Review of Runge's "Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament" Pt 7
Building on the previous discussion concerning how
connectives function in relation to one another, Pt 2/Ch 4 is concerned with
what Runge calls Point/Counterpoint sets and how they are related to
propositions. A “counterpoint” is
indicated by the symbol B,
while a point is marked with A. While Runge refers to B as the proverbial first “shoe to drop” (73) and A as the shoe drop to follow,
personally, I like to think of it as a 1-2 punch routine. That is, B
marks the initial, setup punch, which also prepares the way for a second punch
(A) to follow. In short, the writer hits the reader with a
combination pattern; the first punch not only catches the reader’s/hearer’s
attention, it also telegraphs an impending second hit/point to follow! You may find it helpful to develop your own analogy! I have found that even in just attempting to
rethink such matters, whether I end up coming up with a different analogy in
the end or not, is often helpful in leading me to a more clear understanding of
such matters.
One example word that Runge uses in describing a
point-counterpoint set is “although”.
Take for example, the following sentence: “Although I liked the introduction,
the conclusion was very poor.” Here, the
term “although” functions as the initial punch in a 1-2 routine. Even more, it is telegraphing that a second
punch is on the horizon. “Although”
modifies the initial statement “I liked the introduction…” Yet, this is followed with the counterpoint
punch: “…the conclusion was very poor.” Citing Runge:
“The term point/counterpoint set describes clauses or clause elements
that have been related to one another through one or more grammatical means”
(73). Runge helps substantiate this idea
by examining four terms within this chapter:
me,n, eiv mh,, plh,n, and avlla,.
Each of these constraints force the reader/hearer to “relate the
elements to one another in a particular way” (74).
For me, one of the most eye-opening aspects of this grammar
has come in the way rethinking the use of me,n. Where this has traditionally been viewed as
related to de, or avlla,, thereby functioning correlatively,
Runge offers a different and welcome suggestion, namely, that “me,n signals the presence of one common
constraint: anticipation of a related sentence that follows” (75). Thus, even where de, does not follow, me,n
is always prospective—pointing ahead! The
most common occurrences of this point/counterpoint set are found in narratives
and letters. A great example (among
many!) that Runge gives is Mt 3.11 where the me,n/de, set, while not needed because the contrasts
are already explicit, serves the function of further accentuating or
highlighting the contrast to an even greater degree! While it has been ingrained in me to approach me,n/de, with the gloss of “one the one hand/on the other hand,” Runge’s suggestion that
this me,n/de, point/counterpoint set functions, in the main, to further
strengthen the connection between already present elements, is incredibly
valuable. Certainly, this opens us new
options for how to approach this set when it comes to translation and
interpretation! Here, me,n functions as
the setup punch, while de, serves the
purpose of delivering the second hit of the combination!
The next 1-2 punch or “point/counterpoint” example has to do
with the use of “exception” or worded differently, “restriction” (83). Basically, the punch format is as
follows: 1) negation, 2)
excepted/restricted element. The
conditional clause can alert us to such a phenomenon. Runge’s illustration of the negation and exception/restriction combo is super helpful!
He explains it in terms of table that has a lot of items on it. When the author delivers the first punch, he
essentially knocks or sweeps everything off of the table. That is the “negation” aspect; NOTHING
remains on the table! The second punch,
however, would be akin to looking at all of the items now laying on the floor
and proceeding to pick one of those items off of the floor and placing it once
again on the table. It is like saying, “This
is not true at all (knocking everything of the table), except for this one
thing (placing one thing back on the table; landing the second punch!). Instead of simply pointing to one item among
many on the table, the event of knocking everything off the table has a dramatic
effect which is further accented by placing one item back on the table (that
one item now receives all the attention)—an act that functions somewhat like
the “punch line” of a joke in my opinion!
One example of this phenomenon can be found in Mk 6.4-5,
where ouvk (the negation) is followed
by eiv mh. (the exception). The
statement “A prophet is not (ouvk)
without honor” seems like a full-blown, totalizing statement. If we stopped there, it seems like nothing else
needs to be said; this is the final word!
Jesus has knocked every possibility off of the table of a rejoinder to
this comment. However, he adds a
conditional statement, that is, an exception soon after. In short, he seeks to qualify his own
totalizing remark! He says, “A prophet
is not without honor (knocking stuff off the table), except (picking one item
back up) in his hometown and among his relatives, and in his own household
(sitting the item on the table and thereby bringing it squarely into view).” We do this same thing very much today when we
stereotype people groups but then go on to make exceptions for persons within
those groups! The negation/exception
combo may be remembered by the saying “exception to the rule”; for example, when
a law or command is given and then a sort of loophole is offered or found, the “exception to the rule” principle is at work.
Reviewing the third portion of this chapter, namely, the use
of avlla, and/or plh,n to correct or replace, we already have
a good analogy that we can stick with but do need to nuance. Here, we use the same idea of knocking
everything off of the table. However,
instead of picking an item from that initial group up off of the floor, this time
we leave everything on the floor and bring in an item that previously was not
part of the group, say, an item in our pocket or an item we took from another table or some shelf. In my view, after reading this
section, it seems that we can really no longer can simply use avlla,, as we traditionally have, as a mere
adversative coordinating conjunction; now it seen to function within a
point/counterpoint set where it functions as an attention-getting corrective to what it stands in
contrast to (93). For Runge, “elements
introduced by avlla, and plh,n are highlighted for rhetorical purposes
and could have been conveyed using more simplified structures” (92).
Let me give one example here and then follow-up with some
concluding remarks. In Php 2.4, Paul
writes, “each one of you not looking out for his own interests” (B - counterpoint), “but (avlla,) also each of you looking out for the
interests of others (A - point).” Here, everything that’s on the table is
within the phrase “each one of you not looking out for his own interests” and
then, it is all knocked off the table. A
new element is brought in: “but also
each of you looking out for the interests of others.” Here, the new element takes the place of the
old element! Going back to my boxing
analogy of a 1-2 combo, we might say that the default combo is a jab (negation) followed
by a left hook (exception). Here, we keep the jab (negation) but replace the left hook (exception) with a right hook (avlla,). We still have a 1-2 combo but have simply
replaced one of the punch types. The author
is still setting up for a second punch but now he’s going to replace what
might have normally been done, with a new type of strike.
So far, I have found this to be one of the richest sections of
Runge’s book. While I wonder if
interrogatives can function as point/counterpoint sets (Runge does mention
rhetorical questions in this section), I honestly cannot think of much more to
question; the point of the material seems clear and evident. So, having said that, once again, I would
highly encourage you to get yourself a copy of Runge’s work and start to get
your feet wet in the discourse approach.
You won’t regret it!