Re: Impv in Mk 5:34
Carl W. Conrad (cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu)
Sat, 12 Jul 1997 21:53:12 -0400
At 6:31 PM -0400 7/12/97, Rod Decker wrote:
>The weekend probably isn't the best time to pose a new question, but I ran
>across what seems to me to be an unusual use of the imperative as I was
>reading this afternoon. I have only a few grammars here at the house to
>check, but none of them had anything helpful on this use.
>
>In Mk 5:34 the pres. impv. ISQI is used in reference to something that had
>_already_ taken place. Jesus says to the woman, H PISTIS SOU SESWKEN SE.
>hUPAGE EIS EIRHNHN KAI *ISQI* UGIHS APO THS MASTIGOS SOU. (Your faith has
>healed you; fo in peace and be healed from your affliction.)
>
>Not only is there a statement of healing here (SESWKEN, the perf. in ref.
>to her present state of health), but vv. 29-30 have already said that she
>had been healed (IATAI), the flow of blood has already stopped (EUQUS
>EXHRANQH), and power had already "gone out" (DUNAMIN EXELQOUSAN) from Jesus.
>
>Why then use an imperative, "Be healed" (ISQI UGIHS)?
>
>Lane (the only comm. on Mk that I have at the house) says that this
>statement "confirms that her healing was permanent." But I don't remember
>ever seeing an imperative that confirms a *previous _condition_*. (There
>are some impvs. that appear to confirm previous *desires*--e.g.,the demons
>who ask to go into the pigs, upon which Jesus says, "Go!"--but this is, I
>think, quite different.)
>
>One possibility is that the perfect form in v. 29 (IATAI) might be taken in
>a *future* sense, almost as a subjunctive: she knew that she would be
>healed..." (The future use of the perfect, although not common, is, IMHO,
>adequately attested to be a viable alternative.) This would suggest that
>the immediate result of the touch was to effect a change in the symptoms,
>but that the cause of those symptoms is not healed until the command
>(performative?) from Jesus a short time later.
>
>What do the grammarians in our midst think? Am I missing something obvious
>here?
I almost hesitate to claim to be a grammarian at this point, but "rash
intruding fool" that I am, here goes:
(a) Is it really certain that IATAI in 5:29 is perfect tense? Granted that
UBS4 accents it as I)/ATAI, I see no reason (if the original UNCIAL MSS
were in fact unaccented) why it couldn't be the present tense I)A=TAI.
Quite frankly I doubt this is a perfect tense and I really wonder whether
the perfect tense of IAOMAI is attested. I don't find any perfect tense
indicated in the older LS that I have here with me in North Carolina, but
I'll check the more recent LSJ at the Perseus site later--I'm really very
curious about this; I think it's present tense. Okay, I've checked the
Perseus site: the older LSJ there cites Mk 5:29 I)/ATAI as pf. passive. So
does BDF #311. Nevertheless, I'd like to see another instance of this
before I'm convinced that this isn't a present tense. Also, it is normally
"deponent": one doesn't find a form IA/W, although the aorist passive form
IAQHNAI is well enough attested. Very curious. Now I wish I had access to
the TLG disk: I would really like to know if I)/AMAI is attested anywhere
else apart from Mk 5:29 as a perfect passive.
(b) Why understand ISQI hUGIHS as if it were a passive imperative, "Be
healed"? Isn't this a present imperative of EIMI with a predicate
adjective? And if a PRESENT imperative, could it not be understood simply
to mean "Continue (henceforth) being healthy"? And aren't you really trying
to give it the force of an AORIST imperative, such as GENOU hUGIHS (which
might more properly have the sense "Become healthy (right now)!"
I really am curious what others may have to say about this.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics/Washington University
One Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018
Summer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(704) 675-4243
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cconrad@yancey.main.nc.us
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/