[B-Greek] hO QEOS in ROM. 1:28
srunge at logos.com
Thu May 15 14:17:16 EDT 2008
See comments below.
From: b-greek-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:b-greek-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Elizabeth Kline
Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2008 10:35 AM
To: greek B-Greek
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] hO QEOS in ROM. 1:28
On May 15, 2008, at 7:59 AM, Steve Runge wrote:
> If QEOS had been the subject of the KAQWS clause, the NP would clearly
> have been redundant in the main clause. With a change in role from
> non-subject to subject (which represents a change in
> initiators) it is very common to encode the change using a NP instead
> of zero anaphora. The rationale for this would most likely be to avoid
> ambiguity. If the NP had been omitted in the main clause, one would be
> left to assume that God is the subject. Changes in initiators are not
> typically under encoded, more encoding seems preferred.
ROM. 1:24 DIO PAREDWKEN AUTOUS hO QEOS EN TAIS EPIQUMIAIS ...
ROM. 1:26 DIA TOUTO PAREDWKEN AUTOUS hO QEOS EIS PAQH ATIMIAS ...
ROM. 1:28 KAI KAQWS OUK EDOKIMASAN TON QEON ECEIN EN EPIGNWSEI, PAREDWKEN AUTOUS hO QEOS EIS ADOKIMON NOU
You are overlooking the global VIP status of hO QEOS. In narrative, " ... the default encoding of the global VIP as subject, when he was in a non-subject role in the precious clause, is no overt reference ... " Levinsohn 2000:143.
**SER: We are not in narrative in Romans
Once again, I am not arguing that hO QEOS is unnecessary in Rom 1:28.
The purpose of hO QEOS in Rom 1:28 is not primarily to provide information, that is to identify the subject of PAREDWKEN. The tree occurrences of PAREDWKEN AUTOUS hO QEOS EN/EIS ... drive home the point that it is hO QEOS who PAREDWKEN AUTOUS EN/EIS ... . Paul is using a very common rhetorical technique, say it three times with variations in what follows EN/EIS.
**SER: Exactly, it is the repetition that achieves the effect, not the encoding IMO. The encoding was necessary to maintain the verbatim repetition. I agree with your assessment about the rhetorical effect, just differ in what it is that brings this effect about.
You are correctly seeing a pragmatic effect achieved by something, which was initially discussed as overencoding. I think it is better to attribute the rhetorical effect to the verbatim repetition. If the verb PARISTHMI were used with the same encoding, would the same effect have been achieved?
As far as whether the NP is required or not, ?, A, and 0172 vote in favor of construing it as optional, since it is omitted in these manuscripts.
I have annotated all of the unambiguous (IMO) instances of overencoding in the GNT. The vast majority of them (like 95+%) are in narrative, and most of these are found in quotative frames. A cursory read of John 3 will present a number of instances, many coinciding with either historical presents (see Randall's recent comments, or Levinsohn 2000:197-214) or complex quotative frames (see Levinsohn 2000:231-260). The apparent effect of the overencoding is cataphoric highlighting of the speech that follows,
The clearest instances of overencoding that I have annotated outside of the gospels and Acts are hH AGAPH in 1 Cor 13:4, EGW in Eph 4:1, hO QEOS SOU in Heb 1:9, and TO FREAR THS ABUSSOU in Rev. 9:2. This phenomenon was not the primary focus of my annotation. My point is that I have found this usage to be primarily restricted to narrative.
The Hebrew Bible is a whole different story, and this would likely affect the encoding found in LXX. Whatever appeal one might make to LXX would need to be tempered by the functions of overencoding in biblical Hebrew.
Levinsohn, S. H. Discourse Features of New Testament Greek: A Coursebook on the Information Structure of New Testament Greek 2nd edition (Dallas: SIL International, 2000).
B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek B-Greek mailing list B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
More information about the B-Greek