From: Jeffrey Gibson (jgibson@acfsysv.roosevelt.edu)
Date: Mon Dec 08 1997 - 14:09:41 EST
On Mon, 8 Dec 1997, Steve L. Durfee wrote:
> Dear listmembers,
>
> Please forgive a question which is probably well-known to most members of the list, and respond off-list if this has been discussed recently -- I haven't followed this group for a few years.
> While reading Mark the other night, I was brought up short at Mark 8:12.
> AMHN LEGW, EI DOQHSETAI THI GENEA TAUTHI SHMEION.
> This is Jesus' much-discussed statement that no (great) sign of power will be shown to this generation. Every translation I have says the same thing.
> Can someone tell me what information is contained in this verse that convinces translators unanimously that it is negative (that is, there is no OU or MH as in the parallel passages)? It must be something I haven't learned (a Hebraism perhaps?). Sure wish I had the UBS handbook for Mark.
Steve, So far as I know, you question has *not* been asked before. More
importantly, it is to my mind a very perceptive one. Further, it is of
interest to non-beginners, since what accounts for the peculiar formula in
Mk. 8:12 (a renedeing in Greek of a Biblicism of particular import) is
often used in arguments on which of the various Synoptic versions of
Jesus' sayings against giving a SEMEION (the versions in Matt.
12//Matt.16//Lk. 11 are quite different from Mk. 8:12 in that they each
have an "exceptive clause") is more original.
In any case, to answer your question I have drawn some excepts from
an article I wrote some time ago now on Jesus's Refusal to Give a
"Sign" in Mark. I hope you find the answer to your question within
them. Indented blocks of material represent what shows up in my
article as footnotes.
************
The phrase EI DOTHESETAI in Mk. 8:12c is a literal rendering of a
typical Hebrew oath formula of adjuration which was in use in
Palestine in Jesus' day as a recognized way of saying "no"
forcefully.
Cf. Taylor, _The Gospel According to Mark_ (London:
Macmillan, 1955) 362-363; R.A. Edwards, _The Sign of
Jonah_ (1971) 75. On the import of the oath and the
Semitic formula which underlies the text of Mk. 8:12c,
see E. Kautzch, ed., Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1910) 471f.; P. Jouon, Grammaire de
l'Hebreu biblique (Paris, Pontifical Biblical Institute,
1923), 505; and G.W. Buchanan, `Some Vow and Oath
Formulas in the New Testament', HTR 58 (1965), 319-26,
esp. 324-326.
It has been argued by M. Black (An Aramaic Approach to
the Gospels and Acts, 3rd ed. [Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1967] 123) that a Semitism lies behind Mk. 8:12b
(TI hH GENEA AHTH ZHTEI SHMEION) with TI standing for
mah exclamatory (How!). Thus instead of taking the
expression as a (rhetorical?) question, it should be seen
as an exclamatory declaration "How doth this generation
seek a `sign'!" But since the use of TI as a question is
also a standard Koine form, nothing certain can be said
in this regard. On this, see J.H Moulton, A Grammar of
New Testament Greek, Vol. III (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark,
1963), 127; and E.J. Maloney, Semitic Interference in
Marcan Syntax (Chico: Scholar's Press, 1981), 142-144.
*****
The final element of Jesus' response to the demand for a "sign" is
an oath - one in which Jesus invites curses upon himself should he
accede to the Pharisees' desires (cf. Mk. 8:12c).
The oath is here abbreviated, as in Ps. 95:11, but on
analogy with 2 Kings 6:31 may be filled out as "May I
die" or "may God curse me if I accede to your demand!".
Why, according to Mark, does Jesus do this? Since, as I have noted
above, an oath of this sort was a very forceful way in a Semitic
environment of saying "no" to a suggested course of action, Jesus,
then, uses the oath because he wants to let his interlocutors know
in no uncertain terms that he refuses to accede to their demand.
But it should be noted that saying "no" is not the only or even the
most important purpose for which this oath was used. For the oath
is primarily an expression of extreme revulsion, specifically the
revulsion one feels at being asked to engage in activity that cuts
against the grain of one's integrity.
Cf. Buchanan, `Some Vow and Oath Formulas', 324-325.
To utter it is to indicate abhorrence, to demonstrate how
absolutely imperative one feels is the necessity of avoiding the
course of action which the oath disavows.
Cf. Taylor, _Mark_, 362; M.J. Lagrange, L' vangile selon
Saint Marc (Paris; Gabalda, 1929), 207; W.F. Howard,
`Appendix on Semitisms in the New Testament' in Vol. II
of J.H. Moulton's and Howard's A Grammar of New Testament
Greek (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1929) 468-469.
Yours,
Jeffrey Gibson
jgibson@acfsysv.roosevelt.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:37 EDT