New theme at Mk 9:42?

clayton stirling bartholomew c.s.bartholomew at worldnet.att.net
Thu Aug 10 17:05:19 EDT 2000


on 08/10/00 9:00 AM, CWestf5155 at aol.com wrote:

> Let me make a few more observations:
> 
> I see the interpersonal structure and the roles of agent/subject and
> object/goal/recipient as being very significant.
> 
> hOS (AN) as subject/agent in vv. 37, 40, 41 & 42 create a unifying pattern,
> even though the referents switch back and forth.
> 
> SE as object/goal links vv. 43-48 (and perhaps through v. 50, if you want to
> see vv. 49-50 as and expansion of PUR in v. 48).
> 
> Summarizing the interpersonal structure:
> 
> v. 37 hOS AN hEN TWN TOIOUTWN PAIDIWN DEXHTAI
> Whoever (of the disciples?) welcomes such children...
> v. 40  hOS GAR OUK ESTIN KAQ hUMWN
> For whoever (of the outsiders) is for us...
> v. 41 hOS GAR AN POTISH hUMAS POTHRION
>For whoever (of the outsiders) gives you a cup of [water]
> v. 42 KAI hOS AN SKANVDALISH hENA TWN MIKRWN TOUTWN
> And whoever (of the disciples?) 'stumbles' one of these little ones
> 
> Hey, this looks a bit chiastic, doesn't it?
> 

{snip}

> I'd say that SKANDALIZW in v. 42 creates cohesion across the interpersonal
> shift at v. 43, and does not determine a boundary.  This is very common.  A.
> Vanhoye, in his description of the structure of Hebrews calls these 'hook
> words', which George Guthrie catagorizes in an extremely complex way in his
> dissertation on Hebrews.  Dik calls it 'forward harmony' in Theory of FG, vol
> 1, p. 321.

Cindy,

Nice work! It is a pleasure to get responses which have this much thought
put into them. Your analysis of the interpersonal structure looks very
intriguing and I will ponder it for a while.

Meanwhile, I am still a little befuddled about Mk 9:43-50. It looks to me
like Mark is using words like SKANDALIZW, PUR and ALS to tie together
otherwise unrelated material. There seem to be real thematic/semantic breaks
at 9:42/43 and 9:48/49 and 9:49/50. Mark appears to be using word play to
tie these segments into a chain. Here are the breaks and the words used to
span the breaks: 

9:42/43  SKANDALIZW
9:48/49 PUR
9:49/50 ALS

The segment 9:48-50 is particularly tricky where the thematic/semantic
transitions are very rapid. This may be a similar idea to  'hook words." Not
sure since I have not read  A. Vanhoye. I would agree that SKANDALIZW does
not "determine" a boundary, that is it is not a boundary marker. However in
9:42/43 I think there is a boundary of some sort and SKANDALIZW is being
used to provide some level of apparent thematic cohesion.

Thanks again for your thoughts on this.

Clay

--  
Clayton Stirling Bartholomew
Three Tree Point
P.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062





More information about the B-Greek mailing list