Mark 16:1

Mark 6:1-2 Continuity/Discontinuity clayton stirling bartholomew c.s.bartholomew at worldnet.att.net Tue Apr 18 17:16:43 EDT 2000   Previous message: Fronting & Point of Departure Next message: Greek Software and XML In Mark 6:1 we see a transition between scenes reported:KAI EXHLQEN EKEIQEN KAI ERCETAI EIS . . .There is no fronted constituent in Mark 6:1. I would assume that the lackof a fronted constituent means that Mark didn't intend to highlight anycontinuity/discontinuity between scene ending in Mk 5:43 and the scenebeginning in Mk 6:1. However the rather full encoding of the location changedoes grab ones attention.When we see a new scene introduced with KAI + finite verb can we judged fromthat evidence alone that the two scenes before and after have no connectionwith one another? I don't think this follows. The reason it does not followhas to do with the notion of "marking." When we say that a frontedconstituent can be used to "mark" discourse continuity/discontinuity we arenot saying that the lack of this fronted constituent "marks" a completediscontinuity. What we are saying is that a clause that begins with KAI +finite verb is "unmarked" with relation to continuity/discontinuity. Beingunmarked means that the author didn't indicate anything one way or the otherabout continuity/discontinuity by using KAI + finite verb.In Mark 6:2 we seen a fronted constituent POLLOI which marks theintroduction of new participants into the scene. There is both continuity ofaction here marked by AKOUONTES and a change of participant marked byPOLLOI. These ramblings are just attempts to grapple with the notion of frontedconstituents within the larger topic of narrative discourse boundaries. I amjust tossing them out to see if anyone wants to talk about them.Clay-- Clayton Stirling BartholomewThree Tree PointP.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062   Previous message: Fronting & Point of DepartureNext message: Greek Software and XML More information about the mailing list Mark 6:1-2 Continuity/Discontinuity yochanan bitan ButhFam at compuserve.com Wed Apr 19 01:21:14 EDT 2000   Previous message: Greek Software and XML Next message: Mark 6:1-2 Continuity/Discontinuity clay egrapsen peri "continuity/discontinuity":>When we see a new scene introduced with KAI + finite verb can we judgefrom>that evidence alone that the two scenes before and after have noconnection>with one another? KAI implies 'connection' . See below.>I don't think this [no connection-RB] follows. The reason it does notfollow>has to do with the notion of "marking." When we say that a fronted>constituent can be used to "mark" discourse continuity/discontinuity weare>not saying that the lack of this fronted constituent "marks" a complete>discontinuity. What we are saying is that a clause that begins with KAI +>finite verb is "unmarked" with relation to continuity/discontinuity. Being>unmarked means that the author didn't indicate anything one way or theother>about continuity/discontinuity by using KAI + finite verb.It is good to see you grappling with the text. This always leads to betteracquaintance and stylistic sensitivity as we try to get our models andpredictions closer and closer to data. First of all, KAI + finite verb is normally a mark of CONTINUATIONwith a main-line event in a story, often with the same participant orperspective as the preceding event. That is the main reason for KAIbeginning a sentence and especially when beginning a new paragraph unit. However, in some Jewish Greek, this structure multiplied itselfagainst-the-grain of Greek sensitivities. Mark has far too manysentence-initial KAI's for any semblance of Greek sensitivities, his stylehas a distinctly 'foreign' sound. AND Mark 6.1 is an example of suchexcess. (By the way, excessive KAI-style is not "Aramaic" narrative styleunless it is also accompanied by occasional examples of "narrative tote"'then'. Cf. Mt's 55 examples. Pure excessive KAI is Hebraic, as in Lucanand Marcan narrative. [Both Hebrew and Aramaic use 'then' in propheticdiscourse, only in narrative does 'then' become diagnostic of language.]) Secondly, you appear to be taking the phrase continuity/discontinuityin an inverse ratio to its essence. [You imply that a lack of frontingwould naturally lean towards discontinuity: "we are not saying that thelack of this fronted constituent "marks" a complete discontinuity".] Actually, a fronted contextualization normally signals that something haschanged, some new perspective must be assumed. The whole point of needingthe fronting is that a road sign is necessary: "curve ahead". The simplest, plainest kind of continuity, on the other hand, willnormally not have any fronting, since the previous situation/arrangment ofactors and scene continues as it was. If you are going to use continuityand discontinuity together as a joined term, then you would be better offlabelling it Discontinuity/continuity, since the discontinuity is dominant.Stephen and I probably disagree in emphasis on this point. I see continuityas the unmarked background of a text, since the next event in a storyautomatically implies some kind of continuity with the preceding by virtueof its existence in the text. It is the deviancies that need marking. Touse my metaphor from above: Stephen would say that a curve in the road is'continuous' with the road leading in. I would say that 'curve' isn'tmarking continuity, that is assumed, but marking a kind of change in theroad. > >In Mark 6:2 we seen a fronted constituent POLLOI which marks the>introduction of new participants into the scene. There is both continuityof>action here marked by AKOUONTES and a change of participant marked by>POLLOI. Yes, polloi marks a discontinuity of Subject and sets up anotherperspective for this paragraph. Continuity of action is signalled by the KAI, though as I explained above,kai cannot be relied upon in Mark as a reliable guide according tonormative Greek narrative. AKOUNTES is subordinate to imperfectiveEKPLHSSESQAI, which is the resulting action and which may conceivably havebeen marked as '+ change' [=de] by a Greek author with more of a proclivityto mark such.errwsoRandall Buth   Previous message: Greek Software and XMLNext message: Mark 6:1-2 Continuity/Discontinuity More information about the mailing list Mark 6:1-2 Continuity/Discontinuity clayton stirling bartholomew c.s.bartholomew at worldnet.att.net Wed Apr 19 15:03:22 EDT 2000   Previous message: Greek Software and XML Next message: John 1:1-3 in Koine set to music on 04/18/00 10:21 PM, yochanan bitan wrote: clay egrapsen peri "continuity/discontinuity":>First of all, KAI + finite verb is> normally a mark of CONTINUATION with a main-line event in a story, often with> the same participant or perspective as the preceding event. That is the main> reason for KAI beginning a sentence and especially when beginning a new> paragraph unit. However, in some Jewish Greek, this structure multiplied> itself against-the-grain of Greek sensitivities. Mark has far too many> sentence-initial KAI's for any semblance of Greek sensitivities, his style has> a distinctly 'foreign' sound. AND Mark 6.1 is an example of such excess. (By> the way, excessive KAI-style is not "Aramaic" narrative style unless it is> also accompanied by occasional examples of "narrative tote" 'then'. Cf. Mt's> 55 examples. Pure excessive KAI is Hebraic, as in Lucan and Marcan narrative.> [Both Hebrew and Aramaic use 'then' in prophetic discourse, only in narrative> does 'then' become diagnostic of language.])>Secondly, you appear to be taking> the phrase continuity/discontinuity in an inverse ratio to its essence. [You> imply that a lack of fronting would naturally lean towards discontinuity: "we> are not saying that the lack of this fronted constituent "marks" a complete> discontinuity".] Actually, a fronted contextualization normally signals that> something has changed, some new perspective must be assumed. The whole point> of needing the fronting is that a road sign is necessary: "curve ahead". The> simplest, plainest kind of continuity, on the other hand, will normally not> have any fronting, since the previous situation/arrangment of actors and scene> continues as it was. If you are going to use continuity and discontinuity> together as a joined term, then you would be better off labelling it> Discontinuity/continuity, since the discontinuity is dominant. Stephen and I> probably disagree in emphasis on this point. I see continuity as the unmarked> background of a text, since the next event in a story automatically implies> some kind of continuity with the preceding by virtue of its existence in the> text. It is the deviancies that need marking. To use my metaphor from above:> Stephen would say that a curve in the road is 'continuous' with the road> leading in. I would say that 'curve' isn't marking continuity, that is> assumed, but marking a kind of change in the road.> Randall,I think that you and Steve Levinshon may be on somewhat of a different trackhere as you have suggested. My ideas are somewhat divorced from both yoursand Levinshon's thus we have the confusion over terminology and somesubstantial disagreements. I will attempt a clarification.First of all there may be a confusion in my mind regarding narrativecontinuity and textual cohesion. I take Mark's use of KAI + finite verb asan UNMARKED connector. It does not provide any fronted elements that wouldaid in making the text cohesive. My understanding of the fronted constituentslot is that it can be used for several different (pragmatic?) functions.When we see an anaphoric participle placed in this slot it may providetextual cohesion by tying the clause with the preceding narrative block.When we see a point of departure filling this fronted constituent slot itmay serve to encoded both continuity and discontinuity. POLLOI, byindicating a change in participant in Mk 6:2 leaves the reader to assumethat the temporal progression is linear (temporal continuity) and saysnothing about topical continuity.It isn't wise for me to try and speak for Steve Levinshon* since I have onlyhad his book for two weeks and I am still on a steep learning curve. On Page22* Levinshon indicates that in NT Greek a fronted constituent is theprimary means of relating a sentence to its context. This statement hasimplications for both cohesion and continuity. I would say that frontedconstituents are used to enhance the cohesion of a text while they may atthe same time be marking changes in temporal sequence, participants andtopic. So if we unscramble the cohesion from continuity issue some of ourproblem goes away.When it comes to Mark's use of conjunctions, Levinshon* (page 39), incommenting on Mark's non use of DE to indicate development, makes thestatement "Mark seldom presents one incident as developing from the previousone." I may be reading something into this since KAI + finite verb is notwhat Levinshon is discussing here. However, it seems to me that the our casein MK 6:1 is an example of discontinuity since only the temporal sequence iscontinuous. I guess it is my current inclination to stick with the notion ofKAI + finite verb as UNMARKED in regards to continuity.Your said: >I see continuity as the unmarked> background of a text, since the next event in a story automatically implies> some kind of continuity with the preceding by virtue of its existence in the> text. It is the deviancies that need marking.This makes sense. However, when I read the Gospels it is easy to see thescenes as the result of an editorial cut and paste procedure. What I amsaying is that KAI + finite verb is weak paste whereas a fronted constituentis strong past even when it identifies a change in topic, temporal sequenceor participant. Particularly strong paste is a fronted anaphoric participle.So that textual cohesion is lower with a KAI + finite verb than it would bewith a fronted constituent. Again, textual cohesion being somewhat of adistinct issue from narrative continuity.Thanks a lot Randall, you are helping me absorb this material which isdifficult digest quickly.Clay*Levinsohn, Stephen Discourse Features of New Testament Greek, SIL 1992 222 pp. (paper)   Previous message: Greek Software and XMLNext message: John 1:1-3 in Koine set to music More information about the mailing list Mark 6:1-2 Continuity/Discontinuity clayton stirling bartholomew c.s.bartholomew at worldnet.att.net Thu Apr 20 16:16:47 EDT 2000   Previous message: Mark 6:1-2 Continuity/Discontinuity Next message: Occidental recension of Luke's Gospel on 04/18/00 10:21 PM, yochanan bitan wrote:> First of all, KAI + finite verb is normally a mark of CONTINUATION> with a main-line event in a story, often with the same participant or> perspective as the preceding event. That is the main reason for KAI> beginning a sentence and especially when beginning a new paragraph unit.> However, in some Jewish Greek, this structure multiplied itself> against-the-grain of Greek sensitivities. Mark has far too many> sentence-initial KAI's for any semblance of Greek sensitivities, his style> has a distinctly 'foreign' sound.Randall,Yes, yes, now I see what you are getting at.Levinsohn** (chapter 13) makes the point that discourse boundaries aresemantic boundaries and are not determined by "formal" language features.Levinsohn repeats this over and over restating it in several different waysfor the purpose of stressing the point. He states that formal features suchas conjunctions and fronted constituents are only supporting evidence for asemantic* boundary. The semantic boundary must be determined on the basis ofa change in "theme." The formal features that happen to fall on theseboundaries have other purposes at the level of syntax. Their primary purposeis not to mark a boundary in the semantic structure.Another point that Levinsohn makes is that the mapping of formal featuresto discourse boundaries changes significantly from author to author. This isfurther evidence that the formal features themselves are not reallydiscourse markers. For example, the use of KAI is not the same in Mark as itis in Luke, Acts, or the epistles. The use of KAI in the Apocalypse isdifferent yet. It isn't too difficult to find an occasion in Mark where KAIfalls on a semantic boundary, but this does not give us the right toconclude that KAI marks a semantic boundary which it does not.Even if you limit the scope of your analysis to one author or one book youwill find that formal features are not reliable indicators of boundaries inthe semantic structure. For example, in the Apocalypse META TAUTA is used todivide semantic blocks but there are also occasions when META TAUTA does notfall on a semantic division. Therefore, within the Apocalypse META TAUTA canonly be used as supporting evidence for a break in the semantic structure.This is a point that should be closely pondered by those who are trying todo exegesis from the bottom up. The coupling between the syntax layer andthe semantic layer of a NT Greek text is very subtle. It would be verydifficult to define a set of formal rules which would allow one to "move"from the syntactic structure to the semantic structure of a NT Greek text.This does not mean that we should ignore formal features of the text whiledoing discourse analysis. It does mean that discourse analysis is going toinvolve top down analysis which will look foreign and perhaps suspect tothose schooled in traditional approaches to NT Greek grammar.Clay-- Clayton Stirling BartholomewThree Tree PointP.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062* For those who have problems with the term semantic boundary or semanticdivision, just think of a paragraph boundary which isn't exactly the samething but close enough for following the argument.**Levinsohn, Stephen Discourse Features of New Testament Greek, SIL 1992 222 pp. (paper)   Previous message: Mark 6:1-2 Continuity/DiscontinuityNext message: Occidental recension of Luke's Gospel More information about the mailing list Mark 6:1-2 Continuity/Discontinuity clayton stirling bartholomew c.s.bartholomew at worldnet.att.net Fri Apr 21 14:25:26 EDT 2000   Previous message: Mark 6:1-2 Continuity/Discontinuity Next message: Nine Choirs of Angels on 04/21/00 7:47 AM, Mike Sangrey wrote:> First, one should read the largest possible cohesive unit of thought,> a semantic ceiling in the mathematical sense. For example, the book> of Galatians or John should be read and reread in one sitting till it> flows in one's mind.Mike,This is the approach I was taught 25 years ago by one or two of BruceWaltke's disciples, professors who had recently done their doctoral studiesunder Waltke's direction.> > This reading should be done in one's native languageFor a lot of people this is the only practical thing to do, read it in yourown language. However, I would hold out a carrot on string for the reallyhard core language student, by claiming that this kind of reading can andshould be done in the original languages. Yes it may take you 10-15 years toget there but it is possible and it is desirable to do it in NT Greek.Thanks Mike,Have a good Good Friday,Clay-- Clayton Stirling BartholomewThree Tree PointP.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062   Previous message: Mark 6:1-2 Continuity/Discontinuity Next message: Nine Choirs of Angels More information about the mailing list
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
 
RandallButh wrote:
April 18th, 2017, 2:44 am
Jonathan, most every linguistics lecture on this area has to warn students that "topic" does not mean "topic". But it usually doesn't do any more good than telling Greek students that "Present" subjunctives/infinitives are not "present".
Hah! I feel right into that trap.
RandallButh wrote:
April 18th, 2017, 2:44 am
And Stephen is correct, that people try to come up with terms that may be more transparent. That is why I used "Contextualizing Constitutent". It is less given to presumptive misleading. By the time it means something to someone, the meaning is broadly in the correct direction.
I like "Contextualizing Component". I agree that this is clearer. Especially since it implies that it is a component of something - a sentence, perhaps. Statistics: Posted by Jonathan Robie — April 18th, 2017, 10:15 am
Jonathan, most every linguistics lecture on this area has to warn students that "topic" does not mean "topic". But it usually doesn't do any more good than telling Greek students that "Present" subjunctives/infinitives are not "present". And Stephen is correct, that people try to come up with terms that may be more transparent. That is why I used "Contextualizing Constitutent". It is less given to presumptive misleading. By the time it means something to someone, the meaning is broadly in the correct direction. Statistics: Posted by RandallButh — April 18th, 2017, 2:44 am
 
Jonathan Robie wrote:
April 17th, 2017, 8:12 pm
Regardless, I'm not sure this is a case of clear and simple definitions with a little overlapping terminology, but I may need to go back and reread some things. Maybe I was just being obtuse, but I was having a hard time finding crisp definitions that allowed me to know precisely what was intended by the terms, or a clear discussion of the relationship between the topic of a sentence and the topic of a discourse unit. * * * At any rate, I am mostly trying to understand these concepts, learn how to apply them, and find terms and definitions that I could use to clearly explain them to others. 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.
Jonathan Robie wrote:
April 17th, 2017, 8:12 pm
BTW, is Lambrecht's book helpful on this? It seems to be saying it addresses this kind of question:
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.
Jonathan Robie wrote:
April 17th, 2017, 8:12 pm
Or are there other books / articles that would help me sort this out?
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. Statistics: Posted by Stephen Carlson — April 17th, 2017, 11:59 pm
 
Stephen Carlson wrote:
April 17th, 2017, 7:09 pm
 
Jonathan Robie wrote:
April 17th, 2017, 1:45 pm
Let me step back and look at this from a naïve standpoint. If I read this passage without having read Levinsohn or Runge, I would say that the topic of the passage is the resurrection and the focus is on the women whose experience is being told. If I try to take these discourse features into account, using my intuitive associations with the words 'topic' and 'focus', I would probably say that the topic is Mary and Mary, very early on the first day of the week, and the focus is Ἰησοῦν τὸν Ναζαρηνὸν τὸν ἐσταυρωμένον.
As Arnold Zwicky on Language Log likes to say, Labels Are Not Definitions (Or Descriptions). Though technical terms are meant to be suggestive of the phenomena they describe, it is not good practice to immediately start reasoning with a technical term until one understands how it is defined or what it covers. I see a lot of strife over "correct" terminology due to the attempt to have the labels do the work of describing/defining a (new) concept rather than do what labels are supposed to do: provide a convenient handle to a concept already constructed.
In a philosophy class I took, we would make a list of different definitions for the same term, let's try that here:
  • topic (discourse) - the topic of a discourse unit such as a passage
  • topic (sentence) - the topic of a sentence
Hmmm, but aren't the terms 'discourse topic' and 'sentence topic' / 'sentential topic' already used with these meanings? Regardless, I'm not sure this is a case of clear and simple definitions with a little overlapping terminology, but I may need to go back and reread some things. Maybe I was just being obtuse, but I was having a hard time finding crisp definitions that allowed me to know precisely what was intended by the terms, or a clear discussion of the relationship between the topic of a sentence and the topic of a discourse unit.
Stephen Carlson wrote:
April 17th, 2017, 7:09 pm
I suppose this means that both writers and readers have to work harder. Writers should probably have to do some teaching (every time) of the basic concepts until they become part of the standard curriculum. Readers should realize that they can't just assume what a technical term means just by looking at it.
As a reader, I think I know that. But it wasn't really until I started using Levinsohn's data to see what it says about specific passages that I began to understand how he is using these terms. I'll have to go back and reread his book now to see if it should have been clearer to me then. At any rate, I am mostly trying to understand these concepts, learn how to apply them, and find terms and definitions that I could use to clearly explain them to others. 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. BTW, is Lambrecht's book helpful on this? It seems to be saying it addresses this kind of question: https://www.amazon.com/Information-Stru ... 016MYWOSI/ Or are there other books / articles that would help me sort this out? Statistics: Posted by Jonathan Robie — April 17th, 2017, 8:12 pm
 
Jonathan Robie wrote:
April 17th, 2017, 1:45 pm
Let me step back and look at this from a naïve standpoint. If I read this passage without having read Levinsohn or Runge, I would say that the topic of the passage is the resurrection and the focus is on the women whose experience is being told. If I try to take these discourse features into account, using my intuitive associations with the words 'topic' and 'focus', I would probably say that the topic is Mary and Mary, very early on the first day of the week, and the focus is Ἰησοῦν τὸν Ναζαρηνὸν τὸν ἐσταυρωμένον.
As Arnold Zwicky on Language Log likes to say, Labels Are Not Definitions (Or Descriptions). Though technical terms are meant to be suggestive of the phenomena they describe, it is not good practice to immediately start reasoning with a technical term until one understands how it is defined or what it covers. I see a lot of strife over "correct" terminology due to the attempt to have the labels do the work of describing/defining a (new) concept rather than do what labels are supposed to do: provide a convenient handle to a concept already constructed. I suppose this means that both writers and readers have to work harder. Writers should probably have to do some teaching (every time) of the basic concepts until they become part of the standard curriculum. Readers should realize that they can't just assume what a technical term means just by looking at it. Statistics: Posted by Stephen Carlson — April 17th, 2017, 7:09 pm
 
RandallButh wrote:
April 16th, 2017, 3:04 am
 
Jonathan Robie wrote:
April 15th, 2017, 9:37 am
So for you discourse experts ... is this pretty much what Levinsohn is saying about the passage? How does this differ from Runge? What am I missing? Is the attention to topic and focus the main benefit of looking at the discourse features in this passage?
Nothing wrong with tracking 'topic' and 'focus'. The 'situational point of departure' that you mentioned is also a kind of topicalization in many/most analytical systems. I group 'situation and topic' together into 'contextualizing constituent', a sentence constituent that provides a marked link to the greater context.
This makes sense. But the thing that interests me most here, and the thing I am weakest at, is knowing how to use these discourse features as marked links to the greater context. Let me step back and look at this from a naïve standpoint. If I read this passage without having read Levinsohn or Runge, I would say that the topic of the passage is the resurrection and the focus is on the women whose experience is being told. If I try to take these discourse features into account, using my intuitive associations with the words 'topic' and 'focus', I would probably say that the topic is Mary and Mary, very early on the first day of the week, and the focus is Ἰησοῦν τὸν Ναζαρηνὸν τὸν ἐσταυρωμένον. But actually, there's an awful lot of focus on the women, as I read this text. So trying to use the everyday meaning of these words isn't giving me the right hooks to the big picture. Can you help?
RandallButh wrote:
April 16th, 2017, 3:04 am
Maybe of more interest for today is recognizing that the contextualized setting is the SECOND outing of the women, post crucifixion. Matthew 28.1 (read literally and by itself) implies that the women went out Saturday night, Mark mentions going out Saturday night 'for spices', and Luke 23 implies that the women would be back as soon as the Shabbat ended, i.e. Saturday after sundown. (PS Luk 23 'dawning of Shabbat' refers to Friday night, Mat 28 'dawning of first day' was also Sat night.) Personally, I think the the Markan outing on Saturday night left the women confused (not mentioned by Mark) because they didn't find anything at the tomb and tried again early the next morning. For that matter, even John mentions two visits of a woman to the tomb Sunday morning.
This is exactly the kind of thing I find more interesting. When I actually study a text like this, in Greek or in English, I often start with who, what, when, where, why, how. Who were these women, what are we told about each of them, their emotional state, how they respond to various events? Where are they when they are observing where Jesus is laid? Who is laying him in the tomb, and what relationship do the women have to those people? Why do they not approach them and make arrangements to ensure that his body will be anointed? Why do the women come very early in the morning - had they coordinated things with the others, or are they trying to make sure they are the first to embalm his body before some stranger comes and does it? So far, I can see that these discourse features are useful for answering these questions, but in the same way that understanding the relationships among verbs in a single sentence would be helpful for answering the same questions. Are these kinds of questions on a different level than discourse features, where discourse features are like other aspects of sentence-level grammar, helping us understand each individual sentence without telling us how to tie sentences together, at least beyond the level of a few sentences, or across the boundaries defined by a single frame or point of departure? Or is there a stronger connection that helps me interpret the overall structure of a passage in ways I have not yet understood? Do I need to a better understanding of topic and focus to understand the answer to these questions? Statistics: Posted by Jonathan Robie — April 17th, 2017, 1:45 pm
 
paorear wrote:
April 14th, 2017, 4:59 pm
Over-encoding/Overspecification is either when a referent is specified (with qualifiers) the same way more than once in a row, or when the same referent is specified again with slightly different qualifiers. So specifying Mary the Magdalene twice was unnecessary so that qualifies. It's maintaining focus on that specific Mary. Specifying Mary the mother of Joses and then Mary the mother of James (i.e. both are Mary the mother of Jesus) was also overspecifying but with different qualifiers the second time for a nuance, but also basically unnecessary from the point of view of identifying which Mary was in focus. This keeps this Mary in focus as well, while bringing in Jesus' brothers.
Mary Magdalene doesn't attain the status of a participant until her third introduction. The other mentions of her as an observer among other women doesn't really count as an introduction of a participant. It nails down a salient issue that she was there all along as an eyewitness. After the third introduction she becomes an agent in the narrative. The two Marys serve as representatives for a cloud of female witnesses. Mary Magdalene gets a speaking role in John's gospel. Statistics: Posted by Stirling Bartholomew — April 17th, 2017, 12:53 pm
 
Jonathan Robie wrote:
April 15th, 2017, 9:37 am
So for you discourse experts ... is this pretty much what Levinsohn is saying about the passage? How does this differ from Runge? What am I missing? Is the attention to topic and focus the main benefit of looking at the discourse features in this passage?
Nothing wrong with tracking 'topic' and 'focus'. The 'situational point of departure' that you mentioned is also a kind of topicalization in many/most analytical systems. I group 'situation and topic' together into 'contextualizing constituent', a sentence constituent that provides a marked link to the greater context. Maybe of more interest for today is recognizing that the contextualized setting is the SECOND outing of the women, post crucifixion. Matthew 28.1 (read literally and by itself) implies that the women went out Saturday night, Mark mentions going out Saturday night 'for spices', and Luke 23 implies that the women would be back as soon as the Shabbat ended, i.e. Saturday after sundown. (PS Luk 23 'dawning of Shabbat' refers to Friday night, Mat 28 'dawning of first day' was also Sat night.) Personally, I think the the Markan outing on Saturday night left the women confused (not mentioned by Mark) because they didn't find anything at the tomb and tried again early the next morning. For that matter, even John mentions two visits of a woman to the tomb Sunday morning. Statistics: Posted by RandallButh — April 16th, 2017, 3:04 am
 
Jonathan Robie wrote:
April 14th, 2017, 5:05 pm
 
paorear wrote:
April 14th, 2017, 4:59 pm
Specifying Mary the mother of Joses and then Mary the mother of James (i.e. both are Mary the mother of Jesus) was also overspecifying but with different qualifiers the second time for a nuance, but also basically unnecessary from the point of view of identifying which Mary was in focus. This keeps this Mary in focus as well, while bringing in Jesus' brothers.
Any idea why he refers to her by both sons, then one, then the other? Anyone?
I thought it referred to two Marys - Mary of Magdala, and Mary the mother of James (probably James the Less - see Mark 15:40). "Mary" (Maria, Miriam, Maryam - Moses' sister) was a very popular name for Jewish girls. There were probably lots of them in any Jewish community, hence the need to differentiate between them. Statistics: Posted by Shirley Rollinson — April 15th, 2017, 9:32 pm
So for you discourse experts ... is this pretty much what Levinsohn is saying about the passage? How does this differ from Runge? What am I missing? Is the attention to topic and focus the main benefit of looking at the discourse features in this passage? Statistics: Posted by Jonathan Robie — April 15th, 2017, 9:37 am
In Mark 16:6, ἴδε ὁ τόπος ὅπου ἔθηκαν αὐτόν·, Levinsohn colors ἴδε green, calling it a highlighter. In ἀλλὰ ὑπάγετε εἴπατε τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ καὶ τῷ Πέτρῳ ὅτι Προάγει ὑμᾶς εἰς τὴν Γαλιλαίαν· , the embedded quote from Jesus - Προάγει ὑμᾶς εἰς τὴν Γαλιλαίαν - is highlighted in purple. In ἐκεῖ αὐτὸν ὄψεσθε, καθὼς εἶπεν ὑμῖν, ἐκεῖ is marked as the focus. In Mark 16:8: καὶ ἐξελθοῦσαι ἔφυγον ἀπὸ τοῦ μνημείου, εἶχεν γὰρ αὐτὰς τρόμος καὶ ἔκστασις· καὶ οὐδενὶ οὐδὲν εἶπαν, ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ., οὐδενὶ οὐδὲν is marked as a constituent negation. Statistics: Posted by Jonathan Robie — April 15th, 2017, 9:32 am
Here's the rest of Mark 16:6, down to Mark 16:8:
Screen Shot 2017-04-15 at 9.15.56 AM.png
Statistics: Posted by Jonathan Robie — April 15th, 2017, 9:17 am
In verse 16:2, λίαν πρωῒ τῇ μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων occurs before the verb ἔρχονται - Levinsohn says it is a situational point of departure, placing it in P1. Basically, this is the setting for ἔρχονται and what follows. Levinsohn notes also that the default position of λίαν is after the constituent it intensifies, and says that it is embedded for focal prominence. "And very early on the first day of the week". Levinsohn also notes the historical present ἔρχονται. In verse 16:4, he notes the historical present θεωροῦσιν. In verse 16:6, in ὁ δὲ λέγει αὐταῖς the articular pronoun ὁ comes before the verb λέγει, and is in P1, so we have a new point of departure and the speaker is topicalized. λέγει is a historical present. In Μὴ ἐκθαμβεῖσθε· Ἰησοῦν ζητεῖτε τὸν Ναζαρηνὸν τὸν ἐσταυρωμένον· ἠγέρθη, οὐκ ἔστιν ὧδε, Ἰησοῦν comes before ζητεῖτε, making Jesus the focus. It's a split focus, where the full constituent is Ἰησοῦν τὸν Ναζαρηνὸν τὸν ἐσταυρωμένον, interrupted by ζητεῖτε. Statistics: Posted by Jonathan Robie — April 15th, 2017, 9:11 am
Here's the next section, with Mark 16:2-6:
Screen Shot 2017-04-14 at 2.31.52 PM.png
Statistics: Posted by Jonathan Robie — April 15th, 2017, 8:38 am
 
paorear wrote:
April 14th, 2017, 4:59 pm
Specifying Mary the mother of Joses and then Mary the mother of James (i.e. both are Mary the mother of Jesus) was also overspecifying but with different qualifiers the second time for a nuance, but also basically unnecessary from the point of view of identifying which Mary was in focus. This keeps this Mary in focus as well, while bringing in Jesus' brothers.
Any idea why he refers to her by both sons, then one, then the other? Anyone? Statistics: Posted by Jonathan Robie — April 14th, 2017, 5:05 pm
Over-encoding/Overspecification is either when a referent is specified (with qualifiers) the same way more than once in a row, or when the same referent is specified again with slightly different qualifiers. So specifying Mary the Magdalene twice was unnecessary so that qualifies. It's maintaining focus on that specific Mary. Specifying Mary the mother of Joses and then Mary the mother of James (i.e. both are Mary the mother of Jesus) was also overspecifying but with different qualifiers the second time for a nuance, but also basically unnecessary from the point of view of identifying which Mary was in focus. This keeps this Mary in focus as well, while bringing in Jesus' brothers. Statistics: Posted by paorear — April 14th, 2017, 4:59 pm
I'm new to this, but let me try to interpret that. In Mark 15:47, Levinsohn sees ἡ μαρία ἡ μαγδαληνὴ καὶ μαρία ἡ ἰωσῆτος as a referential point of departure. In the key, we see this described as "pre-verbal topical subject or other referential point of departure". Let's look at the relevant parts of his key:
Koiné Greek is of the VS/VO language type (NARR §0.3). Many variations in constituent order can be explained by reference to Simon Dik’s P1 P2 V X template (1989:363), where:
  1. P1 can be occupied by a pre-verbal topical subject and/or other points of departure;
  2. P2 can be occupied by a FOCUS constituent, to give it prominence (NARR §4.2.3).
Constituents in P1 are underlined and marked with one of the following labels:
  1. Top―pre-verbal topical subject or other referential point of departure (NARR §3.1, NonNarr §4.3, DFNTG §§2.2, 2.8; as in 1 Th 1:6).
  2. Sit―situational point of departure (e.g. temporal, spatial, conditional―ibid.; as in 1 Th 3:4).
  3. Art―articular pronoun, which often introduces an ‘intermediate step’ in a reported conversation (NARR §7.5, DFNTG §13.1; as in Mt 26:15)
Constituents in P2 to give them focal prominence (NonNarr §5.2, DFNTG §3.6) are enclosed in a solid red box (e.g. 1 Th 2:5).
So Levinsohn says ἡ μαρία ἡ μαγδαληνὴ καὶ μαρία ἡ ἰωσῆτος is a referential point of departure, which means he assigns it to P1 and treats it as a subject. Now let's look at Mark 16:1. Here, Levinsohn treats Μαρία ἡ Μαγδαληνὴ καὶ Μαρία ἡ τοῦ Ἰακώβου καὶ Σαλώμη as a pre-verbal referential point of departure. He also treats the first part of this, Μαρία ἡ Μαγδαληνὴ καὶ Μαρία ἡ τοῦ Ἰακώβου as over-encoded, repeating something when you don't have to. I'm confused by this part - in verse 15:47, the reference is to μαρία ἡ ἰωσῆτος, in verse 16:1, the reference is to Μαρία ἡ τοῦ Ἰακώβου. So is this really overencoded? And I'm really not sure how to interpret the three ways this particular Mary is described in 15:40, 15:47, and 16:1:
  • 40 Ἦσαν δὲ καὶ γυναῖκες ἀπὸ μακρόθεν θεωροῦσαι, ἐν αἷς καὶ Μαρία ἡ Μαγδαληνὴ καὶ Μαρία ἡ Ἰακώβου τοῦ μικροῦ καὶ Ἰωσῆτος μήτηρ καὶ Σαλώμη
  • 47 ἡ δὲ Μαρία ἡ Μαγδαληνὴ καὶ Μαρία ἡ Ἰωσῆτος ἐθεώρουν ποῦ τέθειται.
  • 1 Καὶ διαγενομένου τοῦ σαββάτου Μαρία ἡ Μαγδαληνὴ καὶ Μαρία ἡ τοῦ Ἰακώβου καὶ Σαλώμη ἠγόρασαν ἀρώματα ἵνα ἐλθοῦσαι ἀλείψωσιν αὐτόν.
Why is she identified first by two of her sons, then once by one of them, and once by the other? And is this really overencoded when it identifies the same woman by one of her sons, then by the other? To what degree am I accurately following Levinsohn here? Does Runge say anything particularly different here that I should be aware of? Statistics: Posted by Jonathan Robie — April 14th, 2017, 3:51 pm
Levinsohn's markup can be seen in PDFs here: http://www-01.sil.org/~levinsohns/BART.html Here is the key for interpreting this markup: http://www-01.sil.org/~levinsohns/Enhan ... playNT.pdf Here is his markup for the first part of this text:
Screen Shot 2017-04-14 at 2.30.59 PM.png
Statistics: Posted by Jonathan Robie — April 14th, 2017, 3:20 pm
As I work on learning about discourse analysis, I would like to look at Levinsohn's Greek New Testament Discourse Features for a passage. Since I need to work on Mark 16:1-8, let's pick that one. Let's try to understand what Levinsohn is saying about this text together. Here's the text, backing up slightly into Mark 15, from SBLGNT:
ἡ δὲ Μαρία ἡ Μαγδαληνὴ καὶ Μαρία ἡ Ἰωσῆτος ἐθεώρουν ποῦ τέθειται.
Καὶ διαγενομένου τοῦ σαββάτου Μαρία ἡ Μαγδαληνὴ καὶ Μαρία ἡ τοῦ Ἰακώβου καὶ Σαλώμη ἠγόρασαν ἀρώματα ἵνα ἐλθοῦσαι ἀλείψωσιν αὐτόν. καὶ λίαν πρωῒ τῇ μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων ἔρχονται ἐπὶ τὸ μνημεῖον ἀνατείλαντος τοῦ ἡλίου. καὶ ἔλεγον πρὸς ἑαυτάς· Τίς ἀποκυλίσει ἡμῖν τὸν λίθον ἐκ τῆς θύρας τοῦ μνημείου; καὶ ἀναβλέψασαι θεωροῦσιν ὅτι ἀποκεκύλισται ὁ λίθος, ἦν γὰρ μέγας σφόδρα. καὶ εἰσελθοῦσαι εἰς τὸ μνημεῖον εἶδον νεανίσκον καθήμενον ἐν τοῖς δεξιοῖς περιβεβλημένον στολὴν λευκήν, καὶ ἐξεθαμβήθησαν. ὁ δὲ λέγει αὐταῖς· Μὴ ἐκθαμβεῖσθε· Ἰησοῦν ζητεῖτε τὸν Ναζαρηνὸν τὸν ἐσταυρωμένον· ἠγέρθη, οὐκ ἔστιν ὧδε· ἴδε ὁ τόπος ὅπου ἔθηκαν αὐτόν· ἀλλὰ ὑπάγετε εἴπατε τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ καὶ τῷ Πέτρῳ ὅτι Προάγει ὑμᾶς εἰς τὴν Γαλιλαίαν· ἐκεῖ αὐτὸν ὄψεσθε, καθὼς εἶπεν ὑμῖν. καὶ ἐξελθοῦσαι ἔφυγον ἀπὸ τοῦ μνημείου, εἶχεν γὰρ αὐτὰς τρόμος καὶ ἔκστασις· καὶ οὐδενὶ οὐδὲν εἶπαν, ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ.
Statistics: Posted by Jonathan Robie — April 14th, 2017, 3:13 pm

People who read this article also liked:

[AuthorRecommendedPosts]

10 thoughts on “Mark 16:1

Comments are closed.