1 Peter 2:24

c stirling bartholomew cc.constantine at worldnet.att.net
Fri Jan 11 15:02:14 EST 2002


on 1/9/02 12:59 PM, Glenn Blank wrote:

> ISTM a matter of paraphrase simply due to discourse considerations or
> pragmatics, with no referential significance (that is, I do not think Peter
> is implying by IAQHTE that he himself was *not* healed).  There are, of
> course, now quotation marks in Greek to tell us when a writer intends a word
> for word quotation or just a paraphrase -- I get the impression such a
> distinction was not as important to the 1st century Grk writer as it is to
> the 20th cent English writer.
> 
> The difference between 1 person plural and 2p is essentially how a writer
> chooses to position himself in relation to his audience -- whether he wants
> to include himself in the discussion or focus solely on the audience.
> Isaiah 53:5 is in 1p, but the entire song is in 1p.  Peter, on the other
> hand frequently uses 2p when 1p would have been equally applicable; for
> example  EN OURANOIS EIS *hUMAS* (1:4), TON KALESANTA *hUMAS* (1:15),
> *ELUTRQWHTE* EK THS MATAIAS *hUMWN* (1:18), OIKODOMEISQE (2:5).
> 
> So ISTM Peter is simply phrasing his quotation in 2:24 in a way that is
> consistent with the writer/audience relationship he has already established
> in his previous discourse.
> 
> Of course, as Clay has pointed out, this raises the question then of why
> Peter should switch suddenly to 1p twice right before this in 2:24 and then
> back again to 2p.

Glen,

I agree with you on this. I would also suggest that we might see a  minor
discourse boundary at the beginning of 1Pet.  2:22 where Peter introduces an
embedded exposition segment within the higher level hortatory segment.

Second person is a natural choice in hortatory but not so in exposition.
After the brief switch to first person in 2:24a Peter lingers in the first
person for one verb ZHSWMEN after switching back to hortatory but then
switches to second person again.

This employment of a first person  ZHSWMEN just after a transition from
exposition back to hortatory shows how discourse boundaries can be "fuzzy"
and are not always discreet points. I think it is often helpful to think of
discourse boundaries as "zones of transition." Discourse segments can be
joined by interlocking or woven connections.

None of these comments should be construed as "rules." I am NOT stating that
first person is never found in hortatory. I am NOT stating that discourse
boundaries cannot be discreet points.

greetings,

Clay

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





More information about the B-Greek mailing list