Biblical and Ancient Greek Linguistics [3 — 2014] 9781498226431, 1498226434

Citation preview

Biblical and Ancient Greek Linguistics Volume 3 — 2014 Contents PAUL L. DANOVE “Deriving” and Describing Usages of Τίθηµι and Τίθηµι Compounds in the Septuagint and New Testament JAMES D. DVORAK and RYDER DALE WALTON Clause as Message: Theme, Topic and Information Flow in Mark 2:1–12 and Jude

5

31

S.M. KRAEGER Whence and Whither Greek Verbal Lexicography and Pedagogy: A Diachronic Review 86 STANLEY E. PORTER The Usage-Based Approach to Teaching New Testament Greek

120

Ancient Sources Index Modern Authors Index

141 144

Biblical and Ancient Greek Linguistics 3

3

Senior Editors Professor Dr. Stanley E. Porter Dr. Matthew Brook O’Donnell Assistant Editors Dr. Christopher D. Land Dr. Francis G.H. Pang Editorial Board Dr. Martin Culy (Briercrest College and Seminary, Canada) Dr. Paul Danove (Villanova University, USA) Dr. Christopher D. Land (McMaster Divinity College, Canada) Dr. Matthew Brook O’Donnell (University of Michigan, USA | McMaster Divinity College, Canada) Professor Dr. Stanley E. Porter (McMaster Divinity College, Canada) Dr. Catherine Smith (University of Birmingham, UK) Dr. Jonathan Watt (Geneva College, USA) Dr. Cynthia Long Westfall (McMaster Divinity College, Canada) Biblical and Ancient Greek Linguistics (BAGL) is an international journal that exists to further the application of modern linguistics to the study of Ancient and Biblical Greek, with a particular focus on the analysis of texts, including but not restricted to the Greek New Testament. The journal is hosted by McMaster Divinity College and works in conjunction with its Centre for Biblical Linguistics, Translation and Exegesis and the OpenText.org organization (www.opentext.org) in the sponsoring of conferences and symposia open to scholars and students researching in Greek linguistics who are interested in contributing to advancing the discussion and methods of the field of research. BAGL is a refereed on-line and print journal dedicated to distributing the results of significant research in the area of

4

Biblical and Ancient Greek Linguistics 3

linguistic theory and application to biblical and ancient Greek, and is open to all scholars, not just those connected to the Centre and the OpenText.org project. Accepted pieces are in the first instance posted on-line in page-consistent pdf format, and then (except for reviews) are published in print form each volume year. This format ensures timely posting of the most recent work in Greek linguistics with consistently referencable articles then available in permanent print form. Submissions to BAGL BAGL accepts submissions in five categories, and manuscripts are to be labeled as such at the time of submission: Articles Explorations Notes Responses Reviews/Review articles

Submissions should follow the BAGL style-guide which can be found at http://bagl.org, and should include an abstract, not longer than 100 words, two to six keywords, and identification of the type of article (which will be noted at the time of posting and publication). Submissions not following the style-guide will be returned to the author for revision before being considered by the editors. Submissions should be sent in electronic form (Word or RTF) to Stanley E. Porter at [email protected]. Assessment and response will be made within approximately two months of submission. Accepted submissions should be posted online within two months of acceptance. The online form of BAGL is found at http://bagl.org. Copyright © 2014 Wipf and Stock Publishers. All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations in critical publications or reviews, no part of this book may be reproduced in any manner without prior written permission from the publisher. Write: Permissions, Wipf and Stock, 199 W. 8th Ave., Eugene, OR 97401. ISBN 13: 978-1-4982-2643-1 www.wipfandstock.com Manufactured in the U.S.A.

[BAGL 3 (2014) 5–30]

“Deriving” and Describing Usages of Τίθηµι and Τίθηµι Compounds in the Septuagint and New Testament Paul L. Danove Villanova University, Villanova, PA, USA

Abstract: Τίθηµι and its compounds present the broadest range of licensing properties of any set of verbal compounds in the Septuagint and New Testament. This article resolves the occurrences of τίθηµι and its twenty compounds into twenty–six distinct usages. The discussion of each usage “derives” the event that the verbs grammaticalize, specifies the conceptualization of the event associated with each usage, describes the syntactic and semantic requirements for verbs with the usage, identifies the observed lexical realizations of required complements, and illustrates occurrences of the verbs with the usage. The discussion then summarizes the relationships among the usages, proposes a further basis for relating the events, and notes the possibility of polysemous interpretations of verbal occurrences. (Article) Keywords: event, lexical, semantic, syntactic, usage, verb

1. Preliminary Considerations This discussion investigates the conceptualization of events and develops procedures for deriving one event from another, for describing the usages with which τίθηµι and its compounds grammaticalize events, and for specifying the licensing properties of verbs with each usage.

6

Biblical and Ancient Greek Linguistics 3

1.1 The Conceptualization of Events An event is a cognitive schema of an action that sets two, three, or four entities in a particular relationship with each other.1 This discussion investigates the conceptualization of three events that are significant for the following study. The event of transference (Tra.) relates four entities.2 These entities function semantically as an Agent (A), “the entity that actively instigates an action and/or is the ultimate cause of a change in another entity,” Theme (Θ), “the entity moving from one place to another or located in a place,” Source (S), “the literal or figurative entity from which something moves,” and Goal (G), “the literal or figurative entity towards which something moves.”3 According to the conceptualization of transference, an Agent transfers a Theme from a Source to a Goal. The following example distinguishes the complements that realize these entities by the first letter of their semantic functions (A, Θ, S, and G):4 ἐπίθες ἐπ᾿ αὐτὸ πῦρ ἀπὸ τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου (Num 17:11) [You (A)] place [fire (Θ)] [from the altar (S)] [onto the censor (G)].

The event of motion (Mot.) relates three entities that function as a Theme, a Source, and a Goal. According to the conceptualization of motion, a Theme moves from a Source to a Goal: µετατίθεσθε ἀπὸ τοῦ καλέσαντος ὑµᾶς ἐν χάριτι [Χριστοῦ] εἰς ἕτερον εὐαBέλιον (Gal 1:6) [You (Θ)] are relocating [from the one calling you in (the) grace of Christ (S)] [to another gospel (G)].

1. See Goddard, Semantic Analysis, 197–98. 2. Further discussion of the event of transference appears in Danove, “Features,” 5–6. 3. These and subsequently introduced semantic functions receive description according to the thematic roles developed in Saeed, Semantics, 139–71, and Danove, Linguistics and Exegesis, 31–45. 4. This study uses the texts of Rahlfs, ed., Septuaginta, and Aland et al., eds., Greek New Testament.

DANOVE Τίθηµι and Τίθηµι Compounds

7

The event of effect (Eff.) relates two entities that function as an Agent and a Patient (P), “the entity undergoing an action.” According to the conceptualization of effect, an Agent acts on a Patient: περιθήσεις τὴν σκηνὴν (Exod 40:8) [You (A)] will set up [the tent (P)].

1.2 Deriving Events This discussion develops the procedure for deriving the various events grammaticalized by τίθηµι and its compounds from one base event. The procedure uses transference as the base event because the verbs grammaticalize transference in a majority of their occurrences. The procedure derives one event from another through the exclusion or augmentation of event entities and / or through changes in the functionality of event entities. The events of transference (AΘSG) / motion (ΘSG) differ in the presence / absence of an Agent entity. The procedure derives the event of motion directly from the event of transference through the exclusion of the Agent of transference. The derivational description of the event of motion uses the four entities of transference (the base event) and places parentheses, ( ), around the Agent to note its exclusion. The derivational description of motion, (A)ΘSG, has the same entities as those originally proposed for motion, ΘSG. Although the events of transference (AΘSG) and effect (AP) appear quite different, the procedure derives effect directly from transference through exclusion of the Source and Goal of transference. This exclusion removes the implication of motion, and only the action of the Agent on the remaining entity remains. As a consequence, the remaining entity functions as a Patient. The procedure notes the exclusion of the Source and Goal entities by placing them in parentheses, AΘ(SG), and signals the change in the functionality of the Theme of transference to the Patient of effect through a right arrow linking the Theme and Patient, Θ→P. The resulting derivational description of effect, AΘ(SG) Θ→P, has the same entities as those originally proposed for effect, AP.

8

Biblical and Ancient Greek Linguistics 3

The second mechanism for driving events is the augmentation of the entities of an event by a new entity. Augmentation never occurs directly with transference, which already includes the maximum of four entities. However, events derived from transference through exclusion have fewer than four entities and are candidates for augmentation. For example, the procedure derives the event of transformation (Tfm.), which includes an Agent, a Patient, and a Resultative (R), “the final state of an entity undergoing change,” directly from the event of effect through augmentation by a Resultative. Eff. Δαρεῖος ὁ βασιλεὺς ἔθηκεν γνώµην (Ezra 6:1) [King Darius (A)] made [a decree (P)]. Tfm. προφήτην εἰς ἔθνη τέθεικά σε (Jer 1:5) [I (A)] have made [you (P)] [a prophet for the nations (R)].

The procedure notes the augmentation by placing a plus sign, +, after the four entities of transference followed by the augmenting entity. The resulting derivational description of transformation, AΘ(SG)+R Θ→P, has the same entities as those originally proposed for transformation, APR. 1.3 Identifying and Describing Verbal Usages This discussion identifies as a verbal usage all occurrences in which τίθηµι and its compounds grammaticalize the same event by raising the same set of event entities as verbal arguments, attributing the same affectedness to the verbal subject, and, for events that include a Goal entity, exhibiting the same functionality of the Goal. The first stage in identifying a verbal usage is the grouping of all occurrences that raise the same entities as verbal arguments. Greek (like English) grammar permits verbs to raise at most three event entities as arguments. When grammaticalizing transference, the verbs address the restriction to three arguments by assuming the perspective in which the Source and Agent are coincident or at least proximate at the initiation of transference. With this perspective, the verbs omit consideration of the Source, which can be retrieved from the initially coincident / proximate Agent, and raise the Agent, Theme, and Goal as arguments.

DANOVE Τίθηµι and Τίθηµι Compounds

9

These three arguments are associated respectively with the verbs’ required first complement (the subject when the verbs have active or middle forms), second complement (the subject when the verbs have passive forms), and third complement (the complement that never functions as the subject). Verbs with these three required complements grammaticalize Transference to a Goal. πηλὸν ἐπέθηκέν µου ἐπὶ τοὺς ὀφθαλµοὺς (John 9:15) [He (A)] put [clay (Θ)] [onto (my) eyes (G)]. παρέθετο αὐτὸν εἰς φυλακήν (2 Chr 16:10) [He (A)] put [him (Θ)] [into prison (G)].

The second stage in identifying usages requires the grouping of all occurrences with the same event entities as arguments according to the base forms of the verbs. Τίθηµι and its compounds exhibit active, middle, and passive base forms in the LXX and NT. This discussion interprets the differing base forms to indicate differing attributions of affectedness to the subject / first complement.5 Active base forms signal that the first complement is unaffected by the action, and their translations proceed in a straightforward manner. Middle base forms signal that the first complement is affected and that the affectedness is not directly attributable to another entity of the event.6 Translations indicate such external (to the entities of the event) affectedness by placing “with affect” in brackets, [ ], after the first complement. Passive base forms signal that the affectedness of the first complement is attributable directly to one of the other entities internal to the event. For example, when the verbs grammaticalize transference, passive base forms indicate that the Agent and Theme are co–referential (Θ=A), that is, that the Agent transfers itself. Since the passive base forms alone are sufficient to signal this internal affectedness, the Greek verbs do

5. Lyons, Linguistics, 373, discusses the nature of this affectedness; cf. Allan, Middle Voice, 19–20. Saeed, Semantics, 162–65, considers various categories of affectedness. 6. Further discussion of the proposed categories of affectedness appears in Danove, Verbs of Transference, 21–24.

10

Biblical and Ancient Greek Linguistics 3

not realize the co–referential Theme complement. Translations indicate such internal affectedness by realizing the Theme complement by a reflexive pronoun (“-self”). Subject affectedness identifies distinct Active / Middle / Passive Usages of Transference to a Goal (Tra. act. / Tra. mid. / Tra. pass.): Tra. act.

πηλὸν ἐπέθηκέν µου ἐπὶ τοὺς ὀφθαλµοὺς (John 9:15) [He (A)] put [clay (Θ)] [onto (my) eyes (G)].

Tra. mid.

παρέθετο αὐτὸν εἰς φυλακήν (2 Chr 16:10) [He (A)] [with affect] put [him (Θ)] [into prison (G)].

Tra. pass.

προστεθήτωσάν σοι (Num 18:2) Let [them (A)] add [themselves (Θ)] [to you (G)].

The third stage in identifying usages applies only when the grammaticalized event contains a Goal entity. Verbs may specialize the interpretation of this entity to designate the abiding locale of the Theme at the termination of the action. With this interpretation, the entity functions as a Locative (L), “the literal or figurative place in which an entity is situated or an event occurs.” The change in functionality from a Goal to a Locative, G→L, does not give rise to a new event because the implication of transference remains constant. Changes in functionality of the Goal to a Locative give rise to parallel Goal / Locative usages, as in the following occurrences of verbs with Active Usages of Transference to a Goal / Terminating in a Locative: G

θήσω σε εἰς ὀπὴν τῆς πέτρας (Exod 33:22) [I (A)] will put [you (Θ)] [into a hole of the rock (G)].

L

ἔθηκεν αὐτὸν ἐν µνηµείῳ (Mark 15:46) [He (A)] put [him (Θ)] [in a tomb (L)].

1.4 Specifying Required Complements The descriptions of verbal usages identify the lexical realizations of all observed required second and third verbal complements and indicate when the verbs permit second and third complements to remain unrealized. The descriptions do not address the lexical realizations of first complements because the

DANOVE Τίθηµι and Τίθηµι Compounds

11

syntactic case of their noun phrase realizations is determined by the verb phrase in which they occur.7 Noun phrase (N) realizations receive description by an abbreviated statement of their syntactic case after a plus sign: N+acc, N+dat, and N+gen. A noun phrase that retrieves its syntactic case from another required complement notes whether the other complement is first “1” or Second “2” after a plus sign: N+1 or N+2. Prepositional phrase (P) realizations are introduced by “P/” followed by the governing preposition and, when the preposition imposes more than one possible syntactic case on its object, the syntactic case of the object in brackets: e.g., P/ἐπί [+acc], P/ἐπί [+dat], P/ἐπί [+gen]. Adverbial (A) realizations are introduced by “A/” followed by the adverb: e.g., A/ἐκεῖ and A/ ὧδε. Adjective (Adj) realizations, which retrieve their syntactic case from the first or second required complement, note this by placing “1” or “2” after a plus sign: Adj+1 or Adj+2. Verb phrase (V) realizations resolve into independent clauses (V+), ἵνα clauses (V+ ἵνα), relative clauses (V+ὅ), infinitives with subject accusative (V+i), or infinitives that lack their own subject (V-i). Such non–maximal infinitive phrases retrieve the referent of their subject from another required complement, either the first (V-i1), the second (V-i2), or the third (V-i3). The neuter singular article sometimes introduces infinitive phrase realization: e.g., τοῦ V-i1 and τοῦ V-i2. Where possible, the discussion introduces translations of complements in parentheses: e.g., P/ἐπί [+acc] (onto) and P/ἐπί [+dat] (on). With most usages, the verbs permit their second argument and, when required, their third arguments to remain unrealized as complements whenever their definite referent can be retrieved from the context. The grammatical interpretation of the verbs requires the retrieval of the referent of each definite null complement (DNC) from the context.8 On three occasions with

7. Nominative case in indicative and subjunctive clauses, genitive in the genitive absolute, and either dative or accusative in various classes of infinitive phrases. 8. Definite null complements receive introduction in Fillmore, “Zero Anaphora,” 95–107, and Fillmore, “Topics,” 96–97. They are developed under

12

Biblical and Ancient Greek Linguistics 3

one usage of διατίθηµι, the third argument is null even though the context does not supply for it a definite referent. With this usage, the verb imposes on the indefinite null complement (INC) the interpretation, “human being[s].”9 The realizations of particular second and third complements are restricted to referencing either animate [+animate] or inanimate [–animate] entities.10 Greek grammar interprets divine and demonic beings, living human beings and animals, forces of nature, and natural phenomena as +animate and all other entities, including dead human beings and animals, body parts, places, concepts, and events, as –animate. Descriptions of noun and prepositional phrase realizations note restrictions to +animate [+an] or –animate [–an] entities in brackets: e.g., N+dat [+an], P/ ἐνώπιον [+an], and P/ἐπί [+dat, –an]. 2. Usages of Transference Τίθηµι and sixteen of its compounds grammaticalize five usages of transference (Tra.), AΘSG. With these usages, the verbs assume the perspective in which the Source and Agent initially are coincident / proximate, omit the Source and note that it is retrieved from the Agent [S=A], and raise the Agent, Theme, and Goal entities as arguments, AΘ[S]G. Thus all usages of transference have the general description, AΘ[S]G [S=A]. The verbs license the Agent as first complement, the Theme as second complement, and the Goal as third complement. The usages differ in subject affectedness (act., mid., or pass.) and the functionality of the Goal entity (G or G→L). The description of the passive usage clarifies that the Theme never is realized but is retrievable from the Agent by placing the Theme entity of

the designations, “definite object deletion” in Mittwoch, “Idioms,” 255–59, “latent object” in Matthews, Syntax, 125–26, and “contextual deletion” in Allerton, Valency, 34, 68–70. 9. Indefinite null complements receive introduction in Fraser and Ross, “Idioms,” 264–65, and Sag and Hankamer, “Anaphoric Processing,” 325–45. 10. Further discussion of this semantic feature appears in Danove, “Goal and Locative,” 65–80.

DANOVE Τίθηµι and Τίθηµι Compounds

13

transference in double brackets, A[[Θ]][S]G, and appending a notation that the Theme may be retrieved from the Agent, [[Θ=A]]. 2.1 Usage #1: Active Transference to a Goal, AΘ[S]G [S=A] act. Fourteen of the verbs occur with the Active Usage of Transference to a Goal.11 The Theme is realized by N+acc, P/ἀπό (some of), and P/παρά (more than) or is DNC.12 The Goal is realized by N+dat [+an] (to, onto, before), P/εἰς [–an] (to, into), P/ἐπί [+acc] (onto), and P/πρός [+acc, +an] (to) or is DNC. ἐπέθηκεν αὐτῇ τὰς χεῖρας (Luke 13:13) He placed [his] hands onto her. τὰ πρωτογενήµατα τῆς γῆς σου θήσεις εἰς τὸν οἶκον κυρίου τοῦ θεοῦ σου (Exod 34:26) You will place the first fruits of your land into the house of [the] Lord your God.

2.2 Usage #2: Middle Transference to a Goal, AΘ[S]G [S=A] mid. Nine verbs occur with the Middle Usage of Transference to a Goal.13 The Theme is realized by N+acc and P/ἐκ (some of) or is DNC. The Goal is realized by N+dat [+an] (to, onto, before), P/ ἀντί [+gen] (onto), P/εἰς [–an] (into), and P/ἐπί [+acc] (onto) or is DNC. ἀνεθέµην αὐτοῖς τὸ εὐαBέλιον (Gal 2:2) I [with affect] presented to them the gospel. εἰς χεῖράς σου παραθήσοµαι τὸ πνεῦµά µου (Ps 30:6) Into your hands I [with affect] will entrust my spirit.

11. Usage #1: in the LXX, ἀνατίθηµι, ἐντίθηµι, ἐπιπροστίθηµι, κατατίθηµι, παρακατατίθεµαι, συνεπιτίθηµι, συντίθηµι, and ὑποτίθηµι; and in the LXX and NT, ἐπιτίθηµι, µετατίθηµι, παρατίθηµι, περιτίθηµι, προστίθηµι, and τίθηµι. 12. This study identifies as N+acc all occurrences of relative pronouns that appear with genitive or dative case realizations through attraction to the case of the antecedent. 13. Usage #2: in the LXX, ἀποτίθηµι, παρακατατίθεµαι, and προστίθηµι; in the NT, προσανατίθεµαι; and in the LXX and NT, ἀνατίθηµι, ἐπιτίθηµι, παρατίθηµι, τίθηµι, and ὑποτίθηµι.

14

Biblical and Ancient Greek Linguistics 3

2.3 Usage #3: Passive Transference to a Goal, A[[Θ]][S]G [[Θ=A]] [S=A] pass. Προστίθηµι occurs with the Passive Usage of Transference to a Goal in the LXX and NT. Occurrences that admit to interpretation with this usage are polysemous because they also admit to interpretation as passivized Usage #1 with an unspecified Agent. With interpretation as Usage #3, the Theme is co–referential to the Agent and consistently null (DNC); and, with interpretation as passivized Usage #1, the Theme is raised as verbal subject. In all occurrences, the Theme is +animate. The Goal is realized by N+dat [+an] (to) and P/πρός [+acc, +an] (to) or is DNC. πάντες οἱ φυγαδεύοντες ἀπὸ τῶν κακῶν προσετέθησαν αὐτοῖς (1 Macc 2:43) #3 #1

All fleeing from the[se] evils joined themselves to them. All fleeing from the[se] evils were joined to them.

2.4 Usage #4: Active Tra. Terminating in a Locative, AΘ[S]G [S=A] G→L act. Ten verbs occur with the Active Usage of Transference Terminating in a Locative.14 The Theme is realized by N+acc, V+ὅ (what), and P/ἀπό (some of) or is DNC. The Locative is realized by N+dat [–an] (on, around), P/ἀνὰ µέσον (between), P/ ἀντί (in the place of), P/ἀπέναντι [–an] (before), P/ἀπό (away from), P/ἀπό…P/ἕως (from…to), P/εἰς [+an] (among), P/ἐκ [–an] (away from), P/ἐν (in), P/ἔναντι [+an] (before), P/ἐναντίον (before), P/ἐνώπιον (before, in front of), P/ἔξω [–an] (outside of), P/ἔξωθεν [–an] (outside of), P/ἐπάνω (above), P/ἐπί [+dat] (on), P/ἐπί [+gen] (on), P/ἕως [–an] (as far as), P/κατά [+acc, –an] (throughout), P/µετά [+gen] (among, with), P/ὀπίσω (behind), P/ παρά [+acc, –an] (along), P/παρά [+dat, +an] (with), P/περί [+acc] (around), P/πρό (before), P/πρός [+acc, –an] (at, on, with), P/ὑπεράνω (above), P/ὑπό [+acc] (under), P/ὑποκάτω

14. Usage #4: in the LXX, ἀντιτίθηµι, ἀποτίθηµι, ἐντίθηµι, παρατίθηµι, προτίθηµι, and ὑποτίθηµι; and in the LXX and NT, ἐπιτίθηµι, περιτίθηµι, προστίθηµι, and τίθηµι.

DANOVE Τίθηµι and Τίθηµι Compounds

15

(underneath), A/ἐκεῖ (there), A/κάτω (down), A/ὅπου (where), A/ ποῦ (where), and A/ὧδε (here) or is DNC. παραθήσω ἐνώπιόν σου ψωµὸν ἄρτου (1 Sam 28:22) I will set before you a morsel of bread. φραγµὸν αὐτῷ περιέθηκεν (Matt 21:33) He placed around/on it (the vineyard) a fence.

2.5 Usage #5: Middle Tra. Terminating in a Locative, AΘ[S]G [S=A] G→L mid. Eight verbs occur with the Middle Usage of Transference Terminating in a Locative.15 The Theme is realized by N+acc or is DNC. The Locative is realized by P/ἀνὰ µέσον (between), P/ ἀπό (away from), P/ἐν (in), P/ἔναντι [+an] (before), P/ἐναντίον (before), P/ἐνώπιον (before, in front of), P/ἐπί [+dat] (on), P/ἐπί [+gen] (on), P/µετά [+gen] (with), P/παρά [+acc, –an] (along), P/ παρά [+dat, +an] (with), P/περί [+acc] (around), P/πρό (before), P/πρός [+acc, –an] (at, on), A/ἐκεῖ (there), and A/οὕ (where). ἐπέθετο γῆν ἐπὶ τὴν κεφαλὴν αὐτοῦ (1 Macc 11:71) He [with affect] put earth on his head. τί ὅτι ἔθου ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ σου τὸ πρᾶγµα τοῦτο; (Acts 5:4) Why did you [with affect] set this deed in your heart?

3. Usages of Motion Four verbs grammaticalize three usages of motion (Mot.), (A)ΘSG. With these usages, the verbs assume the perspective in which the Source initially is coincident with / proximate to the Theme. With two usages, the verbs raise the Theme and Goal entities as arguments; and the usage descriptions specify that the Source is not raised as an argument but is retrievable from the Theme, (A)Θ[S]G [S=Θ]. With these usages, the verbs license the Theme as first complement and the Goal as second complement. With the third usage, the verb excludes the conceptualization of the Goal and raises the Theme and Source

15. Usage #5: in the LXX, ἐπιτίθηµι, κατατίθηµι, παρατίθηµι, περιτίθηµι, προστίθηµι, and προτίθηµι; and in the LXX and NT, ἀποτίθηµι, and τίθηµι.

16

Biblical and Ancient Greek Linguistics 3

entities as arguments. As a consequence, the usage description removes the brackets around the Source and places the Goal in parentheses to clarify that it is irretrievable, (A)ΘS(G) S=Θ. The exclusion of the Goal does not create a new event because the conceptualization of motion remains. However, raising the Source as an argument shifts the conceptualization to focus exclusively on the initiation of motion, at which the Source complement specifies the exact location of the Theme. Since the English verbs that best translate τίθηµι and its compounds with usages of transference do not also designate motion, the translations rely on alternative English verbs of motion. 3.1 Usage #6: Active Motion to a Goal, (A)Θ[S]G [S=Θ] act. Συνεπιτίθηµι occurs with the Active Usage of Motion to a Goal in the LXX. The Goal is realized by P/ἐπί [+acc] (against, onto). µηδὲ συνεπιθῇ ἐπὶ τὴν δύναµιν αὐτῶν ἐν ἡµέρᾳ ἀπωλείας αὐτῶν (Obad 13) Nor may he join in moving against/onto their force on the day of their destruction.

3.2 Usage #7: Middle Motion to a Goal, (A)Θ[S]G [S=Θ] mid. Four verbs occur with the Middle Usage of Motion to a Goal.16 The Goal is realized by N+dat [+an] (onto, against), P/ἀντί (onto), P/εἰς [–an] (to), and P/ἐπί [+acc] (onto, upon) or is DNC. In the second example, the Source complement is an adjunct that is not required for the grammatical use of the verb. ἐπέθεντο οἱ ἀlόφυλοι ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν (1 Sam 23:27) The Philistines [with affect] moved onto the land. µετατίθεσθε ἀπὸ τοῦ καλέσαντος ὑµᾶς ἐν χάριτι [Χριστοῦ] εἰς ἕτερον εὐαBέλιον (Gal 1:6) You [with affect] are relocating from the one calling you in (the) grace [of Christ] to another gospel.

16. Usage #6: in the LXX, τίθηµι; in the NT, µετατίθηµι; and in the LXX and NT, ἐπιτίθηµι and συνεπιτίθηµι.

DANOVE Τίθηµι and Τίθηµι Compounds

17

3.3 Usage #8: Middle Motion from a Source, (A)ΘS(G) S=Θ mid. Μετατίθηµι occurs with the Middle Usage of Motion from a Source in the LXX. The Source is realized by P/ἀπό (from). …[µακαριστὸν ποιήσειν] µεταθέµενον ἀπὸ τῶν πατρίων (2 Macc 7:24) …[to make happy] the one [with affect] relocating from [his] ancestral [traditions].

4. Usages of Effect and Its Direct Derivatives This discussion develops the Usages of Effect and of the events derived directly from effect. 4.1 Usages of Effect Fourteen verbs grammaticalize the event of effect (Eff.), AΘ(SG) Θ→P. The usages of effect differ only in the affectedness of the Agent (act. or mid.). 4.1.1 Usage #9: Active Effect, AΘ(SG) Θ→P act. Nine verbs occur with the Active Usage of Effect.17 The Patient is realized by N+acc and N+gen (some of) or is DNC. µετέθηκεν αὐτὸν ὁ θεός (Heb 11:5b) God relocated/moved him. [εἰσοίσεις τὴν τράπεζαν καὶ] προθήσεις τὴν πρόθεσιν αὐτῆς (Exod 40:4) You [will bring in the table and] set up its offering.

4.1.2 Usage #10: Middle Effect, AΘ(SG) Θ→P mid. Eight verbs occur with the Middle Usage of Effect.18 The Patient is realized by N+acc or is DNC.

17. Usage #9: in the LXX, διατίθηµι, ἐπιτίθηµι, κατατίθηµι, περιτίθηµι, προστίθηµι, and προτίθηµι; and in the LXX and NT, ἐκτίθηµι, µετατίθηµι, and παρατίθηµι. 18. Usage #10: in the LXX, ἐντίθηµι, ἐπιτίθηµι, περιτίθηµι, συντίθηµι, and ὑπερτίθεµαι; in the NT, ἀντιδιατίθηµι and προτίθηµι; and in the LXX and NT, ἀποτίθηµι.

18

Biblical and Ancient Greek Linguistics 3 ἀποθώµεθα οὖν τὰ ἔργα τοῦ σκότους (Rom 13:12) Therefore let’s [with affect] put aside the works of darkness. ἐπέθεντο πάντες διαδήµατα (1 Macc 1:9) They all [with affect] put on crowns.

4.2 Usages of Benefaction Five verbs grammaticalize the event of benefaction (Ben.), AΘ(SG)+B Θ→P, which is derived from the event of effect, AΘ(SG) Θ→P, through augmentation by an entity that functions as a Benefactive (B), “the ultimate entity for which an action is performed or for which, literally or figuratively, something happens or exists.” Identifying the Benefactive as an argument of these five verbs requires a methodological approach because some verbs with the usages of effect (§3.1) on occasion license a non–required Benefactive adjunct. This discussion interprets a verb to grammaticalize the event of Benefaction if (1) it realizes a Benefactive complement in a majority or large minority of occurrences and (2) in every occurrence without a realized Benefactive, the referent of the Benefactive is retrievable from the context (making it DNC) or, with διατίθηµι (§1.4), from the verb (making it INC). Occurrences of διατίθηµι also grammaticalize Benefaction without realizing the Patient complement even when the context offers no retrievable referent. In such cases, however, the verb itself imposes on the null Patient the interpretation, διαθήκη (covenant, agreement). The description of resulting cognate usage notes the consistent omission of the Patient complement with double brackets, [[P]]. Thus the usages of benefaction differ in the affectedness of the Agent (act. or mid.) and whether or not the cognate Patient is realized, P or [[P]]. 4.2.1 Usage #11: Active Benefaction, AΘ(SG)+B Θ→P act. Two verbs occur with the Active Usage of Benefaction.19 The Patient is realized by N+acc or is DNC. The Benefactive is realized by N+dat [+an] (for, with), P/κατά [+gen] (against), P/πρός [+acc] (for), P/ὑπέρ [+gen] (for) or is DNC. 19. Usage #11: in the LXX and NT, τίθηµι and ὑποτίθηµι.

DANOVE Τίθηµι and Τίθηµι Compounds

19

τίθηµί σοι διαθήκην (Exod 34:10) I make a covenant for/with you. οἵτινες ὑπὲρ τῆς ψυχῆς µου τὸν ἑαυτῶν τράχηλον ὑπέθηκαν (Rom 16:4) [Prisca and Aquilla] who risked [their] neck for my life.

4.2.2 Usage #12: Middle Benefaction, AΘ(SG)+B Θ→P mid. Five verbs occur with the Middle Usage of Benefaction.20 The Patient is realized by N+acc or is DNC. The Benefactive is realized by N+dat [+an] (for, with), P/ἀντί [+an] (against), P/εἰς [–an] (for), P/κατά [+gen, +an] (against), P/µετά [+gen, +an] (with), P/πρός [+acc, +an] (for) or is DNC or INC (διατίθηµι). οὐχὶ τοῖς πατράσιν ὑµῶν διέθετο κύριος τὴν διαθήκην ταύτην, ἀl᾿ ἢ πρὸς ὑµᾶς, ὑµεῖς ὧδε πάντες ζῶντες σήµερον (Deut 5:3) Not for your ancestors did [the] Lord [with affect] make this covenant but for you, all of you present living today. οὐκ ἔθετο ἡµᾶς ὁ θεὸς εἰς ὀργὴν ἀlὰ εἰς περιποίησιν σωτηρίας διὰ τοῦ κυρίου ἡµῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (1 Thess 5:9) God [with affect] did not set us up for anger but for possession of salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.

4.2.3 Usage #13: Cognate Middle Benefaction, A[[Θ]](SG)+B [[Θ→P]] mid. Διατίθηµι occurs with the Cognate Middle Usage of Benefaction in the LXX. The Patient consistently is DNC and has the interpretation, “covenant” or “agreement.” The Benefactive is realized by N+dat [+an] (for, with) and P/µετά [+gen, +an] (with). ὡς διεθέµην Δαυιδ τῷ πατρί σου (2 Chr 7:18) As I [with affect] made [[a covenant]] with David your father.

4.3 Usages of Compulsion Two verbs grammaticalize the event of compulsion (Cpl.), AΘ(SG)+E Θ→P, which is derived from the event of effect, AΘ(SG) Θ→P, through augmentation by an entity that functions as an Event (E), “the complete circumstantial scene of an action or event.” Like the verbs that grammaticalize compulsion but not

20. Usage #12: in the LXX, συγκατατίθεµαι and ὑποτίθηµι; and in the LXX and NT: διατίθηµι, κατατίθηµι, and τίθηµι.

20

Biblical and Ancient Greek Linguistics 3

transference (e.g., ποιέω [make] and ἀναγκάζω [compel]), τίθηµι and προστίθηµι consistently have the implication that the Patient accomplishes the Event. However, unlike the other verbs, τίθηµι and προστίθηµι never accommodate the interpretation that the Agent uses coercive force to compel the Patient to accomplish the event.21 The usages of compulsion differ only in the affectedness of the Agent (act., mid., or pass.). 4.3.1 Usage #14: Active Compulsion, AΘ(SG)+E Θ→P act. Τίθηµι occurs with the Active Usage of Compulsion in the LXX. The Patient is realized by N+acc. The Event is realized by V-i2 (to) and τοῦ V-i2 (to). ἔθεντο αὐτὸν εἶναι ἀσεβῆ (Job 32:3) They [with affect] set him up / made him out to be ungodly.

4.3.2 Usage #15: Middle Compulsion, AΘ(SG)+E Θ→P mid. Τίθηµι occurs with the Middle Usage of Compulsion in the LXX. The Patient is realized by N+acc. The Event is realized by V-i2 (to). τίς µε θήσει φυλάσσειν καλάµην ἐν ἀγρῷ (Isa 27:4a) Who [with affect] will set me to guard straw in a field?

4.3.3 Usage #16: Passive Compulsion, A[[Θ]](SG)+E [[Θ→P, P=A]] pass. Προστίθηµι occurs with the Passive Usage of Compulsion in the LXX. As with the previous passive usage (§2.3), occurrences that admit to interpretation with Usage #16 are polysemous because they also admit to interpretation as passivized Usage #14 with an unspecified Agent. With interpretation as Usage #16, the Patient is co–referential to the Agent and consistently null (DNC); and, with interpretation as passivized Usage #14, the Patient is raised as verbal subject. The Event is realized by V-i1 (to) with Usage #16 or V-i2 (to) with Usage #14 or is DNC.

21. In this regard τίθηµι and προστίθηµι function like δίδωµι (give) and παραδίδωµι (hand over), which also grammaticalize both transference and compulsion in the LXX and NT.

DANOVE Τίθηµι and Τίθηµι Compounds

21

ἐγὼ δὲ προσετέθην ἐπακολουθῆσαι κυρίῳ τῷ θεῷ µου (Josh 14:8) #16 But I set myself to follow [the] Lord my God. #14 But I was set to follow [the] Lord my God.

4.4 Usages of Transformation Three verbs grammaticalize the event of transformation (Tfm.), AΘ(SG)+R Θ→P, which is derived (§1.2) from the event of effect, AΘ(SG) Θ→P, through augmentation by an entity that functions as a Resultative (R). The usages of transformation differ only in the affectedness of the Agent (act., mid., or pass.). 4.4.1 Usage #17: Active Transformation, AΘ(SG)+R Θ→P act. Two verbs occur with the Active Usage of Transformation.22 The Patient is realized by N+acc and P/ἐκ (some of) or is DNC. The Resultative is realized by N+2, P/εἰς (into), P/ἐν (into), Adj+2, A/ ἴσα N+dat (equal to), A/ὡς N+2 (like N+2), A/ὥσει N+2 (like N+2). ἐπέθηκεν τὸ ὄνοµα αὐτοῦ Αβιµελεχ (Judg 8:31) She set / made his name Abimelech. ἵνα εὐαBελιζόµενος ἀδάπανον θήσω τὸ εὐαBέλιον (1 Cor 9:18) So that, proclaiming, I may make the gospel free of charge.

4.4.2 Usage #18: Middle Transformation, AΘ(SG)+R Θ→P mid. Τίθηµι occurs with the Middle Usage of Transformation in the LXX. The Patient is realized by N+acc or is DNC. The Resultative is realized by N+2, P/εἰς (into), A/καθώς N+2 (like N+2), A/ὡς N+2 (like N+2), and Adj+2. ἔθεντο Ιερουσαληµ εἰς ὀπωροφυλάκιον (Ps 78:1) They [with affect] made Jerusalem into a guard station.

4.4.3 Usage #19: Passive Transformation, A[[Θ]](SG)+R [[Θ→P]] pass. Μετατίθηµι occurs with the Passive Usage of Transformation in the LXX. As with the previous passive usages (§§2.3, 4.3), occurrences that admit to interpretation with Usage #19 are polysemous because they also admit to interpretation as

22. Usage #17: in the LXX, ἐπιτίθηµι; and in the LXX and in the NT, τίθηµι.

22

Biblical and Ancient Greek Linguistics 3

passivized Usage #17 with an unspecified Agent. With interpretation as Usage #19, the Patient is co–referential to the Agent and consistently null (DNC); and, with interpretation as passivized Usage #17, the Patient is raised as verbal subject. The Resultative is realized by P/εἰς [–an] (into). φίλος µετατιθέµενος εἰς ἔχθραν (Sir 6:9) #19 a friend changing himself into an enemy. #17 a friend being changed into an enemy.

4.5 Usage #20: Middle Communication, AΘ(SG)+X Θ→P→C mid. Two verbs grammaticalize the event of communication (Com.), AΘ(SG)+X Θ→P→C, which is derived from the event of effect, AΘ(SG) Θ→P, through augmentation by an entity that functions as an Experiencer (X), “the animate entity that undergoes a sensory, cognitive, or emotional event or activity,” and a change in the functionality of the Patient of effect to a Content (C), “the content of a sensory, cognitive, or emotional event or activity.”23 The Content is realized by N+acc and V+ὅτι (that) or is DNC. The Experiencer is realized by N+dat [+an] (to) or is DNC: ἀκριβέστερον αὐτῷ ἐξέθεντο τὴν ὁδὸν [τοῦ θεοῦ] (Acts 18:26) He [with affect] accurately explained to him the way [of God]. παρατιθέµενος ὅτι τὸν χριστὸν ἔδει παθεῖν (Acts 17:3) He [with affect] explaining [to the Thessalonians, cf. 17:1] that it was necessary that the Christ suffer.

5. Usages of Variously Derived Events The remaining events are derived directly from transference or from one of the events derived directly from effect. 5.1 Usages of Continuation Προστίθηµι grammaticalizes the event of continuation (Cnt.), AΘSG Θ→E, which is derived directly from the event of transference, AΘSG, through a change in the functionality of the

23. Usage #20: in the NT, ἐκτίθηµι and παρατίθηµι.

DANOVE Τίθηµι and Τίθηµι Compounds

23

Theme to an Event, Θ→E. The verb assumes the perspective in which the Source and Agent initially are coincident / proximate, retrieves the Source from the Agent, [S=A], and raises the Agent, Event, and Goal as arguments, AΘ[S]G Θ→E [S=A]. The verb also interprets the Goal to be co–referential to the Event and consistently omits the Goal, which may be retrieved from the first Event, [[G=E]]. Thus the verb has the interpretation, “add doing Y to doing Y,” which explains its frequent translation by “continue [doing Y]” or “again doing Y.” The omission of the co–referential Goal does not impact the base forms of the verb because it is not co–referential to the Agent. The usages differ in the affectedness of the Agent (act. or mid.). 5.1.1 Usage #21: Active Continuation, AΘ[S][[G]] Θ→E [S=A] [[G =E]] act. Προστίθηµι occurs with the Active Usage of Continuation in the LXX. The Event is realized by V-i1 (to) and τοῦ V-i1 (to) or is DNC. The Goal, which is co–referential to the Event, consistently is null (DNC). οὐ µὴ προσθήσω ἔτι ἐλεῆσαι τὸν οἶκον τοῦ Ισραηλ (Hos 1:6) I no longer will continue to show the house of Israel mercy.

5.1.2 Usage #22: Middle Continuation, AΘ[S][[G]] Θ→E [S=A] [[G =E]] mid. Προστίθηµι occurs with the Middle Usage of Continuation in the LXX and NT. The Event is realized by V+, V-i1 (to), and τοῦ V-i1 (to) or is DNC. The Goal, which is co–referential to the Event, consistently is null (DNC). προσέθετο ἕτερον πέµψαι δοῦλον (Luke 20:11) He [with affect] added [[to his previous sending]] to send another slave.

5.2 Usages of Delegation Τίθηµι grammaticalizes the event of delegation, AΘSG Θ→E, which is derived directly from the event of transference, AΘSG, through a change in the functionality of the Theme to an Event, Θ→E. The verb assumes the perspective in which the Source and Agent initially are coincident / proximate, retrieves the Source from the Agent, [S=A], and raises the Agent, Event, and Goal as arguments, AΘ[S]G Θ→E. Delegation differs from Compulsion, AΘ(SG)+E, in that there is no necessary

24

Biblical and Ancient Greek Linguistics 3

expectation that the Goal will accomplish the Event.24 Delegation differs from continuation in that the Goal never is co–referential to the Event. The usages differ in the affectedness of the Agent (act. or mid.) and in the functionality of the Goal, which may function as a Locative, G→L. 5.2.1 Usage #23: Middle Delegation to a Goal, AΘ[S]G Θ→E mid. Τίθηµι occurs with this Middle Usage of Delegation to a Goal in the LXX. The Event is realized by V-i3 (to) and τοῦ V-i3 (to). The Goal is realized by N+dat [+an] (to), P/ἐπί [+acc] (to), and P/εἰς [–an] (into). ἔθετο αὐτοῖς Ιωσηφ εἰς πρόσταγµα…ἐπὶ γῆν Αἰγύπτου τῷ Φαραω ἀποπεµπτοῦν (Gen 47:26) Joseph [with affect] set as a law for them onto the land of Egypt to give a fifth to Pharaoh.

5.2.2 Usage #24: Active Del. Terminating in a Locative, AΘ[S]G Θ→E G→L act. Τίθηµι occurs with this Active Usage of Delegation Terminating in a Locative in the NT. The Event is realized by V-i3 (to). The Locative is realized by P/ἐν (in). In this example, καρδία (heart) references a human being viewed from the perspective of the capacity to reason and so functions as a +an entity. θέτε οὖν ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ὑµῶν µὴ προµελετᾶν ἀπολογηθῆναι (Luke 21:14) Therefore set in your hearts not to prepare in advance to defend yourselves.

5.3 Usages of Decision Five verbs grammaticalize the event of decision (Dec.), A(ΘSG)+E (Θ→P), which is derived from the event of compulsion, AΘ(SG)+E Θ→P, through exclusion of the Patient of compulsion, (Θ→P). As with compulsion, there is an implication that the Event is accomplished, in this case by the

24. Τίθηµι in the LXX functions like other verbs that grammaticalize both transference and delegation: χαρίζοµαι (give) in the NT and δίδωµι (give) and παραδίωµι (hand over) in the LXX and NT.

DANOVE Τίθηµι and Τίθηµι Compounds

25

Agent. The usages differ in the affectedness of the Agent (act. or mid.). 5.3.1 Usage #25: Active Decision, A(ΘSG)+E (Θ→P) act. Προτίθηµι occurs with the Active Usage of Decision in the NT. The Event is realized by V-i1 (to). Since there is an expectation that the Agent accomplishes the Event, Paul must append an explanation for the frustration of this expectation in the following example. ποlάκις προεθέµην ἐλθεῖν πρὸς ὑµᾶς, [καὶ ἐκωλύθην ἄχρι τοῦ δεῦρο] (Rom 1:13) Often I decided to come to you [and was hindered until now].

5.3.2 Usage #26: Middle Decision, A(ΘSG)+E (Θ→P) mid. Five verbs occur with the Middle Usage of Decision.25 The Event is realized by V+ἵνα (that), V+i (that), V-i1 (to), and τοῦ V-i1 (to) or is DNC. ἵνα τί συνέθου κατ᾿ ἐµοῦ σὺ καὶ ὁ υἱὸς Ιεσσαι δοῦναί σε αὐτῷ ἄρτον καὶ ῥοµφαίαν (1 Sam 22:13) Why did you and [your] son Jesse [with affect] join in proposing that you give to him bread and a sword? ἔθετο ὁ Παῦλος ἐν τῷ πνεύµατι…πορεύεσθαι εἰς Ἱεροσόλυµα (Acts 19:21) Paul [with affect] decided by the Spirit…to go to Jerusalem.

6. Relationships among the Events and Base Event Selection The preceding study established that τίθηµι and its twenty compounds grammaticalize ten events with twenty–six distinct usages. The proposed derivations by exclusion (Excl.), augmentation (Aug.), and changes in the functionality (Fun.) of the entities of transference (AΘSG) clarified the relationships among events, and the discussions of perspective (Per.), functionality of the Goal (G), omitted complements (Omit), and subject affectedness (Aff.) distinguished usages of the same

25. Usage #26: in the LXX, ἐπιτίθηµι and προτίθηµι; in the NT, τίθηµι; and in the LXX and NT, συγκατατίθεµαι and συντίθηµι.

26

Biblical and Ancient Greek Linguistics 3

event. The following table summarizes the proposed derivations of events to the left of the double vertical lines, ||, and the distinctions among usages to the right of the double lines. At the far right appears an equal sign, =, and the number of the usage being described (#1–#26). The table divides the usages into four groups separated by broken lines. These groups list the usages of transference and then the usages of events derived in one, two, and three steps from transference. Event

Excl.

Aug.

Fun.

||

Per.

G

Omit

Aff. = Usage

Tra.

|| [S=A]

G

act. =

#1

Tra.

|| [S=A]

G

mid. =

#2

Tra.

|| [S=A]

G

[[Θ=A]] pass. =

#3

Tra.

|| [S=A] G→L

act. =

#4

Tra.

|| [S=A] G→L

mid. =

#5

---one step--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Mot.

(A)

|| [S=Θ]

G

act. =

#6

Mot.

(A)

|| [S=Θ]

G

mid. =

#7

Mot.

(A)

||

G

mid. =

#8

Eff.

(SG)

Θ→P ||

act. =

#9

Eff.

(SG)

mid. =

#10

S=Θ

Θ→P ||

Cnt.

Θ→E || [S=A]

[[G=E]]

act. =

#21

Cnt.

Θ→E || [S=A]

[[G=E]] mid. =

#22

Del.

Θ→E || [S=A]

mid. =

#23

Del.

Θ→E || [S=A] G→L

act. =

#24

---two steps-------------------------------------------------------------------------------Ben.

(SG)

+B

Θ→P ||

act. =

#11

Ben.

(SG)

+B

Θ→P ||

mid. =

#12

Ben.

(SG)

+B

Θ→P ||

[[Θ→P]] mid. =

#13

Cpl.

(SG)

+E

Θ→P ||

act. =

#14

Cpl.

(SG)

+E

Θ→P ||

mid. =

#15

Cpl.

(SG)

+E

Θ→P ||

[[P=A]] pass. =

#16

Tfm.

(SG)

+R

Θ→P ||

act. =

#17

Tfm.

(SG)

+R

Θ→P ||

mid. =

#18

Tfm.

(SG)

+R

Θ→P ||

[[P=A]] pass. =

#19

DANOVE Τίθηµι and Τίθηµι Compounds Com.

(SG)

+X

Θ→C ||

mid. =

27 #20

---three steps-----------------------------------------------------------------------------Dec. (Θ)(SG)

+E (Θ→P) ||

acts =

#25

Dec. (Θ)(SG)

+E

mid. =

#26

||

This table indicates that four events are derived directly from transference (motion, effect, continuation, and delegation) and that four events are derived directly from effect (benefaction, compulsion, transformation, and communication). Further inspection also clarifies that all other events may be derived from effect in at most two steps, whereas the derivation of decision from transference requires a three–step derivation. Thus, although the discussion initially selected transference as the base event based on its grammaticalization in an absolute majority of the occurrences of τίθηµι and its compounds, directness of derivation would recommend effect as the base event. The directness of derivation from effect has significance for an investigation of the historical expansion of events grammaticalized by the verbs because this expansion might be expected to proceed through incremental (one–step) progressions. 7. Polysemous Usages Because verbs with different usages can realize their arguments with the same complements, polysemous occurrences are not only possible but frequent. However, the situation becomes acute with the active and middle usages of transference to a Goal (#1 and #2) / the active and middle usages of benefaction (#11 and #12), especially in the LXX. With these usages, the most common realization of the Theme/Patient is N+acc. Among the most common realizations of the Goal/Benefactive are N+dat [+an] (to, onto, before/for), P/ἀντί [+gen] (onto/against), P/εἰς [–

28

Biblical and Ancient Greek Linguistics 3

an] (to, into/for), and P/πρός [+acc, +an] (to/for). The resulting polysemy receives illustration in the following occurrences:26 µὴ συνεπιθῇ ἡµῖν ἁµαρτίαν (Num 12:11) Tra. Do not join in setting this sin onto us. Ben. Do not join in setting up/charging this sin against us. ἐκεῖ ἔθετο αὐτῷ δικαιώµατα (Exod 15:25) Tra. There he set ordinances upon them. Ben. There he set up ordinances for them.

In the former example, the transference of the sin only anticipates the negative impact on the Goal, while the actual setting up or charging of the sin has immediate negative implications for the Benefactive. In the latter example, the two translations view the same action from differing perspectives. 8. Conclusion This article resolved the occurrences of τίθηµι and its twenty compounds in the LXX and NT into twenty–six usages that grammaticalize ten different events. The discussion proposed a derivation for each of the events and described the features of the conceptualization of the event associated with each usage, specified the syntactic, semantic, and lexical properties of all required verbal complements, and provided illustrations of verbs with the usages. The discussion then represented and investigated the relationships among the usages, identified a potentially stronger candidate for the base event from which all other usages are derived, and clarified the reason that particular combinations of complements admit to multiple interpretations.

26. Muraoka, Lexicon, would recommend interpretation of the occurrence in Num 12:11 as transference (p. 661) and of that in Exod 15:28 as benefaction (p. 679).

DANOVE Τίθηµι and Τίθηµι Compounds Bibliography Aland, Barbara et al. The Greek New Testament. 4th rev. ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1993. Allan, Rutger J. The Middle Voice in Ancient Greek: A Study in Polysemy. ASCP 11. Amsterdam: Gieben, 2003. Allerton, David J. Valency and the English Verb. New York: Academic Press, 1982. Danove, Paul L. “Distinguishing Goal and Locative Complements of New Testament Verbs of Transference.” Filología Neotestamentaria 20 (2007) 65–80. _____. “Features of the Conceptualization of Transference in the New Testament.” BAGL 2 (2013) 5–28. _____. A Grammatical and Exegetical Study of New Testament Verbs of Transference: A Case Frame Guide to Interpretation and Translation. LNTS 391. SNTG 13. London: T&T Clark, 2009. _____. Linguistics and Exegesis in the Gospel of Mark: Applications of a Case Frame Analysis and Lexicon. JSNTSup 218; SNTG 10. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002. Fillmore, Charles J. “Pragmatically Controlled Zero Anaphora.” Berkeley Linguistics Society 12 (1986) 95–107. _____. “Topics in Lexical Semantics.” In Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, edited by R. W. Cole, 76–138. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1977. Fraser, Bruce, and John R. Ross. “Idioms and Unspecified N[oun] P[hrase] Deletion.” Linguistic Inquiry 1 (1970) 264–5. Goddard, Cliff. Semantic Analysis: A Practical Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998. Lyons, J. Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics. London: Cambridge University Press, 1969. Matthews, Peter. Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981. Mittwoch, Anita. “Idioms and Unspecified N[oun] P[hrase] Deletion.” Linguistic Inquiry 2 (1971) 255–9. Muraoka, T. A Greek–English Lexicon of the Septuagint. Louvain–Paris– Walpole, MA: Peeters, 2009.

29

30

Biblical and Ancient Greek Linguistics 3

Rahlfs, Alfred, ed. Septuaginta. Bibelgesellschaft, 1979.

2

vols.

Stuttgart:

Deutsche

Saeed, John I. Semantics. Oxford: Blackwell, 1997. Sag, Ivan, and Jorge Hankamer. “Toward a Theory of Anaphoric Processing.” Linguistics and Philosophy 7 (1984) 325–45.

[BAGL 3 (2014) 31-85]

Clause as Message: Theme, Topic, and Information Flow in Mark 2:1–12 and Jude James D. Dvorak and Ryder Dale Walton Oklahoma Christian University

Too often, study of the biblical text degenerates into rudimentary word studies, leaving aside larger syntactic and logical connections. This paper proposes that careful study should include considerations of genre, register, prime, subsequent, theme, rheme, topic, and comment. To demonstrate this, it applies a Systemic Functional approach to Mark 2:1–12 and the book of Jude. (Article) Keywords: Exegesis, Systemic Functional Linguistics, Prime, Subsequent, Theme, Rheme, Topic, Comment, Process Chains, Semantic Shift, Cohesion, Coherence, Linearity, Genre, Register

1. Introduction Exegesis is commonly defined as the process of “bringing out the meaning” of a biblical text. No matter which guide a student follows, the exegetical process inevitably includes studying the text in its original language, and rightly so.1 In the past, even minimal linguistic studies of biblical text consisted of meticulous examinations of grammar, syntax, and lexical semantics. Present exegetes now enjoy much greater access to high quality digital resources, including high-resolution facsimiles of ancient manuscripts. Moreover, linguistic theory and modeling in biblical studies have taken major strides forward. Yet, unfortunately, it seems that careful linguistic study has devolved

1.

Cf. Porter, “The Greek Language of the New Testament,” 99–130.

32

Biblical and Ancient Greek Linguistics 3

into little more than rudimentary word studies—and often these are quite meager because they consist simply of citations of the standard lexica.2 Certainly, there is value in studying the individual parts of a text (i.e., words and phrases), but even in cases where high quality researches of these parts are achieved, exegetes must always bear in mind that a text’s meaning is greater than the sum of its constituent parts.3 For this reason, we argue that more extensive linguistic analyses are required if exegetes are to arrive at a fuller, more principled understanding of “what a text is about.” For example, methodology deriving from Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL),4 the underlying paradigm of the approach we model below, generally deploys interpretive models that seek the meaning(s) of a text along three basic functional-semantic categories. Halliday, the father of SFL, calls these ideational, interpersonal, and textual metafunctions.5 Briefly, the ideational metafunction refers to meanings people make with language6 as a means of representing their experience of life as it unfolds, mapping “what’s going on, including who’s doing what to whom, where, when, why and how and the logical relation of one going-on to another.”7 The interpersonal metafunction refers to meanings made with language that enact social relationships and interactions among the participants of a given communicative context.8 Generally, these relationships are 2. For a caution against this kind of practice, see Yallop, “Words and Meaning,” 24–27. 3. Halliday makes this point is a discussion of coherence and cohesion in “Text Semantics and Clause Grammar,” 223. 4. Foundational resources include: Halliday, Language as Social Semiotic; Halliday, “Language in a Social Perspective”; Halliday, “Language and Social Man.” 5. Halliday, An Introduction to Functional Grammar, 33–36. 6. I.e., natural, human, adult, verbal language. Cf. Halliday and Matthiessen, Introduction to Functional Grammar, 20. 7. Martin and White, The Language of Evaluation, 7. Lemke (Textual Politics, 41) calls this “presentational” meaning. 8. Dvorak, “Interpersonal Metafunction,” 16. Lemke (Textual Politics,

DVORAK and WALTON Clause as Message

33

enacted by making assertions; asking questions; giving commands; evaluating what one thinks or feels about people, things, or events; and by indicating one’s relative commitment to any given proposition or proposal.9 The textual metafunction refers to meanings made as people organize, structure, and intertwine ideational and interpersonal meanings into a cohesive and coherent flow of information that is connected and relevant to the context of situation.10 The features at work in this metafunction are what allow hearers and/or readers to distinguish between text and “non-text,” that is, between sensical discourse and nonsensical “blather.”11 As Martin puts it, the job of the textual metafunction is “to package ideational and interpersonal meaning as waves of information, in one rhythm or another depending on context.”12 In this article, we fix our gaze upon a set of interrelated features that operate within the textual metafunction, namely prime and subsequent; theme and rheme; and topic and comment. Following Porter and O’Donnell,13 we suggest that prime and subsequent function at the clause level and are specified by word group order; that theme and rheme function across any number of clauses and are delimited by spans of actor and process

41) calls this “orientational” meaning. 9. Dvorak, “Interpersonal Metafunction,” 16. 10. Dvorak, “Thematization, Topic, and Information Flow,” 17–37 (here, 17). Cf. Halliday, “Language Structure and Language Function,” 175–76; Halliday, “Linguistic Function and Literary Style,” 92; Lemke (Textual Politics, 41) calls this “organizational” meaning. 11. Cf. Halliday, “Text as Semantic Choice in Social Contexts,” 44–45. 12. Martin, “Mourning,” 323. 13. As mentioned, our model is anchored in Halladayan SFL, yet our perspective on theme, topic, and information flow has been shaped by Porter and O’Donnell, Discourse Analysis, 85–118 (as of the writing of this article, this book has not yet gone to press; all page numbers refer to a pre-publication copy that we obtained from the authors and use it with their permission). See also Porter, “Prominence: An Overview,” 45–74; Dvorak, “Thematization, Topic, and Information Flow,” 17–37.

34

Biblical and Ancient Greek Linguistics 3

chains; and that topic and comment functions at paragraph14 level and beyond and are marked by semantic shifts.15 We show how these features are crucial with regard to the flow of information in a text and, thus, its cohesion and coherence. We present a series of frameworks for analyzing each of these features, and we validate both the utility and usefulness of these models by putting them to work in analyses of both narrative and nonnarrative texts, namely, Mark 2:1–12 and the letter of Jude, respectively.16 2. Discourse Structure and Information Flow 2.1 Linearity Language users cannot communicate all at once the whole content of meaning they wish to share with others. As a result, as is often said, they must “organize their thoughts,” so that when they create text the meanings they wish to make unfold linearly in a manner that increases the probability of understanding on the part of a reader or hearer. This constraint is commonly characterized as a “problem” that is somehow inherent to the linguistic system.17 However, it is really not an issue with the linguistic system per se; it is, rather, simply a matter of the use of language reflecting how humans experience the goings on of life. Humans experience life as a series of social processes that unfold in a culture as countless situations.18 As a result, when

14. We recognize that “paragraph” is notoriously challenging to define. In this article, we follow Porter, “Pericope Markers and the Paragraph,” 175– 95. 15. Porter and O’Donnell, Discourse Analysis, 85. 16. We use examples from our analyses of these two texts throughout. See the appendix for full analyses. 17. Cf. Brown and Yule, Discourse Analysis, 125ff. Dvorak, “Thematization, Topic, and Information Flow,” 18–19; Porter and O’Donnell, Discourse Analysis, 86. 18. Martin and Rose, Working with Discourse, 1–2.

DVORAK and WALTON Clause as Message

35

language users construe and reconstrue these social processes,19 they encode them into texts that unfold as sequences of words, word groups, clauses, clause complexes, and paragraphs.20 A well-chosen starting point for each clause—“prime” as we refer to it below—is crucial, for a poorly chosen point of departure may result in misunderstanding on the part of the text reader or hearer, possibly resulting in more work for the communicator, requiring her or him to “travel hither, thither, and yon” in an effort to arrive at the intended meaning. In this way, the so-called “problem” of linearity constrains a text’s flow of information. Yet, as Porter and O’Donnell point out, texts are more than “an ordered list of concepts realized in a string of words.”21 They also have a hierarchical structure consisting of “chunks” of text that are organized around thematically related material.22 The arrangement of these chunks is also not unconstrained, but is governed by two different but related levels of context: context of culture, which we call genre; and context of situation, which we call register.23 2.2 Genre Following Martin,24 we use the term genre to refer to “a staged, goal-oriented social process,”25 or, more technically, “a recurrent

19. I.e., creating meaning that is constrained by context while at the same time contributing to and reifying that context. 20. Martin and Rose, Working with Discourse, 2. The language of “unfolding” highlights the linear nature of language in use. Cf. Brown and Yule, Discourse Analysis, 125–26; Porter and O’Donnell, Discourse Analysis, 86. Cf. Dvorak, “Thematization, Topic, and Information Flow,” 18. 21. Porter and O’Donnell, Discourse Analysis, 86. 22. Porter and O’Donnell, Discourse Analysis, 86–88. 23. Discourse structure is also constrained by ideology in that meaning potential is not evenly distributed across participants in a culture (Martin, English Text, 575). 24. Martin, English Text, 493–588 (esp. 546–73). Cf. Martin and Rose, Genre Relations; Eggins and Martin, “Genres and Registers of Discourse,” 230–56. 25. Martin and Rose, Working with Discourse, 8.

36

Biblical and Ancient Greek Linguistics 3

configuration of meanings . . . that enact the social practices of a given culture.”26 Our view is informed by Bakhtin’s theory of speech genres, which he defined as habitualized, relatively stable patterns of meaning that are made with relatively predictable types of interactive utterances.27 From this point of view, genre includes not only literary genres but “everyday” genres, both spoken and written, such as service encounters, political debates, gossip, jokes, sermons, stories, and so on.28 The established genres of a culture provide an economy of meaning-making by which members of that culture are able to accomplish the manifold social processes required of everyday life without having to define each social process anew each time it needs to be repeated.29 This is why, as Bakhtin puts it, We learn to cast our speech in generic forms, and, when hearing others’ speech, we guess its genre from the very first words; predict a certain length . . . and a certain compositional structure; we foresee the end; that is, from the very beginning we have a sense of the speech whole, which is only later differentiated during the speech process.30

Bakhtin’s point, as Eggins and Martin rightly highlight, is that structures of discourses vary in typically familiar ways because the staging of the social processes they are intended to accomplish varies on the basis of typically familiar cultural norms.31

26. Martin and Rose, Genre Relations, 6. Clearly, our definition differs from that of traditional literary studies where the term tends to refer to various types of literary productions that are differentiated on the basis of form and/or stylistic convention (cf. Tate, “Genre,” 149). 27. Cf. Bakhtin, “The Problem of Speech Genres,” 60–102, here 60. Cf. Dvorak, “Interpersonal Metafunction,” 35; Eggins and Martin, “Genres and Registers,” 236. For an excellent portrayal of Bakhtin and his thought, see Holquist, Dialogism. 28. Cf. Eggins, Introduction, 56. 29. Berger and Luckmann, Social Construction of Reality, 53. 30. Bakhtin, “Problem of Speech Genres,” 79. 31. Cf. Eggins and Martin, “Genres and Registers,” 236.

DVORAK and WALTON Clause as Message

37

Consider, for example, Mark 2:1–12. This stretch of text is one of many stories that comprise the biographical history (bios) that Mark writes about Jesus.32 As such, this text feeds into the greater social goal of the gospel to articulate and to defend the significance of Jesus and, perhaps more importantly, to legitimate the value system he embodies.33 The particular kind of story Mark employs here is narrative.34 Narratives are stories that aim at resolving some sort of complication. Typically, they consist of an orientation, one or more complication, one or more evaluation, and one or more resolution.35 The discourse structure of Mark 2:1–12 follows this pattern (see appendix): Orientation (vv. 1–2) ^ Complication1 (vv. 3–4a) ^ Evaluation1 (v. 4b) ^ Resolution1 (temporary) (v. 5) ^ Complication2 (vv. 6–7) ^ Evaluation2 (vv. 8–9) ^ Resolution2 (final) (vv. 10–12).36 The text of Jude is a letter, so the structure of the text is, in part, constrained by the conventions of letter writing of his day: greeting (vv. 1–2); body (vv. 3–23); and closing (vv. 24–25).37 Jude identifies the social purpose of his letter as an admonishment to struggle intensely for the faith (παρακαλῶν ἐπαγωνίζεσθαι τῇ . . . πίστει [v. 3]). Here are the basic stages Jude employs in an effort to accomplish his task: offer the encouragement proper (v. 3); introduce participants to be

32. Cf. deSilva, Introduction to the New Testament, 145–48; Stanton, Gospel for a New People, 69–70; Aune, New Testament in Its Literary Environment, 35: “The unconscious functions of Greco-Roman biography involve the historical legitimation (or discrediting) of a social belief/value system personified in the subject of the biography” (italics added). 33. Cf. deSilva, Introduction, 147. 34. Other story genres include recounts, anecdotes, exempla, and observations. Cf. Martin and Rose, Genre Relations, 44ff. 35. Martin and Rose, Genre Relations, 52. These are the basic components that comprise a narrative. Of course, the number of these components and their order may vary depending on situational variables. 36. The caret (^) in this sequence means “followed by.” On the basic structure of different kinds of stories, cf. Martin and Rose, Genre Relations, 49–98 (on narratives specifically, see 67–74). 37. Cf. Gabriel, “Letters,” 193–94.

38

Biblical and Ancient Greek Linguistics 3

portrayed negatively (v. 4); give a series of intertextual references to negative exempla (vv. 5–16); give a series of directives, with additional negative evaluations of the antagonists as foils for the positive commands (vv. 17–23). As these brief examples demonstrate, discourse structure is not merely the result of an author’s stylistic flourishes, though, indeed, an author may as a matter of style intentionally manipulate or even flout structural norms. Discourse structure is, however, largely governed by the strictures of a given culture. Language use becomes habitualized and is used to accomplish certain social processes in certain ways that are deemed acceptable by those who are part of the culture. 2.3 Register As mentioned above, the structure of a text is also constrained by the register or more specific context of situation in which the text was uttered. The theory of register, first developed by Halliday38 and further developed by Martin (whom we follow here),39 both models context of situation and explains its relationship to language. First, register theory stratifies context and organizes it around three contextual variables or features called field, tenor, and mode. Briefly, field refers to the sequences of activities that are going on in a situation, as well as the people, things, places, qualities, and circumstances that are associated with those activities.40 Tenor refers to the kind of social relations that are enacted and negotiated among the participants in a given

38. Cf. Halliday, Social Semiotic, 110–113. 39. Cf. Martin, English Text, 497–502; also Eggins and Martin, “Genres and Registers of Discourse,” 230–56. 40. Martin and Rose, Genre Relations, 14; Dvorak, “Interpersonal Metafunction,” 27–28.

DVORAK and WALTON Clause as Message

39

situation,41 particularly the social relations of status/power42 and solidarity/contact.43 Mode is concerned with symbolic reality—with texture. Since symbolic reality (i.e., text/process) has the function of constructing social reality, mode is oriented to both interpersonal and experiential meaning. It thus mediates the role played by language along two dimensions. Interpersonally, mode mediates the semiotic space between monologue and dialogue. . . . Experientially, mode mediates the semiotic space between action and reflection. . . . Putting this in general terms, mode mediates negotiation.44

Second, register theory describes the relationship between field, tenor, and mode and discourse semantics. It is described as a relationship of realization (also referred to as expression or coding), in which, in Hjelmslevian terms, register is the content plane for which discourse semantics is the expression plane.45 In this regard, field is realized as ideational meaning, text as the representation of experience. Here the goings-on, participants, and circumstances of field are encoded into language primarily as verbal groups, nominal groups, and adverbial or participial groups respectively. Tenor is realized as interpersonal meaning, text as interaction or exchange. The enactments and negotiations of the social relations in the situation are encoded into language primarily through the system of verbal attitude (i.e., assertive [indicative], projective [subjunctive], directive [imperative], expective [future]). Tenor is also realized through the system of appraisal (i.e., attitude [affect, judgment, appreciation] and engagement [heterogloss, monogloss]). Mode is realized as textual meaning, text as a series of organized messages.46 Here

41. Martin, English Text, 523–26; Dvorak, “Interpersonal Metafunction,” 28. 42. I.e., the relative position of the participants in the culture’s social hierarchy. 43. I.e., the degree of institutional involvement between participants in the situation. 44. Martin, English Text, 509. 45. Martin, English Text, 501–502. 46. Cf. Halliday, “Functions of Language,” 24–26.

40

Biblical and Ancient Greek Linguistics 3

the elements of ideational meaning and interpersonal meaning are “packaged,” as it were, into clauses in which some portion of each clause has special “thematic” status and the remainder of the clause develops the theme and completes the message.47 Looking again at Mark 2, generic constraints of narrative may call for the story to open with an orientation (vv. 1–2), but register constrains the content of the orientation. Ideationally, Mark construes a world (a reality, an experience) in this portion of the narrative in which the goings-on consist of the following processes:48 • material processes: gathering together (συνήχθησαν [v. 2]), separating (χωρεῖν [v. 2])49 • a mental process: hearing (ἠκούσθη [v. 1]) • an existential process: is (ἐστίν [v. 1]) • a verbal process: speaking (ἐλάλει [v. 2])

The following participants are portrayed: • “he” (presumably Jesus) as the one who is “entering” Capernaum, who “is” in the house, and who “was speaking” the message • an assumed agent (the crowd?) as the one by whom it “was heard” that he is in the house • “many” (πο