Deep Structure Eph 3:7

c stirling bartholomew cc.constantine at
Sun Sep 23 16:46:25 EDT 2001

Many Thanks to Iver for an "awesome" post:

on 9/23/01 11:54 AM, Iver Larsen wrote:

> In grammatical terms these clauses are subordinated to the preceding clause
> by a relative pronoun, but semantically they can as well be considered
> propositions on the same level as the previous proposition. In narrative,
> the content of the continuative relative clause is often more prominent in
> the discourse than the previous clause, so Levinsohn says that the previous
> material is commonly background material and the relative clause gives
> foreground material. In expository discourse, these statements are like
> successive statements, linked together by the relative pronoun.

I went back and read  Levinsohn* (pp. 192-6) just now and have a follow on
question. Lets suppose that we find in one of Paul's Epistles a chain of
four clauses each linked with a relative pronoun and each of these relative
pronouns is clearly appositional. Is it feasible that the semantic linkage
between clause one and clause four might be very weak or even non-existent?

In other words lets factor out continuative relatives and just address the
question of chains of appositional relatives. Is it possible that an author
could use chains of  appositional relatives with no real intention of
linking the the semantic content in clause one with the semantic content of
clause four?

Some enterprising Pauline scholar might try and cull up an example of this.
I am currently embroiled in wrestling with 2Peter and Jude so cannot take
the time. I was just reading lightly through Ephesians for a break from this

Thanks very much Iver, for yet another world class post, the kind that makes
b-greek worth following.



Clayton Stirling Bartholomew
Three Tree Point
P.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062

*Levinsohn, Stephen Discourse Features of New Testament Greek,  2nd Ed.
 SIL  2000.

More information about the B-Greek mailing list