thoughts on 1Peter 1:10-12 part two

The text:
1Pet. 1:9 κομιζόμενοι τὸ τέλος τῆς πίστεως [ὑμῶν] σωτηρίαν ψυχῶν. 10 περὶ ἧς σωτηρίας ἐξεζήτησαν καὶ ἐξηραύνησαν προφῆται οἱ περὶ τῆς εἰς ὑμᾶς χάριτος προφητεύσαντες, 11 ἐραυνῶντες εἰς τίνα ἢ ποῖον καιρὸν ἐδήλου τὸ ἐν αὐτοῖς πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ προμαρτυρόμενον τὰ εἰς Χριστὸν παθήματα καὶ τὰς μετὰ ταῦτα δόξας. 12 οἷς ἀπεκαλύφθη ὅτι οὐχ ἑαυτοῖς ὑμῖν δὲ διηκόνουν αὐτά, ἃ νῦν ἀνηγγέλη ὑμῖν διὰ τῶν εὐαγγελισαμένων ὑμᾶς [ἐν] πνεύματι ἁγίῳ ἀποσταλέντι ἀπ᾿ οὐρανοῦ, εἰς ἃ ἐπιθυμοῦσιν ἄγγελοι παρακύψαι.

In verse ten the sentence begins with a prepositional phrase περὶ ἧς σωτηρίας. The relative pronoun ἧς with the antecedent σωτηρίας following (A.T. Robertson pp. 719, 721). The antecedent σωτηρίαν in v9 is repeated in περὶ ἧς σωτηρίας where the relative probably functions like a demonstrative, the whole phrase serving as a “title” (J.R. Michaels 1Peter WBC) for what follows. The repetition of the noun σωτηρίαν … σωτηρίας, like all repetition, draws attention to the idea providing some rhetorical underlining. It also removes all possibility of an ambiguous antecedent. It might be argued that this repetition of the noun reduces textual cohesion[1] since the use of an anaphoric pronoun serves to increase textual cohesion when the antecedent is in the preceding co-text. In other words, if the reader/auditor is required to make the link between ἧς and σωτηρίαν that increases textual cohesion but if the the noun is repeated the reader isn’t required to find an antecedent. However, if we view the relative as a functional demonstrative, this problem disappears since the demonstrative expression requires an antecedent. I would argue that the cohesion is actually enhanced by the repetition of the noun, since word repetition is another factor in textual cohesion[1].


[1] MAK Halliday and Ruqaiya Hasan. Cohesion in English. Longman, London,. 1976.

some thoughts on 1Peter 1:10-12

The text:
1Pet. 1:9 κομιζόμενοι τὸ τέλος τῆς πίστεως [ὑμῶν] σωτηρίαν ψυχῶν. 10 περὶ ἧς σωτηρίας ἐξεζήτησαν καὶ ἐξηραύνησαν προφῆται οἱ περὶ τῆς εἰς ὑμᾶς χάριτος προφητεύσαντες, 11 ἐραυνῶντες εἰς τίνα ἢ ποῖον καιρὸν ἐδήλου τὸ ἐν αὐτοῖς πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ προμαρτυρόμενον τὰ εἰς Χριστὸν παθήματα καὶ τὰς μετὰ ταῦτα δόξας. 12 οἷς ἀπεκαλύφθη ὅτι οὐχ ἑαυτοῖς ὑμῖν δὲ διηκόνουν αὐτά, ἃ νῦν ἀνηγγέλη ὑμῖν διὰ τῶν εὐαγγελισαμένων ὑμᾶς [ἐν] πνεύματι ἁγίῳ ἀποσταλέντι ἀπ᾿ οὐρανοῦ, εἰς ἃ ἐπιθυμοῦσιν ἄγγελοι παρακύψαι. 13 Διὸ ἀναζωσάμενοι τὰς ὀσφύας τῆς διανοίας ὑμῶν νήφοντες τελείως ἐλπίσατε ἐπὶ τὴν φερομένην ὑμῖν χάριν ἐν ἀποκαλύψει Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ.

In v10 we see two verbs joined with a conjunction ἐξεζήτησαν καὶ ἐξηραύνησαν where one verb would have done the job. What is the difference between the two verbs? If Peter used two words, then there must be some subtle point he is trying to make by the addition of the second verb, some sort of contrast to the first verb; Right? Probably not. The combination of two compound verbs starting with the same preposition with the same morphological form looks good on the page and more importantly it sounds good. At the beginning of v11 we see ἐραυνῶντες a participle of the second verb minus the preposition. Does this verb mean something different than the compound form? Probably not.

The word (constituent) order of v10-11 is noteworthy. The sentence begins with an adverbial prepositional phrase περὶ ἧς σωτηρίας which has an embedded relative pronoun ἧς with the antecedent σωτηρίας following the pronoun, coreferential with σωτηρίαν in v9. This prepositional phrase functions as a discourse link to the preceding co-text, anchoring the sentence with the two finite verbs ἐξεζήτησαν καὶ ἐξηραύνησαν to the preceding sentence ending with σωτηρίαν ψυχῶν. The subject προφῆται which follows the two verbs is qualified by a participle clause οἱ περὶ τῆς εἰς ὑμᾶς χάριτος προφητεύσαντες where the article οἱ is separated from the participle προφητεύσαντες by an adverbial prepositional phrase περὶ τῆς εἰς ὑμᾶς χάριτος with an embedded second prepositional phrase εἰς ὑμᾶς. One might be tempted to say something at this point about the style. Let’s just say that the author here is demonstrating some skill.

more thoughts later.

Is Ἐν ἀρχῇ a temporal locator in Genesis 1:1?

In response to comments on a recent post concerning Rashi’s treatment of Genesis 1:1 Rashi’s treatment of Genesis 1:1 Joel M. Hoffman said “I think that b’reishit is a sentence level adverb here, and that it answers the question ‘when?’”. Mulling this over, I was wondering if clause initial adverbial expressions were commonplace at the beginning of an ancient narrative text. In other words, is the temporal locator in a narrative text typically the very first thing we encounter in the text. I looked at a small sample of ancient texts including narrative prose, gospels, tragic drama, and prophetic writings. I used the Greek version of the Old Testament just to speed up the process.

In the five books of Moses, Genesis 1:1 is the only place where we find an adverbial expression at the very beginning of the text. In Josua 1:1 we read

Josh. 1:1 καὶ ἐγένετο μετὰ τὴν τελευτὴν Μωυσῆ εἶπεν κύριος τῷ Ἰησοῖ υἱῷ Ναυη τῷ ὑπουργῷ Μωυσῆ λέγων

This is a relative temporal locator using the death of Moses as a point of reference. This is a common pattern in biblical narrative. The temporal locator is not often the very first thing we encounter (1Kings, 2Kings, Ezra, Nehemiah, Isaiah, Hosea, Amos, Zephaniah). In Jeremiah the temporal locator doesn't show up until the middle of the second verse and it is quite elaborate.

Jeremiah 1:1 τὸ ῥῆμα τοῦ θεοῦ ὃ ἐγένετο ἐπὶ Ιερεμιαν τὸν τοῦ Χελκιου ἐκ τῶν ἱερέων ὃς κατῴκει ἐν Αναθωθ ἐν γῇ Βενιαμιν 2 ὃς ἐγενήθη λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ πρὸς αὐτὸν ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις Ιωσια υἱοῦ Αμως βασιλέως Ιουδα ἔτους τρισκαιδεκάτου ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ αὐτοῦ 3 καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις Ιωακιμ υἱοῦ Ιωσια βασιλέως Ιουδα ἕως ἑνδεκάτου ἔτους Σεδεκια υἱοῦ Ιωσια βασιλέως Ιουδα ἕως τῆς αἰχμαλωσίας Ιερουσαλημ ἐν τῷ πέμπτῳ μηνί

In Haggai and Daniel the relative temporal locator is not only clause initial it is a prepositional phrase similar to Gen. 1:1.

Haggai 1:1 ἐν τῷ δευτέρῳ ἔτει ἐπὶ Δαρείου τοῦ βασιλέως ἐν τῷ μηνὶ τῷ ἕκτῳ μιᾷ τοῦ μηνὸς ἐγένετο λόγος κύριου ἐν χειρὶ Αγγαιου τοῦ προφήτου λέγων εἰπὸν δὴ πρὸς Ζοροβαβελ τὸν τοῦ Σαλαθιηλ ἐκ φυλῆς Ιουδα καὶ πρὸς Ἰησοῦν τὸν τοῦ Ιωσεδεκ τὸν ἱερέα τὸν μέγαν λέγων

Daniel 1:1 ἐπὶ βασιλέως Ιωακιμ τῆς Ιουδαίας ἔτους τρίτου παραγενόμενος Ναβουχοδονοσορ βασιλεὺς Βαβυλῶνος εἰς Ιερουσαλημ ἐπολιόρκει αὐτήν

In Attic tragedy, the only example is found in Euripides Heraclidae which is vague without an explicit point of reference. The inferred point of reference is the time of speaking.

Euripides Heraclidae 1-5
{ΙΟΛΑΟΣ}
Πάλαι ποτ' ἐστὶ τοῦτ' ἐμοὶ δεδογμένον·
ὁ μὲν δίκαιος τοῖς πέλας πέφυκ' ἀνήρ,
ὁ δ' ἐς τὸ κέρδος λῆμ' ἔχων ἀνειμένον
πόλει τ' ἄχρηστος καὶ συναλλάσσειν βαρύς,
αὑτῶι δ' ἄριστος· οἶδα δ' οὐ λόγωι μαθών.


Historical narrative is where we would expect to find temporal expressions with a fixed point of reference. In Herodotus and Thucydides there are plenty of temporal locators but not at the beginning of the text. In the new testament, the gospels of Mark and John both use Ἀρχὴ the word found at the beginning of Genesis 1:1.

John 1:1 Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.

Mark 1:1 Ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ [υἱοῦ θεοῦ].

Are these temporal locators? Neither of them use an historical point of reference to anchor them, e.g. after the death of Moses. John’s Ἐν ἀρχῇ is absolute an echo of Genesis 1:1 LXX which is also absolute. In Mark however Ἀρχὴ is the beginning of something, τοῦ εὐαγγελίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. Both begin at the beginning, the question is what beginning?

This post isn’t intended to answer those questions. I set out to see if clause initial adverbial expressions used as temporal locators at the very beginning of the text are common in ancient narrative. I only looked at a small sample and included some non-narrative texts (Homer, Attic Tragedy, Hebrew Prophets). What I discovered is, temporal locators in clause initial position at the very beginning of the text is not a typical pattern. The two examples from the gospels, Mark and John are somewhat complex, both remind us somewhat of Genesis, John more so than Mark. Haggai and Daniel seem to fit the pattern. Not exactly the pattern in Genesis but the pattern for narrative temporal locators. Unlike Genesis, they use a relative reference to a reigning monarch to anchor them in history.

What I conclude from a brief review of a limited sample is there are complex issues that need to be sorted out in regard to Ἐν ἀρχῇ in Genesis 1:1

story episode: a meta scenario or register?

I am beginning to wonder if labeling “story episode” as a sort of high level meta scenario may be mixing metaphors. In addressing the structure of texts which contain stories, direct speech, indirect speech, poetry and non-narrative prose, it seems reasonable that a story episode would have a set of language-cultural specific criteria which could be understood as a set of assumptions and expectations about how a story will be told. Going back to the participle clause opening a new story episode which provides a situational (time, location, setting) frame for the story where the frame isn’t tightly bound semantically to the following episode (see previous post on Mk 5:1-2), the participle clause could be understood as a slot filler in a prototypical story episode frame, even though it doesn’t fill a slot in the scenario that is contained within that frame.

I had suggested that we view this under a different metaphor, a package with a wrapper. The story episode is the whole package, the wrapper is a container for the story scenario, but not a part of the story itself. A story episode “wrapper” might better fit in M.A.K Halliday’s[1] notion of register explained here by Liu Zequan[1].

For Halliday, register is "the clustering of semantic features according to situation type," and "can be defined as a configuration of semantic resources that the member of a culture typically associates with a situation type" (Halliday, 1978:111). Seen this way, "the notion of register is at once very simple and very powerful" and "provides a means of investigating the linguistic foundations of everyday social interaction from an angle that is complementary to the ethnomethodological one" (ibid.:31, 62). The theory of register thus derived "attempts to uncover the general principles which govern" how "the language we speak or write varies according to the type of situation" (ibid.:32). For Halliday, the central problem in text linguistics lies in how "the 'register' concept can take account of the processes which link the features of the text" "to the abstract categories of the speech situation" (ibid.:62). He warns linguists against "posing the wrong question" of "what features of language are determined by register?" (ibid.:32) in the process of seeking such a link. He tells us that we should instead seek for the factors that determine the selection of language (ibid.).

A problem I have with Halliday’s “register”[2] is vagueness. It seems to cover a lot territory and for that reason is somewhat hard to determine what is what is not included. Added to that is the difficulties of jumping back and forth between different schools of textlinguistics. Perhaps I will have more to say on this later.



[1] Liu Zequan (刘泽权) National University of Singapore
Register Analysisas a Tool for Translation Quality Assessment This is a revised version of the paper under the same title which was presented at The International Conference on Discourse and Translation held at Sun Yet-san University, Guangzhou, China from 24-26 July 2002

[2] M.A.K. Halliday 1967. "Notes on transitivity and theme in English," Journal of Linguistics, No. 3, Part 1: 37-81, Part 2: 199-244. (London, 1967)


M.A.K. Halliday 1978. Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. London: Edward Arnold. 


M.A.K. Halliday 1994. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. 2nd Edition. London: Edward Arnold.

scenarios - packages & wrappers

scenario internal structure - packages & wrappers

R.A. Hoyle in appendix F [1] once again provides evidence for his claim that participle clauses belong to the scenario of the main verb. I am exploring another way of looking at this. Narrative scenarios appear to have an internal structure which could explained using a “package” metaphor. In NT greek a narrative episode is often preceded by a participle which provides either time, place or circumstances in regard to the following finite verb. This participle might be thought of as a “wrapper” serving as part of a “package” that contains the scenario. This participle does not always bind semantically to the scenario of the following finite verb. In some cases it binds to the preceding scenario. Take for example Mk 5:1-2:

Mark 5:1 Καὶ ἦλθον εἰς τὸ πέραν τῆς θαλάσσης εἰς τὴν χώραν τῶν Γερασηνῶν. 2 καὶ ἐξελθόντος αὐτοῦ ἐκ τοῦ πλοίου εὐθὺς ὑπήντησεν αὐτῷ ἐκ τῶν μνημείων ἄνθρωπος ἐν πνεύματι ἀκαθάρτῳ,

The participle clause ἐξελθόντος αὐτοῦ ἐκ τοῦ πλοίου marks the termination of a travel by boat scenario. The fact that Jesus had just got out of the boat onto the land doesn’t play a major role in the following scenario. Jesus could have arrived by other means at this location without disturbing the following scenario. On the other hand, getting off the boat is a prototypical end “wrapper” for a travel by boat scenario. Mk 5:1-5:2a serves a double purpose. It terminates the preceding scenario and it provides time and location information for the following scenario. If we think of scenarios as packages, Mk 5:1-5:2a is the end wrapper for the travel by boat scenario. The wrapper for the travel by boat scenario is found in Mk 4:35b and 5:2a. The scenario wrapper begins with the decision to travel by boat Mk 4:35b διέλθωμεν εἰς τὸ πέραν and ends with the statement that Jesus disembarked Mk 5:2a καὶ ἐξελθόντος αὐτοῦ ἐκ τοῦ πλοίου.

Mark 4:35 Καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ὀψίας γενομένης· διέλθωμεν εἰς τὸ πέραν. 36 καὶ ἀφέντες τὸν ὄχλον παραλαμβάνουσιν αὐτὸν ὡς ἦν ἐν τῷ πλοίῳ, καὶ ἄλλα πλοῖα ἦν μετ᾿ αὐτοῦ.

Mark 5:1 Καὶ ἦλθον εἰς τὸ πέραν τῆς θαλάσσης εἰς τὴν χώραν τῶν Γερασηνῶν. 2 καὶ ἐξελθόντος αὐτοῦ ἐκ τοῦ πλοίου εὐθὺς ὑπήντησεν αὐτῷ ἐκ τῶν μνημείων ἄνθρωπος ἐν πνεύματι ἀκαθάρτῳ,

The wrapper in the travel by boat scenario is semantically closely associated with the situation represented in the scenario. This isn’t always true. Mk 5:1-2a also provides a time and place for the scenario that follows. But it doesn’t matter much how Jesus arrived when he was confronted by the demoniac. It is not crucial to the story that he arrived by boat. If we define a generic story episode scenario as having a wrapper which may provide time, location and circumstances, then the scenario within the wrapper can be though of as a subordinate scenario contained by the story episode scenario. In other words, the healing of the demoniac is a scenario contained within a story episode wrapper which makes it a sort of package. The package wrapper may not always be semantically tightly bound with the scenario inside. The wrapper has a narrative discourse function. It links the episodes together by place, time and circumstance.

[1]appendix F “Evidence That Greek Participial Clauses Belong in the Main Verb’s Scenario” page 523ff, but see also pages 100, 254, 255 and qualifications of this claim on pages 122, 136. Richard A. Hoyle, Scenarios, discourse and translation. SIL 2008

boundaries: scenarios & stories pt. 2

In my last post I suggested that the arrival of Jesus and the disciples by boat was not a part of the exorcism scenario. An exorcism embedded in a complex narrative episode may not have any time or location information attached specifically to the exorcism. It may inherit the time and location from a larger narrative segment. To illustrate this read Mark 9:1-29. In verse 14 we read Καὶ ἐλθόντες πρὸς τοὺς μαθητὰς, but there is no indication where the disciples were located. The last location mentioned in the story is found in Mk 9:9a Καὶ καταβαινόντων αὐτῶν ἐκ τοῦ ὄρους and that location note is dependent on the previous time and location mentioned in Mk 9:2 Καὶ μετὰ ἡμέρας ἓξ παραλαμβάνει ὁ Ἰησοῦς τὸν Πέτρον καὶ τὸν Ἰάκωβον καὶ τὸν Ἰωάννην καὶ ἀναφέρει αὐτοὺς εἰς ὄρος ὑψηλὸν κατ᾿ ἰδίαν μόνους. So there is a chain of dependency concerning time and location which links Mk 9:2,9,14.

My current thinking, which could change momentarily, is that including attributes (slots) from a generic "story episode" scenario within each species of story episode, e.g. travel by boat, storm at sea, exorcism, creates a lot of unnecessary redundancy in the the network of semantic frames/scenarios. Attributes (slots) which are universal to story episodes should be recorded at a higher level of the semantic hierarchy and inherited rather than duplicated. The attributes of an exorcism scenario should function such that a mere mention of the attribute will activate the scenario, making all the attributes of exorcism "accessible" as "hearer old" information.

To illustrate, a "reading scripture" scenario in the NT is prototypically associated with the Synagogue. For this reason, a mere mention of Synagogue as a location will make the "reading scripture" scenario available, in other words "reading scripture" becomes "hearer old" by activating Synagogue. Fishing in the gospels is generally associated with boats and the Sea of Galilee (a.k.a. Lake of Gennesaret). The mere mention of a boat in the gospels makes both the Sea of Galilee and fishing active, "hearer old" even if no fishing takes place in the pericope.

By contrast an exorcism scenario in the gospels does not associate prototypically with a type of location. Arriving by boat in Mk 5:1-2 does not make the exorcism scenario active or "hearer old". In like manner coming down of the mountain in Mk 9:9 does not activate the exorcism scenario. For this reason the location slot in the story episode frame probably belongs somewhere else, not in the definition of the exorcism scenario.

boundaries: scenarios and stories

A scenario[1] is prototypical semantic situation, e.g., taking a meal, going fishing, travel by boat, a storm at sea. A script[1] is a prototypical sequence of events that are identified with a particular scenario. The boundaries for a story episode are often not identical with the boundaries of a scenario. To illustrate, we will look at the transition between two episodes; the "Storm on the Lake" (Mk 4:35-41) and the "Healing of the Gerasene Demoniac" (Mk 5:1-20).

An episode in a story prototypically begins with a statement about time, location, setting.

Mark 4:35 Καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ὀψίας γενομένης· διέλθωμεν εἰς τὸ πέραν. 36 καὶ ἀφέντες τὸν ὄχλον παραλαμβάνουσιν αὐτὸν ὡς ἦν ἐν τῷ πλοίῳ, καὶ ἄλλα πλοῖα ἦν μετ᾿ αὐτοῦ.

What follows is a travel by boat scenario with an embedded storm at sea scenario. A travel scenario is bounded by a start location and a destination. In this travel scenario the destination is reached in Mark 5:1.

Mark 5:1 Καὶ ἦλθον εἰς τὸ πέραν τῆς θαλάσσης εἰς τὴν χώραν τῶν Γερασηνῶν. 2 καὶ ἐξελθόντος αὐτοῦ ἐκ τοῦ πλοίου εὐθὺς ὑπήντησεν αὐτῷ ἐκ τῶν μνημείων ἄνθρωπος ἐν πνεύματι ἀκαθάρτῳ,

In regard to the travel boat scenario Mark 5:2a καὶ ἐξελθόντος αὐτοῦ ἐκ τοῦ πλοίου is the end point. Someone might argue that 5:1 is the end. But that doesn't matter. The next episode, Healing of the Gerasene Demoniac. begins at 5:1-5:2a with location and temporal information. The healing scenario begins with Mk 5:2b.

The semantic situation (scenario) "healing a demoniac" does not include arrival by boat as the first item in the script. Arrival by boat, belongs to a script for a travel scenario. Arrival by boat is the end of one episode and beginning of another. It is semantically related to a travel scenario and not a healing scenario.

One might argue that a more abstract "narrative episode" scenario could be used with a script the includes arrival at some point and time where the episode begins. This would make the story episode boundaries identical with the scenario boundaries by definition. I don't think that would be a very useful procedure. For the purpose of semantic analysis and the identification of inferential associations we would still need to identify a travel by boat scenario, a storm scenario, a healing of demoniac (exorcism) scenario.


[1] I am reading a paper by R.A. Hoyle on Scenarios, Discourse and Translation which is available from SIL as a PDF . In the following posts on this subject I will assume some familiarity with the framework used in this paper.

Hoyle, Richard A. 2008. Scenarios, discourse, and translation: the scenario theory of Cognitive Linguistics, its relevance for analysing New Testament Greek and modern Parkari texts, and its implications for translation theory. SIL e-Books, 10. [Dallas]: SIL International. xi, 835 p. PDF

2 Cor 3:14b-c information structure

Today I have been looking at exegtical problems in 2 Cor 3:14, here is the context:

2Cor. 3:12 Ἔχοντες οὖν τοιαύτην ἐλπίδα πολλῇ παρρησίᾳ χρώμεθα 13 καὶ οὐ καθάπερ Μωϋσῆς ἐτίθει κάλυμμα ἐπὶ τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ πρὸς τὸ μὴ ἀτενίσαι τοὺς υἱοὺς Ἰσραὴλ εἰς τὸ τέλος τοῦ καταργουμένου. 14 ἀλλὰ ἐπωρώθη τὰ νοήματα αὐτῶν. ἄχρι γὰρ τῆς σήμερον ἡμέρας τὸ αὐτὸ κάλυμμα ἐπὶ τῇ ἀναγνώσει τῆς παλαιᾶς διαθήκης μένει, μὴ ἀνακαλυπτόμενον ὅτι ἐν Χριστῷ καταργεῖται· 15 ἀλλ᾿ ἕως σήμερον ἡνίκα ἂν ἀναγινώσκηται Μωϋσῆς, κάλυμμα ἐπὶ τὴν καρδίαν αὐτῶν κεῖται· 16 ἡνίκα δὲ ἐὰν ἐπιστρέψῃ πρὸς κύριον, περιαιρεῖται τὸ κάλυμμα.

While contemplating Paul's argument where he uses the Moses' veil as a metaphor for the inability of those under the old covenant to see the glory of Paul's gospel, after working through all the traditional exegetical options, I decided rather arbitrarily to attempt an analysis of the information structure in verse 14b-c, not because it was a passage particularly suited for this kind of analysis but just to see if I could make any sense out it using a nontraditional framework. The text segment for analysis is:

2 Cor 3:14b-c ἄχρι γὰρ τῆς σήμερον ἡμέρας τὸ αὐτὸ κάλυμμα ἐπὶ τῇ ἀναγνώσει τῆς παλαιᾶς διαθήκης μένει, μὴ ἀνακαλυπτόμενον ὅτι ἐν Χριστῷ καταργεῖται·

The first finite verb is μένει. I would suggest this is the focus, the most salient constituent. In other words the verb μένει is what this clause/sentence asserts. The initial constituent ἄχρι γὰρ τῆς σήμερον ἡμέρας is a temporal orienter and a contextualizer. The noun phrase τὸ αὐτὸ κάλυμμα is the topic which also serves as a contextualizer tying this clause to the veil κάλυμμα mentioned in v.13. My notion of a contextualizer is intentionally inclusive. Context is both textual and situational which includes temporal, local, cultural aspects. The separation of co-text from context is intentionally avoided.

The prepositional phrase ἐπὶ τῇ ἀναγνώσει τῆς παλαιᾶς διαθήκης is a setting identifier (another contextualizer) for the core clause τὸ αὐτὸ κάλυμμα ... μένει. I would suggest that the position of this phrase makes it less salient than ἄχρι γὰρ τῆς σήμερον ἡμέρας which is more inherently newsworthy and for that reason fronted.

An alternative approach might assign focus to the core clause τὸ αὐτὸ κάλυμμα ... μένει rather than the finite verb alone. What is salient is the relationship between the presupposition (the veil and the old covenant) and the current assertion that the veil remains even "today" when the old covenant is read. For that reason some might prefer to assign focus to the core clause.


The constituents following μένει raise a number of traditional exegetical problems. Here is what M.J. Harris (2Cor NIGTC 2005, p. 303) has to say about it.



more on this later ...

constituent order & textual cohesion in 2Cor 5:1

This morning while I was reading Paul's second epistle to the Corinthians when I happened upon some fronted accusatives in 2Cor 5:1:

2Cor. 5:1 Οἴδαμεν γὰρ ὅτι ἐὰν ἡ ἐπίγειος ἡμῶν οἰκία τοῦ σκήνους καταλυθῇ, οἰκοδομὴν ἐκ θεοῦ ἔχομεν, οἰκίαν ἀχειροποίητον αἰώνιον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς.

2Cor. 5:1 ¶ For we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. [NRSV]

My question: What should we make of the clause initial OIKIADOMHN οἰκοδομὴν and OKIAN οἰκίαν?

Perhaps calling OKIAN οἰκίαν ... a clause will bother some people, perhaps we should say that it might be analyzed as a deep structure clause. Even that will bother some people. Let's do and end run on that one and just look at clause initial OIKIADOMHN οἰκοδομὴν. What can we say about the position of this word?

I'm thinking about it ....