[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #928
b-greek-digest Wednesday, 25 October 1995 Volume 01 : Number 928
In this issue:
Re: Porter on the present
Contradiction in Nestle-Aland text?
Re: Grammatical Tense, LEGW, & Mark
Re: semantics, pragmatics, and the teaching of greek
form and meaning (e.g., the augment)
Re: Grammatical Tense, LEGW,
Matt. 20:22
Announcement list for Electronic New Testament Manuscript Project
Re: Grammatical Tense, LEGW,
Re: Contradiction in Nestle-Aland text?
Re: Matt. 20:22
Re: Grammatical Tense, LEGW,
Re: Grammatical Tense, LEGW,
Re: Grammatical Tense, LEGW,
Errata for Young's Grammar
De, kai, & euQus in Mark; was: Grammatical Tense, LEGW,
Re: Grammatical Tense, LEGW, & Mark
switch
Re: Matt. 20:22
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Rod Decker <rdecker@accunet.com>
Date:
Subject: Re: Porter on the present
>What I still don't understand is whether to abandon the system I learned
>(afterall, I have to teach the aorist next week) or whether to let all this
>stuff come in by osmosis and work with an amalgam of linguistic systems. How
>are you all who are teaching Greek approaching this problem? Any thoughts or
...
>Karen Pitts
Sorry for the tardy response to this question. I use Mounce's textbook
which introduces verbs from an aspectual approach and distinguishes between
aspect (the primary significance of "tense forms" in his system) and time
(secondary in his system). [He almost got it right! :-) ] I follow his
presentation quite closely in first year, adding the technical terminology
of perfective/imperfective/stative as names of the aspects (Mounce uses, if
I remember right, undefined, durative, perfect) and also the note that
while some tenses are normally treated as a particular time by default
(e.g., aor is usually transl. past in first year), this is only for the
convenience of beginners and is not mandated by the form. I spend quite a
bit more time at the beginning of second year discussing temporal
implicature. That is also the point at which I have them read Silva's _God,
Language and Scripture: Reading the Bible in the Light of General
Linguistics_ for an intro to the use of linguistics in biblical studies.
Rod
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rodney J. Decker Calvary Theological Seminary
Asst. Prof./NT 15800 Calvary Rd.
rdecker@accunet.com Kansas City, Missouri 64147
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
------------------------------
From: Paul Watkins <102737.1761@compuserve.com>
Date: 25 Oct 95 10:22:20 EDT
Subject: Contradiction in Nestle-Aland text?
In Matthew 10:10 we read:
"mh phran eis odon mhde duo chitwvas mhde upodhmata mhde rabdon"
does this or does this not say that they are NOT to take A STAFF?
and yet in Mark 6:8-9 we read:
"kai parhngeilen autois ina mhden airwsin eis odon ei mh rabdon monon, mh arton,
mh phran, mh eis thn zwnhn chalkon, alla upodedemenous sandalia, kai mh
endushsthe duo chitwnas."
and does this not say that they MUST take ONE STAFF?
These are indesputably the same events, yet in they directly contradict each
other in the Nestle-Aland text which I quoted above (from Novum Testamentum
Graece, 1993).
I realize that "duo" in the Matthew passage is distributive in can therefore
apply to the sandals as well as the tunics and so gets rid of that potential
contradiction, but it can't be distributed to the staff, a singular noun,
"rabdon"- you can't say "nor two a staff" so we are still left with a blatant
contradiction for the staff.
Is it possible to solve this problem with the Nestle-Aland reading?
If not, does this support the Majority Text reading (rabdous, instead of rabdon,
and therefore the "two" distributes to "staves" and destroys the contradiction)?
- -- see Robinson/Pierpont _The New Testament in the Original Greek According to
the Majority/Byzantine Textform_, 1991.
Help!
Paul Watkins
Grace College and Seminary
------------------------------
From: "Philip L. Graber" <pgraber@emory.edu>
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 1995 10:27:59 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Grammatical Tense, LEGW, & Mark
On Tue, 24 Oct 1995, Stephen Carlson wrote:
> This discussion on grammatical tense is very interesting, so I am wondering
> if it could shed any light on why Mark, during one of Jesus's discourses
> on the Sabbath, switches from the historical present [LEGEI 2:25] to the
> imperfect [ELEGEN v27] for the pronouncement. The Lukan parallel is similar
> but the switch is from the aorist [EIPEN 6:3] to the imperfect [ELEGEN v5].
> (Matthew lacks a parallel to Mark's KAI ELEGEN AUTOIS of Mk2:27.)
>
> Is there something about the imperfect that could suggest a punchline
> here?
It has always seemed to me that, in general, aorist finite verbs
carry the story line in gospel narratives. It also seems that present
finite verbs ("historical present" verbs) are also on the story line, but
closely tie the events they encode with what precedes, as in a response
to something that happens or is said. (It is interesting to note how many
of these "historical presents" are verbs of speech, esp. LEGW.)
Nevertheless, they still do seem to me to push the story line forward.
Imperfects, on the other hand, generally do not seem to push the story
line forward, but typically provide background information necessary to
understand the story development, but not strictly part of it. So whereas
Matthew has merged the speech of Jesus into one utterance in Mt 12:3-8,
Mk and Lk have an intervening utterance formula (KAI ELEGEN AUTOIS) prior
to the "punchline," but the imperfect verb indicates that this is not a
separate utterance as event in the story, but part of the same utterance
as in Mt. The utterance formula highlights the saying at the end, but
does not make it a separate event in the story.
It is interesting to note that, according to my understanding of the
tense forms here, the Pharisees' question in Mk 2:24 is not an event
(since it is introduced with ELEGON), but background which sets up Jesus'
utterance; LEGEI in v. 25 is then a response not so much to the
Pharisees, but to the actions of the disciples. This seems a little
awkward. Perhaps this is why Mt and Lk both use the aorist (EIPAN) for
the Pharisees' speech (and Jesus' reply as well). In Lk the actions of
the disciples are presented as background, and the story becomes one
about the Pharisees' challenge and Jesus' response. In Mt both the
disciples' action and the Pharisees' response are in the aorist, all part
of the storyline to which Jesus responds.
Have I made too much of something small?
Philip Graber Graduate Division of Religion
Graduate Student in New Testament 211 Bishops Hall, Emory University
pgraber@emory.edu Atlanta, GA 30322 USA
------------------------------
From: Mari Olsen <molsen@astrid.ling.nwu.edu>
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 1995 10:20:35 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: semantics, pragmatics, and the teaching of greek
> >I'll end with a favorite quote from Roman Jakobson, best known for his
> >phonological features, but also for work on semantic features:
> >
> >"The meaning [in the case of unmarked features, such as past for the
> >aorist] is here conditioned by the situation, and even if this meaning
> >is the most common function of this category, the investigator
> >nevertheless must not equate the statistically predominant meaning of
> >the category with its general meaning.... By regarding as an
> >essential relationship something which within the system of the
> >language merely has the status of a possible relationship, grammarians
> >end up by making rules with a great number of exceptions."
>
> Would you happen to have the source of that quote handy? I'd like to pursue
> it; haven't read anything by Jakobson before (my background is not in
> linguistics).
Whoops! Should have cited it in my message. Besides being on p. 37
of my thesis (where I note I failed to include the page number--also
there's a related quote on p. 36), it's from
Jakobson, Roman. 1932. Zur Struktur des russischen Verbums. In R.
Jakobson. 1971. Selected Writings, vol. 2. The Hague: Mouton.
Mari
------------------------------
From: Mari Olsen <molsen@astrid.ling.nwu.edu>
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 1995 10:37:42 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: form and meaning (e.g., the augment)
Again, I would suggest not attributing the predominant meaning to the
synchronic semantics of a form, e.g. the augment. Morphology (form)
is simply more conservative than semantics--a problem for a strictly
compositional analysis. As I say in a footnote in my thesis (p.
308--not that it's that great--just can't re-think it here with a 10
month old on my lap emptying the drawer of my desk):
The relation of tense and aspect to the Koine morphology is not
straightforward in my analysis (see criticism Fanning's model on this
point as well, Carson and Porter 1993). FOr example, the E- prefix of
"augment", which marked past tense in Ancient Greek (Dahl 1985:83)
characterizes both the tenseless aorist and the past tense imperfect,
but it is absent from the pluperfect by the Koine period. The
divergence of morphology and semantics is characteristic of other
systems as well. For example the perfect in southern, especially
colloquial, German, has lost its perfect meaning and is now synonymous
with the simple past, with the morphology persisting after the
semantic distinctions have been lost.
Mari Broman Olsen
Northwestern University
Department of Linguistics
2016 Sheridan Road
Evanston, IL 60208
molsen@astrid.ling.nwu.edu
molsen@babel.ling.nwu.edu
------------------------------
From: Karen Pitts <karen_pitts@maca.sarnoff.com>
Date: 25 Oct 1995 11:20:26 U
Subject: Re: Grammatical Tense, LEGW,
RE>Grammatical Tense, LEGW, & Mark 10/25/95 11:12 AM
On Tue, 24 Oct 1995, Stephen Carlson wrote:
> This discussion on grammatical tense is very interesting, so I am wondering
> if it could shed any light on why Mark, during one of Jesus's discourses
> on the Sabbath, switches from the historical present [LEGEI 2:25] to the
> imperfect [ELEGEN v27] for the pronouncement. The Lukan parallel is similar
> but the switch is from the aorist [EIPEN 6:3] to the imperfect [ELEGEN v5].
> (Matthew lacks a parallel to Mark's KAI ELEGEN AUTOIS of Mk2:27.)
>
> Is there something about the imperfect that could suggest a punchline
> here?
On Wed, 25 Oct 1995, Philip Graber responded:
>It has always seemed to me that, in general, aorist finite verbs
>carry the story line in gospel narratives. It also seems that present
>finite verbs ("historical present" verbs) are also on the story line, but
>closely tie the events they encode with what precedes, as in a response
>to something that happens or is said. (It is interesting to note how many
>of these "historical presents" are verbs of speech, esp. LEGW.)
>Nevertheless, they still do seem to me to push the story line forward.
>Imperfects, on the other hand, generally do not seem to push the story
>line forward, but typically provide background information necessary to
>understand the story development, but not strictly part of it. So whereas
>Matthew has merged the speech of Jesus into one utterance in Mt 12:3-8,
>Mk and Lk have an intervening utterance formula (KAI ELEGEN AUTOIS) prior
>to the "punchline," but the imperfect verb indicates that this is not a
>separate utterance as event in the story, but part of the same utterance
>as in Mt. The utterance formula highlights the saying at the end, but
>does not make it a separate event in the story.
>It is interesting to note that, according to my understanding of the
>tense forms here, the Pharisees' question in Mk 2:24 is not an event
>(since it is introduced with ELEGON), but background which sets up Jesus'
>utterance; LEGEI in v. 25 is then a response not so much to the
>Pharisees, but to the actions of the disciples. This seems a little
>awkward. Perhaps this is why Mt and Lk both use the aorist (EIPAN) for
>the Pharisees' speech (and Jesus' reply as well). In Lk the actions of
>the disciples are presented as background, and the story becomes one
>about the Pharisees' challenge and Jesus' response. In Mt both the
>disciples' action and the Pharisees' response are in the aorist, all part
>of the storyline to which Jesus responds.
>Have I made too much of something small?
Philip and Stephen:
I find all of this very interesting, especially as I am currently reading Mark
with my Greek group. I think what Philip says has merit for Luke, but Mark's
Greek is so sloppy, that I don't know that I'd place any importance on the
tenses he uses, especially imperfect vs. aorist. He commonly uses imperfect
where the other writers use aorist.
Karen Pitts
Hopewell Presbyterian Church, Hopewell, NJ, teacher of NT Greek
David Sarnoff Research Center, Princeton, NJ, statistician
kpitts@sarnoff.com
------------------------------
From: Eric Vaughan <jevaughan@sauaca.saumag.edu>
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 1995 10:57:52 CDT
Subject: Matt. 20:22
Why does the New American Standard Bible leave out
KAI TO BAPTISMA hO EGW BAPTIZOMAI BAPTISQHNAI; in
Matt 20:22? Is it the same reason they left out
hO WN EN TW OURANW in Jno. 3:13?
------------------------------
From: "James K. Tauber" <jtauber@joshua.entmp.org>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 1995 00:39:49 +0800 (WST)
Subject: Announcement list for Electronic New Testament Manuscript Project
I am pleased to announce a mailing list for people who want to keep up to
date with the Electronic New Testament Manuscript Project. For those who
aren't aware, the ENTMP is an international effort to make transcriptions
and images of New Testament manuscripts available on the Internet (and
possibly CD-ROM).
The mailing list will be used for periodic status reports and major
announcements. A separate list is used for day-to-day discussion of the
project. Information about the project can be found on our web server at
http://www.entmp.org/
To subscribe to the announcement mailing list, write to
announce-request@entmp.org
with the subject "subscribe".
If you have any queries, feel free to contact me.
James K. Tauber / jtauber@entmp.org
Project Director, Electronic New Testament Manuscript Project
------------------------------
From: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 1995 10:04:22 +0800
Subject: Re: Grammatical Tense, LEGW,
Following up Karen's comment,
> Greek is so sloppy, that I don't know that I'd place any importance on the
> tenses he uses, especially imperfect vs. aorist. He commonly uses imperfect
> where the other writers use aorist.
>
> Karen Pitts
> Hopewell Presbyterian Church, Hopewell, NJ, teacher of NT Greek
> David Sarnoff Research Center, Princeton, NJ, statistician
> kpitts@sarnoff.com
>
>
I have noticed in reading Mark that he seems to very readily mix tense
forms (whatever significance they have). Porter says in his _Idioms_
book that the present is used in narrative for dramatic effect and to
emphasize changes in story-line. My reading of Mark, such as 8:22-0:1, has
not given me that impression. I'm not criticizing Mark's Greek per se, but I
don't see a rhyme or reason to his mixing of tense forms. This seems to
evident to me that I am questioning exegetical decisions based on the choice
of tense. I am also wondering, while I'm writing this, if those more
knowledgeable than I in Greek lit. in general would attach significance to
1. the use of de. In 7:24-30, Gundry, in his (may I say "masterful", at
least impressive) commentary on Mark makes much of the occurences of
adversative de in this passage. I'm not sure I'd put that much weight on
this particle. It seems to me to just be how Greek sentences are linked
together, and is of little or no significance. I would grant that to alla,
but not to de.
2. Since Greek work order is not fixed in any significant way that I have
seen (though my sample size may be too limited, as I've not ventured much
outside the NT heretofore), I question Gundry's comments on the significance
of word order. I would accept that in Hebrew SOV is an emphatic word order,
but in Greek, that could be business as usual. Can we really draw significance
in Greek from word order?
I'm not trying to take a strong stand here, as I admit to having a limited
database of experience from which to draw (the NT and a tiny bit of the LXX).
Ken Litwak
GTU
Bezerkley, CA
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 1995 14:33:59 -0500
Subject: Re: Contradiction in Nestle-Aland text?
At 9:22 AM 10/25/95, Paul Watkins wrote:
>In Matthew 10:10 we read:
>
>"mh phran eis odon mhde duo chitwvas mhde upodhmata mhde rabdon"
>does this or does this not say that they are NOT to take A STAFF?
>and yet in Mark 6:8-9 we read:
>"kai parhngeilen autois ina mhden airwsin eis odon ei mh rabdon monon, mh
>arton,
>mh phran, mh eis thn zwnhn chalkon, alla upodedemenous sandalia, kai mh
>endushsthe duo chitwnas."
>and does this not say that they MUST take ONE STAFF?
>These are indesputably the same events, yet in they directly contradict each
>other in the Nestle-Aland text which I quoted above (from Novum Testamentum
>Graece, 1993).
>
>I realize that "duo" in the Matthew passage is distributive in can therefore
>apply to the sandals as well as the tunics and so gets rid of that potential
>contradiction, but it can't be distributed to the staff, a singular noun,
>"rabdon"- you can't say "nor two a staff" so we are still left with a blatant
>contradiction for the staff.
>
>Is it possible to solve this problem with the Nestle-Aland reading?
>If not, does this support the Majority Text reading (rabdous, instead of
>rabdon,
>and therefore the "two" distributes to "staves" and destroys the
>contradiction)?
>-- see Robinson/Pierpont _The New Testament in the Original Greek According to
>the Majority/Byzantine Textform_, 1991.
You read the texts of Mk and Mt correctly and you note the contradiction.
You also ought to note that the alteration of RABDON to RABDOUS in Mt 10:10
will NOT solve your problem because it is still governed by the negation MH
at the head of the verse as a whole and by the MHDE immediately preceding
the word. The problem lies in the fundamental tradition of the Greek NT,
not in the reading adopted by a particular editorial committee.
What to make of the contradiction? It will depend partly upon the
assumptions you bring to bear on the NT text as a whole. You may judge (1)
that the missionary instructions given in these two passages do NOT refer
to the same sending by Jesus of his disciples, or (2) the two accounts do
indeed refer to the same event, but are remembered or transmitted through
intermediaries with the differences noted, and therefore one (or possibly
both) accounts are erroneous in that they don't relate the words of Jesus
exactly as spoken, or (3) the two accounts as presented by the two
evangelists derive from the same basic tradition transmitted orally in the
early church, but they are given a different interpretative slant by one or
by both of the evangelists in accordance with what they believe and
understand to be the fundamental character of the ministry of Jesus and the
mission of the church. With regard to this latter, you should realize that
the tradition of these mission instructions did have a considerable bearing
on the activities of missionaries in the post-resurrection church, and some
scholars would even say that the instructions have been re-shaped in the
gospel accounts in accordance with the missionary activities of the young
church, and for that reason are not verbatim accounts of instructions given
by Jesus.
At any rate, this problem ought to be seen as one that is not likely to be
solved by an endeavor to find manuscript readings that make the two gospel
texts consistent in content. The difference appears to be present in the
Greek text, and it must be accounted for by other explanations.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 1995 14:33:45 -0500
Subject: Re: Matt. 20:22
At 10:57 AM 10/25/95, Eric Vaughan wrote:
>Why does the New American Standard Bible leave out
>KAI TO BAPTISMA hO EGW BAPTIZOMAI BAPTISQHNAI; in
>Matt 20:22? Is it the same reason they left out
>hO WN EN TW OURANW in Jno. 3:13?
In a word, Yes. In both passages the words you cite are not present in what
the editors have agreed to be the better manuscripts.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
------------------------------
From: David Moore <dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us>
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 1995 15:37:19 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Grammatical Tense, LEGW,
On Wed, 25 Oct 1995, Kenneth Litwak wrote:
> 2. Since Greek work order is not fixed in any significant way that I have
> seen (though my sample size may be too limited, as I've not ventured much
> outside the NT heretofore), I question Gundry's comments on the significance
> of word order. I would accept that in Hebrew SOV is an emphatic word order,
> but in Greek, that could be business as usual. Can we really draw significance
> in Greek from word order?
>
> I'm not trying to take a strong stand here, as I admit to having a limited
> database of experience from which to draw (the NT and a tiny bit of the LXX).
Most any reference grammar contains a section on expected word
order. (See, for instance Blass-DeBrunner #472-#477.) When there is a
deviation from that, it is often significant. One, of course, must take
into account the styles of the respective writers: on this see Turner's
book on style (4th vol. in Moulton's Grammar).
Seems I remember someone on the list recently denigrating
Turner's work on style. If there is something more up-to-date which is
also scholarly and accurate, I'd be appreciate the bibliographic reference.
David L. Moore Southeastern Spanish District
Miami, Florida of the Assemblies of God
dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us Department of Education
------------------------------
From: "Philip L. Graber" <pgraber@emory.edu>
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 1995 17:42:18 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Grammatical Tense, LEGW,
On Wed, 25 Oct 1995, Kenneth Litwak wrote:
> 2. Since Greek work order is not fixed in any significant way that I have
> seen (though my sample size may be too limited, as I've not ventured much
> outside the NT heretofore), I question Gundry's comments on the significance
> of word order. I would accept that in Hebrew SOV is an emphatic word order,
> but in Greek, that could be business as usual. Can we really draw significance
> in Greek from word order?
I am unconvinced by efforts to define a "normal" word order in Greek. I
am however very interested in the question of word order. I am inclined
to think that word order will prove to be significant for some functional
category, but that the significance will not be defined in terms of
deviation from "normal."
Philip Graber Graduate Division of Religion
Graduate Student in New Testament 211 Bishops Hall, Emory University
pgraber@emory.edu Atlanta, GA 30322 USA
------------------------------
From: "Philip L. Graber" <pgraber@emory.edu>
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 1995 17:38:33 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Grammatical Tense, LEGW,
On Wed, 25 Oct 1995, Kenneth Litwak wrote:
> I am also wondering, while I'm writing this, if those more
> knowledgeable than I in Greek lit. in general would attach significance to
> 1. the use of de. In 7:24-30, Gundry, in his (may I say "masterful", at
> least impressive) commentary on Mark makes much of the occurences of
> adversative de in this passage. I'm not sure I'd put that much weight on
> this particle. It seems to me to just be how Greek sentences are linked
> together, and is of little or no significance. I would grant that to alla,
> but not to de.
Just to compare the synoptics, Mark uses KAI as a clause-level connective
far more than Matthew and Luke. In Mt and Lk DE seems to indicate
"thematic development" (as Stephen Levinsohn calls it), but Mk uses DE so
frequently that this does not seem to be the case in Mk. I seem to recall
that numerous commentators speculate that perhaps Mk uses KAI like Hebrew
uses the conjunction WAW. In any case, the relative infrequency of DE in
Mk seems to make its use significant when it does occur. Now John is
another story altogether regarding conjunctions. Randall Buth has a paper
on John's use of conjunctions in *Linguistics and New Testament
Interpretation* ed. by David Alan Black.
Philip Graber Graduate Division of Religion
Graduate Student in New Testament 211 Bishops Hall, Emory University
pgraber@emory.edu Atlanta, GA 30322 USA
------------------------------
From: "Laura D. Young" <YOUNG@cstcc.cc.tn.us>
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 1995 18:16:17 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Errata for Young's Grammar
Friends on B-Greek,
(1) The following is a subject index errata for *Intermediate New
Testament Greek* by Richard A. Young. The subject index will be
corrected on Broadman & Holman's next printing.
When the Subject Add the following
Index cites the to the page
following pages: number cited:
8-40 1
41-67 2
68-116 3
117-127 4
128-158 5
159-171 6
172-186 7
187-211 8
212-236 9
237-240 10
241-266 10-11
267 12
(2) If anyone has spotted any typos that need correcting for the next
printing, please reply to young@cstcc.cc.tn.us.
Thank you,
Richard A. Young
------------------------------
From: Rod Decker <rdecker@accunet.com>
Date:
Subject: De, kai, & euQus in Mark; was: Grammatical Tense, LEGW,
Ken Litwak asked:
>of tense. I am also wondering, while I'm writing this, if those more
>knowledgeable than I in Greek lit. in general would attach significance to
>1. the use of de. In 7:24-30, Gundry, in his (may I say "masterful", at
>least impressive) commentary on Mark makes much of the occurences of
>adversative de in this passage. I'm not sure I'd put that much weight on
>this particle. It seems to me to just be how Greek sentences are linked
>together, and is of little or no significance. I would grant that to alla,
>but not to de.
I think that Gundry makes too much "exegetical hay" out of small
syntactical features. I spent a fair bit of time working on Mark's use of
'euQus' last spring and noted that Gundry (whom I would agree has a
'masterful' commentary on Mark!) always takes it to be exegetically
significant as indicative of immediate action. That is considerably
overdrawn in my mind. It is frequently equivalent to 'kai' as a loose
connective. Cf. his frequent use of 'kai euQus' to introduce a paragraph or
sentence. (I've got a journal article written on the subject, just need to
make time to get it properly formatted for submission.)
Rod
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rodney J. Decker Calvary Theological Seminary
Asst. Prof./NT 15800 Calvary Rd.
rdecker@accunet.com Kansas City, Missouri 64147
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
------------------------------
From: Rod Decker <rdecker@accunet.com>
Date:
Subject: Re: Grammatical Tense, LEGW, & Mark
After sketching the use of the tenses in the Synoptics, Phil Graber asked:
>
>Have I made too much of something small?
I'd say no. I think this is a good illus. of the narrative function of
tenses--something usually overlooked in the effort to find the significance
or time of specific forms in the narrative (missing the forest for the
trees?).
And if I can piggyback a related msg./comment,
Karen, I think your statement that:
>Mark's Greek is so sloppy, that I don't know that I'd place any importance on
>the tenses he uses
is probably an overstatement. Mark may be a bit more rustic/colloquial, but
that doesn't mean that tenses were meaningless to him. He still used them
as a native speaker. A 'twang' doesn't restructure the language and the
narrative flow of thought.
Let me suggest an analysis of another passage in Mark that illustrates
similar narrative features. (I posted the following last winter, but in
light of the current discussion and a number of new participants, I think
it is worth a repeat.) It will also address Ken comment that:
>I don't see a rhyme or reason to his mixing of tense forms
[Am I allowd to respond to 3 msg. at once? :) ]
Mark 2:1-12
1. The aorist carries the narrative flow of events (background):
he returned
it was reported
many gathered
they removed the roof
Jesus saw their faith
Jesus perceived
he stood up
took the mat
and went out
2. All the conversation is recorded with the present form
(foreground) (exceptions are noted with [ ] ):
he said to the paralytic, "Son, your sins are forgiven."
"Why does this fellow speak in this way? It is blasphemy! Who
can forgive sins but God alone?"
he said to them, "Why do you raise such questions in your
hearts?
Which is easier, [to say: A] to the paralytic, 'Your sins are
forgiven,' or [to say: A], 'Stand up and [take your mat:
A] and walk'?
But so that [you may know: R] that the Son of Man has
authority on earth to forgive sins"--he said to the
paralytic--
"I say to you, stand up, [take your mat: A] and go to your
home."
3. The focal point of the entire passage is expressed with the
most heavily marked form: perfect (frontground)
so that you may know (hina de eidHte), v. 10
4. The clear and distinct function of the perfective and
imperfective aspects in this passage suggest that further
explanation is unnecessary. (That does not mean that more couldn't
be said other than what I've summarized here [e.g., I didn't
comment on the imperfect form in v. 4], but that the reason for
the use of the verb forms is adequately explained by the discourse
function of aspect.)
Rod
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rodney J. Decker Calvary Theological Seminary
Asst. Prof./NT 15800 Calvary Rd.
rdecker@accunet.com Kansas City, Missouri 64147
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
------------------------------
From: "Carlton L. Winbery" <winberyc@linknet.net>
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 1995 20:48:07 +0400
Subject: switch
I have switched over to Linknet from AOL. The local service for AOL was
inadequate for the WWW. I have already examed the Perseus Homepage and a
few other sites. This is much faster.
Carlton Winbery
------------------------------
From: Rod Decker <rdecker@accunet.com>
Date:
Subject: Re: Matt. 20:22
>At 10:57 AM 10/25/95, Eric Vaughan wrote:
>>Why does the New American Standard Bible leave out
>>KAI TO BAPTISMA hO EGW BAPTIZOMAI BAPTISQHNAI; in
>>Matt 20:22? Is it the same reason they left out
>>hO WN EN TW OURANW in Jno. 3:13?
>
>In a word, Yes. In both passages the words you cite are not present in what
>the editors have agreed to be the better manuscripts.
>
>Carl W. Conrad
Maybe the right way to ask the question is, "Why have some translation
_added_ this phrase?" :) Depends on where you start and what you take as
the standard of comparison.
Rod
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rodney J. Decker Calvary Theological Seminary
Asst. Prof./NT 15800 Calvary Rd.
rdecker@accunet.com Kansas City, Missouri 64147
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #928
*****************************
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
To unsubscribe from this list write
majordomo@virginia.edu
with "unsubscribe b-greek-digest" as your message content. For other
automated services write to the above address with the message content
"help".
For further information, you can write the owner of the list at
owner-b-greek@virginia.edu
You can send mail to the entire list via the address:
b-greek@virginia.edu