Journal: Grace Theological Journal
Volume: GTJ 11:2 (Fall 1990)
Article: A Discourse Analysis of Colossians 2:16-3:17
Author: Gregory T. Christopher

---

GTJ 11:2 (Fall 90) p. 205

A Discourse Analysis of Colossians 2:16-3:17

Gregory T. Christopher

A discourse analysis of Colossians 2:16–3:17 has led to three conclusions. First, this section forms a discourse unit (specifically, hortatory discourse with embedded expository discourse). Second, the structural framework is a chiasmus. Its functions are to provide the structural rubric around which the argument develops and to provide cohesion which holds the book together. And third, the argument of this section builds to a climax, identified with the imperative, “Put on” (3:12 ). Specific text-based features (change in tense and person associated with the imperatives, change in word order, and use/nonuse of the vocative) point to these conclusions.

* * *

Introduction

Jan de Waard and Eugene Nida note that translation is essentially interpretation.1 Translators, and by extension, interpreters, should not only be concerned about content, but concern should also extend to rhetorical impact and appeal and to rhetorical structure and meaning. Translators/interpreters must recognize patterns of selection and arrangement. Such concerns go beyond sentence level syntax, in that rhetorical structures are normally large patterns and less rigidly rule-governed. These structures are features of discourse.2

The focus of this paper is the discourse structure of Colossians 2:16–3:17. The structural framework is a chiasmus which serves a dual purpose. The chiasmus provides the cohesion which holds the book together. And it provides the structural rubric around which the argument of Colossians 2:16–3:17 develops to a climax.

GTJ 11:2 (Fall 90) p. 206

Before outlining the chiastic structure, the method which underlies this paper is summarized. The basis for the claims is discourse grammar.3

Methodological Overview

In a paper entitled, “Why We Need a Vertical Revolution in Linguistics,” Robert Longacre outlines features of language for which sentence level grammars are unable to account.4 Discourse grammarians claim that sentence level grammars are unable to describe information structure, and therefore, are unable to fully account for the dynamics of language.5 Part of the problem is that English speakers are gener...

visitor : : uid: ()