[b-greek] Re: Jude 18 clause articulation, etc.

From: c stirling bartholomew (cc.constantine@worldnet.att.net)
Date: Mon Dec 03 2001 - 16:02:49 EST


on 12/2/01 9:37 PM, boyd@huxcomm.net wrote:

> Clay wrote:
> <In Jude 18 we have some reported speech from the Apostles:
>
> EP' ESCATOU [TOU] XRONOU ESONTAI
> EMPAIKTAI KATA TAS hEAUTWN EMIQUMIAS
> POREUOMENOI TWN ASEBEIWN.
>
>> Looking once again at Chapter 2 of *Levinsohn where he
>> discusses Points
>> of Departure, I ran into some difficulty making up my mind about
>> the clause articulation in this reported speech.
>
>> It seems like EP' ESCATOU [TOU] XRONOU ESONTAI
>> EMPAIKTAI could be understood
>> as PRESENTATIONAL articulation, see Levinsohn's discussion of
>> Tit. 1:10 (pp.24-25).
>
> I think that the clause should be understood as having
> presentational articulation (see p. 103, where he discusses the
> very similar hWS KAI EN hUMIN ESONTAI YEUDODIASKALOI as
> presentational). Levinsohn does say, "Sentences with
> presentational articulation are sometimes used also in non-
> narrative to introduce new particpants or objects to an ongoing
> argument . . ." (p. 134). But in the verse at hand we don't have the
> original context of the apostles' words, so this seems to be like
> Paul's quoting Epimenides in Titus 1:12, about which Levinsohn
> comments that "The context of this quotation would be needed to
> know why Epimenides needed to set a point of departure" (p. 25 n.
> 31). In other words, the clause could have presentational
> articulation and yet still not actually introduce "new participants"
> because it's a quote pulled out of its original context.

Jonathan,

Thanks for your insightful analysis. Your last paragraph here sums up the
problem quite well.

There are at least two different ways of attacking this question. One,
looking at the quote as part of Jude's extended discourse on TINES ANQRWPOI
which begins in verse 4. In light of this discourse, the quote in v. 18 is
just another supporting example and EMPAIKTAI does not introduce "new"
participants/subjects to the discussion. This was one reason I was having
doubts about the Presentational pragmatic category.

The second reason I had doubts was that KATA TAS hEAUTWN EMIQUMIAS
POREUOMENOI TWN ASEBEIWN makes a comment about EMPAIKTAI. So I was thinking
that perhaps Topic-Comment was what we have here.

But the second way of attacking this question is to view the quote in
isolation as a mini-discourse and evaluate it entirely on its own. If we
take this track then perhaps the Presentational category is the best choice.
My second reservation (see above) however still applies.

All in all, I think your analysis and the citation hWS KAI EN hUMIN ESONTAI
YEUDODIASKALOI from 2Pet does shed some light on this issue.

I freely admit that I have for a long long time had difficulty digesting and
putting into use what linguists call "pragmatic analysis." Something about
the way I was introduced to linguistics 20 years ago makes this kind of
analysis mystifying.

Thanks again for the informative response,

warm 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 - 15:37:13 EDT