Mark 16:15

[] Mark 16:15 — participles and imperatives Chet Creider creider at uwo.ca
Tue Dec 28 08:57:17 EST 2004

 

[] Romans 8:32 TA PANTA and PANTA in 8.28 [] Mark 16:15 — participles and imperatives Eric has presented enough detail from Wallace for us to see that a fairly compelling case can be made for the correctness of his (Eric’s) analysis of the participle in Mark 16:15 as a participle of Attendant Circumstance”:POREUQENTES EIS TON KOSMON hAPANTA KHRUXATE TO EUAGGELION PASHi THi KTISEIHowever, a closer look may prove of interest. I apologize in advance for the length of it. The categories of our grammars have a history, and it is interesting to trace that of the participle of Attendant Circumstance. The term first appears in English, as far as I know, in Hadley and Allen where it is not a named subtype of the circumstantial participle but rather a wastebasket category into which examples which fail to fall under one of the named subtypes go: “Most commonly, the circumstantial particple denotes merely an attendant circumstance. But it may also imply means, manner, cause, purpose, condition, or concession. Thus: a. MEANS OR MANNER … (and the list begins)Goodwin, in both his Greek Grammar and his Syntax of the Moods and Tenses of the Greek Verb, elevates “attendant circumstance” to his extended list of subtypes of thethe circumstantial participle although he doesn’t capitalize the words. An example he gives is ERXETAI TON hUION EXOUSA “she comes bringing her son”.In the NT grammatical world, Dana and Mantey, who use the term Adverbial Participle for the term which Goodwin introduced (Circumstantial Participle), rename the participle of attendant circumstance the Circumstantial Participle (!) but even retain some of Hadley and Allen’s wording: “A participle …may merely express an attendant circumstance…” Their example is the one which Eric gave from Wallace: EKEINOI DE EXELQONTES EKHRUXAN PANTACOU (Mark 16:16). (This is probably not a very good example of the category since there are clearly two separate actions and one is necessarily temporally prior to the other — cf. Carl’s discussion on this topic.)Finally, it appears from Eric’s quotation that Wallace has has capitalized Attendant Circumstance as well as provided a list of diagnostic criteria and a suggested translation.It is not clear to me that any of this classificatory work is a clear improvement on Hadley and Allen for the criteria by which various subtypes of circumstantial participles are defined are for the most part semantic, not grammatical, and have to do more with expression in English rather than with any clear polysemy in the Greek construction. To be sure Wallace’s criteria are an exception as they are all grammatical, but they are such a grabbag of items that it is difficult to have much confidence that a genuine subdivision in Greek grammar is being identified.Turning to Mark 16:15, however, I think the real issue here is that the conventional translations with “and” are misleading as they make the English reader believe that the Greek has two imperatives (e.g., “Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature” (AV), “Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation” (NIV), when in fact it has only one. (One of the those who replied to James J’s original post, which lacked the Greek, in fact seemed to assume that the Greek had two imperatives.) It seems to me that our efforts to understand the Greek should focus on what is being done by the expression of the clause with the motion verb in subordinate fashion, as a participle. It may be that it is an indirect imperative — rather than telling someone, “Close the window!”, one can say “I wish someone would close the window.” Or it may be that the participial expression allows it to be presupposed. I don’t know the answer here, but I do feel that this is what we should be thinking about rather than how to classify and how to translate the participial clause. That is, why is it a participle in the first place — what extra subtlety of expression is accomplished that is lacking when two imperatives are conjoined? Perhaps it is only to blunt the relative heaviness of two direct orders, but whatever it is, that is what our efforts to understand the Greek should be directed to.Chet Creider

 

[] Romans 8:32 TA PANTA and PANTA in 8.28[] Mark 16:15 — participles and imperatives

[] Mark 16:15 — participles and imperatives Timrake at aol.com Timrake at aol.com
Tue Dec 28 10:46:56 EST 2004

 

[] Mark 16:15 — participles and imperatives [] Nunn’s Grammar Anyone here used H. P. V. Nunn’s “A Short Syntax of New testament Greek” (Cambridge, 1951)?If so, may I ask, what you might think of it?Pr. Tim Rakepraise Lutheran ChurchMaryville, TN

 

[] Mark 16:15 — participles and imperatives[] Nunn’s Grammar

[] Mark 16:15 — participles and imperatives Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue Dec 28 17:44:10 EST 2004

 

[] John 1:1 [] SBL Southeastern Region meeting I don’t quarrel with anything that Chet has written here; I’ve made it clearthat I have little use for the categories and subcategories used to classifythese and various case constructions of nouns also, and I think that most ofthese categories and subcategories have been invented to facilitate translationinto a target language. For me it would be quite enough to distinguish adverbialparticiples from adjectival participles (and substantive participles thereinincluded) and proceed to think through ways that the participle relates to themain verb. I remember still when I first realized that what the grammarsdistinguished as Latin “CUM circumstantial,” “CUM causal” “CUM temporal” and“CUM concessive clauses” were really nothing but aids to translation of a clausesuch as CUM VENISSET which really said nothing more than “the fact being that hehad come”—and that the same was true of Greek genitive absolutes and Latinablative absolutes, I felt I had come to see something about the simplicity ofGreek and Latin adverbial expression that had hitherto been disguised by thegrammars.I really think that there is no substitute for reading long and much of Greektexts and coming to discern the ways in which adverbial participles areused—rather than learning categories and subcategories of distinct participial“constructions.”That is by way of reiterating what I argued earlier about the text of Mark16:15: a major point in the word order and subordination of the aoristparticiple to the aorist imperative here:POREUQENTES EIS TON KOSMON hAPANTA KHRUXATE TO EUAGGELION PASHi THi KTISEIis to highlight a sequence of notions: (1) the mission requires travel towherever there are people (KOSMOS), and (2) the message is to be proclaimed toevery creature confronted.Chet Creider wrote:”Eric has presented enough detail from Wallace for us to see that a fairly compelling case can be made for the correctness of his (Eric’s) analysis of the participle in Mark 16:15 as a participle of Attendant Circumstance”:POREUQENTES EIS TON KOSMON hAPANTA KHRUXATE TO EUAGGELION PASHi THi KTISEI”However, a closer look may prove of interest. I apologize in advance for the length of it. The categories of our grammars have a history, and it is interesting to trace that of the participle of Attendant Circumstance. The term first appears in English, as far as I know, in Hadley and Allen where it is not a named subtype of the circumstantial participle but rather a wastebasket category into which examples which fail to fall under one of the named subtypes go: “Most commonly, the circumstantial particple denotes merely an attendant circumstance. But it may also imply means, manner, cause, purpose, condition, or concession. Thus: a. MEANS OR MANNER … (and the list begins)”Goodwin, in both his Greek Grammar and his Syntax of the Moods and Tenses of the Greek Verb, elevates “attendant circumstance” to his extended list of subtypes of thethe circumstantial participle although he doesn’t capitalize the words. An example he gives is ERXETAI TON hUION EXOUSA “she comes bringing her son”.”In the NT grammatical world, Dana and Mantey, who use the term Adverbial Participle for the term which Goodwin introduced (Circumstantial Participle), rename the participle of attendant circumstance the Circumstantial Participle (!) but even retain some of Hadley and Allen’s wording: “A participle …may merely express an attendant circumstance…” Their example is the one which Eric gave from Wallace: EKEINOI DE EXELQONTES EKHRUXAN PANTACOU (Mark 16:16). (This is probably not a very good example of the category since there are clearly two separate actions and one is necessarily temporally prior to the other — cf. Carl’s discussion on this topic.)”Finally, it appears from Eric’s quotation that Wallace has has capitalized Attendant Circumstance as well as provided a list of diagnostic criteria and a suggested translation.”It is not clear to me that any of this classificatory work is a clear improvement on Hadley and Allen for the criteria by which various subtypes of circumstantial participles are defined are for the most part semantic, not grammatical, and have to do more with expression in English rather than with any clear polysemy in the Greek construction. To be sure Wallace’s criteria are an exception as they are all grammatical, but they are such a grabbag of items that it is difficult to have much confidence that a genuine subdivision in Greek grammar is being identified.”Turning to Mark 16:15, however, I think the real issue here is that the conventional translations with “and” are misleading as they make the English reader believe that the Greek has two imperatives (e.g., “Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature” (AV), “Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation” (NIV), when in fact it has only one. (One of the those who replied to James J’s original post, which lacked the Greek, in fact seemed to assume that the Greek had two imperatives.) It seems to me that our efforts to understand the Greek should focus on what is being done by the expression of the clause with the motion verb in subordinate fashion, as a participle. It may be that it is an indirect imperative — rather than telling someone, “Close the window!”, one can say “I wish someone would close the window.” Or it may be that the participial expression allows it to be presupposed. I don’t know the answer here, but I do feel that this is what we should be thinking about rather than how to classify and how to translate the participial clause. That is, why is it a participle in the first place — what extra subtlety of expression is accomplished that is lacking when two imperatives are conjoined? Perhaps it is only to blunt the relative heaviness of two direct orders, but whatever it is, that is what our efforts to understand the Greek should be directed to.”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/

 

[] John 1:1[] SBL Southeastern Region meeting

[] Mark 16:15 — participles and imperatives Iver Larsen ialarsen at multitechweb.com
Wed Dec 29 08:23:33 EST 2004

 

[] Mark 16:15 — participles and imperatives [] Mark 16:15 — participles and imperatives > [Chet Creider:] Turning to Mark 16:15, however, I think the real issuehere is that the> conventional translations with “and” are misleading as they make the> English reader believe that the Greek has two imperatives (e.g., “Go ye> into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature” (AV),> “Go into> all the world and preach the good news to all creation” (NIV),> when in fact> it has only one. (One of the those who replied to James J’s> original post,> which lacked the Greek, in fact seemed to assume that the Greek had two> imperatives.)A translation tries to carry over the meaning and focus of the original textinto another language. It is not the goal of translators to produce atranslation that will necessarily allow the reader to reconstruct thegrammar of the original. In the case of Mark 16:15, it is natural in Englishto use two imperatives, and as far as I know all English versions do that.> It seems to me that our efforts to understand the Greek> should focus on what is being done by the expression of the> clause with the> motion verb in subordinate fashion, as a participle. It may be> that it is> an indirect imperative — rather than telling someone, “Close the> window!”,> one can say “I wish someone would close the window.” Or it may> be that the> participial expression allows it to be presupposed. I don’t know the> answer here, but I do feel that this is what we should be thinking about> rather than how to classify and how to translate the participial> clause. That is, why is it a participle in the first place — what extra> subtlety of expression is accomplished that is lacking when two> imperatives> are conjoined? Perhaps it is only to blunt the relative heaviness of two> direct orders, but whatever it is, that is what our efforts to understand> the Greek should be directed to.Agreed. The use of the participle demotes the content and significance ofthat word relative to the main imperative KHRUXATE. A similar focus may becarried by context and – hopefully – oral stress rather than grammar inEnglish. The “going” is a necessary requirement for the focus event”preach”.It may be useful to look at a couple of examples:Acts 5:20 POREUESQE KAI STAQENTES LALEITEEN TWi hIERWi (go and having stoodspeak)The two main events are first the going back to the temple and then thespeaking. The standing up while speaking is somewhat presupposed and of lessimportance than the imperatives. In an idiomatic translation, it is possibleto leave the standing implied as the New Living Translation (NLT) has done:”Go to the Temple and give the people this message of life.”Acts 8:26 ANASTHQI KAI POREUOU (get up and go) with equal focus on thegetting up and going. TEV: Get ready and go. NET: Get up and go.Acts 9:11 ANASTAS POREUQHTI (having arisen, go) with the main focus on the”going”, and the “rising up” somewhat presupposed and less important. TEV:”Get ready and go”, NLT: “Go”.The translator is faced with a dilemma as is often the case. Should one usetwo imperatives and consequently lose the demotion indicated by the use of aparticiple? Or should one take the demotion to its logical conclusion andleave it out altogether, so that it is implied in the translation? (Oneobviously has to get up before one can go.) A third consideration is howmuch of these constructions reflect a Semitic idiom, and if so, should thatbe reflected in the translation? Understanding the original text with itsfine nuances is step one and translating the text is step two. The firstprecedes the second.Iver LarsenSIL Translation Consultant

 

[] Mark 16:15 — participles and imperatives[] Mark 16:15 — participles and imperatives

People who read this article also liked:

[AuthorRecommendedPosts]

4 thoughts on “Mark 16:15

    1. I think our Matthew is likely a Greek translation of the Aramaic Matthew. Obviously not a direct translation as the Aramaic would have no need to translate the words from the cross in chapter 27. But again your arrogance annoys me. Just like the so-called scholars at Union and Princeton that assured us that Isaiah 40 and afterwards would OBVIOUSLY not be in the Dead Sea Scrolls. But the were and I have not heard so much as a concession from liberals who just move on to other presumptions that the rest of us are expected to accept as fact.

  1. Troy Day Troy Day says:

    Howard Gardner IF Mark SO wished to make such an abstract, it is impossible to explain why in practically every instance he follows, as between Matthew and Luke, the longer narrative, while his own narrative is longer than either of those he copied. In the story of the healing of the leper,

    for example, Matthew (viii, 1-4) has 62 words, Luke (v, 12-16, without his introduction) has 87, and Mark (i, 40-45) has 97.

    In the healing of the paralytic (Mk ii, 1-12; Mt ix, 1-8; Lk v, 17-26) Matthew has 125 words, Luke 93, and Mark 110 (Mk ii, 13-17; Mt ix, 9-13; Lk v, 27-32).

    In the parable of the Sower (Mk iv, 1-9; Mt xiii, 1-9; Lk viii, 4-8) Matthew has 134 words, Luke 90, and Mark 151.

    In the interpretation of that parable (Mk iv, 13-20; Mt xiii, 18-23; Lk viii, 11-15) Matthew has 128 words, Luke 109, and Mark 147.

    Many more such instances might be given. In every case the additional words of Mark contain no substantial addition to the narrative. They are mere redundancies, which Matthew and Luke, each in his own way, have eliminated.

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.