[B-Greek] Mark 7:18-19
yancywsmith at sbcglobal.net
yancywsmith at sbcglobal.net
Sun Nov 1 10:43:39 EST 2009
I am inclined to accept Origen's reading of καθαρἰζων as a
comment of the evangelist (as Iver is arguing). καθαρίζον
arose from (1) indistinguishable sound and (2) plausibility of the
reading in the immediate context of the words of v. 18, 19. This
reminds me of the discussion in Aristotle' Art of Rhetoric book 3.2 on
avoiding ambiguity through proper punctuation (i.e. proper arrangement
of the words so that the reader can easily read them out loud). Some
arguments, he suggests, can fall flat because they are difficult to
read out loud. The problems reading Mark here may arise from his
ironic attitude and the cuteness of his argument. Pragmatics affects
grammar to give cues about attitude, an area of grammar that need
further research. In this case one might consider Paul's ironic
reference in 1 Cor 8:8 as a similar humorous jab through a reversal of
expected outcomes. βρῶμα δὲ ἡμᾶς οὐ
παραστήσει τῷ θεῷ· οὔτε ἐὰν μὴ
φάγωμεν ὑστερούμεθα, οὔτε ἐὰν
φάγωμεν περισσεύομεν BRWMA DE hHMAS OU PARASTHSEI
TWi QEWi; OUTE EAN MH FAGWMEN hUSTEROUMEQA, OUTE EAN FAGWMEN
PERISSEOUOMEN. "'Food will not bring us to judgment before God.' We
are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do." It
seems to me that both Mark and Paul engage in a bit of satire when
dealing with the issue of food, which may account for the oddity of
grammar and style. Adela Y. Collins, gets the tone right. She says:
The comment that the things that come into the body from outside go
out of it again and end up in the latrine (v. 19b*) satirizes the
great concern about ingesting something impure alluded to in vv. 3–4*
and makes the point that such concern would be better directed
elsewhere.
Collins points out that Paul engages in a similar satirical jab
against those in the community of believers in Jesus that continue to
fuss about the pros and cons of eating or abstaining from foods based
upon purity concerns. Mark seems to be using the story of Jesus here
to address such concerns. That he uses a bit of double-entendre potty
humor to make his point would be a powerful argument in the right
setting. I think Iver's discourse considerations are worthy of careful
consideration, but the linguistic irony/humor may account for the
terseness of style. Humor theorists have provided insights into the
various cues that signal the presence of humor. These cues include: 1)
the sudden disregard of a social propriety; 2) the delivery of humor—
particularly, the timing of humor and the streamlined presentation; 3)
the setting; 4) linguistic and typological cues; and 5) the sudden
reversals or surprise disruptions of expectations.
Yancy Smith, PhD
yancywsmith at sbcglobal.net
Y.W.Smith at tcu.edu
yancy at wbtc.com
5636 Wedgworth Road
Fort Worth, TX 76133
817-361-7565
On Nov 1, 2009, at 7:56 AM, Carl Conrad wrote:
>
> On Nov 1, 2009, at 5:34 AM, Leonard Jayawardena wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Since the point I raised has not been answered, I will ask again.
>>>
>>> One list member thought that the phrase PAN TO EXWQEN
>>> EISPOREUOMENON was the subject for the neuter participle KAQARIZON.
>>> As I explained in a previous post, this results in a nonsensical
>>> interpretation. My question is whether the whole thought expressed
>>> in the words from PAN TO EXWQEN EISPOREUOMENON to EIS TON AFEDRWNA
>>> EKPOREUETAI can be considered (grammatically) as the antecedent (if
>>> that's the right word) for KAQARIZON. (Even then the resultant
>>> interpretation is still nonsensical, but I am trying figure out
>>> what the intended subject of the neuter participle might have been.)
>
> If we read KAQARIZON, then I think that it must be simply PAN TO
> EXWQEN EISPOREUOMENON EIS TON ANQRWPON -- that is the subject of OU
> DUNATAI AUTON KOINWSAI 19 hOTI OUK EISPOREUETAI AUTOU EIS THN KARDIAN
> ALL' EIS THN KOILIAN, KAI EIS TON AFEDRWNA EKPOREUETAI, and as it is
> neuter, it is the only possible candidate for KAQARIZON to agree with.
>
>
>>> This leads to the following general question: In Greek does the
>>> subject (or antecedent) of a participle always have to be a
>>> particular word or phrase in the sentence? Cannot it be the idea or
>>> thought described by a group of words in another part of the
>>> sentence, particularly if the participle if neuter?
>
> Not that I know of; pronouns can do that, i.e. neuter pronouns can
> refer back to an entire clause as antecedent, but I would think that a
> participle must at least stand in agreement with such a backward
> referring pronoun. Some postulate a nominative absolute or nominative
> "pendens" (cf. Wallace, GGBB p. 664), but (a) the instances cited are
> substantive nominative participles; and (b) the instances cited seem
> to me better described as instances of anacoluthon. Oddly enough,
> Wallace categorizes KAQARIZWN -- the masculine form, not the neuter --
> as a nominataive "pendens" -- although it is nothing at all like the
> substantival participles constituting all other instances he cites.
> That really seems to me a counsel of despair, rather like the so-
> called "aporetic" subcategories: "If you don't know what it is and
> can't explain it, give it a name and have done with it."
>
> Wallace, p. 664: "The nominative absolute participle is in reality
> simply a substantival participle that fits the case description of
> nominativus pendens. Although it is called “nominative absolute,”
> it is not to be confused with the case category of nominative
> absolute. (This label, which has been the cause of much confusion,
> probably is derived from the fact this participle has some affinity
> with the genitive absolute participle.) To refresh your memory, the
> nominativus pendens (pendent nominative) 'consists in the enunciation
> of the logical (not grammatical) subject at the beginning of the
> sentence, followed by a sentence in which that subject is taken up by
> a pronoun in the case required by the syntax.' (Zerwick)."
>
> AT Robertson (big grammar) refers to our text four times:
>
> p.413 (b) PARTICIPLES. They lend themselves readily to anacoluthon in
> case. Thus ἔδοξε τοῖς ἀποστόλοις καὶ
> τοῖς πρεσβυτέροις, γράψαντες [EDOXE TOIS
> APOSTOLOIS KAI TOIS PRESBUTEROIS, GRAYANTES] (Ac. 15:22f.). See Mk.
> 7:19 καθαρίζων [KAQARIZWN].
>
> p. 437 In Mk. 7:19 (καθαρίζων πάντα τὰ βρώματα
> [KAQARIZWN PANTA TA BRWMATA]) the participle can be connected in
> thought, as Mark probably did, with λέγει in verse 18, but the
> intervening quotation makes Mark’s explanatory addendum a real
> anacoluthon.
>
> p. 1130: ATR classifies καθαρίζων [KAQARIZWN] as a Nominative
> Absolute but says there is no difference between this and the
> “nominative pendens.”
>
> p. 1203: "We need not follow minutely the various sorts of
> breviloquence or brachylogy that are possible. Thought moves more
> rapidly than expression and the words often crowd together in a
> compressed way that may be not only terse, but at first obscure. " He
> cites Mt. 9:6 and the parallel passages in Mk. 2:10; Lu. 5:24, Mk.
> 14:49, Jo. 13:18; 15:25., Ac. 1:1, Mt. 20:8, Lu. 23:5. A case like
> Lu. 24:47, ἀρξάμενοι [ARXAMENOI], amounts to anacoluthon or
> the use of the participle as a principal verb. Cf. also
> καθαρίζων [KAQARIZWN] in Mk. 7:19.
>
>
>
>
>
> Carl W. Conrad
> Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
>
>
>
> ---
> B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek
> B-Greek mailing list
> B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list