[B-Greek] asyndeton in Jas 1:27
Benjamin Pehrson
benjamin_pehrson at sil.org
Fri Aug 25 00:41:19 EDT 2006
The primary difficulty with the analysis of asyndeton as a part of clause
and paragraph relationships is that it may represent either of the opposite
ends of a scale of cohesion. The two units may be so closely related that no
conjunction divides the thought. On the other hand, the two text units may
be distinct enough from each other that no conjunction seemed necessary to
the author to make any explicit relation.
The question of cohesion or distinctiveness exists at various micro levels
(such as the relationship between the infinitive phrases within the sentence
in James 1.27, or the relationship of 1.27 to what precedes) and at higher
macro levels (such as the relationship of James 2.14-26 to 2.1-13 or 3.1ff
to 2.1-26).
This same functional multiplicity (cohesion or distinction within
hierarchical discourse relationships) has been found to be true of
pre-verbal adverbial clauses.
The second difficulty with asyndeton has more to do with the questions
initially posed by Jim. If asyndeton reflects cohesion rather than
distinction between two text units, then what kind of relationship exists? I
purposely used the word "reflects" rather than "indicates" precisely because
asyndeton in and of itself does NOT indicate any specific kind of
relationship. If the author did intend some kind of cohesion by the lack of
a conjunction, he certainly wasn't concerned with indicating a specific
relationship. The possible semantic relationship can only be derived from
the available contexts. But our conclusions from context should not be
expressed too dogmatically when it comes to asyndeton. If anything,
asyndeton may indicate a lack of interest on the part of the author of
specifying a certain relationship.
One could look at James to see how he uses asyndeton elsewhere in the
letter, and more clear contexts may provide some clue for less clear
instances. But I doubt if this exegetical practice could help in the case of
asyndeton since it is so commonly used by the same author to indicate both
cohesion and distinctiveness. I would think that more specific types of
semantic relationship should especially be given less serious consideration
(i.e. a contrast relationship could have been expressed much more clearly in
other ways, and so perhaps an equative relationship).
After James 1.1, there are 81 instances of asyndeton in the letter, and that
only includes places in the text where there is a sentence level division.
So the kind of example that Jim asks about in 1.27 (where there are two
infinitive phrases in anaphoric relationship to the demonstrative is not
included). The references are: 1.2, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19a, 19b, 26, 27;
2.1, 5, 6b, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18b, 19a, 19b, 19c, 20, 21, 22, 24; 3.1, 2b,
5b, 6b, 9, 10, 10b, 11, 12a, 13, 13b, 15; 4.1b, 2a, 2b, 2c, 3, 4, 8, 8b, 9a,
9b, 10, 11a, 11b, 12, 13, 16b; 5.1a, 1b, 2, 3a, 3b, 4, 5a, 5b, 6a, 6b, 6c,
7b, 8b, 9a, 9b, 10, 11, 11b, 13a, 13b, 13c, 13d, 14a, 14b, 16b, 17, 19.
Asyndeton certainly abounds in James. This is one of the reasons that
scholars come up with so many different outlines of the organizational
structure of the letter.
Robert Wall's commentary has a very important insight regarding the literary
structure of the section that includes James 1.27, although I don't agree
with the way he has made all his other organizational divisions in the
letter. James 1.27 is part of a parallel sequence discourse pattern that is
initiated in 1.19-21 with "quick to hear (A), slow to speak (B) and slow to
anger...(C)." The final C section is a bit longer in this initial sequence
so that anger and righteousness are related. The A-B-C pattern is repeated
more fully in 1.22-27. 1.22-25 expands the "quick to hear" theme (A) in
terms of hearing and doing. The "slow to speak" theme (B) is repeated in
1.26, and the righteousness theme (C) is repeated in 1.27.
The "pure and undefiled religion" in 1.27 is thus equivalent to producing
the "righteousness of God" in 1.20. 1.27 is talking about a singular
concept, but there may be multiple aspects or activities that define or
reflect pure religion. Yet these multiple aspects may also be intimately
related rather than viewed as a sequence of separate requirements. In doing
a particular religious activity one may also be accomplishing another. Or,
both may derive from a common cause, i.e. a clean heart implanted with the
divine word. It seems that asyndeton is ideal in this context to reflect
both ideas, namely that both are listed as separate elements of true
religion, yet without a conjunction their distinctiveness is not stressed
but left in indefinite relationship to each other.
If the second infinitive phrase were rather a participial clause, "keeping
oneself unstained from the world" would function in a defining role to the
first infinitive phrase "to visit orphans and widows in their affliction."
Such a construction would lend itself more readily to a contrastive or
epexegetical relationship. Since both are infinitives, however, they relate
primarily back to the demonstrative pronoun and their relationship to each
other is ambiguous at most.
It is clear from the dominant themes in the whole of the letter that this
righteousness has to do with loving God (1.12; 2.5,23; 4.4) and loving
others (2.8, etc). But these are not expressed as mutually exclusive
categories. Indeed, the relationship between loving others and loving God is
shown throughout the letter to be intimately connected. Thus, I might
understand the two infinitive phrases in 1.27 to reflect these twin themes.
Each is a required elements of pure religion (distinctiveness), but they are
also intimately related (coherence). Asyndeton is the ideal construction to
allow for the possibility of both of its functions (cohesive relationship
and distinctiveness) in this context without emphasizing one over the other.
Benjamin Pehrson
> -----Original Message-----
> From: b-greek-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:b-greek-
> bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of George F Somsel
> Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 12:17 PM
> To: Jim Darlack; B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
> Subject: Re: [B-Greek] asyndeton in Jas 1:27
>
> Here's A.T. Robertson's comment on asyndeton
>
>
> (g) Connection between Separate Sentences. So far we have been
> considering the matter of connection between the various parts of the same
> sentence, whether simple or compound, and the various complications that
> arise. But this is not all. The Greeks, especially in the literary style,
> felt the propriety of indicating the inner relation of the various
> independent sentences that composed a paragraph. This was not merely an
> artistic device, but a logical expression of coherence of thought.
> Particles like KAI, DE, ALLA, GAR, OUN, DH, etc., were very common in this
> connection. Demonstrative pronouns, adverbs, and even relative pronouns
> were also used for this purpose. I happen to open at Mt. 24:3251 a
> paragraph of some length. The first sentence begins with DE. The sentences
> in verses 33 and 34 have asyndeton and so are without a connective. In
> verse 36 äÝ reappears, while the two sentences in verses 37 and 38 both
> have GAR. Verse 40 begins with ôüôå, a common word in this
> usage in Matthew, as EN AUTHi THi hWRAi is in Luke. Verse 42 begins with
> OUN as its connective, while 43 drops back to äÝ. In 44 äéὰ
> ôïῦôï answers as a link of union while 45 uses ARA. verse 46 f. have
> asyndeton while 48 has DE. This long sentence completes the paragraph save
> the short sentence in verse 51 introduced by EKEI. I think this paragraph
> a fair sample of the didactic portion of the Gospels. Asyndeton occurs,
> but it is not the rule. In the Gospel of John OUN is a much more frequent
> connective between sentences than KAI, as any chapter (11 for instance)
> will show. The Beatitudes (Mt. 5:312) have no connectives at all, and are
> all the more effective because of the asyndeton. Winer
> finds this didactic asyndeton common also in *** James, *** the Gospel of
> John (cf. 1417) and 1 John. But asyndeton is sometimes noticeable also in
> the non-didactic portions of John, as 20:1418. No formal rules on the
> subject can be made, as the individual
> speaker or writer follows his mood of the moment in the matter. The point
> is to observe that, while asyndeton often occurs, in general Greek writers
> even in the N. T. use connectives between separate sentences.
>
> Robertson, A. (1919; 2006). A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the
> Light of Historical Research (p. 443). Logos.
>
> Thus, I would not be surprised to find it in James.
>
> As regards the relationship between the clauses, I would take them as a
> list of two items. Cf. the definition of asyndeton in one dictionary
>
> "The omission of conjunctions from constructions in which they would
> normally be used, as in "Are all thy conquests, glories, triumphs, spoils
> / Shrunk to this little measure?" (Shakespeare).
>
> __________
>
>
>
>
> Jim Darlack <jdarlack at gcts.edu> wrote:
> In James 1:27, the two clauses, at the end of the verse are not
> connected by a conjuction:
> åðéóêåðôåóèáé ïñöáíïõò êáé ÷çñáò åí ôç èëéøåé áõôùí, áóðéëïí åáõôïí ôçñåéí
> áðï ôïõ êïóìïõ.
> EPISKEPTESQAI ORAFANOUS KAI XHRAS EN THi QLIYEI AUTWN, ASPILON EAUTON
> THREIN APO TOU KOSMOU.
>
> Here are the questions:
> How are the two clauses related?
> 1. Simple coordination? "to visit the widows and orphans in their
> affliction AND to keep oneself unspotted from the world"
> 2. Antithetical? "to visit the widows and orphans in their affliction BUT
> to keep oneself unspotted from the world" (see Mayor's commentary, pg
> ccxxvi)
> 3. Epexegetical? "to visit the widows and orphans in their affliction,
> THAT IS to keep onself unspotted from the world"
>
> OR, should there even be a relationship here? Could one simply translate
> "to visit the widows and orphans in their affliction, to keep onself
> unspotted from the world"?
>
> I've surveyed English translations in BibleWorks and only Darby's
> translation explicitly retains the asyndeton here, while the ASV, ERV,
> KJV, NAS, RWB and WEB all have "and" in italics or otherwise distinguished
> from the rest of the text.
>
> Of course one could make a mountain out of this conjunction mole hill, but
> does the insertion of a conjunction between these two clauses help to
> separate sanctification from social concern? Would an adoption of a
> translation that removed the conjunction still make sense?
>
> I'm curious to know what those who know a lot more about Greek than I
> would say about this...
>
> ________________________________
>
> James M. Darlack
> Assistant Librarian for Reference & Bibliographic Instruction
> Goddard Library, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary
> 130 Essex Street, South Hamilton, MA 01982
> http://www.gordonconwell.edu/library/hamilton
> 978.646.4004 Phone - 978.646.4567 Fax
>
> ---
> B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
> B-Greek mailing list
> B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
>
>
>
> george
> gfsomsel
> _________
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Next-gen email? Have it all with the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.
> ---
> B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
> B-Greek mailing list
> B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list