 4.11, 13; 5.11; 2 Thess 1.3; 3.1.

QUESTION FOR PONDERING
Why does Paul use so many comparisons in the narrative of his apostolic ministry (1 Th 2 and in his
ethical exhortations (1 Th 4)?

8
Gordon D. Fee, The First and Second Letters to the Thessalonians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans,
2009), 119.
9
Stephen H. Levinsohn, Discourse Features of New Testament Greek: A Coursebook on the Information Structure of
New Testament Greek (2nd ed.; Dallas: SIL International, 2000), 8.
10
Bruce, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 78. Bruce does not employ the linguistic categories of Levinsohn, but comes to the same
basic conclusion.
3.
3.1 Traditional Explanation
is a subordinate conjunction(/adverb?) classified by Wallace as a comparative primarily
referring to the manner in which something is to be done.
11
It only appears in Paul (12x) and in
Hebrews (1x). BDAG glosses it as just as with no extended notes other than it is often a variant
for .
12
BDF is even less helpful: , which is also Attic, is found only in Paul and
Hebrews.
13


3.2 Discourse Explanation
The usage below suggests that indicates a comparison, with the constraint of emphasis.
Possible evidence for this includes the suggestion by BDAG that the suffix has an extensive
and intensive force.
14


3.3 Examples
1Th. 2:11 ,
As you know, as each one of you like a father his own children
2.11 comes as one final you know in this section (previously marked with ), returning to the two
themes of the preceding material (1.4-5ff.): the apostolic bands conduct in their midst, and the Thessalonian
conversion.
15
The thus functions similarly to the preceding clauses, but with the emphatic
constraint marking a climax to this section of the letter. The specific comparison, as above, is between the
apostolic re-telling and the knowledge of the Thessalonians, often as a slowing device. This instance is
exceptional in that it does not derive the verb from the previous clause (compare below).

1Th. 3:6
, ,
But now Timothy having come to us from you and given us the good news of your faith and your
love and that you have a good remembrance of us always, long to see us just as also we you

11
Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 675.
12
BDAG 488.
13
BDF 453.
14
BDAG 796. Note that this observation fails to be mentioned in the article itself(!).
15
Fee, The First and Second Letters to the Thessalonians, 8081.
The language of 3.6 picks up on 2.17 (longing, ). The comparison is drawn in between the
Thessalonian longing to see Paul & co. and their desire to see them. The emphasis appears to fall upon the
mutual love between them.
16


1Th. 3:12
,
now may the Lord cause you to increase in love for one another and for all just as also we for
you
Again in an emotive context, the clause compares the love between the Thessalonians with the love
of Paul & co. for them. This comparison forms the basis for the purpose clause ( + inf.) in 2.13 that
brings the prayer to an end.

1Th. 4:5 ,
not in lustful desire just as in fact the nations who do not know God
In specifying the nature of the sexual immorality to be avoided (4.3), Paul draws a comparison between the
that is NOT to characterise the Thessalonians with those whom it DOES characterise,
. The emphatic constraint of provides a strong negative proposition to the
positive exhortation in 4.4.



QUESTION FOR PONDERING
Does this understanding of hold when applied to the non(?)-Pauline usage in Hebrews 4.2?




16
Fee, The First and Second Letters to the Thessalonians, 123124; Bruce, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 6667.
4.
4.1 Traditional Explanation
is a coordinate conjunction used to establish an intimate connection between two
statements, with causal or inferential function.
17
BDF only allows for the former function, and
suggests is a classical replacement of in Luke, Paul, and the Catholic Epistles.
18
Wallace
places it alongside , , , as inferential to give a deduction, conclusion, or summary
to the preceding discussion.
19


4.2 Discourse Explanation
Unlike , does not appear to move the argument on to a new point. Rather, it appears to
indicate an inference within supporting material. In particular, its unique constraint appears to be
providing a reason for the validity of what has been stated. In 1 Thessalonians, it appears only
before aorist indicatives, which would make sense if it is providing OL reasons for statements in
the ML.

4.3 Examples
1Th. 2:8
,
1
.
longing for you in this way, we were glad to share with you not only the gospel of God but rather
also our own lives, because you had become so beloved to us.
Paul states in the clause to express in plain Greek what he began in 2.7.
20
The reason for their longing,
and gladness in sharing the gospel and their lives is provided in summary: the Thessalonians having become
beloved to them (the dative functioning possessively).

1Th. 2:18 , , .
For/because we wanted to come to you, I, Paul, again and again, and we were hindered by Satan.

17
BDAG 251. It also cites it as a marker of discourse content for non-NT epistolary literature.
18
BDF 456(1).
19
Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 673.
20
Fee, The First and Second Letters to the Thessalonians, 74. Note the general nature of the comparison implied by
(2.7) compared with the more specific comparisons using surveyed above.
2.17 marks a transition to the past experience for the apostles (2.17-3.5) from the past experience of the
Thessalonians (2.1-12), via the supporting section of 2.14-16. 2.18 provides the reason for Pauls longing
all the more to see you face to face: their wanting to visit, and ( => equal status) Satan blocking their
way.

1Th. 4:6 ,
, .
not to sin against and take advantage of a brother in this matter, because the Lord is the avenger
concerning all these things, just as we also said ahead of time to you and testified to you.
Paul provides the key reason why they should not sin against and take advantage of a brother this
way (4.3-5) by the clause, by reminding them of how the Lord will bring about divine justice
in this and all similar cases. They can be assured of the truth of the need for them not to sin this
way because Jesus will avenge the wronged (poss. using Ps 94.1 LXX as the source of this reason).



QUESTION FOR PONDERING
What distinction is there between in 3.1 and 5.11 and the more common uses of in the passages
above?



5.
5.1 Traditional Explanation
gets an exhausting amount of uses attributed to it in the usual grammars. Wallace describes it
as the subordinating conjunction associated with the subjunctive mood.
21
This includes seven
basic uses used to explain both this construction and the connective itself: purpose, result,
purpose-result, substantival, epexegetical, complementary, and command.
22
BDAG lists its
functions as denoting purpose (the final sense); a marker of objective (substitute for supplemental
inf.); result; and of retroactive emphasis.
23
It cites BDFs prolonged argument that and
serve as analytical constructions that mainly serve as replacements of the infinitive and
imperative.
24
This is distinguished from by the assertion that + indicative is used to describe
actual facts in a particular past time, while + subjunctive refers only ever to intended or
probable results (NEVER to actual results). Note that BDF does not see as having any intrinsic
purpose sense, but rather is used in those constructions based upon the subjunctive mood.
25


5.2 Discourse Explanation
Determining a single constraint for as flexible a connective as was never going to be
straightforward, and so the analysis is strictly limited to those within 1-2 Thessalonians. With
substantial hesitation, it is suggested that functions as a subordinating conjunction with the
primary constraint of intent. That is, + subjunctive makes explicit the intention (whether
purpose, result, etc.) expressed in the construction as a whole.
26
Due attention must then be paid
to the aspect of the subjunctive verb. Margaret Sim has recently published an understanding of
that seeks to go beyond merely intent as the main constraint to the idea of representation
i.e. the construction represents the desire, will, etc. of the author.
27
While impressive in its scope

21
Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 669.
22
Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 471. See also 669-678.
23
BDAG 475-477.
24
BDF 388 for the infinitive, 387 for the imperative. See also the exhausting examination of the infinitive within
which most of the discussion of takes place (390-394), and the very brief discussion on its semitic use in the
section on conjunctions (456).
25
BDF 369.
26
Note that Campbell doesnt see this as having ramifications for understanding the ML/OL of non-narrative textsnot
sure why, Constantine R. Campbell, Verbal Aspect and Non-Indicative Verbs: Further Soundings in the Greek of the
New Testament (Studies in Biblical Greek; New York: Peter Lang, 2008), 53.
27
Margaret Sim, A Relevance Theoretic Approach to the Particle Hina in Koine Greek (PhD Thesis, Edinburgh:
University of Edinburgh, 2006).
and useful in allowing for the sometimes less-explicable uses of to introduce independent or
noun clauses, her section discussion purpose clauses failed to adequately justify why apart from
a psychological understanding of the function of mental representation in language
representation is a better category than intention.
28


5.1 Examples
29

1Th. 2:16 , .
.
hindering us speaking to the Gentiles so they might be saved. Thus they constantly fill the full
measure of their sins, but wrath will come upon them at the end.
This clause is complicated by the immediately following resultive infinitival construction,
. The intent behind the proclamation of the gospel to is that they might be saved,
expressed here probably as a particular outcome.
30
This at once shows the intimate connection between
proclamation and salvation,
31
and Pauls frustration that he is unable to preach to them and thus see them
saved.

1Th. 4:1 , , ,
1

, , .
Finally, therefore, brothers and sisters, we ask and exhort you in the Lord Jesus, that just as you
received from us how it is necessary to walk and please God, just as you are in fact walking, that
you abound more and more.
This instance is the only one in 1-2 Thess that features with an indicative rather than subjunctive verb.
This likely explains the omission of in A D
2
K L (present in B D* F G). The only example of +
indicative that doesnt feature a future indicative (another infinitival substitute, see BDF 369(2)) that I
could find was Philemon 19 (, complicated by the preceding ). It is overlooked by most
commentators, with Bruce mentioning it only as left hanging until the second + ,
32
and

28
See Sim, A Relevance Theoretic Approach to the Particle Hina in Koine Greek, 164167.
29
In the examples provided, aorist subjunctives have been coloured orange, and present subjunctives in green.
30
Campbell, Verbal Aspect and Non-Indicative Verbs, 56; contra Charles A. Wanamaker, The Epistles to the
Thessalonians: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 116. It is possible that
aorist indicates a summary intent rather than a particular one, but the context of the comparison between Thess./Judeans
and the respective opponents favours the specific.
31
Gene L. Green, The Letters to the Thessalonians (Accordance digital ed.; PNTC; Grand Rapids; Cambridge:
Eerdmans; Apollos, 2002), 146.
32
Bruce, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 78.
Green as an example of a formal ethical construction.
33
BDAG (2a) provides the category of infinitive of
supplement to fit usage such as this, but provides no explanation of why would be chosen over a plain
infinitive. Neither would such a use fit with BDFs confining of to non-actual outcomes. If is taken
with the constraint of intent, then it can be understood as the intent of the exhortation (combined with the
explained above as comparing the original and present exhortation) that they live up to the prior
exhortation an intent that is being realised in their own-going life: .

1Th. 4:12 .
so that you might walk honestly before outsiders and so that you might have need of nothing.
This clause completes the quite long sentence of 4.10ff. Fee sees it according to the slightly dicey category
of purpose-result,
34
but it makes better sense to be understood as the intent of living quietly, doing ones
own work with ones own hands (4.11). The present subjunctives likely indicate the ongoing impact of the
intended way of life.

1Th. 4:13 , , ,
.
Now we do not want you to be ignorant, brothers and sisters, about those who have fallen asleep
so that you might not grieve like the rest who have no hope.
The negated- clause likely refers to his intent to spare them an ongoing state of grief should they ignore
the information about to be imparted.
35



See also: 1 Thess 5.4, 10; 2 Thess 1.11; 2.12; 3.1-2, 9, 12, 14.


QUESTIONS FOR PONDERING
How does fit into the categories of Runge e.g. correlation, connection, development, etc.?
What does the intent constraint of mean for its substantival use with the subjunctive?


33
Green, The Letters to the Thessalonians, 183.
34
Fee, The First and Second Letters to the Thessalonians, 163.
35
Campbell, Verbal Aspect and Non-Indicative Verbs, 5354.
6.
6.1 Traditional Explanation
is classified as an inferential conjunction by Wallace, BDAG, and BDF, with no extra
information provided by any of the three.
36
Bruce cites it as an emphatic particle used in a classical
sense.
37


6.2 Discourse Explanation
Although it is almost impossible to draw firm conclusions from such a small sample size, the
choice of in the two NT instances compared to the other options available suggest the
following. It appears to function inferentially, drawing some conclusion from what precedes it.
Levinsohn appears correct to suggest that by its rarity and placement at apparently climactic or
dramatic moments suggests it is used because of its distinctiveness. He categorises it as
+Inferential +Emphatic +Distinctive. However, some some questions remain over the legitimacy
of deriving these aspects from the etymological composition of (emphatic) +
(strengthening) + (inference).
38


6.3 Examples
1Th. 4:8 []
.
Consequently, the one rejecting this is not rejecting man but rather God who gives his Holy Spirit
to us.
1 Thessalonians 4.8 employs to bring to a completion the section on sexual ethics, providing final
exhortatory support to the information supplied so far (see the two clauses in 4.3, 7 indicating
explanation/support). It thus forms a conclusion to the section on sexuality by linking the apostolic
exhortation with Gods purpose for the believers (4.7), and transitions to the next section ( ...).


36
Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 673; BDAG 1009; BDF 451.
37
Bruce, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 86.
38
Stephen H. Levinsohn, Therefore or Wherefore: Whats the Difference?, Society of Biblical Literature (San
Francisco: SIL International, November 2011), 1011.
Heb. 12:1 ,
,
Therefore, having such a great cloud of witnesses surrounding us, putting off every impediment
and close-clinging sin, we might run through endurance the race set before us
Similarly to 1 Thess 4.6, Heb 12.1 uses to link the exhortation of 12.1-3 with the preceding section
of 11.39-40. The admonition is a consequence of the preceding exposition.


7. Some Lingering Questions
What about substantival uses of ?
How much does linguistic development affect our understanding of the constraints of
connectives e.g. and the infinitive?


8. A Tentative Table
Cont. Dev. Corr. Fwd-P. Comp. Sem. Constraint
- - - - - -
+ - + + - -
- + - - - -
- + - - - Temporal
+ + - - - -
+ + - - - Causal
+ - - - - Support
+ - + + - Expectation
- - + - - Correction
+ - + - + Specific
+ - + - + Emphatic
+ + - - - Reason
? ? ? ? - Intent
+ + - - - Distinctive


WORKS CITED
Bauer, Walter. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Edited
by Frederick William Danker. 3rd edition. Accordance digital ed. Chicago; London: University of
Chicago, 2000.
Blass, F., and A. Debrunner. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature.
Translated by Robert W. Funk. 4th ed. Cambridge; Chicago: Cambridge University Press, 1961.
Bruce, F. F. 1 & 2 Thessalonians. Accordance digital ed. WBC. Waco: Word, 1982.
Campbell, Constantine R. Verbal Aspect and Non-Indicative Verbs: Further Soundings in the Greek of the
New Testament. Studies in Biblical Greek. New York: Peter Lang, 2008.
Dooley, Robert A., and Stephen H. Levinsohn. Analyzing Discourse: A Manual of Basic Concepts. Dallas:
SIL International, 2000.
Fee, Gordon D. The First and Second Letters to the Thessalonians. NICNT. Grand Rapids: William B.
Eerdmans, 2009.
Green, Gene L. The Letters to the Thessalonians. Accordance digital ed. PNTC. Grand Rapids; Cambridge:
Eerdmans; Apollos, 2002.
Levinsohn, Stephen H. Discourse Features of New Testament Greek: A Coursebook on the Information
Structure of New Testament Greek. 2nd ed. Dallas: SIL International, 2000.
_____. Therefore or Wherefore: Whats the Difference?. Society of Biblical Literature. San Francisco: SIL
International, November 2011.
Runge, Steven E. Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament: A Practical Introduction for Teaching
and Exegesis. Lexham Bible Reference Series. Peabody: Logos, 2010.
Sim, Margaret. A Relevance Theoretic Approach to the Particle Hina in Koine Greek. PhD Thesis,
Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh, 2006.
Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament.
Accordance digital ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996.
Wanamaker, Charles A. The Epistles to the Thessalonians: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990.