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.

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.

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