2 Thess 2:15 εἴτε δι' ἐπιστολὴς ἡμῶν (part 2
2 Thess 2:15 εἴτε δι' ἐπιστολὴς ἡμῶν (part 2)
Nouns in prepositional phrases can be definite without an article and furthermore nouns with possessives ἐπιστολῆς ἡμῶν can be definite without an article. Is ἐπιστολῆς marked salient by being anarthrous even when a article isn't required to make it definite? According to Levinsohn:2000[1] “If an anarthrous substantive has a unique referent and is activated, then its referent is prominent.” So it would appear that the question of definiteness (unique referent) is still with us. In the last post we saw that ἐπιστολῆς is both discourse old and hearer old but that alone does not decided if ἐπιστολῆς has a unique referent. If it does not have a unique referent then being anarthrous does not mark it as salient according to Levinsohn:2000[1]. It would appear that Levinsohn and R.Hoyle[2] are not in complete agreement on this and that there are some questions to worked out with both positions. If I am reading Levinsohn correctly (one never knows) then we still need a means of determining if ἐπιστολῆς ἡμῶν has unique referential identity. In Hoyle[2] you get impression this not important.
[1] Levinsohn, Stephen H. .Discourse features of New Testament Greek: A coursebook. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics, 2nd Ed 2000, pp.162-163.
2] Hoyle, Richard A. Scenarios, Discourse, and Translation ©2008 SIL International, p.154.
2 Th. 2:15 Ἄρα οὖν, ἀδελφοί, στήκετε καὶ κρατεῖτε τὰς παραδόσεις ἃς ἐδιδάχθητε εἴτε διὰ λόγου εἴτε δι᾿ ἐπιστολῆς ἡμῶν.
Nouns in prepositional phrases can be definite without an article and furthermore nouns with possessives ἐπιστολῆς ἡμῶν can be definite without an article. Is ἐπιστολῆς marked salient by being anarthrous even when a article isn't required to make it definite? According to Levinsohn:2000[1] “If an anarthrous substantive has a unique referent and is activated, then its referent is prominent.” So it would appear that the question of definiteness (unique referent) is still with us. In the last post we saw that ἐπιστολῆς is both discourse old and hearer old but that alone does not decided if ἐπιστολῆς has a unique referent. If it does not have a unique referent then being anarthrous does not mark it as salient according to Levinsohn:2000[1]. It would appear that Levinsohn and R.Hoyle[2] are not in complete agreement on this and that there are some questions to worked out with both positions. If I am reading Levinsohn correctly (one never knows) then we still need a means of determining if ἐπιστολῆς ἡμῶν has unique referential identity. In Hoyle[2] you get impression this not important.
[1] Levinsohn, Stephen H. .Discourse features of New Testament Greek: A coursebook. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics, 2nd Ed 2000, pp.162-163.
2] Hoyle, Richard A. Scenarios, Discourse, and Translation ©2008 SIL International, p.154.
posted by C. Stirling Bartholomew | 12:56 PM
1 Comments:
If I've understood Levinsohn right (and I do have his book, unlike Hoyle's), ἐπιστολῆς does not have a unique referential identity. This concept of his is a slight broadening of proper nouns to include God, the Spirit, the Law, etc.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home