Mark 6:12-13 [was 'do participles govern whole sentence or just next main verb?']
jpr1001 at cam.ac.uk
Thu Jul 22 07:31:48 EDT 1999
"Carl W. Conrad" wrote:
> Jonathan Ryder wrote:
> >Dear B-Greek
> >Consider the following sentence (Mark 6:12-13):
> >KAI EXELQONTES EKHRUXAN hINA METANOWSIN KAI DAIMONIA POLLA EXEBALLON KAI
> >HLEIFON ELAIW POLLOUS ARRWSTOUS KAI EQERAPEUON
> >My question:
> >Does the participle EXELQONTES 'govern' just EKHRUXAN or all 4 verbs (EKHRUXAN
> >... KAI ... EXEBALLON KAI HLEIFON ... KAI EQERAPEUON)?
> I think my answer to this question would be: "Yes."
Are you saying yes to the first part or yes to both parts?
> >What I'm really trying to get at is whether the 4 main verbs in this sentence
> >are all at the same 'level' in the discourse or whether the participle
> >with the
> >1st verb marks it out as different etc.
> I think it can be read both ways, but I think the fact that the first
> finite verb is aorist makes it a bit easier to link the participle
> primarily with EKHRUXAN. As I read it, KAI EXELQONTES ... METANOWSIN make
> the main statement, and then the clauses with the imperfect verbs
> EXEBALLON, HLEIFON, and EQERAPEUON proceed to spell out the normal
> activities that accompany the basic activity of proclamation.
Thanks for pointing out that 1st vb is aorist overagainst the rest - it
convinces me that there is a distinction of level of sorts. Is this the main
reason why you take the following clauses as virtually subordinate, or does the
presence of the participle have a bearing on this?
> >In other words would it be natural to understand sentence as:
> >and having gone out they preached (pause) and cast out demons and anointed and
> >and having gone out they preached and cast out and anointed and healed?
> I think that "more normal" English would be, "And they went out and
> preached a gospel of repentance, proceeding to cast out many demons and
> anoint many with oil and heal them." This is an interpretation, of course,
> but I think this nicely illustrates characteristic patterns of Mark's Greek
> and more ordinary English parataxis and hypotaxis. This nicely illustrates
> the usage of those terms in the current thread with header, "Re Para-what?"
> Carl W. Conrad
I'm not sure yet whether I buy the interpretive decision to see the casting
out/anointing to heal as proceeding from (or as content of?) the preaching,
although I might buy it more easily as one complex of activities in which the
preaching was the predominant activity, with the others supporting. However I'm
most interested in what the Greek actually says, and what it can *and* cannot
support in terms of interpretation. Am I right in thinking that you see
EXEBALLON etc as hypotactically related to EKHRUXAN, if not explicitly in Greek
then at least implicitly so as to warrant expression as such in translation.
A further question reagrding the rest of the sentence:
KAI DAIMONIA POLLA EXEBALLON KAI HLEIFON ELAIW POLLOUS ARRWSTOUS KAI EQERAPEUON
Would it be legitimate to distinguish different 'levels' between the verbs here?
ie might EXEBALLON be on the same level as HLEIFON, whereas EQERAPEUON is either
subordinate to or as a result of HLEIFON (or both EXEBALLON and HLEIFON as one
who experiences exorcism would be deemed 'healed') or coordinate in some sense
such as seeing the disciples engaged in 2 rather than 3 activities ie 'casting
out' and 'anointing and healing' rather than 'casting out', 'anointing',
Thanks for your patience
PS Looking forward to hearing from some of you discourse junkies out there!
More information about the B-Greek