45 articles Mark Page 2 / 3

Mark 11:10

Mark 11:10

EULOGHMENOS hO ERCOMENOS EN ONOMATI KURIOU Ben Crick ben.crick at argonet.co.uk Tue Oct 19 09:24:47 EDT 1999   FW: GAR and Paratactic Connectors a good greek bible On Tue 19 Oct 1999 (02:57:20), spuluka at hotmail.com wrote:> Psalm 117:26 (118:26) is sung during the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom in > the Orthodox tradition right…

Mark 5:9

Mark 5 9 LEGION demoniak

[] Mark 5:9 Singular explained as Plural? Mitch Larramore mitchlarramore at yahoo.com Thu Dec 22 20:30:14 EST 2005   [] Mark 2:19 DUNAMAI [] Mark 5:9 Singular explained as Plural? KAI EPHRWTA AUTON, TI ONOMA SOI; KAI LEGEI AUTWiLEGIWN ONOMA MOI, hOTI POLLOI ESMEN.Is not LEGEI singular? And isn’t MOI singular? TheMOI…POLLOI at first looked…

Matthew 2:4

10054     TITLE  KJV Mt. 2 4

KJV Mt. 2:4 Ted Mann theomann at earthlink.net Mon Jun 11 17:00:44 EDT 2001 Questions about questions KJV Mt. 2:4 In Mt. 2:4, whereas the NASB, NIV, etc., translate EPUQAVETO as “he asked,”or “inquired,” I notice the KJV has “demanded,” which produces quite adifferent sense to me. Is “demanded,” a less apt translation or is…

Mark 2:16

Mark 2 16 HOI GRAMMATEIS TWN FARISAIWN

Mark 2:16 hOI GRAMMATEIS TWN FARISAIWN Jonathan Robie jonathan.robie at sagus.com Mon May 17 17:08:49 EDT 1999   Glassman Mark 2:16 hOI GRAMMATEIS TWN FARISAIWN Here’s a phrase that has thrown me for a loop. The Scribes of thePharisees? I thought they were two distinct groups.How is this to be understood?Jonathan___________________________________________________________________________Jonathan Robiejwrobie at mindspring.comLittle Greek…

Mark 16:2

Mk 16 2 Constituent Order

Mk 16:2 Constituent Order c stirling bartholomew cc.constantine at worldnet.att.net Tue Jun 26 14:57:36 EDT 2001   Sorry The text of Luke 2:2 and word order Anyone have anything to say about why ANATEILANTOS TOU hHLIOU shows up atthe end of the clause in Mk 16:2. Mark piles up so many adverbials in thisclause that…

Mark 16:18

Mark 16 18 AROUSIN

[] Mark 16:18 AROUSIN Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu Tue Feb 4 06:08:55 EST 2003 [] SE in Mark 1:24 [] Mark 16:18 AROUSIN Forwarded for Harry Jones:From: “Harry W. Jones” <hwjones2 at earthlink.net>Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 02:17:57 -0800Hello All,My question concerns KAI EN TAIS CERSIN OFEIS AROUSIN.I have noticed that some translations…

Mark 8:7

Ekklesia

Ekklesia Tony Calman tcalman at optusnet.com.au Sun May 9 19:10:57 EDT 1999   dia + genitive John 5:26 I have been considering the difference between a “congregation” and a “church” (if any)? The hebrew words qahal or edah seems to be translated by the word ekklesia in the LXX, which is often translated by the…

Mark 8:35

Mk 8 35 37, YUCH

Mk 8:35-37, YUCH Joe A. Friberg JoeFriberg at email.msn.com Mon Dec 20 20:36:43 EST 1999 Philippians 2:6 Philippians 2:6 Interpretations of 8.35:Paul Dixon (PD):> > << whoever desires to save his life (eternally) shall lose it> (temporally)> > and whoever loses his life temporally on account of me and the> > gospel, shall find it…

Mark 15:34

Mark 15:34

We are finally able to provide the published text of the article on the “cry of dereliction” from the Brill volume, The Language Environment of First Century Judaea, Randall Buth and R Steven Notley edd., (Brill, 2014, ISBN 9789004263406). The PDF of Randall Buth, “The Riddle of Jesus’ Cry from the Cross: the Meaning of ηλι ηλι λαμα σαβαχθανι (Matthew 27:46) and the Literary Function of ελωι ελωι λειμα σαβαχθανι (Mark 15:34)” is avaiable at:

www.biblicalLanguageCenter.com under “community” “BLC blog”

It is a fitting read/study for passion week.

Statistics: Posted by RandallButh — April 17th, 2014, 4:54 am


Mark 3:1

New Testament • Re: Two Questions about Mark 3:1-3
Wes Wood wrote:
Thanks for the responses the indirect question makes perfect sense. And the second part I don’t have a problem with either. I am meaning authorial foreshadowing inside the pericope, however. Nothing more than the author tipping his hand to what is going to happen in the narrative.

It’s a completely ordinary phrase as Timothy pointed out. It is easy to find its usage as simply “arise” in places like Mat 2:13, 9:19 26:46, Mark 10:49 14:42,. It clearly implies rising from a settled position, but nothing more. In fact, Luke 6:8 makes very clear what “εγειρε”/”εγειραι” in Mark 3:3 means.

Statistics: Posted by David Lim — June 17th, 2014, 7:18 am


Mark 9:20

New Testament • Mark 9:20 – Who’s doing what

SBL:
καὶ ἤνεγκαν αὐτὸν πρὸς αὐτόν. καὶ ἰδὼν αὐτὸν τὸ πνεῦμα εὐθὺς συνεσπάραξεν αὐτόν, καὶ πεσὼν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἐκυλίετο ἀφρίζων.

I can see two ways of reading this – either the boy is the one who ἰδὼν Jesus, or the spirit within him (so masc. part. is CAS).

Looking at the other participles in the verse, they clearly describe physical actions that the boy is doing (πεσὼν … ἀφρίζων), so my initial instinct is to read ἰδὼν as referring to the boy, and not the spirit. Would then account for the mention of τὸ πνεῦμα as giving a separate subject for the action of the verb συνεσπάραξεν.

A third option would be to not think of the two as separate entities, and so it’s not a case of “either/or” but “both”, as they’re rather intertwined at this moment.

I see a similar thing in Mark 9:26 – καὶ κράξας καὶ πολλὰ σπαράξας ἐξῆλθεν – the participles describe the physical actions of the boy, and the verb is the action that the spirit does (‘And after crying out and convulsing violently, it departed’).

Thoughts?

Statistics: Posted by S Walch — February 18th, 2017, 8:30 pm


Mark 4:29

New Testament • Re: Mark 4:29 παραδῷ allow, or ripen
cwconrad wrote:

Stephen Hughes wrote:

Mark 4:26-29 wrote:Καὶ ἔλεγεν, Οὕτως ἐστὶν ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ, ὡς ἐὰν ἄνθρωπος βάλῃ τὸν σπόρον ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, καὶ καθεύδῃ καὶ ἐγείρηται νύκτα καὶ ἡμέραν, καὶ ὁ σπόρος βλαστάνῃ καὶ μηκύνηται ὡς οὐκ οἶδεν αὐτός. Αὐτομάτη γὰρ ἡ γῆ καρποφορεῖ, πρῶτον χόρτον, εἶτα στάχυν, εἶτα πλήρη σῖτον ἐν τῷ στάχυϊ. Ὅταν δὲ παραδῷ ὁ καρπός, εὐθέως ἀποστέλλει τὸ δρέπανον, ὅτι παρέστηκεν ὁ θερισμός.

In BDAG the meaning is παραδῷ “allow”, while the natural sense in the sequence if growth is ”ripen”.

Any thoughts either way?

παραδῷ is aorist; “ripen” is a process word. I’d think that idiomatic English would have to be “is ripe” or better, “is ready for harvest (has yielded its crop)”.

I think Carl’s gloss, “yield”, is the most helpful thing on this thread thus far. “When the crop yields…” It does fit nicely with the more popular usages of the verb.

Statistics: Posted by Jordan Day — May 10th, 2014, 12:15 pm


Mark 5:42

New Testament • Re: γαρ again in Mk 5:42

Levinsohn is using strengthening as a technical term. It is a fallacy to assume that a technical term means what the non-technical meaning might suggest. One has to study his usage of the term to understand what it means. I haven’t seen any disagreement yet on the actual substance, just unwarranted extrapolations from the particular name he gave to the function. Labels aren’t definitions.

Statistics: Posted by Stephen Carlson — June 26th, 2014, 11:39 am


Mark 16:1

New Testament • Re: Levinsohn on Mark 16:1-8
Stephen Carlson wrote:

April 17th, 2017, 11:59 pm

Jonathan Robie wrote:

April 17th, 2017, 8:12 pm

I am a concrete thinker, so part of what I am looking for is a clear understanding of the relationship between the topics at various levels – the sentence topic and the discourse topic in this passage, for instance.

As far as I can tell, there’s no simple relation between the two. They’re different things. The fact that they share the term “topic” seems to be creating expectations they are more closely related, but they are not.

I really do think I’ve heard some other people imply that there is a closer relationship than that, but those people may be confused too.

Stephen Carlson wrote:

April 17th, 2017, 11:59 pm

Lambrecht’s books has been very popular and influential. He provides (his own) definitions for topic and focus. It is similar to what Levinsohn is doing, but not identical. I think Levinsohn follows Simon Dik more (whom I haven’t read). So does Helma Dik.

I have Simon Dik’s book. It is very clearly written, I should work my way through it.

Stephen Carlson wrote:

April 17th, 2017, 11:59 pm

Levinsohn has actually published quite a bit. To understand him, that’s the first and best place to go. His coursebook, though dated, lays out several of the concepts, but he’s been updating them in other publications. Many of these are on his website. If you can read Spanish, you may find his introduction to his Galatians analysis helpful.

Thanks, I’ll look there. My … Spanish … is not great. But that kind of technical Spanish may or may not be possible.

Statistics: Posted by Jonathan Robie — April 18th, 2017, 10:19 am