Paper Writing Service http://StudyHub.vip/Asking-Questions-In-Greek---Use-Of----- 👈

1. 1
2017 Southwest Regional Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society
--
Asking Questions in Greek:
The Discourse Function and Pragmatic Effect of the Particle εἰ µὴ in Rhetorical Questions
By Nelson S. Hsieh
The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
Every human language has the ability to ask questions. Rhetorical questions (herein RQs)
also seem to be a rhetorical device used in most human languages.1
Thus questions are certainly
not unique to Greek. Yet – while questions do occur in all languages, there seem to be some
unique aspects to question asking in Greek. Bible translators and linguists John Beekman and
John Callow suggest that “no other language uses rhetorical questions in exactly the same way,
and with the same frequency, as does the Greek of the New Testament.”2
At first glance, this
statement seemed overly bold to me, maybe even false. Surely all human languages use RQs,
including English. However, after I finished reading Beekman and Callow’s treatment of RQs, I
became not only more convinced of their claims,3
but also eager to learn more about the use of
RQs in the Greek of the NT, as well as in other languages such as English.
But biblical scholars have produced many studies of RQs – so what can be added? Some
observations on these studies show that there are at least five reasons for further study: (1) There
are about 1,000 questions in the NT, 700 of which can be classified as RQs.4
This high frequency
of usage surely justifies more study into the use of RQs in NT Greek; however, RQs have tended
1
Ellingworth writes: “As far as we know, all languages employ rhetorical questions, but some more than
others, and more for certain functions than others (for example, to convey blame or disbelief). We would expect
more rhetorical questions in speech than in written statements, and perhaps therefore more in so-called oral societies
that use speech more than writing.” See Paul Ellingworth, “‘When did we see you ... ?’: Translating Rhetorical
Questions,” The Bible Translator 64, no. 1 (2013): 67.
2
John Beekman and John Callow, “Rhetorical Questions,” in Translating the Word of God (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1974), 230.
3
For example, with regards to frequency, Beekman and Callow explain that Romans (which has 7,116
words) has 83 RQs while 1 Corinthians (which has 6,843 words) has at least 100. It is highly unlikely any English
books/essays of comparable length would have that many RQs.
4
These statistics are taken from Beekman and Callow, “Rhetorical Questions,” 229; Richard A. Young,
Intermediate New Testament Greek: A Linguistic and Exegetical Approach (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman
Publishers, 1994), 221.

2. 2
to be short-changed in most Greek grammars.5
In other words, NT scholars should be concerned
not only with what the NT communicates (propositional content), but also with how the NT
communicates (literary and rhetorical forms). (2) These studies have generally been confined to
the use of RQs in specific biblical passages rather than a general approach for interpreting RQs.
(3) More OT scholars (using Hebrew) have produced studies concerning RQs than NT scholars.6
5
The only beginning, intermediate, or advanced Greek grammar that gave an extended discussion of RQs
was Young’s Intermediate NT Greek, 221-25. Most other grammars might give a few sentences or a few paragraphs
to discussing RQs. Some grammars do not discuss RQs at all.
6
Although my research is far from exhaustive, compare what I was able to discover via library and online
research into rhetorical questions. First, here is a representative sample of work by OT scholars on rhetorical
questions: Walter Brueggemann, “Jeremiah’s Use of Rhetorical Questions,” Journal of Biblical Literature 92, no. 3
(1973): 358-74; Kenneth M. Craig, “Interrogatives in Haggai-Zechariah: A Literary Thread?,” in Forming Prophetic
Literature: Essays on Isaiah and the Twelve in Honor of John D.W. Watts, ed. Paul R. House and James W. Watts
(London: T&T Clark, 1996), 224-44; Kenneth M. Craig, “Rhetorical Aspects of Questions Answered with Silence
in 1 Samuel 14:37 and 28:6,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 56, no. 2 (1994): 221-39; Kenneth M. Craig, “Questions
Outside Eden (Genesis 4.1-16): Yahweh, Cain and Their Rhetorical Interchange,” Journal for the Study of the Old
Testament 86 (1999): 107-28; Lénart J. de Regt, “Implications of Rhetorical Questions in Strophes in Job 11 and
15,” in The Book of Job, ed. W. A. M. Beuken (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1994), 321-28; Lénart J. de Regt,
“Functions and Implications of Rhetorical Questions in the Book of Job,” in Biblical Hebrew and Discourse
Linguistics, ed. Robert D. Bergen (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1994), 361-73; Lénart J. de Regt, “Discourse
Implications of Rhetorical Questions in Job, Deuteronomy and the Minor Prophets,” in Literary Structure and
Rhetorical Strategies in the Hebrew Bible, ed. L. J. de Regt, J. de Waard, and J. P. Fokkelman (Assen, The
Netherlands: Van Gorcum, 1996), 51-78; Philippe Guillaume, “Caution: Rhetorical Questions!,” Biblische Notizen
103 (2000): 11-16 (this study focuses on Job 2:10 and Jonah 4:11); Raymond E. Johnson, “The Rhetorical Question
as a Literary Device in Ecclesiastes” (PhD diss., The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1986); Robert Koops,
“Rhetorical Questions and Implied Meaning in the Book of Job,” Bible Translator 39 (1989): 415-23; Kenneth J.
Kuntz, “The Form, Location, and Function of Rhetorical Questions in Deutero-Isaiah,” in Writing & Reading the
Scroll of Isaiah, ed. Craig C. Broyles and Craig A. Evans, vol. 1 (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 121-41; Kenneth J. Kuntz,
“Making a Statement: Rhetorical Questions in the Hebrew Psalter,” in Probing the Frontiers of Biblical Studies, ed.
J. Harold Ellens and John T. Greene (Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2009), 156-78; Mark McGinniss,
“Rhetorical Questions,” in Contributions of Selected Rhetorical Devices to a Biblical Theology of the Song of Songs
(Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2011), 78-138; J. F. J. van Rensburg, “Wise Men Saying Things by Asking Questions:
The Function of the Interrogative in Job 3 to 14,” Old Testament Essays 4 (1991): 227-47.
Also note that OT scholars have also produced general studies of rhetorical questions (as opposed to
discussing rhetorical questions in specific biblical passages): Robert Gordis, “A Rhetorical Use of Interrogative
Sentences in Biblical Hebrew,” The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures 49, no. 3 (1933): 212-
17; Moshe Held, “Rhetorical Questions in Ugaritic and Biblical Hebrew,” in Eretz-Israel: Archaeological,
Historical and Geographical Studies, ed. A. Malamat, vol. 9 (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1969), 71-79;
Benjamin Kedar, “The Interpretation of Rhetorical Questions in the Bible,” in “Sha‘arei Talmon”: Studies in the
Bible, Qumran, and the Ancient Near East Presented to Shemaryahu Talmon, ed. Michael Fishbane, Weston W.
Fields, and Emanuel Tov (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992), 145-52 (in Hebrew); Adina Moshavi, “Two Types
of Argumentation Involving Rhetorical Questions in Biblical Hebrew Dialogue,” Biblica 90, no. 1 (2009): 32-46;
Adina Moshavi, “‘Is That Your Voice, My Son David?’: Conducive Questions in Biblical Hebrew,” Journal of
Northwest Semitic Languages 36, no. 1 (2010): 65-81; Adina Moshavi, “Can a Positive Rhetorical Question Have a
Positive Answer in the Bible?,” Journal of Semitic Studies 56, no. 2 (2011): 253-73; Adina Moshavi, “Rhetorical
Question or Assertion?: The Pragmatics of halo’ in Biblical Hebrew,” Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society
32 (2012): 91-105; Adina Moshavi, “What Can I Say?: Implications and Communicative Functions of Rhetorical

3. 3
(4) The studies produced concerning RQs in the NT have usually approached RQs from the
standpoint of ancient Greco-Roman rhetoric rather than from the standpoint of general linguistics
and pragmatics.7
(5) The few studies on RQs in Greek have focused on RQs in general rather
than any specific syntactic construction.8
Given these observations, this paper will venture to
study RQs in Greek but will focus on one construction: RQs paired with the particle εἰ µὴ.
On a personal level, I first become interested in how the particle εἰ µὴ functions within
questions while doing exegesis Romans 11:15:
εἰ γὰρ ἡ ἀποβολὴ αὐτῶν καταλλαγὴ κόσµου, τίς ἡ πρόσληµψις εἰ µὴ ζωὴ ἐκ νεκρῶν;
This verse is traditionally translated, “For if [Israel’s] rejection means the reconciliation of the
world, what [τίς] will their acceptance mean but [εἰ µὴ] life from the dead?” (ESV) This seemed
like a strange way to ask a question and I wondered how εἰ µὴ was functioning, but was unable
“WH” Questions in Classical Biblical Hebrew Prose,” Vetus Testamentum 64 (2014): 93-108; Adina Moshavi,
“Between Dialectic and Rhetoric: Rhetorical Questions Expressing Premises in Biblical Prose Argumentation,”
Vetus Testamentum 65 (2015): 136-51.
Hebrew grammars also deal with RQs as well, e.g. Bruce K. Waltke and M. O’Connor, An Introduction to
Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 315-29.
Compare with a smaller sample of work by NT scholars on rhetorical questions: J. Van W. Cronjé, “The
Strategem of the Rhetorical Question in Galatians 4:9-10 as a Means Towards Persuasion,” Neotestamentica 26, no.
2 (1992): 417-24; Deborah Thompson Prince, “‘Why do you seek the living among the dead?’: Rhetorical Questions
in the Lukan Resurrection Narrative,” Journal of Biblical Literature 135, no. 1 (2016): 123-39; Duane F. Watson, “1
Corinthians 10:12-11:1 in the Light of Greco-Roman Rhetoric: The Role of Rhetorical Questions,” Journal of
Biblical Literature 108, no. 2 (1989): 301-318; Wilhelm H. Wuellner, “Paul as Pastor: The Function of Rhetorical
Questions in First Corinthians,” in L’Apôtre Paul: Personnalité, Style et Conception du Ministère, ed. Albert
Vanhoye (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1986), 49-77.
7
Pragmatics is a sub-field of linguistics that deals with several topics relevant to biblical exegesis, such as
speaker/authorial meaning, contextual meaning, conversational analysis, implicature, and discourse analysis. See the
introduction by George Yule, Pragmatics, Oxford Introductions to Language Study, ed. H. G. Widdowson (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1996). More detailed are: Yan Huang, Pragmatics, 2nd ed., Oxford Textbooks in
Linguistics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014); Betty J. Birner, Introduction to Pragmatics, Blackwell
Textbooks in Linguistics (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2013).
8
The most comprehensive study of questions in the NT is undoubtedly Douglas Estes, Questions and
Rhetoric in the Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2017). Also helpful on rhetorical questions are
John Beekman and John Callow, “Rhetorical Questions,” in Translating the Word of God (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1974), 229-48. All the general studies of RQs mentioned in footnote 6 above were regarding RQs in the
OT and hence confined to Hebrew, not Greek. Those studies were very helpful, but their insights and methods need
to be applied to Greek.

4. 4
to find much help in commentaries and Greek grammars, so I set out to study the construction on
my own using the principles and methodology that I will explain in this paper’s first section.
This paper will argue that the particle εἰ µὴ, when used with RQs, served a processing
function (helping readers to track with the author, especially when the question and/or answer
was very long or when complex word orders were used) and served a prominence marking
function (placing emphasis upon the εἰ µὴ clause, which usually contained the speaker’s answer
to his own RQ). I will also argue that this prominence marking function affects how RQs with εἰ
µὴ should be translated and preached. For those not well-versed in Greek grammar and
linguistics, let me illustrate my thesis from a famous verse in the Bible, Mark 2:7, which is
traditionally translated, “Who can forgive sins but [εἰ µὴ] God alone?” (ESV) My proposal is that
Mark 2:7 (and other verses that use εἰ µὴ within a question) should be translated like this: “Who
can forgive sins? Surely only God!” There are three changes: (a) the question mark is shifted to
before the εἰ µὴ clause; (b) εἰ µὴ is translated as an emphatic particle, surely; and (c) an
exclamation mark is added at the end.
This paper will proceed by (1) discussing my methodology and linguistic principles;
(2) making three initial observations about RQs with εἰ µὴ; (3) arguing that εἰ µὴ served a
processing function; (4) arguing that εἰ µὴ served a prominence marking function; and
(5) offering suggestions for the translation and exposition of RQs with εἰ µὴ.
Methodology and Linguistic Principles
Since I found little help in Greek grammars and lexicons, I had to set out to study RQs
with εἰ µὴ on my own, so let me clarify how I did this and what my linguistic principles and
assumptions are. First, I gathered data using computer searches. My goal was to find instances of

5. 5
questions that employed the particle εἰ µὴ. For Homeric and Classical Greek, I used the Perseus
online database search function. I picked a small amount of literature, mainly because of time
constraints, but also because of the difficulty of some Greek authors (e.g. Plato). I surveyed
Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey, a few Attic orators (Demosthenes, Isaeus, Lysias), and the
philosopher Aristotle.9
My method was to search for the exact phrase “εἰ µὴ,” note every
occurrence within the context of a question, and note which (if any) interrogative particle εἰ µὴ
was paired with (e.g. πῶς, τίς, τί). Of course more Classical literature needs to be surveyed, but
this small sampling still yielded 32 occurrences of a RQ with εἰ µὴ (see Appendix #1).
For Koine Greek, I used Accordance Bible Software and performed the same search. I
surveyed a wide range of literature that includes the LXX Rahlfs, Greek portions of the OT
Pseudepigrapha, Josephus, Philo, the New Testament, the Apostolic Fathers, the New Testament
Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, the Stoic philosopher Epictetus, the church historian Eusebius,
early Christian Apologists (Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Theophilus), and Athanasius.
While the literature is skewed towards Jewish and Christian literature (with Epictetus as the one
exception) and while a more thorough survey of secular Koine literature would be helpful (e.g.
Polybius, the papyri, Xenophon, Menander) – surely the texts I have chosen are nevertheless
representative of literary Koine Greek usage from roughly the 3rd
century BCE to 4th
century CE.
This sampling provided 128 occurrences of a RQ with εἰ µὴ (see Appendix #1). Adding together
Homeric, Classical, and Koine usage, I gathered a total of 160 examples to examine. So while
these computer searches were a rather laborious and tedious task, they yielded a large amount of
useful data to work with.
9
I picked all the authors Herbert Smyth considers to have favored RQs except Plato. See Herbert Weir
Smyth, Greek Grammar (Harvard: Harvard University Press, 1920), 597 §2640.a. Smyth writes that rhetorical
“questions are very rare in Lysias, somewhat frequent in Plato, common in Isaeus, highly developed in
Demosthenes.” I started surveying Plato, but the difficulty of his Greek prevented me from finishing!

6. 6
Second, my approach was inductive – I had an initial theory from looking at NT usage (it
seemed εἰ µὴ was an emphatic particle), but I sat down and looked at all these examples one-by-
one to see if my theory would hold up. I looked for syntactical patterns, trying to discern how
word order affected the construction and trying to understand how the εἰ µὴ clause functioned
logically and semantically within the question (e.g. Was it the answer to the question, Was it an
assumption behind the question, or some other function?).
Third, my conclusions were drawn based upon certain linguistic principles and an
underlying linguistic theory. Regarding linguistic theory, I align myself with the discourse
grammar of Stephen Levinsohn and Steve Runge.10
Regarding linguistic principles, the main
linguistic principles that guided my study are (1) markedness, which assumes that speakers often
have meaningful choices when communicating and the choice of one word/construction rather
than another implies meaning;11
(2) prominence, which can be indicated via word order or the
use of certain emphatic words/phrases; and (3) the distinction between basic semantic meaning
10
My understanding of discourse grammar comes from Stephen Levinsohn and Steve Runge. Their
linguistic principles are found in Stephen H. Levinsohn, Discourse Features of New Testament Greek: A Cousebook
on the Information Structure of New Testament Greek, 2nd ed. (Dallas, TX: SIL International, 2000), vii-ix; Steven
E. Runge, Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament: A Practical Introduction for Teaching and Exegesis
(Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2010), 3-16.
Levinsohn and Runge’s discourse grammar is essentially equivalent to functional grammar, which itself
was a reaction against Noam Chomsky’s formal or transformational and generative grammar. David Crystal defines
functional grammar as “a linguistic theory which was devised in the 1970s as an alternative to the abstract,
formalized view of language presented by transformational grammar, and relying instead on a pragmatic view of
language as social interaction. The approach focuses on the rules which govern verbal interaction, seen as a form of
co-operative activity, and on the rules (of syntax, semantics, and phonology) which govern the linguistic expressions
that are used as instruments of this activity” (David Crystal, A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics, 6th
ed.
[Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2008], 202, emphasis added). As seen in Crystal’s definition, functional/discourse
grammar is also closely related to the linguistic sub-field of pragmatics, which is “the study of language from the
point of view of the users, especially of the choices they make, the constraints they encounter in using language in
social interaction, and the effects their use of language has on the other participants in an act of communication”
(Ibid., 379). For more on pragmatics, see the literature cited in footnote 7.
11
Stephanie Black defines markedness as “the notion that where there are two or more choices in a
linguistic system — two or more things that could be reasonably have been said at a given point, or two or more
ways of saying something — it is often the case that one of those choices is thought to be the normal, or default,
choice. . . . This is considered the unmarked choice. Against the background of what is considered normal and
unremarkable, any other choice is to some degree marked.” See Stephanie L. Black, “How Matthew Tells the Story:
A Linguistic Approach to Matthew’s Syntax,” in Built Upon the Rock: Studies in the Gospel of Matthew, ed. Daniel
M. Gurtner and John Nolland (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 29-30. Emphases original.

7. 7
vs. contextual pragmatic effect—while most expressions have a stable basic or core meaning,
their use in differing literary contexts or differing extralinguistic situations can bring about
varying contextual meanings (i.e. pragmatic effects).12
Most of these principles will be further
explained in the course of the paper, but they provided the foundation of my inductive study.
Three Initial Observations
Based on the methodology just described, I made initial observations about syntax, word
order, and sentence length: (1) The most common word order for this construction was for the
question to begin with an interrogative particle (such as τίς, τί, or πῶς), then the particle εἰ µὴ
forms a new clause (which often gave the speaker’s answer to his own RQ). Thus, standard word
order seems to have been: [interrogative particle] à [εἰ µὴ clause]. For example, in Mark 2:7,
the Pharisees respond to Jesus’ statement to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven” (v. 5),
by asking a rhetorical question:
τίς δύναται ἀφιέναι ἁµαρτίας εἰ µὴ εἷς ὁ θεός;
“Who [τίς] is able to forgiven sins but [εἰ µὴ] God alone?”13
Semantically and logically, it is clear that the εἰ µὴ clause contains the Pharisees’ answer to their
own RQ.14
The same construction is found in Homer’s Iliad 22.202-204:
πῶς δέ κεν Ἕκτωρ κῆρας ὑπεξέφυγεν θανάτοιο,
εἰ µή οἱ πύµατόν τε καὶ ὕστατον ἤντετ᾽ Ἀπόλλων
ἐγγύθεν, ὅς οἱ ἐπῶρσε µένος λαιψηρά τε γοῦνα;
12
This distinction is based on Porter’s explanation of monosemy in contrast to polysemy. See Stanley E.
Porter, Linguistic Analysis of the Greek New Testament: Studies in Tools, Method, and Practice (Grand Rapids:
Baker Academic, 2015), 51-53. Porter writes that monosemy “[distinguishes] between the inherent meaning of a
lexeme as semantic and its additional or instrumental meaning as pragmatic, or . . . between the abstract formal
meaning of a lexeme and the specific functional meaning of its use in context” (p. 52, emphases added).
13
For now, English translations of the NT come from the ESV. I think that these RQs with εἰ µὴ should be
translated differently, but will not discuss how to translate RQs with εἰ µὴ until later.
14
There are a few possible cases where the εἰ µὴ clause does not contain the speaker’s answer to his RQ,
but in most occurrences the εἰ µὴ clause contains the answer to the RQ. Possible exceptions are NT: Matt 12:3-4
(par. Mark 2:26; Luke 6:4); Philo: Prov. 2:16; Justin: Dial. 111; Athenagoras Leg. 23; Theophilus 2 Autol. 21.

8. 8
And how [πῶς] had Hector escaped the fates of death, but that [εἰ µὴ] Apollo, albeit for
the last and latest time, drew nigh him to rouse his strength and make swift his knees?15
I could multiply examples from Classical Greek, the LXX, Apostolic Fathers, etc., but based on
its high frequency of occurrence, this word order seems to have been standard.
(2) Some Greek authors exhibited variations in word order, the most complex of which
are from the Attic orators Demosthenes and Lysias. Both sometimes invert the word order by
placing the εἰ µὴ clause first. For example:
καίτοι, ὦ Ἀγόρατε, εἰ µή τί σοι ἦν παρεσκευασµένον καὶ ἐπίστευες µηδὲνκακὸν πείσεσθαι,
πῶς οὐκ ἂν ᾤχου καὶ πλοίων παρεσκευασµένων καὶ τῶν ἐγγυητῶν ἑτοίµων ὄντων σοι
συνεκπλεῖν;
And yet, Agoratus, unless [εἰ µὴ] there had been some prearrangement with you, such as
to assure you that you would come to no harm, how [πῶς] could you have failed to make
off, when there were vessels provided, and your sureties were ready to accompany you on
the voyage? (Lys. 13:26)
καὶ εἰ µὴ δεοµένων αὐτῶν καὶ ἱκετευόντων, καὶ λεγόντων ὡς οὐκέτι πρόσεισιν Θεοκρίνηςπρὸς τὴν
ἀρχήν, ἐπείσθηθ᾽ ὑµεῖς καὶ πάλιν ἀπέδοτε τοὺς στεφάνους αὐτοῖς, πάντων ἂν αἴσχιστα
οἱσυνάρχοντες ἐπεπόνθεσαν;
And had it not been [εἰ µὴ] that through the prayers and entreaties of his fellow-judges
and through their promise that Theocrines should never again come near the board you
were persuaded to give them back their crowns, would [ἂν] they not have incurred the
deepest possible disgrace? (Dem., Theocr. 27)
As if inverted word order was not complicated enough, both Demosthenes and Lysias sometimes
embedded the εἰ µὴ clause into the middle of the question:
καίτοι πῶς ἄν, εἰ µὴ πεπορισµένον τε ἦν καὶ ἐπηγγέλκειν αὐτοῖς, εὐθὺς ἂν ἀπέλαβον;
…and yet how [πῶς] – if the money had not [εἰ µὴ] been got together and I had not
given them notice – could they have secured immediate payment? (Dem., Euerg. 66)16
15
English translation from Homer, The Illiad, Books 13-24, ed. William F. Wyatt, trans. A. T. Murray, 2nd
ed., Loeb Classical Library (Harvard: Harvard University Press, 1924).
16
Also see Euerg. 77.

9. 9
πῶς δ’ ἄν, εἰ µὴ πάντων ἀνθρώπων ἐµαυτῷ κακονούστατος ἦ, ὑµῶν οὕτως ἐπιµελουµένων
ἐκ τούτου τὴνµορίαν ἀφανίζειν ἐπεχείρησα τοῦ χωρίου, ἐν ᾧ δένδρον µὲν οὐδὲ ἕν ἐστι, µιᾶς
δὲ ἐλάας σηκός, ὡς οὗτόςφησιν, ἦν, κυκλόθεν δὲ ὁδὸς περιέχει, ἀµφοτέρωθεν δὲ γείτονες
περιοικοῦσιν, ἄερκτον δὲ καὶ πανταχόθεν κάτοπτόν ἐστιν;
And how [πῶς] — except [εἰ µὴ] in all the world I were my own most malignant
enemy—could I have attempted, with you supervising as you do, to clear away the sacred
olive from this plot; in which there is not a single tree, but there was, as he says, a stump
of one olive; where a road skirts the plot all round, and neighbors live about it on both
sides, and it is unfenced and open to view from every point? (Lys. 7.28)
In these examples, the interrogative particle πῶς signals the start of a question, but the particle εἰ
µὴ then abruptly pauses the question and signals a new clause, yet the audience still does not
even know what the question itself is! After the εἰ µὴ clause finishes, then the question resumes.
Like Demosthenes and Lysias, a few Koine writers also demonstrated variance in word order,
although this was rare with only six occurrences.17
These complex word orders may seem overly
complex to moderns, but such complexity was no surprise to Greek speakers who were already
comfortable with highly flexible word order. While we may have problems processing such
complicated question and answer sequences, Greek speakers and hearers probably did not have
the same problems we do. Hence, we need to unravel how and why Greek speakers used this
construction. Before we move on, let us first summarize the possible word orders:
Word Order of RQs with εἰ µὴ
#1: Standard
Interrogative particle
(ἆρα, τίς, τί, πῶς, etc.)
εἰ µὴ clause
(as answer to RQ)
--
#2: Inverted
εἰ µὴ clause
(as answer to RQ)
Interrogative particle
(ἆρα, τίς, τί, πῶς, etc.)
--
#3: Split
Interrogative particle
(ἆρα, τίς, τί, πῶς, etc.)
as beginning of question
εἰ µὴ clause
(as answer to RQ)
Remainder /
ending of question
17
Philo: Virt. 60; Aet. 125; Josephus: Ant. 16.210; Athanasius: Apol. sec. 2.79.553; 4.20; Athenagoras Leg.
12.

10. 10
(3) Both classical and Koine Greek authors used very long questions and/or long answers.
For example, some question-answer sequences in Athanasius are so long that English translators
cannot help but separate the question from the εἰ µὴ clause:
Πῶς οὖν δύναται βουλὴ καὶ θέληµα τοῦ Πατρὸς ὑπάρχων ὁ Λόγος γίνεσθαι καὶ αὐτὸς θελήµατι καὶ
βουλήσει, ὡς ἕκαστος, εἰ µή, καθὰ προεῖπον, µανέντες πάλιν εἴπωσιν αὐτὸν δι᾿ ἑαυτοῦ γεγονέναι, ἢ
δι᾿ ἑτέρου τινός;
“How [πῶς] then can the Word, being the Counsel and Good Pleasure of the Father, come
into being Himself ‘by good pleasure and will,’ like every one else? unless [εἰ µὴ], as I
said before, in their madness they repeat that He has come into being through Himself, or
through some other.” (Apol. sec. 3:64)18
Philo also has some very long questions (e.g. Det. 90; Mut. 228; Prob. 6-7) or very long answers
to his questions (e.g. Alleg. Interp. 1:79; Det. 132), some of which are so long that English
translations do not even translate the entire sentence as a question since it would be cumbersome
and possibly even incomprehensible to an English reader:
πῶς γὰρ οὐκ ἐκτόπια καὶ θαύµατ᾿ ὄντως, φυγάδας µὲν καλεῖν τοὺς µὴ µόνον ἐν µέσῃ τῇ
πόλει διατρίβοντας, ἀλλὰ καὶ βουλεύοντας καὶ δικάζοντας καὶ ἐκκλησιάζοντας ἔστι δ᾿ ὅτε
καὶ ἀγορανοµίας καὶ γυµνασιαρχίας καὶ τὰς ἄλλας λειτουργίας ὑποµένοντας, πολίτας δὲ
τοὺς ἢ µὴ ἐγγραφέντας τὸ παράπαν ἢ ὧν ἀτιµία καὶ φυγὴ κατέγνωσται, πέραν ὅρων
ἀνθρώπους ἐληλαµένους, οὐ µόνον οὐκ ἐπιβῆναι τῆς χώρας ἀλλ᾿ οὐδ᾿ ἐξ ἀπόπτου τὸ
πατρῷον ἔδαφος θεάσασθαι δυναµένους – εἰ µή τισι Ποιναῖς ἐλαύνοιντο θανατῶντες;
For how [πῶς] can it be anything but a complete marvel and absurdity to call those men
exiles, who do not only live in the middle of the city, but who even take a part in the
councils, and courts of justice, and public assemblies, and who, at times, fulfill the duties
of clerks of the market, and of superintendents of gymnastic games, and of other offices
of different kinds; and, on the other hand, to call those men citizens who have either
never been enrolled as such at all, or else have had sentences of infamy or of banishment
pronounced against them; men who have been driven beyond the boundaries of the land,
and who are unable, not only to set foot upon the country, but even to behold their native
soil from a distance, unless [εἰ µὴ] they are urged on by some insane frenzy to rush upon
certain death.19
(Philo, Good Person 6-7)20
18
Translation from Patrologiae Cursus Completus: Series Graeca, ed. Jacques Paul Migne (Paris, 1866).
19
English translations will be from Philo, The Works of Philo, trans. C. D. Yonge (Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson Publishers, 1993).
20
This English translation ends as a sentence rather than a question in English translation, but the Greek
text has a question mark.

11. 11
There are other places in Philo where English translators feel the need to separate answer from
question (Mos. 2:200; Prob. 42), like in Athanasius. Long questions and/or long answers were
also characteristic of several classical Greek authors.21
In summary, this section made the following three observations: (1) standard order for
these types of questions was [interrogative particle] à [εἰ µὴ clause]; (2) some authors inverted
the standard word order [εἰ µὴ clause] à [interrogative particle] or even used a split word order;
(3) some authors used very long questions and/or long answers, in which case perhaps εἰ µὴ was
used to help the reader. The next section will attempt to draw some firmer conclusions.
Lower Level Discourse Function of the Particle εἰ µὴ with RQs:
Processing Function
Before explaining the use of εἰ µὴ for processing functions, let me first explain what I
mean by “processing function.” All human languages (both spoken and written) need
phonological, syntactical, and grammatical features that help readers/listeners process language.
Imagine a speaker talking very fast without ever pausing or imagine a speaker who reads from a
manuscript in a monotone voice. Imagine reading a book with no paragraphing, no chapter
headings, no punctuation, no space between words, and no page numbers. Such speech or writing
would be extremely difficult to process and the listener/reader would either give up or spend an
inordinate amount of time trying to decipher what is being said. Therefore, in order to
communicate clearly in writing, we must use paragraphing, punctuation, spacing, and
prominence markers (such as bold, italics, or underlining). To communicate well orally, we must
vary the pace of speech, make sure that our main points stand out, use discourse markers (e.g.
“My first point is…my second point is…”), and perhaps vary our intonation and pitch.
21
Aristotle: Metaph. 14.1089a; Demosthenes: Lept. 33; Olymp. 43; Theocr. 27; Lysias 7:28.

12. 12
Now consider the fact that answers to questions are usually not marked by an
introductory particle: in speech where there are obviously no punctuation marks, the end of a
question and beginning of an answer is indicated with a pause and/or intuitively understood; in
writing, punctuation indicates the end of a question, but most of the early NT manuscripts had
minimal punctuation,22
so Greek writers needed another method of marking the end of a question
and beginning of an answer. Sometimes it might have been intuitive (like the answer to a yes/no
question), or perhaps (as I am suggesting) a particle such as εἰ µὴ marked the end of a question
and the beginning of an answer.
Remember back to the observations from the previous section. Two complex situations
arose: (1) With the complex inverted and split word orders, it must have been easy for the reader
to get lost, so εἰ µὴ likely served a processing function to help the reader track with the author. In
fact, questions with an inverted or split word order would be nearly impossible to process unless
the answer was somehow marked. (2) With long questions and/or answers, it must have also
been easy for the reader to get lost. In speech, if a speaker uses a long question and/or answer, he
can pause to end the question and clearly mark the beginning of the answer. But in writing, the
author cannot force the reader to pause unless he marks where a pause should go with
punctuation or with a particle. Thus, perhaps εἰ µὴ served a processing function for long
questions, clearly marking out and providing a pause before the answer.23
22
See Appendix #2: “Punctuation in Early Greek Manuscripts Where RQs with εἰ µὴ Occur.” Only Codex
Alexandrinus had punctuation with a raised dot at the end of Mark 2:7; 1 Cor 2:11; 1 John 5:5; and interestingly,
with a raised dot before εἰ µὴ in 2 Cor 12:13 and Heb 3:18 (at least according to James M. Tucker of Multnomah
University, who put together the electronic version of Codex Alexandrinus). More research will need to be done
regarding punctuation in not only the early manuscripts of the NT, but also the earliest manuscripts of the Homeric,
Classical, and Koine Greek texts that I have surveyed.
23
There are some occurrences where εἰ µὴ might be functioning as a conditional or as an exception; these
will need to be further explored in the future. See Josephus: Ant. 16:210; Philo: Aet. 125; Virt. 60; Athanasius: Apol.
sec. 2:79; 4:20; Lysias 7:28; 13:26; Demosthenes: Theocr. 27; Euerg. 66, 77.

13. 13
Higher Level Discourse Function and Pragmatic Effect of the Particle εἰ µὴ with RQs:
Forward-Pointing Device Marking Prominence
As a linguistic term, “prominence refers to the state of standing out from the
surroundings so as to be easily noticed. Discourse must have prominence.”24
Linguist Robert
Longacre remarks, “If all parts of discourse are equally prominent, total unintelligibility results.
The result is like being presented with a piece of black paper and being told, ‘This is a picture of
black camels crossing black sands at midnight.’”25
The ability to recognize prominence is
critical: “emphasis in the Greek text of the N.T. is one of the most neglected features of exegesis
of the N.T., in spite of the ability of Greek to indicate emphasis to a very helpful degree.”26
Part
of the difficulty in recognizing prominence relates to spoken vs. written language, as Robert
Smith explains:
Spoken communication has some advantages over written communication when it comes
to representing relative prominence of items in a discourse. Voice inflection allows
certain words or phrases to be spoken with increased force. A slight pause before and
after a word makes it—stand out—from the rest. Modulations of pitch and varied speed
of utterance enhance the ability to communicate contrasting shades of prominence or
backgrounding.27
Written language cannot employ inflection, pitch, pauses, and varied speed, and so must mark
prominence in other ways. In written language, prominence can be marked in two main ways:28
(1) with changes in word order, and/or (2) with emphatic words/phrases such as emphatic
particles, emphatic pronouns, superlatives, figures of speech, repetition, and more.
24
Young, Intermediate NT Greek, 262. For general discussion of prominence, see Kathleen Callow,
“Prominence,” in Discourse Considerations in Translating the Word of God (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974), 49-
68; J. Harold Greenlee, “The Importance of Syntax for the Proper Understanding of the Sacred Text of the New
Testament,” Evangelical Quarterly 44, no. 3 (1972): 135-40; Robert E. Smith, “Recognizing Prominence Features in
the Greek New Testament,” Selected Technical Articles Related to Translation 14 (1985): 16-25; Young,
Intermediate NT Greek, 262-64.
25
Quoted in Young, Intermediate NT Greek, 262.
26
Greenlee, “The Importance of Syntax,” 135.
27
Smith, “Recognizing Prominence Features,” 17. Emphases added.
28
This point is noted in Greenlee, “The Importance of Syntax,” 136; Smith, “Recognizing Prominence
Features,” 17.

14. 14
In many cases, εἰ µὴ probably marked what comes next as prominent, namely, it
functioned as a forward-pointing device.29
English has forward-pointing devices such as “Listen
to this!” or “Guess what!” These expressions are generally used before saying something
important, shocking, or exciting. Runge explains further:
Expressions like these are a way of slowing down the flow of the discourse before
something surprising or important . . . It has the pragmatic effect of attracting extra
attention to the target of the forward pointing device. It would be simpler to skip the
additional reference and get on with whatever it is you have to say. The extra reference
serves to pique curiosity about the target, in the same way that a drum roll or other
dramatic delay has the effect of building suspense.30
Thus, forward-pointing devices are unnecessary and add no actual content. Then why use them?
If the forward-pointing reference had not been used, the information that followed would
not have changed in its importance; it simply would not have been marked as important.
If it had not been marked, there is a greater chance that its importance might have been
overlooked. I [as the reader] might not have assigned the same significance to it as the
writer did. By choosing to use a prominence-marking device, the writer increases the
likelihood that the reader will assign the same significance to the target. The device
explicitly marks the target as significant.31
Thus, I am arguing that within questions εἰ µὴ was often used as a forward-pointing device to
mark the answer to the RQ as prominent.32
However, I wondered how this happened and why no
Greek grammar or lexicon mentions this as one of the functions/meanings of εἰ µὴ. Standard
Greek reference works explain that εἰ µὴ can be used in three main ways: (1) in the protasis of a
conditional statement: “if…not”, (2) to mark an exception (similar to πλήν) and thus translated as
29
On forward pointing devices, see Runge, Discourse Grammar, 59-177.
30
Ibid., 61-62.
31
Ibid., 62.
32
Kathleen Callow notes how we must be careful regarding so-called emphatic particles: “[A] particle
which signals emphasis in one construction may be entirely without prominence in another. . . . The danger here is
that the translator will label a particular construction as ‘focus’ or ‘emphasis’ in his mind, and then use it as such in
all circumstances. The translator must consistently bear in mind that a grammatical signal may have varying
functions” (“Prominence,” 66). Indeed, εἰ µὴ served varying functions: in conditional sentences (“if…not”), marking
an exception (“except, unless”), as a processing aid, and now I am suggesting that it also functioned as an emphatic
particle within RQs. This usage is not entirely new – in the LXX, εἰ µὴ often served as an emphatic particle in the
context of oaths (e.g. 2 Kings 9:26; Ezek 5:11) or even in the context of emphatic statements (e.g. 1 Kings 21:23;
Job 1:11; 2:5).

15. 15
“except, or but,” and (3) with δὲ, meaning “otherwise.”33
However, none of these reference
works address the usage of εἰ µὴ with RQs or suggest that εἰ µὴ can be an emphatic particle.
How, then, did εἰ µὴ become an emphatic particle and why could I not find a grammar or lexicon
that recognized this use of εἰ µὴ?
Let me suggest three factors that led εἰ µὴ to become used as an emphatic particle: First,
at least in the NT, εἰ µὴ is most frequently used to introduce an exception (73x out of 105x)34
and
when introducing an exception, εἰ µὴ can be characterized as prominent since the very
idea/essence of an exception is already prominent. For example, in Matt 24:36, Jesus says, Περὶ
δὲ τῆς ἡµέρας ἐκείνης καὶ ὥρας οὐδεὶς οἶδεν, οὐδὲ οἱ ἄγγελοι τῶν οὐρανῶν οὐδὲ ὁ υἱός, εἰ µὴ ὁ πατὴρ
µόνος (“But concerning that day and hour [Jesus’ second coming], no one knows, not even the
angels of heaven nor the Son, except the Father alone”). The negative statement sounds absolute
– no one knows when Jesus will return, not the angels and not even the Son himself – but the
exception clause magnifies and emphasizes that the Father alone knows (Jesus even adds µόνος
for additional emphasis).
Second, the prominence marking function of εἰ µὴ becomes clear when we consider the
range of possible answers to certain types of questions. Paul Kroeger explains that human
33
Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, ed.
W. F. Arndt, F. W. Gingrich, and F. W. Danker, 3rd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 278; F. Blass
and A. Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, trans. Robert W.
Funk (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961), 191, §376; Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott, A Greek-
English Lexicon, ed. Henry Stuart Jones, 9th ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1940), 481; J. H. Moulton, A
Grammar of New Testament Greek, Volume I: Prolegomena, 3rd ed. (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1908), 171; A. T.
Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (London: Hodder and
Stoughton, 1923), 923, 1012, 1016, 1188, 1420; Smyth, Greek Grammar, 530-31 §2346. Quite surprisingly, G. B.
Winer has a 45-page discussion on the negative particles οὐ and µὴ but only discusses εἰ µὴ when used in the
protasis of a conditional sentence. See G. B. Winer, A Treatise on the Grammar of New Testament Greek, trans. W.
F. Moulton, 3rd ed. (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1882), 593-638.
34
Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament, 1420. Statistics would need to be compiled
regarding how often εἰ µὴ is used to mark an exception in Classical and other Koine Greek literature.

16. 16
languages have yes/no questions (e.g. “Did you do it?”) and content or Wh- questions (e.g. “Who
did it? What is your name? Why did you do it? When did it happen? Where did you go?”).35
Consider the range of answers with these question types: Yes/no questions obviously only have
two possible answers – yes or no. It is therefore not surprising that εἰ µὴ is hardly used with
yes/no questions. Content or Wh- questions have a much wider range of answers; Kroeger omits
how questions from his explanation, but Elena Padučeva notes that how questions have the
widest range of possible answers, since describing how to do something or how something
happened is more open ended than explaining who, what, where, or when.36
I would add that why
questions are also very open ended. Therefore, it is not surprising that εἰ µὴ is most frequently
used with how and why questions (18x out of 32x in the Homeric and Classical Greek literature
surveyed and 60x out of 128x in the Koine Greek literature surveyed). As we have seen, most
questions are open-ended and thus allow for a wide range of possible answers. εἰ µὴ seems to
mark the speaker’s answer as the “exception” among all the possible answers. In other words, εἰ
µὴ emphasizes the speaker’s one answer by contrasting it to the wide range of other possible
answers. In fact, the wider the range of possible answers (e.g. in how and why questions), the
more prominent the speaker’s answer becomes.
Third, perhaps the LXX had an influence on Jewish/Christian writers regarding the
meaning and function of εἰ µὴ. Biblical Hebrew had an exact equivalent to the Greek εἰ µὴ — the
particle ‫ֹא‬‫ל‬‫ם־‬ִ‫א‬. Several Hebrew grammars note that ‫ם‬ִ‫א‬ (literally, “if”) and ‫ֹא‬‫ל‬‫ם־‬ִ‫א‬ (literally, “if
35
Paul R. Kroeger, Analyzing Grammar (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 203-206.
36
Elena V. Padučeva, “Question-Answer Correspondence and the Semantics of Questions,” in Language
and Discourse: Test and Protest: A Festschrift for Petr Sgall, ed. Jacob L. Mey (Amsterdam: John Benjamins
Publishing Company, 1986), 375.

17. 17
not”) were often used in the context of oaths to make an emphatic declaration.37
‫ם‬ִ‫א‬ was used to
make an emphatic negative (or maledictory) oath: ‫ם‬ָ‫ֹת‬‫ב‬ֲ‫ַא‬‫ל‬ ‫י‬ִ‫תּ‬ְ‫ﬠ‬ַ‫בּ‬ְ‫ִשׁ‬‫נ‬ ‫ר‬ֶ‫שׁ‬ֲ‫א‬ ‫ץ‬ ֶ‫אָר‬ָ‫ת־ה‬ֶ‫א‬ ‫אוּ‬ ְ‫ִר‬‫י‬‫ם־‬ִ‫א‬
(“…they will surely not see the land which I promised to their ancestors,” Num 14:23; cf. 1 Sam
196; 2 Sam 11:11). In contrast, ‫ֹא‬‫ל‬‫ם־‬ִ‫א‬ was used to make an emphatic positive oath:
‫ם‬ָ‫אָד‬ ְ‫י‬ִ‫ֵאת‬‫לּ‬ִ‫ם־מ‬ִ‫א‬ ‫ִי‬‫כּ‬ ‫ַפְשׁוֹ‬‫נ‬ְ‫בּ‬ ‫אוֹת‬ָ‫ְב‬‫צ‬ ‫ָה‬‫ו‬‫ְה‬‫י‬ ‫ע‬ַ‫בּ‬ְ‫ִשׁ‬‫נ‬ (“As Yahweh of hosts swears by himself, ‘I will surely
fill you with people,’” Jer 51:14; cf. Josh14:9; Jer 49:20). Sometimes, ‫ֹא‬‫ל‬‫ם־‬ִ‫א‬ was also used in a
non-oath context to simply make an emphatic statement: ‫ם‬ֶ‫ה‬ֵ‫מ‬ ‫ַק‬‫ז‬ֱ‫ֶח‬‫נ‬ ‫ֹא‬‫ל‬‫ם־‬ִ‫א‬ ‫ישׁוֹר‬ִ‫מּ‬ַ‫בּ‬ ‫ם‬ָ‫תּ‬ִ‫א‬ ‫ם‬ֵ‫ָח‬‫לּ‬ִ‫נ‬ ‫ָם‬‫ל‬‫ְאוּ‬‫ו‬
(Israel’s enemies, the Syrians say, “But let us fight against them in the plain, and surely we shall
be stronger than they,” 1 Kgs 20:23; cf. Ps 131:2; Job 1:11; 2:5; 17:2; 22:20; 31:36). In many of
these passages that make emphatic oaths or statements, the LXX translates ‫ֹא‬‫ל‬‫ם־‬ִ‫א‬ with the exact
equivalent εἰ µὴ (see 1 Kgs 20:23; 2 Kgs 9:26; Ezek 5:11).38
While using εἰ µὴ as an emphatic
particle probably originated in Homeric and Classical Greek, the LXX usage of εἰ µὴ to translate
the emphatic use of ‫ֹא‬‫ל‬‫ם־‬ִ‫א‬ probably further solidified the emphatic nature of εἰ µὴ in the minds
of Jewish/Christian authors during the Koine period.39
37
Bill T. Arnold and John H. Choi, A Guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2003), 145 §4.3.2e-f, 188-89 §5.3.2; Waltke and O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, 678
§40.2.2; Ronald J. Williams, Williams’ Hebrew Syntax, ed. John C. Beckman, 3rd ed. (Toronto: University of
Toronto Press, 2007), 160-61 §456.
38
In other instances, ‫ֹא‬‫ל‬‫ם־‬ִ‫א‬ is translated with ἦ µὴν (Gen 42:16; Num 14:28, 35) or ἐὰν µὴ (Jer 22:6; Ezek
17:16, 19; 33:27; 34:8; 35:6; 36:5; 38:19). Both ἦ µὴν and ἐὰν µὴ could be understood as near homonyms to εἰ µὴ,
with ἦ µὴν using a moveable nu. In fact, these passages make no sense unless they are understood as an emphatic
particle equivalent to ‫ֹא‬‫ל‬‫ם־‬ִ‫א‬.
39
Muraoka notes that εἰ is not attested as an emphatic particle prior to the LXX and explains that it is a
“Hebraism in strong negation after verbs of swearing,” equivalent to ‫ם‬ִ‫א‬ (T. Muraoka, A Greek-English Lexicon of
the Septuagint [Louvain: Peeters, 2009], 190). Muraoka does not make a similar statement regarding εἰ µὴ, but the
same would seem to apply: εἰ µὴ used as an emphatic declaration in oaths was probably also a Hebraism first used in
the LXX. Chamberlain does suggest that εἰ µὴ was used in emphatic statements and should be translated as surely
(Gary Alan Chamberlain, The Greek of the Septuagint: A Supplemental Lexicon [Peabody, MA: Hendrickson
Publishers, 2011], 49).

18. 18
Suggestions for Translation and Exposition
If εἰ µὴ is indeed an emphatic particle, then the following changes should be made to
punctuation and translation: With regards to punctuation, the question should end right before εἰ
µὴ, thus a question mark should be placed before the εἰ µὴ clause rather than after it (as is
traditionally done by GNT editors). We must remember that in our editions of the GNT, the
editors have added punctuation based on their understanding of sentence structure. The oldest
NT manuscripts we possess had minimal punctuation, so we have no authoritative statement on
punctuation in the GNT.40
Thus, my proposed change in punctuation is not tampering with the
original text or making a conjectural emendation and thus should be evaluated based on semantic
and logical criteria. For example, 1 John 2:22 is traditionally punctuated and translated like this:
Τίς ἐστιν ὁ ψεύστης εἰ µὴ ὁ ἀρνούµενος ὅτι Ἰησοῦς οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ Χριστός;
“Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ?” (NASB; ESV; HCSB)
What I am suggesting is for such questions to be punctuated and translated like this:
Τίς ἐστιν ὁ ψεύστης; εἰ µὴ ὁ ἀρνούµενος ὅτι Ἰησοῦς οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ Χριστός.
“Who is the liar? Surely [εἰ µὴ] it is the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ!”
The NIV (both 1984 and 2011 versions) punctuate similarly, although they do not give εἰ µὴ an
emphatic force: “Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ.” Further,
instead of translating εἰ µὴ as “but, except, etc.,” I suggest using an emphatic or intensive particle
(e.g. surely, clearly, only). To further draw attention to the prominence of the εἰ µὴ clause, an
exclamation mark can be added at the end of the εἰ µὴ clause.
Romans 11:15 provides another example for demonstrating my proposal:
40
See the comments about punctuation in Bruce M. Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman, The Text of the New
Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 4th ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 22, 41.

19. 19
εἰ γὰρ ἡ ἀποβολὴ αὐτῶν καταλλαγὴ κόσµου, τίς ἡ πρόσληµψις εἰ µὴ ζωὴ ἐκ νεκρῶν;
Most English translations render Rom 11:15 as follows: “For if [Israel’s] rejection is the
reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but [εἰ µὴ] life from the dead?”
(NASB; ESV; HCSB; NIV; KJV; NKJV; RSV; NRSV) However, the Revised English Bible
(REB) renders Rom 11:15 close to what I am suggesting: “For if [Israel’s] rejection has meant
the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance mean? Nothing less than [εἰ µὴ] life
from the dead!” The REB separates the question from the εἰ µὴ clause, uses an
emphatic/intensive expression (“nothing less than…”), and finishes with an exclamation mark.
With regards to exposition/preaching, the emphasis of RQs with εἰ µὴ should be brought
out by the preacher. Mark 2:7 (par. Luke 5:21) provides an excellent example:
τίς δύναται ἀφιέναι ἁµαρτίας εἰ µὴ εἷς ὁ θεός;
“Who is able to forgive sins? Surely only God can!”
Mark and Luke both use εἰ µὴ to emphasize the answer to their RQs – God and only God can
forgive sins. By forgiving the paralytic’s sins, Jesus must either be God himself or be committing
blasphemy, as the Pharisees accused him of doing (v. 7a). In this passage, there is no third choice
about Jesus’ identity. To preach the text faithfully, the preacher must bring out this emphasized
point, which is made apparent by the use of a RQ with εἰ µὴ.
Conclusion
I have argued that εἰ µὴ often functioned as: (1) a processing tool to help readers follow
along when the speaker gives long questions and/or long answers, or when the speaker chooses a
complex word order (e.g. inverted or split word order); and most importantly, (2) εἰ µὴ
functioned as a prominence marker, placing emphasis upon the speaker’s own answer to his RQ.
This emphasis should be conveyed in translation and also be brought out in preaching.

20. 20
Properly translating and expositing RQs with εἰ µὴ is not the luxury of Greek scholars
hidden away in the world of academia. If RQs with εἰ µὴ are not properly understood as marking
emphatic answers, we will miss what God has emphasized to us in Scripture. What God
emphasizes in Scripture, we must emphasize in translation and in preaching.

21. 21
Appendix #1: Usage of RQs with εἰ µὴ
Usage of RQs with εἰ µὴ in Homeric and Classical Greek:
By Author/Corpus: By Interrogative Particle:
3x Homer (c. 8th
-7th
century BCE)41
3x No particle42
13x Demosthenes (384-322 BCE)43
1x In a tag (yes/no) question44
6x Lysias (c. 445-380 BCE)45
3x ἆρα46
1x Isaeus (c. 420-348 BCE)47
1x πόθεν + εἰ µὴ48
9x Aristotle (384-322 BCE)49
2x ποῖος + εἰ µὴ50
12x πῶς + εἰ µὴ51
4x τίς + εἰ µὴ52
6x τί + εἰ µὴ53
Total: 32x
41
Il. 17.475; 22.202-204; Od. 17.382-85.
42
Demosthenes: Halon. 17; Olymp. 43; Theocr. 27.
43
Using Perseus’ search engine, I searched Demosthenes’ Exordia, Letters, and 61 extant speeches and
found the construction in 3 Olynth. 16; Halon. 17; 3 Philip. 44; Cor. 282; Lept. 133; Andr. 14; Aristocr. 160; 1
Aphob. 38; C. Phorm. 33; Euerg. 66, 77; Olymp. 43; Theocr. 27.
44
Lys. 26:10.
45
Using Perseus’ search engine, I searched Lysias’ 34 extant speeches and found the construction 6x in
Lys. 1.45; 7.28; 13.26; 26.10; 31.29; 34.6.
46
Demosthenes: Andr. 14; Aristcr. 160; Aristotle: Eth. nic. 1165b.
47
Using Perseus’ search engine, I searched Isaeus’ 12 extant speeches and found the construction once in
Is. 4.12 (On the Estate of Nicostratus).
48
Demosthenes: 3 Olynth. 16.
49
Using Perseus’ search engine, I searched Aristotle’s Athenian Constitution, Economics, Eudemian Ethics,
Metaphysics, Nicomachen Ethics, Poetics, Politics, Rhetoric, and Virtues and Vices. I found the construction in Eth.
eud. 7.1243b; Metaph. 3.999b; 10.1056b; 11.1060a-1060b; 11.1066b; 12.1071b; 14.1089a; Eth. nic. 1123b; 1165b.
50
Demosthenes: C. Phorm. 33; Aristotle: Metaph. 14.1089a.
51
Homer: Il. 22.202-204; Demosthenes: Lept. 133; Euerg. 66, 77; Isaeus 4:12; Lys. 7:28; 13:26; Aristotle:
Metaph. 3.999b; 11.1060a-1060b; 11.1066b; 12.1071b; Eth. eud. 7.1243b.
52
Homer: Il. 17.475; Od. 17.382-85; Lys. 31:29; 34:6.
53
Demosthenes: 3 Philip. 44; Cor. 282; 1 Aphob. 37; Lys. 1:45; Aristotle: Eth. nic. 1123b; Metaph.
10.1056b.

22. 22
Usage of RQs with εἰ µὴ in Koine Greek:
By Author/Corpus: By Interrogative Particle:
12x LXX Rahlfs 5x No particle54
2x OT Pseudepigrapha 7x In a tag (yes/no) question55
3x Josephus 1x ἆρα56
36x Philo 3x ποῖος + εἰ µὴ57
11x New Testament 41x πῶς + εἰ µὴ58
5x Apostolic Fathers 12x πότε + εἰ µὴ59
7x Christian Apologists 2x πόθεν + εἰ µὴ60
6x Epictetus 1x ποῦ+ εἰ µὴ61
0x Eusebius 37x τίς + εἰ µὴ62
43x Athanasius 19x τί + εἰ µὴ63
3x NT Apocrypha /
Pseudepigrapha
Total: 128x
54
Philo: Alleg. Interp. 3:27; Somn. 2:136; Spec. 3:85; AF: 2 Clem. 9:2; Justin: Dial. 119.
55
NT: Luke 17:18; Philo Mut. 227, 228, 252; Prob. 42; AF: Herm. Sim. 89:5; Epictetus: 2 Diatr. 1:25.
56
Athenagoras Leg. 12.
57
Philo: Her. 314; Athanasius: Apol. sec. 3.67.845; Ep. Serap. 1.9.85.
58
LXX Rahlfs: Deut 32:30 (cf. Odes 2:30); Wis 11:25; Philo: Alleg. Interp. 2:7 [5x]; Det. 90; Post. 164;
Deus 11; Ebr. 6; Conf. 39; Abr. 116 [2x]; Ios. 227; Prob. 6-7; NT Apocrypha/Pseudepigrapha: Acts Thom. 37:3;
Apologists: Irenaeus 4 Haer. 33:4 [2x]; Justin 1 Apol. 53; Dial. 2; Athanasius: Inc. 13:7; 23:3, 4; 25:2, 3; 30:2; Apol.
sec. 1.52.189 [2x]; 2.22.321 [3x]; 2.55.453; 2.76.546 [4x], 2.79.553; 3.64.834; 4.20.914.
59
Athanasius: Inc. 38:6; 40:1; 44:6; 46:1 [2x], 2, 3 [2x], 4; Apol. sec. 1.50.188; 2.9.275; Ep. Serap. 1.9.86
60
Athanasius: Inc. 44:3; Apol. sec. 3.23.677-78
61
Athanasius: Apol. sec. 3.60.823
62
LXX Rahlfs: Esth 6:6; Jdt 6:2; 4 Macc. 2:7; Wis 9:17; Pss. Sol. 5:11; 9:6, 7; 15:2 [2x]; OT
Pseudepigrapha: LAE 23:3 (εἰ µὴ ὅτι); Apoc. Mos. 23:3; Josephus: Ant. 16.210; J.W. 4.279; Philo: Her. 3; Somn.
2:189; Spec. 1:91; 4:21; NT: Mark 2:7; Luke 5:21; Rom 11:15; 1 Cor 2:11; 2 Cor 2:2; 12:13; Eph 4:9; Heb 3:18; 1
John 2:22; 5:5; Apostolic Fathers: 1 Clem. 50:2; Barn. 6:10; Athanasius: Inc. 50:5; 52:1; C. Gent. 46:6; Ep. Serap.
1.6.48; Apologists: Irenaeus 3 Haer. 10:4; Epictetus: 1 Diatr. 25:4; 4 Diatr. 1:12; 4 Diatr. 11:33.
63
Josephus: J.W. 5.366; Philo: Alleg. Interp. 1:79; Det. 132; Somn. 2:61; Abr. 73; Mos. 1:274, 294; 2:200;
Virt. 60; Aet. 125, 137; AF: 2 Clem. 5:6; NT Apocrypha/Pseudepigrapha: Acts Pet. Andr. 21:6; Acts Phil. 27:2;
Athanasius: Apol. sec. 1.19.106 [2x]; 4.24.942; Epictetus: 1 Diatr. 16:20; 2 Diatr. 14:21

23. 23
Appendix #2:
Punctuation in Early Greek Manuscripts Where RQs with εἰ µὴ Occur
RD = raised dot (·), the Greek version of a semi-colon or colon
Alexandrinus Bezae Sinaiticus Vaticanus Wash. Papyri
Mark 2:7 RD at end None None None None n/a
Luke 5:21 None None None None None n/a
Rom 11:15 None n/a None None n/a P46
has ’
1 Cor 2:11 RD at end n/a None None n/a Ellipsis
2 Cor 2:2 None n/a None None n/a Ellipsis
2 Cor 12:13 RD before εἰ µὴ n/a None None n/a Ellipsis
Eph 4:9 None n/a None None n/a P46
has none
Heb 3:18 RD before εἰ µὴ n/a None None n/a P13/46
has none
1 John 2:22 None n/a None None n/a n/a
1 John 5:5 RD at end n/a None None n/a n/a