From: c stirling bartholomew (cc.constantine@worldnet.att.net)
Date: Sun Mar 31 2002 - 17:29:31 EST
TC list people will not need to read this since it went to the TC list under
a different label. This is both a TC question and a GNT question about
Participant Reference in John 18:15. Since some of our esteemed authorities
on Discourse Analysis are not on the TC list I ran the risk of posting both
places and incuring the wrath of Apollo for doing it. CSB
******
This is an analysis of the intrinsic discourse probability of [hO] in John
18:15. For that reason I have made no reference to the manuscript evidence,
which is outside the scope of this enquiry.
JOHN 18:15 HKOLOUQEI DE TWi IHSOU SIMWN PETROS KAI [hO] ALLOS MAQHTHS. hO DE
MAQHTHS EKEINOS HN GNWSTOS TWi ARCIEREI KAI SUNEISHLQEN TWi IHSOU EIS THN
AULHN TOU ARCIEREWS
The article here: [hO] ALLOS MAQHTHS presents us with an intriguing question
about participant reference in John's discourse structure.
One might argue that hO ALLOS MAQHTHS is a new participant being introduced
here (Jn 18:15) for the first time and for that reason hO would be omitted
at this point but included in the subsequent references (Jn 18:16, 20:2,
20:3, 20:4, 20:8).
However, one might also argue that hO ALLOS MAQHTHS (Jn 18:15) is not
really a new participant, rather a new label for an old participant. The use
of the article might be an intentional signal to indicate that the reader
should know who this person is. In other words the article here might serve
a significant discourse function, identifying a previously active
participant.
JN 13:23 HN ANAKEIMENOS hEIS EK TWN MAQHTWN AUTOU EN TWi KOLPWi TOU IHSOU,
hON HGAPA hO IHSOUS.
JN 20:2 TRECEI OUN KAI ERCETAI PROS SIMWNA PETRON KAI PROS TON ALLON MAQHTHN
HON EFILEI HO IHSOUS KAI LEGEI AUTOIS: HRAN TON KURION EK TOU MNHMEIOU KAI
OUK OIDAMEN POU EQHKAN AUTON.
JN 19:26 IHSOUS OUN IDWN THN MHTERA KAI TON MAQHTHN PARESTWTA hON HGAPA,
LEGEI THi MHTRI: GUNAI, IDE hO hUIOS SOU. 19:27 EITA LEGEI TWi MAQHTHi: IDE
hH MHTHR SOU. KAI AP' EKEINHS THS hWRAS ELABEN hO
ALLOS MAQHTHS would naturally raise the question: who?, but hO ALLOS
MAQHTHS would indicate that this information should be self-evident.
There is a substantial distance, between hO ALLOS MAQHTHS (JN 18:15) and the
last mention of the same referent under a different label (JN 13:23). The
referent itself is controversial but assuming that ALLOS MAQHTHS is
co-referential with hON HGAPA hO IHSOUS (JN 13:23), which seems probable
since the two are joined in JN 20:2, if we assume these labels are
co-referential then we have a useful parallel. The referent of hON HGAPA hO
IHSOUS (JN 13:23) is reintroduced in 19:26-27 after a long absence and it is
introduced with the article TON MAQHTHN . . . hON HGAPA. This provides us
with an example of how the author might re-introduce a participant after a
significant textual span. Having this example we might be tempted to accept
hO in JN 18:15 as an original reading, ignoring for the sake of argument the
ms. evidence.
Anyway, I am suggesting that the presence or absence of hO in JN 18:15
should be analyzed according to discourse function, specifically patterns
of encoding participant reference and marking old/new information. This
analysis might prove useful for predicting the intrinsic probability of this
reading.
greetings,
Clay
--
Clayton Stirling Bartholomew
Three Tree Point
P.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062
---
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [jwrobie@mindspring.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:22 EDT