One of the newly discovered joys in life is studying the gospels synoptically. Most of the time this has meant seeking to find the underlying, correct version. This is not what I am talking about. More and more it seems that synoptic studies are focusing on understanding the unique perspective and message of each gospel, engaging it on its own terms. One of the primary linguistic means of studying something is to look at two versions of essentially the same content, where ideally only one or two changes are made. These versions are called “minimal pairs.” My wonderful discovery last year was that the NT gospels are chuck full of minimal pairs, just waiting for a blog post to be written.

Today I will take a couple examples of minimal pairs that deal with the introduction of a new participant. Often times in Jesus’ teaching, he uses “whosoevers” and “the one who” to teach principles that apply to his audience. In order to speak about a generic person, he or she first needs to be introduced.  The most basic method is observed in most fairy tales, using two clauses:

There once was a ___________.                      There arose a king in Egypt.

He/she lived in a ___________.                      He did not know Joseph

The first clause uses what is typically called a dummy subject, in this case “there”. In the second pair of sentences, I used a verb of motion to accomplish the same task as a verb of being, but still using a dummy subject. It is a paraphrase from Exodus 1:8, only the second clause is actually a relative, not an independent clause.

The second method is to introduce the entity in one complex clause, using either a left-dislocation or a fronted conditional clause. Using this strategy, the person or thing is introduced in either a subordinate clause or detached NP (a.k.a. a hanging nominative or pendens) that precedes the main clause. This latter method is what we will be looking at today. Each one has baggage of its own, and will work better in some contexts than others. We are interested in the baggage.

In Mark 7:11, Jesus seeks to make a point about a hypothetical person that the Pharisees have influenced. In Mark’s version, he uses a conditional clause to introduce the person who opts to give a gift to the temple as Corban rather than honoring his father and mother by helping them out financially. Here is the text from the LDGNT. For a reminder of what the symbols stand for, here is a key. For an explanation of the concepts, see the LDGNT Glossary.

The “man” in question is introduced as the subject of the conditional clause, which functions as a frame of reference for the main clause that follows. Jesus is not really interested in the man himself as much as in the effect of the Pharisees’ teaching. By encouraging him to give the gift, they are preventing him from doing any good for his parents, and thus nullifying the command to honor father and mother. The guy who give the Corban is not important, Jesus just needs someone to do it so that he can make his point.

Using the conditional clause does introduce the person, but it creates an awkwardness in that the protasis and apodosis are attributed to two different speakers. Rod Decker did a post on this awkwardness not long ago. The synoptic parallel in Mathew 15:5-6 provides something close to a minimal pair. The basic content is the same, but the strategy used to introduce “the guy” who gives the gift instead of helping his parents is introduced using a left-dislocation. In doing so, Matthew accomplishes the necessary discourse task, but without the added baggage of needing to balance the protasis and apodosis that Mark’s version lacks. Take a look.

“The guy” is a “whosoever” in Matthew. He still brings the person on stage, but without any added complexity. Also note that Matthew uses indicatives to make the points in vv. 5b-6, compared to elaborating on a single verb using infinitival and participial clauses. Both communicate the same basic content, but using different paths. The use of one indicative verb in Mark’s version places the attention on one main point, with two sub points. In Matthew’s version, the two indicatives place what had been two sub-points in Mark on the main level, and make them equal in importance, from a grammatical standpoint. Judgements about importance in Matthew would need to be made on other grounds, where Mark has done some prioritizing. Nullifying of the law is important, but secondary to not allowing the person to serve his parents.

I have another minimal pair to illustrating more awkwardness in Mark. In this instance, he paints himself into a corner using a left-dislocation instead of a conditional. Matthew avoids the pitfall by using a conditional. The same discourse function is accomplished using each device, but each has its own set of baggage. Certain contexts lend themselves better to a left-dislocation compared to using a conditional. I am out of time, so I will save this other pair for a separate post.

If you are interested in learning more about left-dislocations, I have posted a paper read at SBL last year. It forms the basis of a chapter in my forthcoming Discourse Grammar, which is chock full of synoptic goodness.

Isn’t grammar wonderful?