thoughts on 1Peter 1:10-12 part three

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.

Verse eleven begins with a participle ἐραυνῶντες of the verb ἐξηραύνησαν we read in v10. Dropping the preposition from a compound verb or noun when it is repeated in the immediate co-text is a classical pattern (A.T. Robertson p. 563.h, J.H. Moulton Prolegomona p. 115).

Euripides, Bacchae 1065 κατῆγεν ἦγεν ἦγεν
1063-1067
τοὐντεῦθεν ἤδη τοῦ ξένου θαυμάσθ' ὁρῶ·
λαβὼν γὰρ ἐλάτης οὐράνιον ἄκρον κλάδον
κατῆγεν ἦγεν ἦγεν ἐς μέλαν πέδον·
κυκλοῦτο δ' ὥστε τόξον ἢ κυρτὸς τροχὸς
τόρνωι γραφόμενος περιφορὰν ἑλικοδρόμον·

Plato Phil., Euthyphro 14.a.6 τῆς ἀπεργασίας … τῆς ἐργασίας

{ΕΥΘ.} Πῶς δ' οὔ;
{ΣΩ.} Πολλὰ δέ γ', οἶμαι, καὶ καλὰ καὶ οἱ γεωργοί· ἀλλ'
ὅμως τὸ κεφάλαιον αὐτῶν ἐστιν τῆς ἀπεργασίας ἡ ἐκ τῆς
γῆς τροφή.
{ΕΥΘ.} Πάνυ γε.
{ΣΩ.} Τί δὲ δὴ τῶν πολλῶν καὶ καλῶν ἃ οἱ θεοὶ ἀπεργά-
ζονται; τί τὸ κεφάλαιόν ἐστι τῆς ἐργασίας;

Plato Phil., Euthydemus 281.b.8 ἐξαμαρτάνοι … ἁμαρτάνων
οὐκ ἐλάττω πράττων
ἐλάττω ἂν ἐξαμαρτάνοι, ἐλάττω δὲ ἁμαρτάνων ἧττον ἂν
κακῶς πράττοι, ἧττον δὲ κακῶς πράττων ἄθλιος ἧττον ἂν
εἴη;

Examples from the GNT can be found Jn 1:11, Rom 15:4, 1Pet 1:9-10, Rev 10:10 and some possible examples 1Cor 10:9, 2Cor 5:3, Eph 6:13, Phil 1:24.

John 1:11 εἰς τὰ ἴδια ἦλθεν, καὶ οἱ ἴδιοι αὐτὸν οὐ παρέλαβον. 12 ὅσοι δὲ ἔλαβον αὐτόν, ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς ἐξουσίαν τέκνα θεοῦ γενέσθαι, τοῖς πιστεύουσιν εἰς τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ,

Rom. 15:4 ὅσα γὰρ προεγράφη, εἰς τὴν ἡμετέραν διδασκαλίαν ἐγράφη, ἵνα διὰ τῆς ὑπομονῆς καὶ διὰ τῆς παρακλήσεως τῶν γραφῶν τὴν ἐλπίδα ἔχωμεν.

Rev. 10:10 Καὶ ἔλαβον τὸ βιβλαρίδιον ἐκ τῆς χειρὸς τοῦ ἀγγέλου καὶ κατέφαγον αὐτό, καὶ ἦν ἐν τῷ στόματί μου ὡς μέλι γλυκὺ καὶ ὅτε ἔφαγον αὐτό, ἐπικράνθη ἡ κοιλία μου.

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

Genesis one: does ברא bara mean seperated?

Joel M. Hoffman, Phd on his blog takes issue with Ellen van Wolde

The Dutch Trouw has an article about Professor Ellen van Wolde’s notion that:

Zo stuitte ze op de openingsverzen van het bijbelboek waarop ze ooit promoveerde. Preciezer: Op het werkwoord bara. Dat betekent volgens iedereen ’scheppen’, maar voor Van Wolde voldeed die vertaling niet meer. “Het klópte gewoon niet.” Bij het werkwoord was God het onderwerp (God schiep…), gevolgd door ’steeds twee of meer lijdende voorwerpen’. Waarom schiep God niet één ding of dier, maar steeds meerdere? Omdat, stelde Van Wolde vast, God niet schiep, maar scheidde. De aarde van de hemel, het land van de zee, de zeemonsters van de vogels en het gekrioel op de grond. [Emphasis added.]

That is, according to Van Wolde, bara means “separated,” not “created.” Her evidence is that the verb applies to more than one thing at a time: “heaven” and “earth,” for example, which she takes as “separated heaven from earth.”

Here is a another Hebraist's look at the problem:
A Response to Ellen Van Wolde on Genesis 1. You will note that John Hobbin begins his remarks on the text of Genesis 1:1 "It’s complicated syntax ... ". I would be somewhat more inclined to say that it is ambiguous syntax. In my Hellenistic view of grammar, the Genesis opening isn't very complex but it is ambiguous which leads to serious complications in analysis which is reflected in the active and ongoing debate over how to parse the first two verses of Genesis.

I can recall decades ago talking with a Hebrew scholar about Waltke's fall 1974 lectureship, Creation and Chaos. My Hebrew scholar friend had been there to hear Waltke in '74. He told me that all through the presentation he was finding reasons to object to Waltke's analysis. I have lost my hard copy of the lectures, but I seem to reacall that much of the discussion had to do with one word being in the construct state, perhaps בראשת and an adverbial relative clause in verse one, but I will leave all that to the Hebrew scholars.

While the others argue about the Hebrew text, I have compiled some useful data on the translation equivalents for the verb bara from the Septuagint. Apparently the translator of Genesis along with the translators of all the other books in the what we refer to as the LXX (Septuagint) did not agree with Ellen van Wolde. Here is the evidence from E.Tov's MT/LXX database. What you see here is the Greek word(s) used to translate bara in the LXX.

The Parallel Aligned Text of the Greek and Hebrew Bible
Edited by Emanuel Tov


Genesis 1:1
‏ברא‎ ἐποίησεν
Genesis 1:21
‏ו/יברא‎ καὶ ἐποίησεν
Genesis 1:27
‏ו/יברא‎ καὶ ἐποίησεν
‏ברא‎ ἐποίησεν
‏ברא‎ ἐποίησεν
Genesis 2:3
‏ברא‎ ἤρξατο
Genesis 2:4
‏ב/הברא/ם‎ ὅτε ἐγένετο
Genesis 5:1
‏ברא‎ ἐποίησεν
Genesis 5:2
‏ברא/ם‎ ἐποίησεν αὐτοὺς
‏הברא/ם‎ ἐποίησεν αὐτούς

Genesis 6:7
‏בראתי‎ ἐποίησα
Exodus 34:10
‏נבראו‎ γέγονεν
Numbers 16:30
‏יברא‎ δείξει
Deuteronomy 4:32
‏ברא‎ ἔκτισεν
Joshua 17:15
‏ו/בראת‎ καὶ ἐκκάθαρον
Joshua 17:18
‏ו/בראת/ו‎ καὶ ἐκκαθαριεῖς αὐτὸν
1Samuel 2:29
‏ל/הבריא/כם‎ ἐνευλογεῖσθαι
Isaiah 4:5
‏ו/ברא‎ καὶ ἥξει
Isaiah 40:26
‏ברא‎ κατέδειξεν
Isaiah 40:28
‏בורא‎ ὁ κατασκευάσας
Isaiah 41:20
‏ברא/ה‎ κατέδειξεν

Isaiah 42:5
‏בורא‎ ὁ ποιήσας
Isaiah 43:1
‏ברא/ך‎ ὁ ποιήσας σε
Isaiah 43:7
‏בראתי/ו‎ κατεσκεύασα αὐτὸν
Isaiah 43:15
‏בורא‎ ὁ καταδείξας
Isaiah 45:7
‏ו/בורא‎ καὶ ποιήσας
‏ו/בורא‎ καὶ κτίζων
Isaiah 45:8
‏בראתי/ו‎ ὁ κτίσας σε

Isaiah 45:12
‏בראתי‎ ---14
Isaiah 45:18
‏בורא‎ ὁ ποιήσας
‏ברא/ה‎ ἐποίησεν αὐτὴν
Isaiah 48:7
‏נבראו‎ γίνεται
Isaiah 54:16
‏בראתי‎ κτίζω
‏בראתי‎ ἔκτισά
Isaiah 57:19
‏בורא‎ ---14
Isaiah 65:17
‏בורא‎ {..~ἔσται}13
Isaiah 65:18
‏בורא‎ ---14
‏בורא‎ ποιῶ
Jeremiah 31:22
‏ברא‎ ἔκτισεν [38.22]06
Ezekiel 21:24
‏ברא‎ {d}17 ---14
‏ברא‎ ἐπ' ἀρχῆς

Ezekiel 21:35
‏נבראת‎ γεγέννησαι
Ezekiel 23:47
‏ו/ברא‎ καὶ κατακέντει
Ezekiel 28:13
‏הברא/ך‎ ἐκτίσθης σύ
Ezekiel 28:15
‏הברא/ך‎ σὺ ἐκτίσθης
Amos 4:13
‏ו/ברא‎ καὶ κτίζων
Malachi 2:10
~11 ‏ברא/נו‎ πάντων ὑμῶν
Psalms 51:12
‏ברא‎ κτίσον [50.12]06
Psalms 89:13
‏בראת/ם‎ ἔκτισας [88.13]06
Psalms 89:48
‏בראת‎ ἔκτισας [88.48]06
Psalms 102:19
‏נברא‎ ὁ κτιζόμενος [101.19]06
Psalms 104:30
‏יבראו/ן‎ καὶ κτισθήσονται [103.30]06
Psalms 148:5
‏ו/נבראו‎ καὶ ἐκτίσθησαν

Qoheleth 12:1
‏את בורא/יך‎ τοῦ κτίσαντός σε

***************************************

Notice that nowhere in the translation equivalents shown above do we see bara translated with the relevant Greek verbs or nouns. The words we should have found are shown below. Listed here are the appropriate semantic domains from Louw&Nida* and follow after that from from LEH (LXX lexicon)

*Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains
Johannes P. Louw and Eugene A. Nida, Editors
Copyright © 1988, 1989 by the United Bible Societies, New York, NY 10023
Second Edition.



F Divide (63.23–63.27)

63.23 μερίζωa; διαμερίζωc: to divide into separate parts — ‘to divide, to disunite, division, separation.’4
μερίζωa: μερίσασθαι μετ᾿ ἐμοῦ τὴν κληρονομίαν ‘to divide with me the inheritance’ Lk 12:13; μεμέρισται ὁ Χριστός; ‘has Christ been divided?’ 1Cor 1:13; πᾶσα βασιλεία μερισθεῖσα καθ᾿ ἑαυτῆς ‘every kingdom divided against itself’ Mt 12:25.
διαμερίζωc: διαμεριζόμεναι γλῶσσαι ὡσεὶ πυρός ‘divided tongues as of fire’ Ac 2:3. For another interpretation of διαμερίζω in Ac 2:3 (as middle, not passive), see 15.140.

63.24 μερισμόςa, οῦ m: the point at which parts divide or meet — ‘the point of division, the point of meeting.’ ἄχρι μερισμοῦ ψυχῆς καὶ πνεύματος ‘to the point where soul and spirit meet’ or ‘… come together’ He 4:12.

63.25 μεριστής, οῦ m: (derivative of μερίζωa ‘to divide,’ 63.23) one who divides — ‘divider.’ τίς με κατέστησεν κριτὴν ἢ μεριστήν; ‘who made me a judge or divider?’ Lk 12:14.

63.26 σχίζωb: to split or divide into two parts — ‘to divide, to split, to tear in two.’ αἱ πέτραι ἐσχίσθησαν ‘the rocks were split’ Mt 27:51; ἐσχίσθη δὲ τὸ καταπέτασμα τοῦ ναοῦ μέσον ‘the curtain of the sanctuary was split down the middle’ Lk 23:45.

63.27 αἵρεσιςc, εως f: a division of people into different and opposing sets — ‘division, separate group.’ δεῖ γὰρ καὶ αἱρέσεις ἐν ὑμῖν εἶναι ‘for it is necessary that divisions exist among you’ or ‘the existence of divisions among you is inevitable’ 1Cor 11:19.

G Separate5 (63.28–63.31)

63.28 ἀφορίζωc: to separate into two or more parts or groups, often by some intervening space — ‘to separate, to set one apart from another.’ καὶ ἀφορίσει αὐτοὺς ἀπ᾿ ἀλλήλων, ὥσπερ ὁ ποιμὴν ἀφορίζει τὰ πρόβατα ἀπὸ τῶν ἐρίφων ‘and he set them apart from one another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats’ Mt 25:32.

63.29 χωρίζωa: to separate objects by introducing considerable space or isolation — ‘to separate, to isolate one from another.’ κεχωρισμένος ἀπὸ τῶν ἁμαρτωλῶν ‘separated from sinners’ He 7:26. This phrase in He 7:26 may also imply the exultation of Christ to the heavenly world. τίς ἡμᾶς χωρίσει ἀπὸ τῆς ἀγάπης τοῦ Χριστοῦ; ‘who will be able to separate us from the love of Christ?’ Ro 8:35.

63.30 ἀποχωρίζομαιb: to separate more or less definitively one from another (evidently somewhat more emphatic in meaning than χωρίζωa ‘to separate,’ 63.29) — ‘to separate definitely, to go one’s own way, to split up.’ ὥστε ἀποχωρισθῆναι αὐτοὺς ἀπ᾿ ἀλλήλων ‘so that they each went their own way one from another’ Ac 15:39; καὶ ὁ οὐρανὸς ἀπεχωρίσθη ‘and the heaven split open’ Re 6:14. For another interpretation of ἀποχωρίζομαι in Re 6:14, see 15.14.

63.31 χωρίςb: to something which occurs separately or by itself — ‘separately, by itself.’ οὐ μετὰ τῶν ὀθονίων κείμενον ἀλλὰ χωρίς ‘not lying with the linen cloths but lying off by itself’ Jn 20:7.

Here are some relevant words from LEH** (LXX lexicon)

**A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint, ed. by J. Lust, E. Eynikel, and K. Hauspie, in cooperation with G. Chamberlain.
© 1992, 1997 by Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, Stuttgart.


ἀφορίζω+ V 31-42-10-2-2-87
Gn 2:10; 10:5; Ex 19:12,23; 29:24
A: to separate [τινα] Ex 19:12; to set apart [τι] Ex 45:1; to grant as a special gift to [τί τινι] Ps 67(68):10; M: to mark off by boundaries [τι] Ex 19:23; P: to be separated Ex 29:27; to be set apart Ez 45:4; to be divided from [ἔκ τινος] Gn 10:5; to divide oneself in [εἴς τι] Gn 2:10; ἀφορίζω τι ἀφόρισμα to separate as a separate offering, to set aside as a wave-offering Ex 29:26
Cf. LE BOULLUEC 1989, 44; —>TWNT

διαιρέω+ V 11-16-4-8-6-45
Gn 4:7; 15:10(bis); 32:8; Ex 21:35
A: to take apart, to divide Gn 15:10; to divide Gn 4:7; to separate Nm 31:42; to dispense Sir 27:25; M: to divide for oneself Ex 21:35; ἀριθμοὶ μνημῶν αὐτοῦ διηρέθεσαν his days were numbered Jb 21:21;
*Am 5:9 ὁ διαιρῶν -‏המפליג‎ who dispenses for MT ‏המבליג‎ who brightens up ?;
*Gn 4:7 ἐὰν ὀρθῶς δὲ μὴ διέλῃς -‏תיטיב‎ ‏לא‎ ‏אם‎ ‏לנתח‎ if you did not rightly divide for MT ‏לא‎ ‏אם‎ ‏לפתח‎ ‏תיטיב‎ if you did not act rightly, at the door
Cf. HARL 1986a12)=1992a, 114

διακόπτω V 1-7-4-1-4-17
Gn 38:29; 2 Sm 5:20(bis); 6:8; 1 Kgs 3:1
A: to cut in two, to cut through, to divide [τι] Ps 28(29):7; to break open [τι] 2 Mc 10:36; to cut through [abs.] 2 Kgs 3:26; to break through [τινα] 2 Sm 5:20; to destroy, to devastate [τι] Jdt 2:23; to cut through into [εἴς τι] Am 9:1; to make a breach upon [ἔν τινι] (of pers.) 1 Chr 15:3; P: to be cut through Gn 38:29; to be broken up (of a city) Jer 52:7; to be killed 2 Mc 10:30; to be dispersed (of water) 2 Sm 5:20; διακόπτω διακοπήν to inflict a deep wound (semit.) 2 Sm 6:8

διαμερίζω+ V 3-5-4-6-2-20
Gn 10:25; 49:7; Dt 32:8; Jos 21:42a; JgsA 5:30
A: to divide Gn 10:25; to distribute 2 Sm 6:19; M: to divide, to part Ps 21(22):19;
*Ps 16(17):14 διαμέρισον αὐτούς -‏הלקם‎ divide them for MT ‏הלקם‎ their part

διαστέλλω+ V 18-9-16-8-7-58
Gn 25:23; 30:28,35,40; Lv 5:4
A: to put asunder from, to separate from [τινα ἔκ τινος] Nm 8:14; to set aside [τι] Lv 16:26; to separate out [abs.] Mi 5:7; to separate, to distinguish [τι] (animals) Gn 30:35; to draw aside (a curtain) Jdt 14:15; to split up, to divide (people) [τινα] SusLXX 48; to define precisely [τι] Gn 30:28; to define, to teach [abs.] Neh 8:8; to discharge (a vow) [τι] Lv 22:21; to pay (for food) [τινι εἴς τι] Mal 3:11; to assign, to appoint [τι] Sir 16:26; to give charge [τινι] Ezr 8:24; to assign, to appoint [τι] Sir 16:26; M: to command (expressly), to give express orders to [τινι] Jdt 11:12; to warn [τινι] Ez 3:21; P: to be separated from [ἔκ τινος] Gn 25:23; to be sent away Na 1:12; to be set apart Lv 16:26; to be divided, to be structured [τινι] (in architecture) Jer 22:14; διαστέλλω ἀνὰ μέσον τινός to distinguish between Lv 11:47; to intrude, to come between, to separate 2 Kgs 2:11; τὰ διεσταλμένα the agreements 2 Mc 14:28; ὅρασις διαστέλλουσα distinct vision 1 Sm 3:1; διαστέλλω τοῖς χείλεσι to pronounce, to make an explicit statement Lv 5:4;
*Jgs 1:19 διεστείλατο -‏הבדיל‎ he set apart for MT ‏ברזל‎ iron ;
*Hos 13:15 διαστελεῖ -‏יפריד‎? he will divide for MT ‏יפריא‎ he shall be fruitful ;
*Ez 24:14 οὐ διαστελῶ -‏אפרץ‎ ‏לא‎? I will not make distinctions ? for MT ‏אפרע‎ ‏לא‎ I will not neglect it ?, cpr. 1 Sm 3:1
Cf. CAIRD 1968b, 124-125; HARL 1986a12)=1992a, 208-209 (Gn 25:23); HELBING 1928, 165.210; —>KIESSLING

διαχωρίζω+ V 11-4-1-1-10-27
Gn 1:4,6,7,14,18
A: to separate [τι] Gn 30:32; to separate from [τινα ἀπό τινος] Sus 51; [τί τινος] 1 Mc 12:36; to distinguish [τινα] Sir 33:11; to decide for sb that [τινι +inf.] 2 Chr 25:10; P: to be separated SusLXX 52; to be separated from [ἀπό τινος] Gn 13:11; to be divided (of more pers.) 2 Sm 1:23; to set oneself apart from, to go away from [ἀπό τινος] Gn 13:9; to go away, to depart Sir 12:9; to be distinguished Sir 33:8; διαχωρίζω ἀνὰ μέσον τινός to divide between Gn 1:4;
*Nm 32:12 ὁ διακεχωρισμένος -‏הנזיר‎? set apart for MT ‏הקנזי‎ the Kennizite Nm 32:12;
*JgsB 13:9 διεχώρισε -‏מפלא‎ (Aram.) separating for MT ‏מפלא‎ (Hebr.) acting wonderfully
Cf. HELBING 1928, 164

διχοτόμημα,-ατος N3N 5-0-2-0-0-7
Gn 15:11,17; Ex 29:17; Lv 1:8; Ez 24:4
divided part, divided piece ; neol.
Cf. HELBING 1907, 115

ἐπιδιαιρέω V 1-0-0-0-0-1
Gn 33:1
to divide, to distribute
Cf. HARL 1986a12)=1992a, 244-245

κρεανομέω V 1-0-0-0-0-1
Lv 8:20
to divide the meat of [τινα]; neol.

μερίζω+ V 6-7-4-8-10-35
Ex 15:9; Nm 26:53,55,56; Dt 18:8
A: to divide, to distribute [τι] Ex 15:9; id. [τί τινι] 1 Kgs 18:6; id. [τινι] Neh 13:13; to assign a part of, to allot (an inheritance) [τι] Nm 26:56 M: to divide among themselves [τι] Prv 14:18; to share with [τινι] Prv 29:24; to tear asunder [τινα] Jer 28(51):34 P: to be divided, to be split up 1 Kgs 16:21; to be reckoned as part of [εἴς τι] Sir 41:9 μερίζω τι μερίδας to divide into parts Jos 18:6
(—>ἀπο-, δια-, κατα-)

περισχίζω+ V 0-0-2-0-0-2
Ez 47:15; 48:1
to divide, to draw a line

ῥήγνυμι/ῥήσσω+ V 4-10-13-11-2-40
Gn 7:11; Ex 14:16; 28:32; Nm 16:31; Jos 9:13
A: to break [τι] Jb 17:11; to rend [τι] Ex 28:32; to split, to divide [τι] Ex 14:16; to rend from, to withdraw from [τι ἔκ τινος] 1 Kgs 11:31; to let break loose, to vent [τι] Jb 15:13; to cause to break or burst forth [τι] Jb 28:10; to hatch (eggs) [τι] Is 59:5 P: to burst, to cleave asunder Nm 16:31; to be broken up 2 Kgs 25:4; to burst or break forth Gn 7:11 ρῆξον καὶ βόησον break into shouting and cry aloud Is 54:1; ῥήγνυμι εὐνροσύνην to burst into joy (metaph.) Is 49:13; ῥήγνυμι νωνήν to let loose the voice, to break into lowing (of an ox) Jb 6:5
Cf. LARCHER 1984, 348; —>LSJ SUPPL(Jb 15:13)
(—>ἀνα-, ἀπο-, δια-, ἐκ-, κατα-, περι-)

σχίζω+ V 2-1-4-1-4-12
Gn 22:3; Ex 14:21; 1 Sm 6:14; Is 36:22; 37:1
A: to split, to cleave (wood) [τι] Gn 22:3; to part, to separate, to divide [τι] Ex 14:21; to tear (garments) [τι] Is 36:22; to split, to cleave asunder [τι] Zech 14:4; to cut in two [τινα] Sus 55 P: to be divided, to part (of soldiers in a battle field) 1 Mc 6:45
Cf. WEVERS 1990, 220; —>NIDNTT; TWNT
(—>ἀνα-, ἀπο-, δια-, κατα-, περι-)

τριμερίζω V 1-0-0-0-0-1
Dt 19:3
to divide into three parts, to apportion in thirds [τι]; neol.
Cf. DOGNIEZ 1992, 64.232; WALTERS 1973, 121

The data from the LXX renderings of bara do not support Ellen van Wolde's thesis.