Mark 16:14

[] Mark 16:14, W Kimmo Huovila kimmo.huovila at helsinki.fi
Sat Jul 10 04:28:20 EDT 2004

 

[] Roush, A Greek Boy at Home [] Mark 16:14, W Mark 16:14, Codex WashingtonianushO MH EWN TA hUPO TWN PNEUMATWN AKAQARTA THN ALHQEIAN TOU QEOU KATALABESQAI DUNAMIN- In what sense do you take the hUPO+gen here? Under the power? Caused by?- How are ALHQEIA and DUNAMIS related? THN ALHQINHN DUNAMIN? THN ALHQEIAN KAI DUNAMIN? Or does the text make some sense without emendation?- How to take KATALABESQAI? To gain control? To comprehend?- Any comments on the distinciton between KATALAMBANW/KATALAMBANOMAI? To what degree would either form favor a particular sense for the lexeme?Kimmo Huovila

 

[] Roush, A Greek Boy at Home[] Mark 16:14, W

[] Mark 16:14, W Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sat Jul 10 07:25:51 EDT 2004

 

[] Mark 16:14, W [] Mark 16:14, W At 11:28 AM +0300 7/10/04, Kimmo Huovila wrote:>Mark 16:14, Codex Washingtonianus> >hO MH EWN TA hUPO TWN PNEUMATWN AKAQARTA THN ALHQEIAN TOU QEOU KATALABESQAI>DUNAMIN> >– In what sense do you take the hUPO+gen here? Under the power? Caused by?>– How are ALHQEIA and DUNAMIS related? THN ALHQINHN DUNAMIN? THN ALHQEIAN KAI>DUNAMIN? Or does the text make some sense without emendation?>– How to take KATALABESQAI? To gain control? To comprehend?>– Any comments on the distinction between KATALAMBANW/KATALAMBANOMAI? To what>degree would either form favor a particular sense for the lexeme?There are lots of questions and little to go on here; it’s loaded withproblems that are sufficient, it seems to me, to raise the question whetherthe intended sense is really decipherable. I don’t think one can do muchwith this beyond rather wild conjecture.(a) TA hUPO TWN PNEUMATWN AKAQARTA: doesn’t make a lot of sense as itstands: “the unclean things …” but hUPO with genitive doesn’t work withit syntactically, but suggests a passive construction to follow; on theother hand, if AKAQARTA is emended to AKAQARTWN, then the TA becomesproblematic: we’d have a substantival phrase headed by the neuter pluralarticle: “the things which by the unclean spirits … ” If this phrase isto be construed with what follows at all, it seems to me that the TA mustgo and AKAQARTA must be altered to genitive, so that the phrase becomeshUPO TWN PNEUMATWN AKAQARTWN(b) I really think that KATALABESQAI must be seen in this fragment as anaorist MP infinitive understood in a passive sense. That is, of course, oddin a Koine text–a solecism?, but the hUPO + genitive construction suggeststhat KATALABESQAI might be intended that way. I’d guess that “understand”or as passive “be understood” is the sense rather than “repress” or aspassive “be repressed”–but if the antecedent of hO MH EWN is either hOAIWN hOUTOS or (more likely) SATANAN, then “not allowing God’s truth (andpower?)by unclean spirits to be understood” is conceivable.It’s an awkward construction just about any way you look at it, yet I thinkthat one intelligible meaning might be gotten at with the emendation ofAKAQARTA to AKAQARTWN. With that alteration I’d suggest “who does not allowthe possibility for the truth of God to be understood by the uncleanspirits” In this I’m taking DUNAMIS in an almost Aristotelian sense ofpotentiality, possibility.If DUNAMIN might be preceded by a KAI, we would have “the one who does notlet the truth and power of God to be understood by the unclean spirits”Have you looked at Wieland Willker’s textual commentary on the GreekGospels? There’s a special section on the endings of Mark that may be foundwith the other PDF files of this very helpful work:http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.htmlThe discussion of this variant is on page 14 of that supplemental documment.– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/

 

[] Mark 16:14, W[] Mark 16:14, W

[] Mark 16:14, W George F. Somsel gfsomsel at juno.com
Sat Jul 10 07:43:01 EDT 2004

 

[] Mark 16:14, W [] Mark 16:14, W On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 11:28:20 +0300 Kimmo Huovila<kimmo.huovila at helsinki.fi> writes:> Mark 16:14, Codex Washingtonianus> > hO MH EWN TA hUPO TWN PNEUMATWN AKAQARTA THN ALHQEIAN TOU QEOU > KATALABESQAI > DUNAMIN> > – In what sense do you take the hUPO+gen here? Under the power? > Caused by?> – How are ALHQEIA and DUNAMIS related? THN ALHQINHN DUNAMIN? THN > ALHQEIAN KAI > DUNAMIN? Or does the text make some sense without emendation?> – How to take KATALABESQAI? To gain control? To comprehend?> – Any comments on the distinciton between > KATALAMBANW/KATALAMBANOMAI? To what > degree would either form favor a particular sense for the lexeme?> > Kimmo Huovila>I’m not sure where you’re getting this. According to what I see W readsthe same as is found in NA27 (longer ending) which is quite differentfrom what you present. Thinking that you might have entered an incorrectreference, I did a search but was unable to find your text. Perhaps youshould check your text and your reference. I really would need to seethis in Greek, not transliteration. The combination of KATALABESQAI withALHQEIAN TOU QEOU and AKAQARTA seems strange since it could only be nom /acc but, as you note TWN PNEUMATWN is gen, and reminds me of Simon Magusin Acts though the word KATALAMBANW is not used there (the aorist mid.inf appears only in Eph 3.18 of the critical text — and the Byz aswell).georgegfsomsel

 

[] Mark 16:14, W[] Mark 16:14, W

[] Mark 16:14, W Harold R. Holmyard III hholmyard at ont.com
Sat Jul 10 09:29:33 EDT 2004

 

[] Mark 16:14, W [] Mark 16:14, W Dear George,>On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 11:28:20 +0300 Kimmo Huovila><kimmo.huovila at helsinki.fi> writes:>> Mark 16:14, Codex Washingtonianus>> >> hO MH EWN TA hUPO TWN PNEUMATWN AKAQARTA THN ALHQEIAN TOU QEOU>> KATALABESQAI>> DUNAMIN>> >> – In what sense do you take the hUPO+gen here? Under the power?>> Caused by?>> – How are ALHQEIA and DUNAMIS related? THN ALHQINHN DUNAMIN? THN>> ALHQEIAN KAI>> DUNAMIN? Or does the text make some sense without emendation?>> – How to take KATALABESQAI? To gain control? To comprehend?>> – Any comments on the distinciton between>> KATALAMBANW/KATALAMBANOMAI? To what>> degree would either form favor a particular sense for the lexeme?>> >> Kimmo Huovila>>> >I’m not sure where you’re getting this. According to what I see W reads>the same as is found in NA27 (longer ending) which is quite different>from what you present. Thinking that you might have entered an incorrect>reference, I did a search but was unable to find your text. Perhaps you>should check your text and your reference. I really would need to see>this in Greek, not transliteration. The combination of KATALABESQAI with>ALHQEIAN TOU QEOU and AKAQARTA seems strange since it could only be nom />acc but, as you note TWN PNEUMATWN is gen, and reminds me of Simon Magus>in Acts though the word KATALAMBANW is not used there (the aorist mid.>inf appears only in Eph 3.18 of the critical text — and the Byz as>well).HH: What Kimmo has here matches the textual note in UBS 4.Yours,Harold Holmyard

 

[] Mark 16:14, W[] Mark 16:14, W

[] Mark 16:14, W Stephen C. Carlson scarlson at mindspring.com
Sat Jul 10 09:54:32 EDT 2004

 

[] Mark 16:14, W [] Mark 16:14, W At 07:43 AM 7/10/2004 -0400, George F. Somsel wrote:>On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 11:28:20 +0300 Kimmo Huovila><kimmo.huovila at helsinki.fi> writes:>> Mark 16:14, Codex Washingtonianus>> >> hO MH EWN TA hUPO TWN PNEUMATWN AKAQARTA THN ALHQEIAN TOU QEOU >> KATALABESQAI >> DUNAMIN>> >> – In what sense do you take the hUPO+gen here? Under the power? >> Caused by?>> – How are ALHQEIA and DUNAMIS related? THN ALHQINHN DUNAMIN? THN >> ALHQEIAN KAI >> DUNAMIN? Or does the text make some sense without emendation?>> – How to take KATALABESQAI? To gain control? To comprehend?>> – Any comments on the distinciton between >> KATALAMBANW/KATALAMBANOMAI? To what >> degree would either form favor a particular sense for the lexeme?>> >> Kimmo Huovila>>> >I’m not sure where you’re getting this. According to what I see W reads>the same as is found in NA27 (longer ending) which is quite different>from what you present. Thinking that you might have entered an incorrect>reference, I did a search but was unable to find your text. Perhaps you>should check your text and your reference. I really would need to see>this in Greek, not transliteration.George,The reading of W at 16:14 is found in the apparatus of NA27 as a longinsertion. The text presented by Huovila agrees with that of theeditio princeps (Sanders 1912: 246) as well as that presented in theNA27 apparatus. Nevertheless, the NA27 apparatus proposes a couple ofemendations to make sense of the passage:hO MH EWN TA (TON MH EWNTA?) hUPO TWN PNEUMATWN AKAQARTA (-TWN?)THN ALHQEIAN TOU QEOU KATALABESQAU (+ KAI? v.l. ALHQINHN proALHQEIAN) DUNAMIN.Stephen Carlson– Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson at mindspring.comWeblog: http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/hypotyposeis/blogger.html”Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words.” Shujing 2.35

 

[] Mark 16:14, W[] Mark 16:14, W

[] Mark 16:14, W George F. Somsel gfsomsel at juno.com
Sat Jul 10 10:09:52 EDT 2004

 

[] Mark 16:14, W [] Hebrews 1:2 On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 09:54:32 -0400 “Stephen C. Carlson”<scarlson at mindspring.com> writes:> At 07:43 AM 7/10/2004 -0400, George F. Somsel wrote:> >On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 11:28:20 +0300 Kimmo Huovila> ><kimmo.huovila at helsinki.fi> writes:> >> Mark 16:14, Codex Washingtonianus> >> > >> hO MH EWN TA hUPO TWN PNEUMATWN AKAQARTA THN ALHQEIAN TOU QEOU > >> KATALABESQAI > >> DUNAMIN> >> > >> – In what sense do you take the hUPO+gen here? Under the power? > >> Caused by?> >> – How are ALHQEIA and DUNAMIS related? THN ALHQINHN DUNAMIN? THN > > >> ALHQEIAN KAI > >> DUNAMIN? Or does the text make some sense without emendation?> >> – How to take KATALABESQAI? To gain control? To comprehend?> >> – Any comments on the distinciton between > >> KATALAMBANW/KATALAMBANOMAI? To what > >> degree would either form favor a particular sense for the > lexeme?> >> > >> Kimmo Huovila> >> —> >> >I’m not sure where you’re getting this. According to what I see W > reads> >the same as is found in NA27 (longer ending) which is quite > different> >from what you present. Thinking that you might have entered an > incorrect> >reference, I did a search but was unable to find your text. > Perhaps you> >should check your text and your reference. I really would need to > see> >this in Greek, not transliteration.> > > George,> > The reading of W at 16:14 is found in the apparatus of NA27 as a > long> insertion. The text presented by Huovila agrees with that of the> editio princeps (Sanders 1912: 246) as well as that presented in > the> NA27 apparatus. Nevertheless, the NA27 apparatus proposes a couple > of> emendations to make sense of the passage:> > hO MH EWN TA (TON MH EWNTA?) hUPO TWN PNEUMATWN AKAQARTA (-TWN?)> THN ALHQEIAN TOU QEOU KATALABESQAU (+ KAI? v.l. ALHQINHN pro> ALHQEIAN) DUNAMIN.> > Stephen Carlson> >Yes, thanks. I totally overlooked it. I need to put my contacts in;without them I’m blind.georgegfsomsel

 

[] Mark 16:14, W[] Hebrews 1:2

[] Mark 16:14, W George F. Somsel gfsomsel at juno.com
Tue Jul 13 13:28:33 EDT 2004

 

[] RE: Roush [Rouse] A Greek Boy at Home [] RE: Roush [Rouse] A Greek Boy at Home On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 10:09:52 -0400 “George F. Somsel” <gfsomsel at juno.com>writes:> On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 09:54:32 -0400 “Stephen C. Carlson”> <scarlson at mindspring.com> writes:> > At 07:43 AM 7/10/2004 -0400, George F. Somsel wrote:> > >On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 11:28:20 +0300 Kimmo Huovila> > ><kimmo.huovila at helsinki.fi> writes:> > >> Mark 16:14, Codex Washingtonianus> > >> > > >> hO MH EWN TA hUPO TWN PNEUMATWN AKAQARTA THN ALHQEIAN TOU QEOU > > > >> KATALABESQAI > > >> DUNAMIN> > >> > > >> – In what sense do you take the hUPO+gen here? Under the power? > > > >> Caused by?> > >> – How are ALHQEIA and DUNAMIS related? THN ALHQINHN DUNAMIN? > THN > > > > >> ALHQEIAN KAI > > >> DUNAMIN? Or does the text make some sense without emendation?> > >> – How to take KATALABESQAI? To gain control? To comprehend?> > >> – Any comments on the distinciton between > > >> KATALAMBANW/KATALAMBANOMAI? To what > > >> degree would either form favor a particular sense for the > > lexeme?> > >> > > >> Kimmo Huovila> > >> —> > >> > >I’m not sure where you’re getting this. According to what I see > W > > reads> > >the same as is found in NA27 (longer ending) which is quite > > different> > >from what you present. Thinking that you might have entered an > > incorrect> > >reference, I did a search but was unable to find your text. > > Perhaps you> > >should check your text and your reference. I really would need > to > > see> > >this in Greek, not transliteration.> > > > > > George,> > > > The reading of W at 16:14 is found in the apparatus of NA27 as a > > long> > insertion. The text presented by Huovila agrees with that of the> > editio princeps (Sanders 1912: 246) as well as that presented in > > the> > NA27 apparatus. Nevertheless, the NA27 apparatus proposes a > couple > > of> > emendations to make sense of the passage:> > > > hO MH EWN TA (TON MH EWNTA?) hUPO TWN PNEUMATWN AKAQARTA (-TWN?)> > THN ALHQEIAN TOU QEOU KATALABESQAU (+ KAI? v.l. ALHQINHN pro> > ALHQEIAN) DUNAMIN.> > > > Stephen Carlson> > > > — > > Yes, thanks. I totally overlooked it. I need to put my contacts > in;> without them I’m blind.> > george> gfsomsel>Now that my eye problems are improved and I have my lenses in once againI took a look at this variant. This is what I propose. I’ve concludedthat TWN PNEUMATWN AKAQARTA can stand as written.but they defended themselves saying that this age of lawlessness and ofunbelief is under the control of Satan. The one not permitting uncleanthings under control of the spirits is capable of detecting the truth ofGod. Therefore, reveal your righteousness now. They said these thingsto Christ, and Christ replied to them that the time of Satan’s authorityhas come to an end [the limit of [[its]] years], but a certain other oneapproaches and I am given up to death on behalf of those who are sinnersthat they might turn to the truth and no longer sin that they mightinherit a spiritual and imperishable glory in heaven.- – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – -???e???? crasis of ?a? + ??e????. nom. m. pl.?p??????µa? impf. mid. 3 pl.??? (???)?p? c. gen.b. of power, rule, sovereignty, command, etc. under (Dit., Or.56, 13 [237 bc] ?p? t?? ßas??e?a? tass?µe???; PHib. 44, 2 [253 bc] al. inpap.) ?????p?? ?p? ????s?a? tass?µe??? (????s?a 4a) Lk 7:8a; cf. Mt 8:9a;Hs 1:3 (Vett. Val. 209, 35 ?p? ?t???? ????s?a? ??ta?). ???? ?p’ ?µa?t??st?at??ta? (Polyb. 4, 87, 9 ?e?a??a? ?f’ a?t?? e??e?) Mt 8:9b; Lk 7:8b(Dit., Or. 86, 11 [III bc] ?? ?p’ a?t?? teta?µ???? st?at??ta?). ?p? t??ae??a? be under someone’s power (Thu. 6, 86, 4; PSI 417, 36 [III bc] ?p?t?? ????? e??a?) Gal 3:25; 4:2; ?f’ ?µa?t?a? Ro 3:9; ?p? ??µ?? 6:14, 15(both opp. ?p? ?????); 1 Cor 9:20a, b, c, d; Gal 4:21; 5:18; ?p? ?at??a?3:10. ?p? ??µ?? ?f??????µe?a vs. 23. ?e??µe??? ?p? ??µ?? Gal 4:4 (????µa?II 4a and Thu. 1, 110, 2 ????pt?? ?p? ßas???a ????et?). ?p? t? st???e?at?? ??sµ?? ?µe?a ded????µ???? vs. 3. s?????e?se? ? ??af? t? p??ta ?p??µa?t?a? 3:22 (s. s????e??). pep?aµ???? ?p? t?? ?µa?t?a? Ro 7:14.tape?????te ?p? t?? ?e??a t?? ?e?? 1 Pt 5:6 (s. tape???? 2b). ?? ?p???µ?? those who are under (the power of) the law Gal 4:5 (cf. X., Cyr. 3,3, 6 t???? t?? ?f’ ?a?t???). t? . . . ????a?ta (????a?t??) neut. nom. / acc. pl.?ata?aß?s?a? (?ata?aµß???) aor. mid. inf. Eph. 3.18. d?? B. w. acc.—I. of place through (class. only in poetry; Hellenisticprose since Dionys. Hal. [JKäser, D. Präpositionen b. Dionys. Hal., Diss.Erlangen ’15, 54]; Wadd. no. 1866b t?? p?t???a d?? p??ta of the governorof a whole province) d????et? d?? µ?s?? Saµa?e?a? ?a? Ga???a?a? Lk 17:1(1cf. Sib. Or. 3, 316 ??µfa?a d?e?e?seta? d?? µ?s?? se??). II. to indicate the reason—1. the reason why someth. happens, results,exists: because of, for the sake of (do something for the sake of adivinity: UPZ 62, 2 [161 bc] d?? t?? S??ap??) hated because of the nameMt 10:22; persecution arises because of the teaching 13:21; because ofunbelief vs. 58; because of a tradition 15:3; d?? t?? ?????p?? for thesake of man Mk 2:27; because of Herodias Mk 6:17; because of the crowd Lk5:19; 8:19 and oft.; because of the Jews Ac 16:3. d?? t?? ????ß?? 21:34;because of the rain 28:2. Juristically to indicate guilt: imprisoned forinsurrection and murder Lk 23:25. d?’ ?µ?? on your account=through yourfault Ro 2:24 (Is 52:5). d?? t?? p??es?? because of the passing over 3:25(but s. WGKümmel, ZThK 49, ’52, 164). d?? t? pa?apt?µata 4:25 (cf. Is53:5). d?? t?? ????? on the basis of the grace 15:15. d?’ ?s???e?a? t??sa???? because of a physical ailment (cf. POxy. 726 [II ad] ?? d???µe???d?’ ?s???e?a? p?e?sa?. Cf. ?s???e?a 1a) Gal 4:13. d?? t? ????µa s?? bythy will Rv 4:11. d?? t?? ?????? according to the time=by this time Hb5:12 (Aelian, V.H. 3, 37 d. t?? ??.=because of the particulartime-situation).—W. words denoting emotions out of (Diod. S. 5, 59, 8 d??t?? ??p??; 18, 25, 1 d?? t?? p??p?te?a?=out of rashness; Appian, Celt. 1§9 d?’ ??p?da; 2 Macc 5:21; 7:20; 9:8; 3 Macc 5:32, 41; Tob 8:7): d??f????? out of envy Mt 27:18; Phil 1:15. d?? sp?????a ?????? out of tendermercy Lk 1:78. d?? t. f?ß?? t???? out of fear of someone J 7:13. d?? t??p????? ???p?? out of the great love Eph 2:4. d?? t. p?e??e??a? in theirgreediness B 10:4.—Of God as the ultimate goal or purpose of life,whereas d?? w. gen. (s. A III 2bß above) represents him as Creator, Hb2:10a (cf. Norden, op. cit.; PGM 13, 76 d?? s? s???st??e?. . . ? ??); PK2. APOKALUYON (APOKALUPTW) aor. imper.HDH adv.— already, now, at last.PROSELEGEN (PROSLEGW) impf. ind. act. 3 sg. PEPLHRVTAI (PLHROW) pf. pass. 3 sg.hOROS (Hom.+; inscr., pap., LXX; Ep. Arist. 211; Philo; Jos., Ant. 1,62al.; Test. 12 Patr.) boundary, limit of space T. QALASSAN IDIOISENEKLEISEN Dg 7:2 (Arrian, Anab. 5, 26, 2 THS GHS hOROUS hO QEOSEPOIHSE). Of time hO OROS TWN ETWN ending of Mk in the Freer ms. 7.* ALLA/ adversative part.A/LLA pron. neut.nom. plDEINA (Thu., Aristoph.+; pap., Aq., Sym.) so-and-so, of a pers. or thingone cannot or does not wish to name, in our lit. only masc. a certain,man, somebody Mt 26:18. M-M.* hUPER 1. w. gen.—a. for, in behalf of, for the sake of someone orsometh.—a. after words that express a request, prayer, etc. After theverbs DEOMAI (q.v. 3), EUXOMAI (q.v. 1), PROSEUXOMAI (q.v.), ENTUGXANW(q.v. 1a; cf. b), hUPERENTUGXANW (q.v.), LITANEUW (q.v.) etc. After thenouns DEHSIS (q.v., end), PROSEUXH (q.v. 1). Cf. also 1 Ti 2:1f. hAMARTHSANTWN (hAMARTANW) aor. act. part. gen. pl.PAREDOQHN (PARADIDWMI) aor. pass. ind. 1 sg. Acts 28.17.hUPOSTREYWSIN (hUPOSTREFW) aor. act. subj. 3 pl. Tobit 6.13 (1 pl.).hAMARTHSWSIN (hAMARTANW) aor. act. subj. 3 pl.KLHRONOMHSWSIN (KLHRONOMEW) aor. act. subj. 3 pl. Josh. 1.15.- – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – -The georgegfsomsel

 

[] RE: Roush [Rouse] A Greek Boy at Home[] RE: Roush [Rouse] A Greek Boy at Home

[] Mark 16:14, W George F. Somsel gfsomsel at juno.com
Tue Jul 13 16:09:10 EDT 2004

 

[] RE: Roush [Rouse] A Greek Boy at Home [] Mark 16:14, W Oops! I started transliterating in the middle of the notes. Here is thecorrected versionbut they defended themselves saying that this age of lawlessness and ofunbelief is under the control of Satan. The one not permitting uncleanthings under control of the spirits is capable of detecting the truth ofGod. Therefore, reveal your righteousness now. They said these thingsto Christ, and Christ replied to them that the time of Satan’s authorityhas come to an end [the limit of [[its]] years], but a certain other oneapproaches and I am given up to death on behalf of those who are sinnersthat they might turn to the truth and no longer sin that they mightinherit a spiritual and imperishable glory in heaven.KA’KEINOI crasis of KAI + EKEI’NOS. nom. m. pl.APOLOGEOMAI impf. mid. 3 pl.EWN (EAW)hUPO c. gen.b. of power, rule, sovereignty, command, etc. under (Dit.,Or. 56, 13 [237 bc] hUPO THN BASILEIAN TASSOMENOI PHib. 44, 2 [253 bc]al. in pap.) ANQRWPOS hUPO ECOUSIAN TASSOMENOS (ECOUSIA 4a) Lk 7:8a; cf.Mt 8:9a; Hs 1:3 (Vett. Val. 209, 35 hUPO hETERWN ECOUSIAN ONTAS). EXWNhUP’ EMAUTON STRATIWTAS (Polyb. 4, 87, 9 MEGALEAN hUF’ AUTON EIXEN) Mt8:9b; Lk 7:8b (Dit., Or. 86, 11 [III bc] hOI hUP’ AUTON TETAGMENOISTRATIWTAI). hUPO TINA EINAI be under someone’s power (Thu. 6, 86, 4; PSI417, 36 [III bc] hUPO TON ORKON EINAI) Gal 3:25; 4:2; hUF’ hMARTIAN Ro3:9; hUPO NOMON 6:14, 15 (both opp. hUPO XARIN); 1 Cor 9:20a, b, c, d;Gal 4:21; 5:18; hUPO KATARAN 3:10. hUPO NOMON EFROUROUMEQA vs. 23.GENOMENOW hUPO NOMON Gal 4:4 (GINOMAI II 4a and Thu. 1, 110, 2 AIGUPTOShUPO BASILEA EGENETO). hUPO TA STOIXEIA TOU KOSMOU HMEQA DEDOULWMENOI vs.3. SUNEKLEISEN hH GRAFH TA PANTA hUPO hAMARTIAN 3:22 (s. SUGKEIW).PEPRAMENOW hUPO THN hAMARTIAN Ro 7:14. TAPEINWQHTE hUPO THN XEIRA TOUQEOU 1 Pt 5:6 (s. TAPEINOW 2b). hOI hUPO NOMON those who are under (thepower of) the law Gal 4:5 (cf. X., Cyr. 3, 3, 6 TINAS TWN hUF’ hEAUTOUS).TA . . . AKAQARTA (AKAQARTOS) neut. nom. / acc. pl.KATALABESQAI (KATALAMBANW) aor. mid. inf. Eph. 3.18. DIA B. w. acc.—I. of place through (class. only in poetry; Hellenisticprose since Dionys. Hal. [JKäser, D. Präpositionen b. Dionys. Hal., Diss.Erlangen ’15, 54]; Wadd. no. 1866b TON PATRWNA DIA PANTA of the governorof a whole province) DIHRXETO DIA MESON SAMAREIAS KAI GALILAIAS Lk 17:1(1cf. Sib. Or. 3, 316 `ROMFAIA DIELEUSETAI DIA MESON SEIO). II. to indicate the reason—1. the reason why someth. happens, results,exists: because of, for the sake of (do something for the sake of adivinity: UPZ 62, 2 [161 bc] DIA TON SARAPIN) hated because of the nameMt 10:22; persecution arises because of the teaching 13:21; because ofunbelief vs. 58; because of a tradition 15:3; DIA TON ANQRWPON for thesake of man Mk 2:27; because of Herodias Mk 6:17; because of the crowd Lk5:19; 8:19 and oft.; because of the Jews Ac 16:3. DIA TON QORUBON 21:34;because of the rain 28:2. Juristically to indicate guilt: imprisoned forinsurrection and murder Lk 23:25. DI’ hUMAS on your account=through yourfault Ro 2:24 (Is 52:5). DIA THN PARESIN because of the passing over 3:25(but s. WGKümmel, ZThK 49, ’52, 164). DIA TA PARAPTWMATA 4:25 (cf. Is53:5). DIA THN XARIN on the basis of the grace 15:15. DI’ ASQENEIAN THSSARKOS because of a physical ailment (cf. POxy. 726 [II ad] OU DUNAMENOSDI’ ASQENEIAN PLEUSAI. Cf. ASQENEIA 1a) Gal 4:13. DIA TO QELHMA SOU bythy will Rv 4:11. DIA TON XRONON according to the time=by this time Hb5:12 (Aelian, V.H. 3, 37 D. TON XR.=because of the particulartime-situation).—W. words denoting emotions out of (Diod. S. 5, 59, 8 DIATHN LUPHN; 18, 25, 1 DIA THN PROPETEIAN=out of rashness; Appian, Celt. 1§9 DI’ ELPIDA; 2 Macc 5:21; 7:20; 9:8; 3 Macc 5:32, 41; Tob 8:7): DIAFQONON out of envy Mt 27:18; Phil 1:15. DIA SPLAGXNA ELEOUS out of tendermercy Lk 1:78. DIA T. FOBON TINOS out of fear of someone J 7:13. DIA THNPOLLHN AGAPHN out of the great love Eph 2:4. DIA T. PLEONECIAN in theirgreediness B 10:4.—Of God as the ultimate goal or purpose of life,whereas DIA w. gen. (s. A III 2bB above) represents him as Creator, Hb2:10a (cf. Norden, op. cit.; PGM 13, 76 DIA SE SUNESTHKEN. . . hH GH); PK2. APOKALUPYON (APOKALUPTW) aor. imper.HDH adv.— already, now, at last.PROSELEGEN (PROSLEGW) impf. ind. act. 3 sg. PEPLHRWTAI (PLHROW) pf. pass. 3 sg.hOROS (Hom.+; inscr., pap., LXX; Ep. Arist. 211; Philo; Jos., Ant. 1,62al.; Test. 12 Patr.) boundary, limit of space T. QALASSAN IDIOIS hOROISENEKLEISEN Dg 7:2 (Arrian, Anab. 5, 26, 2 THS GHS hOROUS hO QEOSEPOIHSE). Of time hO hOROS TWN ETWN ending of Mk in the Freer ms. 7.* ALLA/ adversative part.A/LLA pron. neut.nom. plDEINA (Thu., Aristoph.+; pap., Aq., Sym.) so-and-so, of a pers. or thingone cannot or does not wish to name, in our lit. only masc. a certain,man, somebody Mt 26:18. M-M.* hUPER 1. w. gen.—a. for, in behalf of, for the sake of someone orsometh.—a. after words that express a request, prayer, etc. After theverbs DEOMAI (q.v. 3), EUXOMAI (q.v. 1), PROSEUXOMAI (q.v.), ENTUGXANW(q.v. 1a; cf. b), hUPERENTUGXANW (q.v.), LITANEUW (q.v.) etc. After thenouns DEHSIS (q.v., end), PROSEUXH (q.v. 1). Cf. also 1 Ti 2:1f. hAMARTHSANTWN (hAMARTANW) aor. act. part. gen. pl.PAREDOQHN (PARADIDWMI) aor. pass. ind. 1 sg. Acts 28.17.hUPOSTREYWSIN (hUPOSTREFW) aor. act. subj. 3 pl. Tobit 6.13 (1 pl.).hAMARTHSWSIN (hAMARTANW) aor. act. subj. 3 pl.KLHRONOMHSWSIN (KLHRONOMEW) aor. act. subj. 3 pl. Josh. 1.15.georgegfsomsel

 

[] RE: Roush [Rouse] A Greek Boy at Home[] Mark 16:14, W

[] Mark 16:14, W Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue Jul 13 17:31:02 EDT 2004

 

[] Mark 16:14, W [] NT Resources site down At 4:09 PM -0400 7/13/04, George F. Somsel wrote:>Oops! I started transliterating in the middle of the notes. Here is the>corrected version> >but they defended themselves saying that this age of lawlessness and of>unbelief is under the control of Satan. The one not permitting unclean>things under control of the spirits is capable of detecting the truth of>God. Therefore, reveal your righteousness now. They said these things>to Christ, and Christ replied to them that the time of Satan’s authority>has come to an end [the limit of [[its]] years], but a certain other one>approaches and I am given up to death on behalf of those who are sinners>that they might turn to the truth and no longer sin that they might>inherit a spiritual and imperishable glory in heaven.>KA’KEINOI crasis of KAI + EKEI’NOS. nom. m. pl.>APOLOGEOMAI impf. mid. 3 pl.>EWN (EAW)>hUPO c. gen.b. of power, rule, sovereignty, command, etc. under (Dit.,>Or. 56, 13 [237 bc] hUPO THN BASILEIAN TASSOMENOI PHib. 44, 2 [253 bc]>al. in pap.) ANQRWPOS hUPO ECOUSIAN TASSOMENOS (ECOUSIA 4a) Lk 7:8a; cf.>Mt 8:9a; Hs 1:3 (Vett. Val. 209, 35 hUPO hETERWN ECOUSIAN ONTAS). EXWN>hUP’ EMAUTON STRATIWTAS (Polyb. 4, 87, 9 MEGALEAN hUF’ AUTON EIXEN) Mt>8:9b; Lk 7:8b (Dit., Or. 86, 11 [III bc] hOI hUP’ AUTON TETAGMENOI>STRATIWTAI). hUPO TINA EINAI be under someoneís power (Thu. 6, 86, 4; PSI>417, 36 [III bc] hUPO TON ORKON EINAI) Gal 3:25; 4:2; hUF’ hMARTIAN Ro>3:9; hUPO NOMON 6:14, 15 (both opp. hUPO XARIN); 1 Cor 9:20a, b, c, d;>Gal 4:21; 5:18; hUPO KATARAN 3:10. hUPO NOMON EFROUROUMEQA vs. 23.>GENOMENOW hUPO NOMON Gal 4:4 (GINOMAI II 4a and Thu. 1, 110, 2 AIGUPTOS>hUPO BASILEA EGENETO). hUPO TA STOIXEIA TOU KOSMOU HMEQA DEDOULWMENOI vs.>3. SUNEKLEISEN hH GRAFH TA PANTA hUPO hAMARTIAN 3:22 (s. SUGKEIW).>PEPRAMENOW hUPO THN hAMARTIAN Ro 7:14. TAPEINWQHTE hUPO THN XEIRA TOU>QEOU 1 Pt 5:6 (s. TAPEINOW 2b). hOI hUPO NOMON those who are under (the>power of) the law Gal 4:5 (cf. X., Cyr. 3, 3, 6 TINAS TWN hUF’ hEAUTOUS).Looks like there’s been an omission of several lines from the BDAGdefinition of hUPO. Although hUPO in the lines above are headed by “c.gen.”, the items following all belonging in BDAG under heading B “w.acc.”–and in fact under B.2.: “marker of that which is in a controllingposition, under, under the control of, under obligation in ref. to power,rule, sovereignty, command, etc. w. acc.” –and all the examples listed arein fact of hUPO with the accusative. You can’t get the sense “uncleanthings under control of the spirits” from TA hUPO TWN PNEUMATWN AKAQARTA.hUPO + genitive, acc. to BDAG, is always “a marker of agency orcause”–with a passive verb, with verbs and verbal expressions having apassive sense, with verbal nouns (e.g. hUPO PANTWN TIMH: “honor rendered byall”, etc. The only possible sense that might be derived from TA hUPO TWNPNEUMATWN AKAQARTA–assuming the text isn’t corrupt–is “things rendereduncleanable by the spirits.” I continue to think the text as it stands iscorrupt.>TA . . . AKAQARTA (AKAQARTOS) neut. nom. / acc. pl.>KATALABESQAI (KATALAMBANW) aor. mid. inf. Eph. 3.18.> >DIA B. w. acc.óI. of place through (class. only in poetry; Hellenistic>prose since Dionys. Hal. [JK”ser, D. Pr”positionen b. Dionys. Hal., Diss.>Erlangen í15, 54]; Wadd. no. 1866b TON PATRWNA DIA PANTA of the governor>of a whole province) DIHRXETO DIA MESON SAMAREIAS KAI GALILAIAS Lk 17:11>(cf. Sib. Or. 3, 316 `ROMFAIA DIELEUSETAI DIA MESON SEIO).>II. to indicate the reasonó1. the reason why someth. happens, results,>exists: because of, for the sake of (do something for the sake of a>divinity: UPZ 62, 2 [161 bc] DIA TON SARAPIN) hated because of the name>Mt 10:22; persecution arises because of the teaching 13:21; because of>unbelief vs. 58; because of a tradition 15:3; DIA TON ANQRWPON for the>sake of man Mk 2:27; because of Herodias Mk 6:17; because of the crowd Lk>5:19; 8:19 and oft.; because of the Jews Ac 16:3. DIA TON QORUBON 21:34;>because of the rain 28:2. Juristically to indicate guilt: imprisoned for>insurrection and murder Lk 23:25. DI’ hUMAS on your account=through your>fault Ro 2:24 (Is 52:5). DIA THN PARESIN because of the passing over 3:25>(but s. WGK¸mmel, ZThK 49, í52, 164). DIA TA PARAPTWMATA 4:25 (cf. Is>53:5). DIA THN XARIN on the basis of the grace 15:15. DI’ ASQENEIAN THS>SARKOS because of a physical ailment (cf. POxy. 726 [II ad] OU DUNAMENOS>DI’ ASQENEIAN PLEUSAI. Cf. ASQENEIA 1a) Gal 4:13. DIA TO QELHMA SOU by>thy will Rv 4:11. DIA TON XRONON according to the time=by this time Hb>5:12 (Aelian, V.H. 3, 37 D. TON XR.=because of the particular>time-situation).óW. words denoting emotions out of (Diod. S. 5, 59, 8 DIA>THN LUPHN; 18, 25, 1 DIA THN PROPETEIAN=out of rashness; Appian, Celt. 1>ß9 DI’ ELPIDA; 2 Macc 5:21; 7:20; 9:8; 3 Macc 5:32, 41; Tob 8:7): DIA>FQONON out of envy Mt 27:18; Phil 1:15. DIA SPLAGXNA ELEOUS out of tender>mercy Lk 1:78. DIA T. FOBON TINOS out of fear of someone J 7:13. DIA THN>POLLHN AGAPHN out of the great love Eph 2:4. DIA T. PLEONECIAN in their>greediness B 10:4.óOf God as the ultimate goal or purpose of life,>whereas DIA w. gen. (s. A III 2bB above) represents him as Creator, Hb>2:10a (cf. Norden, op. cit.; PGM 13, 76 DIA SE SUNESTHKEN. . . hH GH); PK>2.>APOKALUPYON (APOKALUPTW) aor. imper.>HDH adv.ó already, now, at last.>PROSELEGEN (PROSLEGW) impf. ind. act. 3 sg.>PEPLHRWTAI (PLHROW) pf. pass. 3 sg.>hOROS (Hom.+; inscr., pap., LXX; Ep. Arist. 211; Philo; Jos., Ant. 1,>62al.; Test. 12 Patr.) boundary, limit of space T. QALASSAN IDIOIS hOROIS>ENEKLEISEN Dg 7:2 (Arrian, Anab. 5, 26, 2 THS GHS hOROUS hO QEOS>EPOIHSE). Of time hO hOROS TWN ETWN ending of Mk in the Freer ms. 7.*>ALLA/ adversative part.>A/LLA pron. neut.nom. pl>DEINA (Thu., Aristoph.+; pap., Aq., Sym.) so-and-so, of a pers. or thing>one cannot or does not wish to name, in our lit. only masc. a certain,>man, somebody Mt 26:18. M-M.*>hUPER 1. w. gen.óa. for, in behalf of, for the sake of someone or>someth.óa. after words that express a request, prayer, etc. After the>verbs DEOMAI (q.v. 3), EUXOMAI (q.v. 1), PROSEUXOMAI (q.v.), ENTUGXANW>(q.v. 1a; cf. b), hUPERENTUGXANW (q.v.), LITANEUW (q.v.) etc. After the>nouns DEHSIS (q.v., end), PROSEUXH (q.v. 1). Cf. also 1 Ti 2:1f.>hAMARTHSANTWN (hAMARTANW) aor. act. part. gen. pl.>PAREDOQHN (PARADIDWMI) aor. pass. ind. 1 sg. Acts 28.17.>hUPOSTREYWSIN (hUPOSTREFW) aor. act. subj. 3 pl. Tobit 6.13 (1 pl.).>hAMARTHSWSIN (hAMARTANW) aor. act. subj. 3 pl.>KLHRONOMHSWSIN (KLHRONOMEW) aor. act. subj. 3 pl. Josh. 1.15.> >george>gfsomsel>> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org>http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/— Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/

 

[] Mark 16:14, W[] NT Resources site down

People who read this article also liked:

[AuthorRecommendedPosts]

11 thoughts on “Mark 16:14

  1. Troy Day Troy Day says:

    What in the Mark 16 sounds like Matthean Greek to you?

    Howard Gardner Who was your Greek professor @ ORU or Trinity? I literally dont know any scholar today that still defends even in abstract theory that Mark’s Gospel is an abstract of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. The ones I knew passed way long long ago. Consider this by Carl S. Patton in Sources of the Synoptic:

    It is impossible, upon this theory, to account for the omission by Mark f so much of the material that stood before him in Matthew and Luke. He has omitted most of the parables and sayings. He has added no narrative. He has therefore made an abstract in which much is omitted, nothing is added, and no improvement is introduced. No reason can be assigned for the making of such a Gospel by abstracting from the fuller and better Gospels of Matthew and Luke. The abstract not only adds nothing of its own, but fails to preserve the distinctive character of either of its exemplars.

    1. I am not aware of a faculty member at either ORU or Trinity that does not take Papias at his word. Dr. Horner at ORU theorized that Luke was actually the earliest of the Greek manuscripts that we have but that it had been taken in part from the Aramaic Matthew in addition to the sources that Luke himself alludes to. It has also been theorized that the only reason mark was included in the canon was that the few distinct passages he makes originated from John the Baptist; this because of similarities between it and texts found at Dead Sea.

    2. Troy Day Troy Day says:

      Yes I am aware of the Lukian priority BUT it has been many and I mean many years since I’ve heard anyone argue FOR Markian reduction or as some call it Markian abstruct. It is simply impossible for Mark to do what you suggest BTW Papias account does NOT in any way disprove the priority of Mark still being the earliest dated Gospel

    3. You talk silly. As if the statements you have made in any way prove what you are saying. Again they do not. I suspect the school(s) you went to must have been from a very liberal bent. But that is just an assumption. I spent a year at United in Dayton and found that sort of “liberals know it all, conservatives are loons” attitude. But almost their entire faculty consisted of individuals who had failed as pastors and had no other option but to teach in a seminary.. There wasn’t one there that I think could carry his own against Archer, Ervin or others at the more conservative schools.

  2. Troy Day Troy Day says:

    FURTHERMORE
    Mark contains a large number of otherwise unknown or unliterary words and phrases. For example, σχιζομενουσ, i, 10; εν πνευματι ακαθαρτω, i, 23; κραβαττος, ii, 4, and in five other places; επιραπτει, ii, 21; θυγατριον, v, 23; vii, 25; εσχατως εχει, v, 23; σπεκουγατωρ, vi, 27; συμποσια συμποσια, vi, 39; εισιν τινες ωδε των εστηκοτων, ix, 1; εισ κατα εισ, xiv, 19; εκπερισσως, xiv, 31. Such expressions might easily have been replaced by Matthew and Luke with the better expressions which they use instead of these; they could hardly have been substituted by Mark for those better expressions.

  3. Troy Day Troy Day says:

    Howard Gardner I do appreciate you liberally quoting Papias but you want never seen or read Papias I havent either 🙂 No one actually has. The actual works of Papias are lost (all five books that he

    Some of the things Papias wrote have survived in fragments from quotations from other early church fathers (Irenaeus and Eusebius if I’m not mistaken). He was acquainted with the disciple John (not necessarily the one of the twelve) as well as Polycarp, who was a disciple of John. Papias is the very first writer to tell us about the authorship of some of the Gospels, indeed, this is what he writes; and THIS IS what he actually says

    “Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took special care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements … ”

    As you can read yourself according to Papias MARK did not omit anything or did any redaction; therefore the theory that Mark redacted from Matthew fails again with the testimony of Pappy himself #enjoy

    1. If Matthew copied from Mark then where did the Sermon on the Mount come from? Again both authors obviously used not each other but a common source which we call Q. And it still seems likely to myself and all of these other looney conservatives out there that the most likely identity of Q was Aramaic Mathew.

      I say conservatives but John A. T. Robinson (not sure why I called him Robertson, I must have been thinking of Pat) hardly fits the pattern of a conservative unless you are on the looney fringe left of people like Ehrmann and Vaughn.

      But Robinson was a serious and respected scholar and his views are to be taken seriously and not dismissed because your own conclusions espouse popery. “Oh it’s so obvious” Well it isn’t so obvious to renowned scholars who do far more than just cut and paste quotes from Internet loons.

    2. “Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could.” Oh yea that makes it more than obvious that Mark came first. That is to sarcastic know it all loons like yourself.

      Liberals have tried to tell us that there were six authors of Isaiah, most of whom wrote after the Dead Sea authors. There was no such individual as Quirenius who was ever Governor of Syria, etc. etc. Yea all of that was so obvious as well.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.