From: c stirling bartholomew (cc.constantine@worldnet.att.net)
Date: Mon Apr 01 2002 - 18:54:15 EST
on 3/31/02 2:38 PM, c stirling bartholomew wrote:
>> 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.
on 4/1/02 12:33 AM, Iver Larsen wrote:
> Clay, I agree completely that one needs to analyze this according to discourse
> considerations. If the article was original, it would refer to an already
> known participant who had been earlier introduced as "another" disciple. But
> John has not done so. This person has so far only been introduced in 13:33 as
> you noted by "the disciple Jesus loved". He was introduced as "one of the
> disciples" which indicates a first introduction.
>
> If 18:15 had said "the Jesus-loved disciple" or similar, we would have a clear
> back reference. The expression "other disciple" is first introduced here in 18
> and referred to in chapter 20 several times.
>
> From a discourse perspective I would say that your first argument wins. hO is
> very unlikely to be original. It was apparently introduced by a scribe who was
> familiar with the title "other disciple" because he had already read chapter
> 20.
>
> Iver Larsen
Iver,
Yes, this is very good reasoning. However, you haven't really addressed the
issue of the co-referential status of hO ALLOS MAQHTHS (18:15) and hON
HGAPA hO IHSOUS (JN 13:23). After all the smoke clears, I think [hO] (18:15)
looses the fight, just as you do. Primarily because the co-referential
status isn't clearly established until Jn 20:2 which is a little late for Jn
18:15.
However, the issue of how John deals with multiple labels. names, titles,
epithets is still an open question. Does he always re-introduce a
participant when a new label is used? I don't think so. Look at:
JOHN 4:46 HLQEN OUN PALIN EIS THN KANA THS GALILAIAS, hOPOU EPOIHSEN TO
hUDWR OINON. KAI HN TIS BASILIKOS hOU hO hUIOS HSQENEI EN KAFARNAOUM.
Here we see an introduction formula which is very explicit (TIS BASILIKOS .
. . KAFARNAOUM). Now down in Jn 4:50 TIS BASILIKOS . . . is referred to as
hO ANQRWPOS. This "label" is not re-introduced since it is co-referential
with TIS BASILIKOS. That is the substance of my original question.
On the other hand, we should note that John is very careful about backwards
reference, to eliminate ambiguity where it might exist. Take a look at two
examples Nicodemus and Caiaphas. Nicodemus is first introduced very
explicitly in JOHN 3:1. When Nicodemus is reintroduced in 7:50 John takes
pains to make a clear backwards link to his first appearance.
JOHN 3:1 HN DE ANQRWPOS EK TWN FARISAIWN, NIKODHMOS ONOMA AUTWi, ARCWN TWN
IOUDAIWN:
JOHN 7:50 LEGEI NIKODHMOS PROS AUTOUS, hO ELQWN PROS AUTON [TO] PROTERON,
hEIS WN EX AUTWN:
*********
Caiaphas is introduced in 11:49. Then in 18:13 he is reintroduced with care
to make the backward link:
JOHN 11:49 hEIS DE TIS EX AUTWN KAIAFAS, ARCIEREUS WN TOU ENIAUTOU EKEINOU,
EIPEN AUTOIS: hUMEIS OUK OIDATE OUDEN,
JOHN 18:13 KAI HGAGON PROS hANNAN PRWTON: HN GAR PENQEROS TOU KAIAFA, hOS HN
ARCIEREUS TOU ENIAUTOU EKEINOU: 14 HN DE KAIAFAS hO SUMBOULEUSAS TOIS
IOUDAIOIS hOTI SUMFEREI hENA ANQRWPON APOQANEIN hUPER TOU LAOU.
This evidence illustrates that John isn't sloppy about ambiguous reference
to participants and it lends support to the omission of [hO] in Jn 18:15.
However, the whole question of the "mystery disciple" in John's gospel adds
some complexity to this problem. John might be playing the discourse game
with somewhat modified rules when it comes to the "mystery disciple." In
other words, this ambiguity might be intentional. Introducing [hO] ALLOS
MAQHTHS in 18:15 without previous mention might be a means of achieving some
distinctive discourse objective which does not apply to the other examples.
The use of the definite form without a previous introduction might be a sort
of short had method of saying: "You know who this guy is." I think this
possibility is worth pondering. However, the way John handled the
introduction of hON HGAPA hO IHSOUS (JN 13:23) does not lend support to
this.
So, in conclusion, [hO] in Jn 18:15 probably looses the fight.
Enough for now,
Thanks for your helpful comments.
greetings,
Clay
--
Clayton Stirling Bartholomew
Three Tree Point
P.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062
Appendix
********
Here are some samples of new participants being introduced in John. They
follow the pattern which you have specified, with which I am in total
agreement. The first introduction is indefinite. This is often made very
explicit with the indefinite pronoun TIS.
John the Baptist:
JOHN 1:6 EGENETO ANQRWPOS, APESTALMENOS PARA QEOU, ONOMA AUTWi IWANNHS:
NIKODHMOS:
JOHN 3:1 HN DE ANQRWPOS EK TWN FARISAIWN, NIKODHMOS ONOMA AUTWi, ARCWN TWN
IOUDAIWN:
JOHN 7:50 LEGEI NIKODHMOS PROS AUTOUS, hO ELQWN PROS AUTON [TO] PROTERON,
hEIS WN EX AUTWN:
Here are some more samples of introductions following the standard pattern
of using an indefinite substantive for the first appearance:
JOHN 4:7 ERCETAI GUNH EK THS SAMAREIAS ANTLHSAI hUDWR. LEGEI AUTHi hO
IHSOUS: DOS MOI PEIN:
JOHN 4:46 HLQEN OUN PALIN EIS THN KANA THS GALILAIAS, hOPOU EPOIHSEN TO
hUDWR OINON. KAI HN TIS BASILIKOS hOU hO hUIOS HSQENEI EN KAFARNAOUM.
JOHN 9:1 KAI PARAGWN EIDEN ANQRWPON TUFLON EK GENETHS.
JOHN 11:1 HN DE TIS ASQENWN, LAZAROS APO BHQANIAS, EK THS KWMHS MARIAS KAI
MARQAS THS ADELFHS AUTHS.
JOHN 12:4 LEGEI DE IOUDAS hO ISKARIWTHS hEIS [EK] TWN MAQHTWN AUTOU, hO
MELLWN AUTON PARADIDONAI:
JOHN 12:20 HSAN DE hELLHNES TINES EK TWN ANABAINONTWN hINA PROSKUNHSWSIN EN
THi hEORTHi:
---
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 - 15:37:23 EDT