It was with some measure of shock and even a little horror that I read Mounce’s Koinonia blog post this morning on emphatic pronouns. After a little checking to see whether anyone had yet addressed the issue, I decided to tackle it myself. B-Greek has received postings about Greek “urban legends” of late, and we should add this as another entry. Unbelievable. He seems to realize that this post will evoke some ire stating, “Talk of this kind is often met with angry blog comments, but the fact of the matter is that this is what the Greek text says.” My beef has nothing to do with his theology whatsoever, nor will I even engage any theological aspect of the claims to help make that point. My point of contention is the eisegesis of the urban legend into “this emphatic pronoun, and this one alone.” So, here we go.
If you have read this blog for any time at all, you have probably seen me make the (hugely significant, prime-directive-ish kind of) distinction between the semantic meaning of something and the pragmatic effect of its usage. A pronoun is nothing more that an abbreviated placeholder to refer to some concept in the discourse. Since Greek finite verbs encode person and number, in most cases subject pronouns are not semantically required. This is the case of the pronouns in Matt 5 that Mounce references, hence his inclination to see them as doing something more than a mere semantic function of disambiguating the subject. He is dead on. The million dollar question is which function? Here is the salient excerpt from the post, but please be sure to read the whole thing:
But one of the most theological powerful and provocative uses of the emphatic third person pronoun is in the beatitudes. All have the same construction. “Blessed are the … for they (αυτοι) will ….” The nuance of αυτος is that they they alone will receive the blessing.
- Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
- Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy.
- Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Jesus is not saying that the poor in spirit, among others, are blessed. He is saying that they and they alone will inherit the kingdom. The merciful, and they alone, will receive mercy. Only those who are persecuted with inherit the kingdom. The meaning of the αυτος is nuanced, but it is there, and its force is devastating to much of modern theology and its easy believism. (Italics are Mounce)
This claim left me without words for a while. I was surprised that a scholar of his caliber would still hold to such a view in light of the work by Levinsohn and others in the area of information structure. Nick Bailey’s dissertation is a huge contribution, but it is certainly not the first to provide a coherent, linguistically-viable description of Koine information structure. There are two basic functions of pronouns in the information structure system of Koine when they are not semantically required. Viewing them as “placeholders” is a key to moving forward (see the series of posts here, or my article here).
There are two pragmatically marked slots in a given clause, theoretically speaking. The first slot is for what has traditionally been called “contrastive subjects/pronouns”, what I refer to as “frames of reference.” Frames of reference relate the clause that follows to what precedes in a very specific way. In my view, what Mounce is describing are topical frames of reference. Such usage is often called “contrastive” since they are typically used to make a marked switch from one topic to another. This slot is the initial position in the clause, and requires some kind of marker to be present to make this function explicit. Since the verb can encode the subject information, the pronoun serves as a placeholder to mark that a pragmatic function is intended. Mounce provides a nice example that I will quote:
That point is most often seen in contrasts. John the Baptist says, “I (εγω) baptize you with water… He (αυτος) will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire” (Matt 3:11).
The instances in Matt 5:3 ff do not involve a switch, but is instead a reaffirmation of the preceding subject. A second pragmatic function of pronouns, and I think the one from which the claim of “emphatic” probably stems, is what is traditionally called “emphasis.” The pragmatic slot immediately after the frame of reference may or may not be filled by an element in marked focus. This element is the most important bit of information in the clause, hence the decision to “emphasize” it in the marked focus position. If you read Simon Dik, he refers to the first position as P1, the second as P2. This is the same framework employed by Levinsohn and Randall Buth, though horribly simplified for present purposes. Below is an example of the P2 function of a pronoun for emphasis sake from Matt 4:10. It is exactly the thing that Mounce is claiming in regard to Matt 5, but is a legitimate example.
Matt 4:10 τότε λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς· ὕπαγε, σατανᾶ· γέγραπται γάρ· κύριον τὸν θεόν σου προσκυνήσεις καὶ αὐτῷ μόνῳ λατρεύσεις.
In Jesus’ final response to Satan’s temptations, he is rejecting the call to abandon the worship of YHWH. The information structure in Deut 6:13 is the same as that of Matt 4:10 because the determinative factor is the difference between what is established or presupposed in the context and what is newly asserted. The newly asserted information, by definition, will be the most salient, the “focus” of the utterance. If you REALLY want to make it stand out, you can place the focal information in a marked position (i.e. marked focus), which has the effect of “emphasizing” what was already the most important information in the clause.
Returning to the example in 4:10, Jesus states that YHWH is to be the object of worship, as opposed to some other alternative, in this case Satan. Here we find there is no contrastive change in topic, but instead an emphatic reaffirmation. The emphasis does NOT come from the placement of the pronoun alone, but from the information context, the difference between what is presupposed and what is asserted. It is presupposed that SOMEONE is to be worshiped, and Satan wants it to be him. This is rejected implicitly through the statement that YHWH is to be worshiped, and stated more emphatically through the reaffirmation in terms of whom we are to serve. Pronouns can be indeed be used for emphasis, but it is the information context that is determinative, not just the presence or location of the pronoun.
There is one other common use of pronouns in information structure. This is to use them as a frame of reference in non-contrastive contexts. I believe this is the case in Matt 5:3. Levinsohn refers to this as “renewal,” whereby a topic that has already been introduced is reaffirmed for the purpose of thematic highlighting. It is NOT the most important information in the clause, what is said about it is most important. It simply reaffirms it to draw the reader’s attention to what otherwise might have been missed.
In the context of the Beatitudes, there is a whole series of topic switches from one complex entity to the next (e.g. the poor in spirit, those who mourn, those who hunger and thirst for righteousness). This renewal of the topic using a frame of reference buys the reader some processing time to slow down and properly track the discourse, to reorient on the new topic. The same technique is used by Luke in the scene where Jesus is dedicated at the temple. In quick succession we are introduced to Simeon and Anna. In each case, Luke follows up the initial introduction by a topical frame of reference for renewal using a thematically-marked demonstrative pronoun, underlined below.
Luke 2:25 Καὶ ἰδοὺ ἄνθρωπος ἦν ἐν Ἰερουσαλὴμ ᾧ ὄνομα Συμεὼν καὶ ὁ ἄνθρωπος οὗτος δίκαιος καὶ εὐλαβὴς προσδεχόμενος παράκλησιν τοῦ Ἰσραήλ, καὶ πνεῦμα ἦν ἅγιον ἐπʼ αὐτόν·
Luke 2:36 Καὶ ἦν Ἅννα προφῆτις, θυγάτηρ Φανουήλ, ἐκ φυλῆς Ἀσήρ· αὕτη προβεβηκυῖα ἐν ἡμέραις πολλαῖς, ζήσασα μετὰ ἀνδρὸς ἔτη ἑπτὰ ἀπὸ τῆς παρθενίας αὐτῆς
Neither of these participants require an explicit reference in the underlined context since they are the only ones active in the preceding clause. The renewal of them using a frame of reference slows the pace a bit and lets the reader know to pay attention to these two. They are what Levinsohn calls “local VIPs”. They play a salient role, but it is only a cameo appearance. The most important information in the clause is not their identity, but their character and activity, respectively.
Returning to Mounce’s exegesis of the Beatitudes, the pronouns are not there to emphasize that they and they alone are entitled to something, but it is simply to renew them to make sure that the reader tracks all of the changes Jesus makes. Where a writer wants to make the point about “THEY and THEY ALONE,” it would be expected in a context that has some kind of expected alternative, as in Matt 4:10. Furthermore, the writer could include some restrictive element like μονος. Mounce seems to be arguing that this is the case in Matt 5, but it is an argument from silence. I find nothing in the context on which to claim the kind of exclusivity he advocates. He dramatically overstates his case in claiming that “the fact of the matter is that this is what the Greek text says.”**
If the exclusivity is actually a property of the emphatic usage, as he appears to claim, the how does he explain the renewal in Luke 2:36, and the somewhat similar one in 2:25. Is this intended to claim that Anna ALONE was advanced in years, no one else? Such a claim would be ludicrous, nor do I think he would make it.
My point here is to highlight the important distinction to be made between semantic meaning and pragmatic effect. Pragmatic effects are derived from the constraints and information status of the context, not just the form alone. The same form can be used in what may appear at first blush to be the same context, but with different effects. Pronouns can be used to emphasize things, but make sure you have delimited the factors that bring about the effects. If your are interested in reading more about these kinds of issues and how they interact, I would encourage you to take a look at my forthcoming Discourse Grammar. There is an excerpt available for download on my publications page. Hopefully this urban legend will die soon, but I am not holding my breath.
**For his claim to be plausible, it would require each of the things asserted about the “poor in X” to be presupposed as was shown to be the case in Matt 4:10. It is presupposed/established that Jesus is going to worship SOMEONE, it is just a matter of who. The “blessed are…” assertions function to introduce a new group of people about which a comment will be made. In the following clause, the quality or comment that is made about each group is what is asserted and hence most important. None of them are presupposed or inferable from the context.
Update: I have created a follow-up post on the function of pronouns to clarify some of the presuppositions here.
[…] http://www.ntdiscourse.org/2009/12/emphatic-pronouns-and-other-urban-legends/ http://www.ntdiscourse.org/2009/12/emphatic-pronouns-and-other-urban-legends/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NtDiscourse+%28NT+Discourse%29&utm_content=Google+Readerhttp://www.koinoniablog.net/2009/12/emphatic-pronouns-and-salvationmatt-53.html Categories: Greek Tags: emphasis, mounce, pronouns, runge Comments (0) Trackbacks (0) Leave a comment Trackback […]
[…] a comment » Steve wrote the post that I seriously considered writing last night when I first saw Mounce’s post on emphatic […]
I debated saying something, but I held back. I have a quota for how much criticism of other scholars I can make and I’m saving much of it for a forthcoming book review.
Thank you for this post. You wrote it in such a way that even a beginner like me can pretty much understand what you’re saying. I came here from Mike’s blog.
Jeff
You yourself have composed a great response that I myself, along with others, would support!
I read Dr. Mounce’s blog entry yesterday with great interest. However, I was left just scratching my head. Not only did it look hurriedly put together, I struggled with what he was 1) claiming for the grammar/usage of the pronouns and 2) the theology itself (which I don’t think is affected greatly by the grammar). His “they and only they” exclusivity left me wanting. I kept asking, “based on what?”
I am certain Dr. Mounce has some deeper thoughts on the issue (things which I am simply not picking up), but I would have to be persuaded by more than this.
Outstanding post! This makes so much sense. Thanks Dr. Runge.
[…] translate the pragmatic meaning. We just saw an example from Bill Mounce (criticized by me here, by Steve Runge, Mike Aubrey and others). He took the text of the beatitudes and tried to turn their point into a […]
JJ, I left a comment over at Daniel and Tonya’s blog along the same lines as your thinking. It seems more like a reaction to something than a reasoned argument he had been thinking about for a while. The tone and the blanket claims seemed very out of character for what I have come to expect from his work. Some of my posts have a “story” behind them, and at times may best be left unposted. A revision of such a post was just posted here.
I would add (as I pointed out here) that English, like Greek, allows exclusivity to be inferred, and that in English (like Greek) it has nothing to do with pronouns or other words in the sentence. For example: “First Class customers on Delta get dinner.” A reasonable conclusion is that “only first class customers get dinner.”
–Joel
Thanks for the comment. This was a quick post and there is much more to cover. Just read your post on the matter.
A question from a small fry. Dr. Runge, I don’t understand your example from Matt. 4:10, κύριον τὸν θεόν σου προσκυνήσεις καὶ αὐτῷ μόνῳ λατρεύσεις. I don’t see the purpose of αὐτῷ to be emphasis but object of the verb. It appears to me that the purpose of the whole clause (καὶ αὐτῷ μόνῳ λατρεύσεις) is emphasis. I don’t think the pronoun can be dropped out of this clause and still have a meaningful clause can it?
Dr. Mounce has an example just like that. μακάριοι οἱ πτωχοὶ τῷ πνεύματι, ὅτι αὐτῶν ἐστὶν ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν. The nature of this pronoun is not the same as the other ones he lists. The others are subjects of the verb so they could be dropped without rendering the clause or sentence meaningless. If Matt 5:3 had something like μακάριοι οἱ πτωχοὶ τῷ πνεύματι, ὅτι αὐτοὶ ἕξουσιν τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν, similar to several of the other beatitudes, his example would have made more sense. I don’t know if Mounce included this example purposely or accidentally as a result of haste maybe.
Both your examples from Luke 2 are demonstrative pronouns but Mounce is speaking of the third person personal pronoun. I am not agreeing or disagreeing with either one of you (yet) but I would love some clarification. Thank you.
Bert, I will tackle this in a follow-up post.
I don’t think the pronoun can be dropped out of this clause and still have a meaningful clause can it?
Actually, Bert, yes, object pronouns *can* be dropped out if they’re consider cognitively accessible by the speaker.
Here’s an example:
Matt 23:4
δεσμεύουσιν δὲ φορτία βαρέα καὶ ἐπιτιθέασιν ἐπὶ τοὺς ὤμους τῶν ἀνθρώπων
They tie up heavy loads and put _ on men’s shoulders
[…] a follow-up to an earlier post on emphatic pronouns. I really have nothing to sell. Comments […]
I recently translated 1 Cor 1:30 because I did not understand it in translation. As I pondered its meaning in the Greek, I noticed that the word “you” was emphasized (because the pronoun was included, even though it was not necessary):
εξ αυτου δε **υμεις εστε** εν χριστω ιησου ος εγενηθη σοφια ημιν απο θεου δικαιοσυνη τε και αγιασμος και απολυτρωσις
This was the key to understanding the verse for me. I checked to whom it was written:
26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: 27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; 28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: 29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.
So the emphasis on “you” (plural) shows that he was writing to people who were the weak, foolish, base and despised.
So when I translated, wanted to communicate this contextual information that was so helpful, and so subtly communicated in the source text. So I added some info to my translation, in brackets:
“But it is God’s idea and doing that [losers like] yourselves are included in Christ Jesus, whom we have found to be God’s means of bringing us to wisdom, righteousness and also holiness and deliverance.”
I thought the added info added tremendous clarity, and thus by your definition accuracy. But by bracketing the contextual addition, I kept transparency about what the source verbage actually was.
http://betterbibles.com/2010/01/28/accurate-but-not-clear/#comment-16424