I mentioned in a previous post that there are certain kinds of devices that work better in certain contexts than in others. In Mark 7:11-12, a fronted conditional clause was used to introduce the entity, whereas the synoptic parallel in Matthew 15:5-6 uses a left dislocation for the same context. This might make you think that the left dislocation is the “right” construction to use, then. Not so, dear reader.

Different contexts call for different tools, even for the same discourse task of introducing a new participant. Take a look at this other minimal pair from Mark and Matthew. Mark uses a left-dislocation this time, and Matthew a conditional clause, but Mark’s version still comes across as more awkward than Matthew’s. Here is Mark 11:23:

Mark uses a “whosoever…” as the subject, with a complex series of statements describing exactly who the whosoever is. They say something to the mountain, they do not doubt in their heart, but believe. The one who fits this category, whatever he/she asks will have it done for him.

In Matthew 21:21, a conditional clause is used along with the second person instead of introducing a hypothetical entity using third person.

Using the second person eliminates some of the awkwardness present in Mark’s version. Rather than introducing a very complex person that must do several things before something else is done to them, the hearer/reader of Matthew’s version is confronted with a scenario. There is still some complexity, but it is easier to process since it is being applied to oneself rather than to some new and unknown entity.

So to answer the question about which strategy is best to introduce an entity, the only real answer is “It depends.” Contexts vary, hence why there is more than one way of accomplishing a discourse task. Attention to synoptic parallels can yield some great exegetical insights.

Isn’t grammar wonderful?