John 14:6 fronting
Iver Larsen
iver_larsen at sil.org
Mon Sep 30 10:12:05 EDT 2002
<snip>
Carl: And this leads me to pose the question of prominence as Mark
> Wilson originally proposed it anew: Mark suggested he thought that hH ZWH
> was the key element in the "trinity" of hODOS, ALHQEIA, and ZWH; Iver on
> the other hand insists that hODOS is the key word. I take a third course
> and hold that these three nouns are equi-valent--not "equivalent"
> but equal
> in "valence" or relevance to what Jesus is affirming here: "How do you get
> to the Father? Through me. It's not a matter of going somewhere to see the
> Father, but a matter of looking at me. Have you seen me and come to know
> me? Then you've seen the Father ... and you are ALIVE." I'm just not
> satisfied hH ZWH in this sequence is "predictable and therefore
> last." With Mark I think it is supremely important, but I'm not convinced
that it is
> MORE important than hH hODOS or hH ALHQEIA.
I would not be satisfied either by saying that hH ZWH is "predictable and
therefore last" in this particular noun phrase. My statement was a simple or
even simplistic restatement of a general principle, or tendency if you
prefer. I did not respond in any detail to Mark's question of word order
within a complex noun phrase, because I am not sure what happens inside a
coordinated noun phrase. And I am always hesitant to put too much weight on
word order apart from what is supported by the context otherwise.
One really needs to look also at v. 4 where Jesus says "You know the way
where I am going." And v. 5 where Thomas says: "We don't know where you are
going, so how can we know the way?" Thomas was probably thinking of some
hiding place around Jerusalem. Maybe "the way" is mentioned first in v. 6
simply because that is the topic? I am not sure whether the order in a list
of coordinated items like here is that significant, but it does seem natural
to mention the way first as the topic in question.
>
> In conclusion I would just ask: supposing that these three items were
> ("are") intended to be equivalent in significance/importance,
> how, in terms of the theory of frontal prominence, would one give
expression to that
> equivalent signifcance/importance? Would one be obliged to repeat
> the whole
> clause? EGW EIMI hH hODOS, EGW EIMI hH ALHQEIA, EGW EIMI hH ZWH? Or would
> one then be tempted to argue that the first of these three clauses must be
> more prominent?
The NIV says "I am the way - and the truth and the life." It would be easy
to imagine an elided "I am" in the second part. Maybe the dash is suggesting
that from the context the first sentence is the first answer to Thomas'
question. But the other items are needed to show more clearly that it is a
metaphorical road one has to take. That is already indicated by saying that
a person is the way, and such a novel idea needs further explanation.
>
> And what might one say of the "chiastic" principle of positioning elements
> in a sort of reversed-parallel sequence? That's been called a distinctly
> "Semitic" cultural habit of thought and diction, but I would say it's
> common enough in Greek tradition as well. Although I'm not
> altogether ready
> to affirm dogmatically that the chiastic principle is akin to my notion
> that frontal AND final positions can BOTH be places of prominence.
I fully agree that when a chiasm is clearly indicated on lexical and
literary grounds, then that principle overrides the general principle or
tendency of left-order-prominence. I don't want to posit this as a law,
either. There are several factors that work together simultaneously,
including a particular author's preference. It can never be a mechanistic
application of fixed rules or laws, so I don't think I am that far away from
Carl's position. What I find difficult to accept is that there should be
BOTH a tendency of left-order-prominence and of right-order-prominence at
the same time. If that were the case, there must at least be a number of
constraints and restrictions. Also, I am not thinking just of the frontal
and final position, but of relative prominence in terms of leftmost
position.
Anyway, it is a complex topic that one cannot do justice to in brief
e-mails, and I am not saying I have all the answers.
Iver Larsen
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list