36 articles Mark Page 2 / 2

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


Mark 1:1

Mark 1:1

This is rather a quick question on a first read of Mark 1:1: Should the genitive “of Jesus Christ” be translated as a possessive belonging to the “Gospel” in the first clause? Also, isn’t the clumsiness of the phrase, rather hanging at the end sufficient proof for its later addition in B D W /al/…

Mark 13:26

Mark 13:26

[bible passage=”Mark 13:26″] Matthew and Luke: META DUNAMEWS KAI DOXES POLLES Mark: META DUNAMEWS POLLES KAI DOXES We have three synoptic passages: Mathew 24:30, Mark 13:26 and Luke 21:27 using the adjective POLLES. Matthew and Luke use the adjective after DOXES, while Mark uses it after DUNAMEWS. Harmonizing the text would make it: META DUNAMEWS…

Mark 2:15

Mark 2:15-16 Punctuation – Nestle vs Tischendorf

I would say Lenski’s first objection is not well formulated, but is on the right track. The verb ἀκολουθεῖν is certainly used mostly in the gospels in the sense of following a leader and especially of discipleship. Even generally in Greek it seems to me the verb usually implies you are going with someone superior and the relationship is positive. If, however, the subject here is the scribes and the verb is taken in a simple neutral sense of following someone to see what he was going to do, it seems inappropriate since Jesus is not said to be going anywhere, he is in someone’s house having a meal.

Regarding how to take καί according to the NA27 punctuation, here are a couple of other quotes which may help:

Kermit Titrud discusses the clause-conjoining function of καί in a 1992 article. He notes that very rarely καί links clauses that are not logically coordinate but one is subordinate to the other, such as Matt 26.45 and others. He continues:

Titrud wrote:
When this skewing between discourse and logical structure occurs, it is the result of the author’s strategy—it is deliberate and significant … By syntactically elevating what is logically subordinate, the author is placing more prominence (emphasis) on the clause than it would have had if introduced by a subordinating conjunction …

K. Titrud ‘The Function of καί in the Greek New Testament and an application to 2 Peter’ in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation ed. David Alan Black, Broadman Press 1992.

Titrud doesn’t mention Mark 2.15 in this connection, and the skewing here is not the kind he is thinking of, but if the approach can be applied to it, it would suggest Mark is deliberately emphasising the action of following because it was unexpected that tax collectors and sinners would do that.

Also Gundry states on the verse in question:

Gundry wrote:
To take the “and” before “they were following him” as Semitic parataxis for “who” (producing “for there were many who were following him”) tends to miss the distribution of emphasis between the large number and the following (and see M. Reiser, Syntax und Stil 128-30, against treating the construction necessarily as a Semitism).

Robert H. Gundry MARK: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross Eerdmans 1993.

Regarding the punctuation of Tischendorf it should be taken into account that he followed manuscripts that read an extra καί before ἰδόντες in verse 16. Without that extra καί Tischendorf’s punctuation doesn’t seem to work so well.

Statistics: Posted by Tony Pope — February 7th, 2017, 3:44 pm