Agency&Passive, Mk 14:57-59 False testimony c stirling bartholomew cc.constantine at worldnet.att.net
Tue Jun 5 17:27:11 EDT 2001
ENOUGH ALREADY! Re: Luke 23:43 Luke 1:26-27 Marius Reiser* in an extended discussion of the so called “divine passive”points out that when the agent of a true passive constituent is leftunspecified, it is not exegeitically sound parctice to make assumptions ordraw conclusions about the agent, since the intention of the author was todownplay the issue of agency.Reiser points out that in Mk 2:5 we see Jesus use the passive:AFIENTAI SOU hAI hAMARTIAIand even though the agent is not specified the scribes concluded that Jesuswas claiming to be the agent. Hold that thought.Now if we take at the false testimony in Mk 14:57-59 and test that testimonyagainst Jesus statement in Mk 13:2:. . . OU MH AFEQi hWDE LIQS EPI LIQON hOS OU MH KATALUQHiWe can begin to see how this false testimony might have been based on amisunderstanding (either intentional or not) of what Jesus had said. Jesusleaves the question of agency open in MK 13:2, which is in fact fairlystandard practice in prophetic and apocalyptic texts when destruction isthe topic. The false wittnesses at his trial take advantage of this and fillin the agency slot with Jesus just like the scribes did in Mk 2:6.Anyway, this illustrates Marius Reiser’s point that agentless passiveconstituents are left agentless on purpose and that attemts to fill theagent slot, even when it is more or less obvious who should fill it, willlead to exegitical results which are at cross purposes with the authorsintent.– Clayton Stirling BartholomewThree Tree PointP.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062*Mariuse Reiser, Jesus & Judgment, Fortress 1997, pages 266-73
ENOUGH ALREADY! Re: Luke 23:43Luke 1:26-27
Agency&Passive, Mk 14:57-59 False testimony c stirling bartholomew cc.constantine at worldnet.att.net
Tue Jun 5 17:27:11 EDT 2001
ENOUGH ALREADY! Re: Luke 23:43 Luke 1:26-27 Marius Reiser* in an extended discussion of the so called “divine passive”points out that when the agent of a true passive constituent is leftunspecified, it is not exegeitically sound parctice to make assumptions ordraw conclusions about the agent, since the intention of the author was todownplay the issue of agency.Reiser points out that in Mk 2:5 we see Jesus use the passive:AFIENTAI SOU hAI hAMARTIAIand even though the agent is not specified the scribes concluded that Jesuswas claiming to be the agent. Hold that thought.Now if we take at the false testimony in Mk 14:57-59 and test that testimonyagainst Jesus statement in Mk 13:2:. . . OU MH AFEQi hWDE LIQS EPI LIQON hOS OU MH KATALUQHiWe can begin to see how this false testimony might have been based on amisunderstanding (either intentional or not) of what Jesus had said. Jesusleaves the question of agency open in MK 13:2, which is in fact fairlystandard practice in prophetic and apocalyptic texts when destruction isthe topic. The false wittnesses at his trial take advantage of this and fillin the agency slot with Jesus just like the scribes did in Mk 2:6.Anyway, this illustrates Marius Reiser’s point that agentless passiveconstituents are left agentless on purpose and that attemts to fill theagent slot, even when it is more or less obvious who should fill it, willlead to exegitical results which are at cross purposes with the authorsintent.– Clayton Stirling BartholomewThree Tree PointP.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062*Mariuse Reiser, Jesus & Judgment, Fortress 1997, pages 266-73
ENOUGH ALREADY! Re: Luke 23:43Luke 1:26-27
Agency&Passive, Mk 14:57-59 False testimony Trevor & Julie Peterson speederson at erols.com
Tue Jun 5 17:55:46 EDT 2001
Luke 1:26-27 BDAG reviewed This is a more or less gut reaction, but it seems like there is some sort ofdistinction between the two examples. For one thing, Mark 2:10 seems toindicate in some way that the scribes’ conclusion was not altogetherfallacious. For another, the assertion that the paralytic’s sins areforgiven seems to be more than a simple observation of fact. I suppose onecould say that the act in both contexts is that Jesus takes upon Himself theauthority to declare something that seems beyond normal ability to declare,which would leave the agent ambiguous; but I’m still not sure how you’d getaround Jesus’s follow-up about forgiving sin. I’m not disagreeing–justtrying to understand.Trevor PetersonCUA/Semitics> —–Original Message—–> From: c stirling bartholomew [mailto:cc.constantine at worldnet.att.net]> Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2001 5:27 PM> To: Biblical Greek> Subject: [] Agency&Passive, Mk 14:57-59 False testimony> > > Marius Reiser* in an extended discussion of the so called “divine passive”> points out that when the agent of a true passive constituent is left> unspecified, it is not exegeitically sound parctice to make assumptions or> draw conclusions about the agent, since the intention of the author was to> downplay the issue of agency.> > Reiser points out that in Mk 2:5 we see Jesus use the passive:> > AFIENTAI SOU hAI hAMARTIAI> > and even though the agent is not specified the scribes concluded> that Jesus> was claiming to be the agent. Hold that thought.> > Now if we take at the false testimony in Mk 14:57-59 and test> that testimony> against Jesus statement in Mk 13:2:> > . . . OU MH AFEQi hWDE LIQS EPI LIQON hOS OU MH KATALUQHi> > We can begin to see how this false testimony might have been based on a> misunderstanding (either intentional or not) of what Jesus had said. Jesus> leaves the question of agency open in MK 13:2, which is in fact fairly> standard practice in prophetic and apocalyptic texts when destruction is> the topic. The false wittnesses at his trial take advantage of> this and fill> in the agency slot with Jesus just like the scribes did in Mk 2:6.> > Anyway, this illustrates Marius Reiser’s point that agentless passive> constituents are left agentless on purpose and that attemts to fill the> agent slot, even when it is more or less obvious who should fill it, will> lead to exegitical results which are at cross purposes with the authors> intent.> > > —> Clayton Stirling Bartholomew> Three Tree Point> P.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062> > *Mariuse Reiser, Jesus & Judgment, Fortress 1997, pages 266-73> > > —> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> You are currently subscribed to as: [speederson at erols.com]> To unsubscribe, forward this message to> $subst(‘Email.Unsub’)> To subscribe, send a message to subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu> > >
Luke 1:26-27BDAG reviewed
Agency&Passive, Mk 14:57-59 False testimony Trevor & Julie Peterson speederson at erols.com
Tue Jun 5 17:55:46 EDT 2001
Luke 1:26-27 BDAG reviewed This is a more or less gut reaction, but it seems like there is some sort ofdistinction between the two examples. For one thing, Mark 2:10 seems toindicate in some way that the scribes’ conclusion was not altogetherfallacious. For another, the assertion that the paralytic’s sins areforgiven seems to be more than a simple observation of fact. I suppose onecould say that the act in both contexts is that Jesus takes upon Himself theauthority to declare something that seems beyond normal ability to declare,which would leave the agent ambiguous; but I’m still not sure how you’d getaround Jesus’s follow-up about forgiving sin. I’m not disagreeing–justtrying to understand.Trevor PetersonCUA/Semitics> —–Original Message—–> From: c stirling bartholomew [mailto:cc.constantine at worldnet.att.net]> Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2001 5:27 PM> To: Biblical Greek> Subject: [] Agency&Passive, Mk 14:57-59 False testimony> > > Marius Reiser* in an extended discussion of the so called “divine passive”> points out that when the agent of a true passive constituent is left> unspecified, it is not exegeitically sound parctice to make assumptions or> draw conclusions about the agent, since the intention of the author was to> downplay the issue of agency.> > Reiser points out that in Mk 2:5 we see Jesus use the passive:> > AFIENTAI SOU hAI hAMARTIAI> > and even though the agent is not specified the scribes concluded> that Jesus> was claiming to be the agent. Hold that thought.> > Now if we take at the false testimony in Mk 14:57-59 and test> that testimony> against Jesus statement in Mk 13:2:> > . . . OU MH AFEQi hWDE LIQS EPI LIQON hOS OU MH KATALUQHi> > We can begin to see how this false testimony might have been based on a> misunderstanding (either intentional or not) of what Jesus had said. Jesus> leaves the question of agency open in MK 13:2, which is in fact fairly> standard practice in prophetic and apocalyptic texts when destruction is> the topic. The false wittnesses at his trial take advantage of> this and fill> in the agency slot with Jesus just like the scribes did in Mk 2:6.> > Anyway, this illustrates Marius Reiser’s point that agentless passive> constituents are left agentless on purpose and that attemts to fill the> agent slot, even when it is more or less obvious who should fill it, will> lead to exegitical results which are at cross purposes with the authors> intent.> > > —> Clayton Stirling Bartholomew> Three Tree Point> P.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062> > *Mariuse Reiser, Jesus & Judgment, Fortress 1997, pages 266-73> > > —> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> You are currently subscribed to as: [speederson at erols.com]> To unsubscribe, forward this message to> $subst(‘Email.Unsub’)> To subscribe, send a message to subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu> > >
Luke 1:26-27BDAG reviewed
Agency&Passive, Mk 14:57-59 False testimony Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Wed Jun 6 02:07:44 EDT 2001
Agency&Passive, Mk 14:57-59 False testimony Agency&Passive, Mk 14:57-59 False testimony Just a couple of thoughts:> > Marius Reiser* in an extended discussion of the so called “divine passive”> points out that when the agent of a true passive constituent is left> unspecified, it is not exegeitically sound parctice to make assumptions or> draw conclusions about the agent, since the intention of the author was to> downplay the issue of agency.I would agree with this statement. The main purpose of using passive – for those languagesthat employ passives – is to downplay the issue of agency. This is true across languages,and those which do not employ passives have other means of downplaying agency, e.g. usinga very generic word to fill the subject slot.For instance, “my car was stolen” has no agent, because I do not know the agent. I couldstill make it grammatically active by saying “Someone stole my car.” The agent is stillunspecified.However, the so-called divine passive is a special case connected to Jewish aversion tomentioning the name of God. Often they would take the other route and use a substitutelike “heaven” to avoid mentioning “G-d”. But sometimes, a passive may be used for the solepurpose of avoiding mentioning the Name. In some of these cases, one could considersupplying the agent “God” or “Lord”, although I can’t think of any examples at the moment.I would not suggest to supply “God” as agent in Mk 2:5.> Reiser points out that in Mk 2:5 we see Jesus use the passive:> > AFIENTAI SOU hAI hAMARTIAI> > and even though the agent is not specified the scribes concluded that Jesus> was claiming to be the agent. Hold that thought.It is part of the background for a statement like this that the Jews considered sins to bedone first and foremost against God. It caused us some problems while translating theBible into a language where people did not consider sins as done towards God, but towardsother people exclusively.> > Now if we take at the false testimony in Mk 14:57-59 and test that testimony> against Jesus statement in Mk 13:2:> > . . . OU MH AFEQi hWDE LIQS EPI LIQON hOS OU MH KATALUQHi> > We can begin to see how this false testimony might have been based on a> misunderstanding (either intentional or not) of what Jesus had said. Jesus> leaves the question of agency open in MK 13:2, which is in fact fairly> standard practice in prophetic and apocalyptic texts when destruction is> the topic. The false wittnesses at his trial take advantage of this and fill> in the agency slot with Jesus just like the scribes did in Mk 2:6.It seems to me that the false testimony in Mk 14:57-59 is based on the public statement ofJesus recorded in John 2:19 rather than the private statement made to the disciples in Mk13:2.> > Anyway, this illustrates Marius Reiser’s point that agentless passive> constituents are left agentless on purpose and that attemts to fill the> agent slot, even when it is more or less obvious who should fill it, will> lead to exegitical results which are at cross purposes with the authors> intent.I basically agree with this. It is important to understand why a passive form is used andrespect the author’s intentions in doing so.Thanks,Iver Larsen
Agency&Passive, Mk 14:57-59 False testimonyAgency&Passive, Mk 14:57-59 False testimony
Agency&Passive, Mk 14:57-59 False testimony c stirling bartholomew cc.constantine at worldnet.att.net
Tue Jun 5 22:44:13 EDT 2001
BDAG reviewed Agency&Passive, Mk 14:57-59 False testimony Trevor, on 6/5/01 2:55 PM, Trevor & Julie Peterson wrote:> This is a more or less gut reaction, but it seems like there is some sort of> distinction between the two examples. For one thing, Mark 2:10 seems to> indicate in some way that the scribes’ conclusion was not altogether> fallacious.True, but the passive comes before this and it is agent-less and the scribesstill have to supply the empty agent slot. We find out later that they weremore or less correct in doing this but that does not change the dynamics ofthe agent-less passive.BTW, I am just throwing out Marius Reiser’s point as an idea fordiscussion. It is not my idea and I don’t intend to defend it. Reiser’spoint does seem to have implications which can be explored in other passageslike Mk 13:2 and Mk 14:57-59 where we are not told who the agent is (unlikeMk 2:5ff).Clay– Clayton Stirling BartholomewThree Tree PointP.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062
BDAG reviewedAgency&Passive, Mk 14:57-59 False testimony
Agency&Passive, Mk 14:57-59 False testimony Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Wed Jun 6 02:07:44 EDT 2001
Agency&Passive, Mk 14:57-59 False testimony Agency&Passive, Mk 14:57-59 False testimony Just a couple of thoughts:> > Marius Reiser* in an extended discussion of the so called “divine passive”> points out that when the agent of a true passive constituent is left> unspecified, it is not exegeitically sound parctice to make assumptions or> draw conclusions about the agent, since the intention of the author was to> downplay the issue of agency.I would agree with this statement. The main purpose of using passive – for those languagesthat employ passives – is to downplay the issue of agency. This is true across languages,and those which do not employ passives have other means of downplaying agency, e.g. usinga very generic word to fill the subject slot.For instance, “my car was stolen” has no agent, because I do not know the agent. I couldstill make it grammatically active by saying “Someone stole my car.” The agent is stillunspecified.However, the so-called divine passive is a special case connected to Jewish aversion tomentioning the name of God. Often they would take the other route and use a substitutelike “heaven” to avoid mentioning “G-d”. But sometimes, a passive may be used for the solepurpose of avoiding mentioning the Name. In some of these cases, one could considersupplying the agent “God” or “Lord”, although I can’t think of any examples at the moment.I would not suggest to supply “God” as agent in Mk 2:5.> Reiser points out that in Mk 2:5 we see Jesus use the passive:> > AFIENTAI SOU hAI hAMARTIAI> > and even though the agent is not specified the scribes concluded that Jesus> was claiming to be the agent. Hold that thought.It is part of the background for a statement like this that the Jews considered sins to bedone first and foremost against God. It caused us some problems while translating theBible into a language where people did not consider sins as done towards God, but towardsother people exclusively.> > Now if we take at the false testimony in Mk 14:57-59 and test that testimony> against Jesus statement in Mk 13:2:> > . . . OU MH AFEQi hWDE LIQS EPI LIQON hOS OU MH KATALUQHi> > We can begin to see how this false testimony might have been based on a> misunderstanding (either intentional or not) of what Jesus had said. Jesus> leaves the question of agency open in MK 13:2, which is in fact fairly> standard practice in prophetic and apocalyptic texts when destruction is> the topic. The false wittnesses at his trial take advantage of this and fill> in the agency slot with Jesus just like the scribes did in Mk 2:6.It seems to me that the false testimony in Mk 14:57-59 is based on the public statement ofJesus recorded in John 2:19 rather than the private statement made to the disciples in Mk13:2.> > Anyway, this illustrates Marius Reiser’s point that agentless passive> constituents are left agentless on purpose and that attemts to fill the> agent slot, even when it is more or less obvious who should fill it, will> lead to exegitical results which are at cross purposes with the authors> intent.I basically agree with this. It is important to understand why a passive form is used andrespect the author’s intentions in doing so.Thanks,Iver Larsen
Agency&Passive, Mk 14:57-59 False testimonyAgency&Passive, Mk 14:57-59 False testimony
Agency&Passive, Mk 14:57-59 False testimony c stirling bartholomew cc.constantine at worldnet.att.net
Tue Jun 5 22:44:13 EDT 2001
BDAG reviewed Agency&Passive, Mk 14:57-59 False testimony Trevor, on 6/5/01 2:55 PM, Trevor & Julie Peterson wrote:> This is a more or less gut reaction, but it seems like there is some sort of> distinction between the two examples. For one thing, Mark 2:10 seems to> indicate in some way that the scribes’ conclusion was not altogether> fallacious.True, but the passive comes before this and it is agent-less and the scribesstill have to supply the empty agent slot. We find out later that they weremore or less correct in doing this but that does not change the dynamics ofthe agent-less passive.BTW, I am just throwing out Marius Reiser’s point as an idea fordiscussion. It is not my idea and I don’t intend to defend it. Reiser’spoint does seem to have implications which can be explored in other passageslike Mk 13:2 and Mk 14:57-59 where we are not told who the agent is (unlikeMk 2:5ff).Clay– Clayton Stirling BartholomewThree Tree PointP.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062
BDAG reviewedAgency&Passive, Mk 14:57-59 False testimony
Agency&Passive, Mk 14:57-59 False testimony c stirling bartholomew cc.constantine at worldnet.att.net
Wed Jun 6 04:42:18 EDT 2001
Agency&Passive, Mk 14:57-59 False testimony Phil 2:2, why TO AUTO accusative? on 6/5/01 11:07 PM, Iver Larsen wrote:> However, the so-called divine passive is a special case connected to Jewish> aversion to mentioning the name of God.Iver,Marius Reiser argues that the NT authors had no such aversion. However headmits that the divine passive does occur in the NT. He attempts todemonstrate that the criteria commonly used to determine genuine occurrencesof the divine passive are too loose (too inclusive) which results inassuming God is the agent in passages where the agent is INTENTIONALLY leftunspecified and where we should NOT assume that God is the agent.For example:The agent-less passive in the NT is sometimes used to mask or suppressagency when there is an evil agent used to carry out judgement ordained byGod. Rather than present the reader with the sticky problem of who isresponsible for what, the results of the action are spelled out but theagent is left as a blank semantic slot.Clay — Clayton Stirling BartholomewThree Tree PointP.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062
Agency&Passive, Mk 14:57-59 False testimonyPhil 2:2, why TO AUTO accusative?
Agency&Passive, Mk 14:57-59 False testimony c stirling bartholomew cc.constantine at worldnet.att.net
Wed Jun 6 04:42:18 EDT 2001
Agency&Passive, Mk 14:57-59 False testimony Phil 2:2, why TO AUTO accusative? on 6/5/01 11:07 PM, Iver Larsen wrote:> However, the so-called divine passive is a special case connected to Jewish> aversion to mentioning the name of God.Iver,Marius Reiser argues that the NT authors had no such aversion. However headmits that the divine passive does occur in the NT. He attempts todemonstrate that the criteria commonly used to determine genuine occurrencesof the divine passive are too loose (too inclusive) which results inassuming God is the agent in passages where the agent is INTENTIONALLY leftunspecified and where we should NOT assume that God is the agent.For example:The agent-less passive in the NT is sometimes used to mask or suppressagency when there is an evil agent used to carry out judgement ordained byGod. Rather than present the reader with the sticky problem of who isresponsible for what, the results of the action are spelled out but theagent is left as a blank semantic slot.Clay — Clayton Stirling BartholomewThree Tree PointP.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062
Agency&Passive, Mk 14:57-59 False testimonyPhil 2:2, why TO AUTO accusative?
Agency&Passive, Mk 14:57-59 False testimony c stirling bartholomew cc.constantine at worldnet.att.net
Wed Jun 6 13:24:25 EDT 2001
Agency&Passive, Mk 14:57-59 False testimony Agency&Passive, Mk 14:57-59 False testimony Iver raised the issue of the privacy of Jesus prediction of the fall of thetemple in Mk 13:2, suggesting that the false testimony in Mk 14:57-59 couldnot be linked to remarks that were not publicly made.I looked over the synoptic accounts of Jesus prediction of the fall of thetemple (MK13:2, Matt 24:2, Lk 21:6) and it seems that these remarks wereonly semi-private. Real privacy in Mark’s account does not arrive until Mk13:3 where we are told that Peter, James and John EPHRWTA AUTO KAT’ IDIAN.See also Matt 24:3.Those who were available to hear Jesus prediction (hOI MAQTHAI) about thetemple could easily have been responsible for repeating Jesus words whichbecame the substance of the false testimony in Mk 14:57-59 even if they werenot the ones bearing false testimony. Assuming that hOI MAQTHAI is not beingused in the narrow sense of the twelve, it could even be possible that oneof those hearing Jesus actually participated in the false testimony directlybut this would be impossible to prove and is in a sense a question of littleimportance. In all three synoptic accounts of this prediction we have a constructionwhere the agent of destruction is suppressed. This left the door open so tospeak for the false witnesses to fill the agent slot with Jesus.I am not really trying to reconstruct the path of reports and rumors aboutJesus during his trial. What I am doing is responding to a supposeddifficulty raised by Iver which I don’t see as a very serious difficulty.Clay– Clayton Stirling BartholomewThree Tree PointP.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062
Agency&Passive, Mk 14:57-59 False testimonyAgency&Passive, Mk 14:57-59 False testimony
Agency&Passive, Mk 14:57-59 False testimony c stirling bartholomew cc.constantine at worldnet.att.net
Wed Jun 6 13:24:25 EDT 2001
Agency&Passive, Mk 14:57-59 False testimony Agency&Passive, Mk 14:57-59 False testimony Iver raised the issue of the privacy of Jesus prediction of the fall of thetemple in Mk 13:2, suggesting that the false testimony in Mk 14:57-59 couldnot be linked to remarks that were not publicly made.I looked over the synoptic accounts of Jesus prediction of the fall of thetemple (MK13:2, Matt 24:2, Lk 21:6) and it seems that these remarks wereonly semi-private. Real privacy in Mark’s account does not arrive until Mk13:3 where we are told that Peter, James and John EPHRWTA AUTO KAT’ IDIAN.See also Matt 24:3.Those who were available to hear Jesus prediction (hOI MAQTHAI) about thetemple could easily have been responsible for repeating Jesus words whichbecame the substance of the false testimony in Mk 14:57-59 even if they werenot the ones bearing false testimony. Assuming that hOI MAQTHAI is not beingused in the narrow sense of the twelve, it could even be possible that oneof those hearing Jesus actually participated in the false testimony directlybut this would be impossible to prove and is in a sense a question of littleimportance. In all three synoptic accounts of this prediction we have a constructionwhere the agent of destruction is suppressed. This left the door open so tospeak for the false witnesses to fill the agent slot with Jesus.I am not really trying to reconstruct the path of reports and rumors aboutJesus during his trial. What I am doing is responding to a supposeddifficulty raised by Iver which I don’t see as a very serious difficulty.Clay– Clayton Stirling BartholomewThree Tree PointP.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062
Agency&Passive, Mk 14:57-59 False testimonyAgency&Passive, Mk 14:57-59 False testimony
Is Mk 14:62 a implied threat c stirling bartholomew cc.constantine at worldnet.att.net
Wed Jun 6 15:04:38 EDT 2001
Ephesians 2:8,9 Is Mk 14:62 a implied threat This is a branch from the Agency&Passive, Mk 14:57-59 False testimonythread, but really a totally new question.When Jesus responds to hO ARCIERUS question in MK 14:62, does the answer ofJesus contain an implied threat? Is there implicit in the words:. . . KAI OYESQE TON hUION TOU ANQRWPOUEK DEZIWN KAQYMENON THS DUNAMEWSKAI ERCOMENON META TWN VEFELWN TOU OURANOU.a suggestion that TON hUION TOU ANQRWPOU might in fact be the unspecifiedAGENT of Jesus predictions of judgement and destruction concerning Jerusalemand the Temple? In other words, was there some legitimate basis for the false witnessrecorded in Mk 14:57-59, that Jesus had threatened to destroy the temple?When Jesus identifies himself in this manner asTON hUION TOU ANQRWPOUEK DEZIWN KAQYMENON THS DUNAMEWSKAI ERCOMENON META TWN VEFELWN TOU OURANOUis the notion of “an AGENT participating in eschatological wrath/judgement”part of the semantic significance of this constituent (the whole quote)?Is the reaction of the hO ARCIERUS only based on WHO Jesus claims to be oris he perhaps also reacting to what Jesus claims he will do? I think thatthe question WHO clearly has the prominat place here but perhaps there ismore going on here than just a discussion about WHO Jesus is claiming to be.This question can be addressed most fruitfully be exploring what the sharedmeaning (Jesus and hO ARCIERUS) of the quoted constituent might have been.Did hO ARCIERUS have a preunderstanding that would lead him to take thisstatement as a threat of coming wrath/judgement with Jesus as the AGENT?Clay– Clayton Stirling BartholomewThree Tree PointP.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062
Ephesians 2:8,9Is Mk 14:62 a implied threat
Agency&Passive, Mk 14:57-59 False testimony Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Thu Jun 7 02:39:17 EDT 2001
Ephesians 2:8,9 Agency&Passive, Mk 14:57-59 False testimony
Ephesians 2:8,9Agency&Passive, Mk 14:57-59 False testimony
Agency&Passive, Mk 14:57-59 False testimony Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Thu Jun 7 08:18:18 EDT 2001
Agency&Passive, Mk 14:57-59 False testimony Agency&Passive, Mk 14:57-59 False testimony It seems to me that this discussion is moving away from the Greek textproper and getting increasingly involved in larger issues of NTinterpretation that involve hermeneutical principles of the sort thatlist-members hold a very broad range of perspectives. PLEASE keep the focuson the Greek text and NOT on broader issues of interpretation.At 8:39 AM +0200 6/7/01, Iver Larsen wrote:>>From Iver to Clay:> >> Iver raised the issue of the privacy of Jesus prediction of the fall of the>> temple in Mk 13:2, suggesting that the false testimony in Mk 14:57-59 could>> not be linked to remarks that were not publicly made.>> >> I looked over the synoptic accounts of Jesus prediction of the fall of the>> temple (MK13:2, Matt 24:2, Lk 21:6) and it seems that these remarks were>> only semi-private. Real privacy in Mark’s account does not arrive until Mk>> 13:3 where we are told that Peter, James and John EPHRWTA AUTO KAT’ IDIAN.>> See also Matt 24:3.>> >> Those who were available to hear Jesus prediction (hOI MAQTHAI) about the>> temple could easily have been responsible for repeating Jesus words which>> became the substance of the false testimony in Mk 14:57-59 even if they were>> not the ones bearing false testimony. Assuming that hOI MAQTHAI is not being>> used in the narrow sense of the twelve, it could even be possible that one>> of those hearing Jesus actually participated in the false testimony directly>> but this would be impossible to prove and is in a sense a question of little>> importance.> >Although we are moving away from the agency/passive discussion, I’d like>to make a couple>of comments.> >The text of Mk 13:3 and parallels is not that clear as to exactly who were>with Jesus when>he predicted the destruction of the Temple. As he was probably returning>to spend the>night in Bethany after a day in the Temple, I think it is unlikely that>the disciples>mentioned are other than the 12. When only four names are mentioned in Mk>13:3, I do not>take this to mean that the other 8 were not present. Matthew 24:3 does not>mention the>four spokespersons, but says that his disciples came to him and when he>was alone with>them, he said… I have always understood the whole Olivet discourse to>have been directed>to the 12 disciples alone.> >A more important reason that Mk 14:58 probably refers to John 2:19, which>says LUSATE TON>NAON TOUTON KAI EN TRISIN hHMERAIS EGERW AUTON, and not Mk 13:2 et par. is>that Jesus is>falsely accused of not only destroying the temple, but also making the>outrageous>statement that he was going to build another temple within three days. It>is no wonder>that the Sanhedrin could not use such an outrageous claim for anything. No>one would take>it seriously, and of course, Jesus was speaking of a different temple>altogether, which>his opponents were going to tear down while he (or God) would rebuild it.> >The false testimony contains three elements:>1) Destroy this Temple, representing God’s presence (TON NAON TOUTON)>2) Built with hands>3) I will rebuild another temple within three days>Numbers 1) and 3) are clear parallels to John 2:19, including TON NAON>TOUTON, rather than>TO hIERON, the Temple buildings including the huge Herodian stones of the>outer wall,>which is talked about in Mk 13:1-4. There is only one common element with>Mk 13:2, the>word “destroy”.> >Number 2) – CEIROPOIHTOS – is not mentioned anywhere else in the gospels,>but that does>not mean that it cannot refer to something Jesus may have said. The false>accusation could>well be a conflation of two different sayings of Jesus. The “missing link”>is that the>physical NAOS in Jerusalem was “made by hands” and it was to be replaced>by a new NAOS,>not made by hands, that is Jesus himself and by extension His Body, the>Church. This>understanding is reflected in Acts 7:48 and Heb 9:11. It could well have>been part of the>teaching of Jesus that God would no longer dwell in the NAOS in Jerusalem,>but would dwell>in His Church.> >Iver Larsen> > >—> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/>You are currently subscribed to as: [cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu]>To unsubscribe, forward this message to>$subst(‘Email.Unsub’)>To subscribe, send a message to subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu— Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics/Washington UniversityHome: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
Agency&Passive, Mk 14:57-59 False testimonyAgency&Passive, Mk 14:57-59 False testimony
Agency&Passive, Mk 14:57-59 False testimony Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Thu Jun 7 02:39:17 EDT 2001
Ephesians 2:8,9 Agency&Passive, Mk 14:57-59 False testimony
Ephesians 2:8,9Agency&Passive, Mk 14:57-59 False testimony
Agency&Passive, Mk 14:57-59 False testimony Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Thu Jun 7 08:18:18 EDT 2001
Agency&Passive, Mk 14:57-59 False testimony Agency&Passive, Mk 14:57-59 False testimony It seems to me that this discussion is moving away from the Greek textproper and getting increasingly involved in larger issues of NTinterpretation that involve hermeneutical principles of the sort thatlist-members hold a very broad range of perspectives. PLEASE keep the focuson the Greek text and NOT on broader issues of interpretation.At 8:39 AM +0200 6/7/01, Iver Larsen wrote:>>From Iver to Clay:> >> Iver raised the issue of the privacy of Jesus prediction of the fall of the>> temple in Mk 13:2, suggesting that the false testimony in Mk 14:57-59 could>> not be linked to remarks that were not publicly made.>> >> I looked over the synoptic accounts of Jesus prediction of the fall of the>> temple (MK13:2, Matt 24:2, Lk 21:6) and it seems that these remarks were>> only semi-private. Real privacy in Mark’s account does not arrive until Mk>> 13:3 where we are told that Peter, James and John EPHRWTA AUTO KAT’ IDIAN.>> See also Matt 24:3.>> >> Those who were available to hear Jesus prediction (hOI MAQTHAI) about the>> temple could easily have been responsible for repeating Jesus words which>> became the substance of the false testimony in Mk 14:57-59 even if they were>> not the ones bearing false testimony. Assuming that hOI MAQTHAI is not being>> used in the narrow sense of the twelve, it could even be possible that one>> of those hearing Jesus actually participated in the false testimony directly>> but this would be impossible to prove and is in a sense a question of little>> importance.> >Although we are moving away from the agency/passive discussion, I’d like>to make a couple>of comments.> >The text of Mk 13:3 and parallels is not that clear as to exactly who were>with Jesus when>he predicted the destruction of the Temple. As he was probably returning>to spend the>night in Bethany after a day in the Temple, I think it is unlikely that>the disciples>mentioned are other than the 12. When only four names are mentioned in Mk>13:3, I do not>take this to mean that the other 8 were not present. Matthew 24:3 does not>mention the>four spokespersons, but says that his disciples came to him and when he>was alone with>them, he said… I have always understood the whole Olivet discourse to>have been directed>to the 12 disciples alone.> >A more important reason that Mk 14:58 probably refers to John 2:19, which>says LUSATE TON>NAON TOUTON KAI EN TRISIN hHMERAIS EGERW AUTON, and not Mk 13:2 et par. is>that Jesus is>falsely accused of not only destroying the temple, but also making the>outrageous>statement that he was going to build another temple within three days. It>is no wonder>that the Sanhedrin could not use such an outrageous claim for anything. No>one would take>it seriously, and of course, Jesus was speaking of a different temple>altogether, which>his opponents were going to tear down while he (or God) would rebuild it.> >The false testimony contains three elements:>1) Destroy this Temple, representing God’s presence (TON NAON TOUTON)>2) Built with hands>3) I will rebuild another temple within three days>Numbers 1) and 3) are clear parallels to John 2:19, including TON NAON>TOUTON, rather than>TO hIERON, the Temple buildings including the huge Herodian stones of the>outer wall,>which is talked about in Mk 13:1-4. There is only one common element with>Mk 13:2, the>word “destroy”.> >Number 2) – CEIROPOIHTOS – is not mentioned anywhere else in the gospels,>but that does>not mean that it cannot refer to something Jesus may have said. The false>accusation could>well be a conflation of two different sayings of Jesus. The “missing link”>is that the>physical NAOS in Jerusalem was “made by hands” and it was to be replaced>by a new NAOS,>not made by hands, that is Jesus himself and by extension His Body, the>Church. This>understanding is reflected in Acts 7:48 and Heb 9:11. It could well have>been part of the>teaching of Jesus that God would no longer dwell in the NAOS in Jerusalem,>but would dwell>in His Church.> >Iver Larsen> > >—> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/>You are currently subscribed to as: [cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu]>To unsubscribe, forward this message to>$subst(‘Email.Unsub’)>To subscribe, send a message to subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu— Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics/Washington UniversityHome: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
Agency&Passive, Mk 14:57-59 False testimonyAgency&Passive, Mk 14:57-59 False testimony
Agency&Passive, Mk 14:57-59 False testimony c stirling bartholomew cc.constantine at worldnet.att.net
Thu Jun 7 11:33:09 EDT 2001
Agency&Passive, Mk 14:57-59 False testimony Eerdmans Critical Commentary Iver,Your points are well taken and I thank you for the discussion.on 6/6/01 11:39 PM, Iver Larsen wrote:> The false accusation could well be a conflation of two different> sayings of Jesus.I was assuming this was the case, conflation and distortion. There is nobasis what so ever for the claim the Jesus was threatening the Temple inJohn 2:19 so we must look for that in the synoptic accounts.There have been suggestions in recent studies that there was some substanceto this claim that Jesus was threatening the Temple. I was exploring thatquestion with reference to the agent-less passive and of course like allgenuine exegetical questions the topic drifts into extra-linguistic issues.Don’t know how to avoid this.Thanks for your remarks.Clay– Clayton Stirling BartholomewThree Tree PointP.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062
Agency&Passive, Mk 14:57-59 False testimonyEerdmans Critical Commentary
Agency&Passive, Mk 14:57-59 False testimony c stirling bartholomew cc.constantine at worldnet.att.net
Thu Jun 7 11:33:09 EDT 2001
Agency&Passive, Mk 14:57-59 False testimony Eerdmans Critical Commentary Iver,Your points are well taken and I thank you for the discussion.on 6/6/01 11:39 PM, Iver Larsen wrote:> The false accusation could well be a conflation of two different> sayings of Jesus.I was assuming this was the case, conflation and distortion. There is nobasis what so ever for the claim the Jesus was threatening the Temple inJohn 2:19 so we must look for that in the synoptic accounts.There have been suggestions in recent studies that there was some substanceto this claim that Jesus was threatening the Temple. I was exploring thatquestion with reference to the agent-less passive and of course like allgenuine exegetical questions the topic drifts into extra-linguistic issues.Don’t know how to avoid this.Thanks for your remarks.Clay– Clayton Stirling BartholomewThree Tree PointP.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062
Agency&Passive, Mk 14:57-59 False testimonyEerdmans Critical Commentary
[] Mark 3:14 kgraham0938 at comcast.net kgraham0938 at comcast.net
Wed Apr 12 22:57:03 EDT 2006
[] Rom 1:4 [] Matthew 28:17: hOI DE EDISTASAN @ Elizabeth:I think GGBB is a good grammar, if you look at it Wallace gives several examples of iterative presents and only uses Mk 3:14 as a cf. So I can see how one can get some of his illustrations mixed up. To be honest though the only grip I have with GGBB is that it is a bit theological in it’s nature. Which is ok, but I think one should realize that when they get it. But I’ve been pleased with it overall.–Kelton Graham KGRAHAM0938 at comcast.net————– Original message ————– From: Elizabeth Kline <kline-dekooning at earthlink.net> > > On Apr 5, 2006, at 9:24 PM, Norman Wood wrote: > > > Wallace in Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics gives a description of > > the iterative present. > > “The present tense may be used to describe an event that repeatedly > > happens”(pg 520). He suggests Mark 3:14 as an example and the only > > present that I can see is the present subjunctive INA WSIN MET AUTOU. > > Does this mean that the present subjunctive means that they would > > be with him not continuously, but again and again ie they would be > > with him, then not, then back with him over and over again?Or have > > I got the wrong bit? > > Any thoughts would be welcome. > > Thanks > > Norman Wood > > Scotland > > Norman, > > MARK 3:14 KAI EPOIHSEN DWDEKA [hOUS KAI APOSTOLOUS WNOMASEN] > hINA WSIN MET’ AUTOU KAI hINA APOSTELLHi AUTOUS KHRUSSEIN > > I suspect Wallace is looking at APOSTELLHi. Having followed many > discussions in this forum that start out with some misleading > statement from the grammar you are using, I wonder why anyone would > use it as at textbook. However I find nothing wrong with the > quotation “The present tense may be used to describe an event that > repeatedly happens” as long as it is made very very clear that > iterativity is not a semantic feature of the present tense. People > who set out to write reference grammars should have a solid > background in linguistics. I suspect that is why GGBB causes some > much confusion. > > > Elizabeth Kline > > > > > — > home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/ > mailing list > at lists.ibiblio.org > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/
[] Rom 1:4[] Matthew 28:17: hOI DE EDISTASAN