[] εκβαλλει: simple word in strange context (Mk 1:12)? Carl ω. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Thu Feb 20 14:35:11 εστ 2003
[] ρε: Why learn Greek? [] εκβαλλει: simple word in strange context (Mk 1:12)? Having begun to work on a short commentary on Mark’s gospel ι‘m noticing”obvious” things ι‘ve never paid any attention to before. As a firstinstance, Mark’s very brief temptation narrative 1:12-13 begins with thesentence (1:12): και ευθυσ το πνευμα αυτον εκβαλλει εισ θν εῥμον. Theexpression seems to me to contrast sharply with Matthew’s τοτε hO ιησουσανηξθη εισ θν εῥμον hUPO του πνευματοσ Mt 4:1) and Luke’s ιησουσ δεπληῥσ πνευματοσ hAGIOU hUPESTREYEN απο του ιορδανου και ηγετο εν TWiPNEUMATI εν THi ERHMWi (Lk 4:1).My question is not a source-critical one (ι make no assumption of Marcanpriority) here but strictly a question of perspective implied by the choiceof a verb. While Matthew and Luke both use passive forms of αγω or thecompound αναγω to indicate a spiritual “guidance” Jesus “into” (Mt) or “in”(Lk) the wilderness, Mark’s Spirit seems to “jolt” Jesus suddenly into thewilderness from the Jordan where he has just been baptized. εκβαλλω is averb which elsewhere in Mark is used predominantly of exorcism of demons,otherwise of exorcism of Satan (3:23), of expulsion (of everybody in thehouse of the chief of the synagogue, 5:40 and of moneychangers from thetemple, 11:15), of the eye that σκανδαλιζει (9:47), and of the murderedbeloved son of the owner of the vineyard (12:8). εκβαλλει in Mk 1:12 isactive and seems violent; it would appear that Jesus is being representedhere almost as a victim, as the passive object of a violent thrusting thatis external to himself.βδαγ offers: “2. to cause to go or remove from a position (without force),send out/away, release, bring out” but under 1 “1. force to leave, driveout, expel ” and says “Mk 1:12 is perh. to be understood in this sense, cp.Gen 3:24” The comparison of the expulsion of Adam & Eve from the garden isinteresting, but there is evidently no clear consensus on the usage of thisverb here.Although ι‘ve never read this narrative snippet before without a naggingcuriosity (one tends to think how insignificant Mark’s version is incomparison with those of Matthew and Luke and therefore doesn’t ask thequestion: why does μαρκ describe the temptation this way, and what did HEunderstand it to mean?), ι‘ve never raised the question directly before andI don’t recall seeing it discussed by any commentator. ι would welcome anythoughts or Hinweise to relevant literature.– Carl ω. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, νξ 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu ορ cwconrad at mcsinternet.netWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/
[] ρε: Why learn Greek?[] εκβαλλει: simple word in strange context (Mk 1:12)?
[] εκβαλλει: simple word in strange context (Mk 1:12)? Barry Hofstetter nebarry at earthlink.net
Thu Feb 20 14:44:42 εστ 2003
[] εκβαλλει: simple word in strange context (Mk 1:12)? [] εκβαλλει: simple word in strange context (Mk 1:12)? —– Original Message —–From: “Carl ω. Conrad” <cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu>To: “‘Biblical Greek'” < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 2:35 PMSubject: [] εκβαλλει: simple word in strange context (Mk 1:12)?> Although ι‘ve never read this narrative snippet before without a nagging> curiosity (one tends to think how insignificant Mark’s version is in> comparison with those of Matthew and Luke and therefore doesn’t ask the> question: why does μαρκ describe the temptation this way, and what did ηε> understand it to mean?), ι‘ve never raised the question directly before and> ι don’t recall seeing it discussed by any commentator. ι would welcome any> thoughts or Hinweise to relevant literature.Both Swete and Cranfield suggest that the word means word refers to “strongimpulse,” and Swete supplies some citations from other authors that thereference is not so much a violent expulsion in this context as simply anemphasis on the activity of the Spirit in moving Jesus. Exegetically, ι recallthat Mark has a strong preference for active vs. passive verbs. In the firstchapter, the narrative flow is intended to be rapid, and active verbs combinedwith markers such as ευθυσ tend to highlight that movement. The choice wouldthen be for the stylistic purpose to support the narrative emphasis.ν.ε. Barry HofstetterProfessor of Theological and Biblical Studies The Center for Urban Theological Studies, Philadelphia, PAhttp://home.earthlink.net/~nebarry
[] εκβαλλει: simple word in strange context (Mk 1:12)?[] εκβαλλει: simple word in strange context (Mk 1:12)?
[] εκβαλλει: simple word in strange context (Mk 1:12)? Jim West jwest at highland.net
Thu Feb 20 14:52:30 εστ 2003
[] εκβαλλει: simple word in strange context (Mk 1:12)? [] Series on Pauline Theology At 02:35 πμ 2/20/03 -0500, you wrote:>ι don’t recall seeing it discussed by any commentator. ι would welcome any>thoughts or Hinweise to relevant literature.see δ. Hill, “Greek Words and Hebrew Meanings”.Pesch says “Die apokalyptische Sprach- und Vorstellungswelt dauert an: derGeist ist kaum als zwingende, eher als fuehrende (vgl Lk par) Gotteskraftgedacht: Jesu messianische Ausruestung mit dem Geist dient ja gerade derBesiegung Satans”. (Rudolf Pesch- Das Markusevangelium). jim+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Jim West, ThDBiblical Studies Resourceshttp://web.infoave.net/~jwest
[] εκβαλλει: simple word in strange context (Mk 1:12)?[] Series on Pauline Theology
[] εκβαλλει: simple word in strange context (Mk 1:12)? Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Fri Feb 21 02:13:12 εστ 2003
[] εκβαλλει: simple word in strange context (Mk 1:12)? [] εκβαλλει: simple word in strange context (Mk 1:12)? [Carl:]> Having begun to work on a short commentary on Mark’s gospel ι‘m noticing> “obvious” things ι‘ve never paid any attention to before. As a first> instance, Mark’s very brief temptation narrative 1:12-13 begins with the> sentence (1:12): και ευθυσ το πνευμα αυτον εκβαλλει εισ θν εῥμον. The> expression seems to me to contrast sharply with Matthew’s τοτε hO ιησουσ> ανηξθη εισ θν εῥμον hUPO του πνευματοσ Mt 4:1) and Luke’s ιησουσ δε> πληῥσ πνευματοσ hAGIOU hUPESTREYEN απο του ιορδανου και ηγετο εν TWi> πνευματι εν THi ERHMWi (Lk 4:1).> > My question is not a source-critical one (ι make no assumption of Marcan> priority) here but strictly a question of perspective implied by> the choice> of a verb. While Matthew and Luke both use passive forms of αγω or the> compound αναγω to indicate a spiritual “guidance” Jesus “into”> (Mt) or “in”> (Lk) the wilderness, Mark’s Spirit seems to “jolt” Jesus suddenly into the> wilderness from the Jordan where he has just been baptized. εκβαλλω is a> verb which elsewhere in Mark is used predominantly of exorcism of demons,> otherwise of exorcism of Satan (3:23), of expulsion (of everybody in the> house of the chief of the synagogue, 5:40 and of moneychangers from the> temple, 11:15), of the eye that σκανδαλιζει (9:47), and of the murdered> beloved son of the owner of the vineyard (12:8). εκβαλλει in Mk 1:12 is> active and seems violent; it would appear that Jesus is being represented> here almost as a victim, as the passive object of a violent thrusting that> is external to himself.No, not violent, but he is depicted as being under an authoritative command,not passive, but obedient.> βδαγ offers: “2. to cause to go or remove from a position (without force),> send out/away, release, bring out” but under 1 “1. force to leave, drive> out, expel ” and says “Mk 1:12 is perh. to be understood in this> sense, cp.> Gen 3:24″ The comparison of the expulsion of Adam & Eve from the garden is> interesting, but there is evidently no clear consensus on the> usage of this verb here.The comparison to Gen 3:24 is misleading. ι do not have βδαγ, but at thispoint the older βαγδ appears to be “softer” than the newer version.βαγδ offers: “2. without the connotation of force: send out (PRyl. 80, 1 [Iad], 1 Macc 12:27) workers Mt 9:38; Lk 10:2 (cf. PMich. 618, 15f [ιι ad]);send away Js 2:25; release Ac 16:37; lead out (…Theophanes, Chron. 388, 28de Boor) Mk 1:12 (but see 1 above); bring out of sheep ψ 10:4 (cf. Hs 6, 2,6; Longus 3, 33, 2 …)”Instead of Gen 3:24 which is irrelevant, there are clear and relevantparallels to the use of εκβαλλειν in Exodus. The trial period of 40 daysJesus had to spend in the wilderness are parallel in many ways to the trialperiod of 40 years the Israelites had to spend in the wilderness. Both werefaced with lack of food and water and the question about what to do then.Trust in God in a difficult setting, give in to various temptations or giveup and return to “Egypt”.The following uses of εκβαλλω in Exodus ι find instructive, and it may bethat Mark intended a reference to them.Exod 6:1 (νρσβ): Then the λορδ said to Moses, “Now you shall see what ι willdo to Pharaoh: Indeed, by a mighty hand he will let them go (λχχ:εχαποστελει); by a mighty hand he will drive them out of his land.” (λχχ:και εν βραξιονι hUYHLWi *εκβαλει* αυτουσ)Exod 11:1: The λορδ said to Moses, “ι will bring one more plague uponPharaoh and upon Egypt; afterwards he will let you go from here; indeed,when he lets you go, he will drive you away.λχχ: και μετα ταυτα εχαποστελει hUMAS εντευθεν, hOTAN δε EXAPOSTELLHi hUMASSUN παντι, *εκβαλει* hUMAS EKBOLHi.Exod 12:33: The Egyptians urged the people to hasten their departure fromthe land.λχχ: και κατεβιαζοντο hOI αιγυπτιοι τον λαον SPOUDHi *εκβαλειν* αυτουσ ενθσ GHSExod 12:39: They baked unleavened cakes of the dough that they had broughtout of Egypt; it was not leavened, because they were driven out of Egypt andcould not wait, nor had they prepared any provisions for themselves.λχχ: *εχεβαλον* γαρ αυτουσ hOI AIGUPTIOIThese references say that it was in a sense God who drove the Israelites outof Egypt, although he used Pharaoh as his instrument. It is likely that someof the people did not want to go into an uncertain future.ι can imagine that there would be one (human) part of Jesus which did notwant to go into the wilderness to be tried and tested by the Devil, butanother (divine) part which knew that this was what he had to do.When Matthew and Luke says that the Spirit led Jesus out, ι still think thatimplies an order or a command, not just a suggestion. Mark depicts moreclearly that this is indeed a command from God through the Holy Spirit. Idon’t see a sharp contrast between Mark’s “driving” and the “leading” of theothers. In fact, they complement one another nicely to show that there was acommand behind the “leading”.Iver Larsen
Fri Feb 21 08:50:44 εστ 2003
[] εκβαλλει: simple word in strange context (Mk 1:12)? [] εκβαλλει: simple word in strange context (Mk 1:12)? My thanks to Iver, Jim, Barry as well as to the others who contacted meoff-list with thought, suggestions and pointers to relevant comments madeby others. ι‘m not going to engage in any Auseinandersetzung on this forumabout the interpretation of the text, as much of that involves going farbeyond the explicit indications in the almost “skeletal” Marcan Greeknarrative. Just some notes here and there on Iver’s research report below.At 10:13 αμ +0300 2/21/03, Iver Larsen wrote:>[Carl:]>> Having begun to work on a short commentary on Mark’s gospel ι‘m noticing>> “obvious” things ι‘ve never paid any attention to before. As a first>> instance, Mark’s very brief temptation narrative 1:12-13 begins with the>> sentence (1:12): και ευθυσ το πνευμα αυτον εκβαλλει εισ θν εῥμον. The>> expression seems to me to contrast sharply with Matthew’s τοτε hO ιησουσ>> ανηξθη εισ θν εῥμον hUPO του πνευματοσ Mt 4:1) and Luke’s ιησουσ δε>> πληῥσ πνευματοσ hAGIOU hUPESTREYEN απο του ιορδανου και ηγετο εν TWi>> πνευματι εν THi ERHMWi (Lk 4:1).>> >> My question is not a source-critical one (ι make no assumption of Marcan>> priority) here but strictly a question of perspective implied by>> the choice>> of a verb. While Matthew and Luke both use passive forms of αγω or the>> compound αναγω to indicate a spiritual “guidance” Jesus “into”>> (Mt) or “in”>> (Lk) the wilderness, Mark’s Spirit seems to “jolt” Jesus suddenly into the>> wilderness from the Jordan where he has just been baptized. εκβαλλω is a>> verb which elsewhere in Mark is used predominantly of exorcism of demons,>> otherwise of exorcism of Satan (3:23), of expulsion (of everybody in the>> house of the chief of the synagogue, 5:40 and of moneychangers from the>> temple, 11:15), of the eye that σκανδαλιζει (9:47), and of the murdered>> beloved son of the owner of the vineyard (12:8). εκβαλλει in Mk 1:12 is>> active and seems violent; it would appear that Jesus is being represented>> here almost as a victim, as the passive object of a violent thrusting that>> is external to himself.> >No, not violent, but he is depicted as being under an authoritative command,>not passive, but obedient.Undoubtedly opinions will differ on this, but ι can see no suggestion thatJesus participates in the process of his “shunting off” into the desert. Heis removed powerfully, whether one wants to call this the unthinkingobedience of the good soldier or, what seems to me more appropriate, theconveyance by a πνευμα which is as much a ωινδ as a divine emanation; Ithink more of the mysterious movements of Elijah who pops up now here, nowthere “as the spirit moves him.” And it would certainly appear that Elijahis not far from Mark’s mind inasmuch as he evidently envisions John theBaptist as Elijah redivivus.>> βδαγ offers: “2. to cause to go or remove from a position (without force),>> send out/away, release, bring out” but under 1 “1. force to leave, drive>> out, expel ” and says “Mk 1:12 is perh. to be understood in this>> sense, cp.>> Gen 3:24″ The comparison of the expulsion of Adam & Eve from the garden is>> interesting, but there is evidently no clear consensus on the>> usage of this verb here.> >The comparison to Gen 3:24 is misleading. ι do not have βδαγ, but at this>point the older βαγδ appears to be “softer” than the newer version.>βαγδ offers: “2. without the connotation of force: send out (PRyl. 80, 1 [ι>ad], 1 Macc 12:27) workers Mt 9:38; Lk 10:2 (cf. PMich. 618, 15f [ιι ad]);>send away Js 2:25; release Ac 16:37; lead out (…Theophanes, Chron. 388, 28>de Boor) Mk 1:12 (but see 1 above); bring out of sheep ψ 10:4 (cf. Hs 6, 2,>6; Longus 3, 33, 2 …)”> >Instead of Gen 3:24 which is irrelevant, there are clear and relevant>parallels to the use of εκβαλλειν in Exodus. The trial period of 40 days>Jesus had to spend in the wilderness are parallel in many ways to the trial>period of 40 years the Israelites had to spend in the wilderness. Both were>faced with lack of food and water and the question about what to do then.>Trust in God in a difficult setting, give in to various temptations or give>up and return to “Egypt”.For my part, ι don’t think that Danker was taking the allusion to Genesis3:24 very seriously, but was reporting this as one perspective on theusage; it’s certainly not one that ι share. And ι readily agree that theallusions to Exodus are both clear and relevant. ι appreciate Iver’smarshaling of them and his comments. Finally, although ι don’t want to getinto questions and discussions that transcend the proper focus of ,ι have to say that ι think Mark’s focus and perspective in his telling ofthe story of Jesus in the wilderness, for all that it does share featureswith the telling by Matthew and Luke, is unique and that Mark’s selectionof εκβαλλει, however we are to understand it, is quite deliberate.– Carl ω. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, νξ 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/
[] εκβαλλει: simple word in strange context (Mk 1:12)? waldo slusher waldoslusher at yahoo.com
Fri Feb 21 10:50:27 εστ 2003
[] εκβαλλει: simple word in strange context (Mk 1:12)? [] εκβαλλει: simple word in strange context (Mk 1:12)? Here is basically how ι see authorial approaches toany commentary of Mark, or other gospels for thatmatter;1. Speculate as to whether or not Mark wrote hisgospel first, second, etc…2. Try to sort out the hypothetical θ source3. Speculate as to what οτ passages are driving Markto say what he does4. Guess how many later redactors changed Mark fromwhat he originally said5. Speculate that Mark wrote first the gospel inAramaic and then he or some other redactor rewroteMark, with several errors, changes, inaccuracies6. Speculate as to how many different documents Markwas using, could he have had some authentic documents,could he have had inauthentic documents, speculate asto which sources he used for a particular pericope7. On and on we go….And worst of all, interpret Mark based on theaccumulated subjective results of all the abovespeculations. And then color your entire commentarybased, not on what has been preserved for us in theexisting manuscripts, but on one’s hunches andbrilliant insights into what most mortal men couldnever have figured out.ι would like to see, therefore, a commentary on simplywhat we have in front of us today. What does the textsay. Then, and only then, fill the commentary withfootnotes that reflect the results of all speculativeinquiry and conclusions. ι speak only for myself, butI am not terribly interested in the author’s guessesand reconstructions of what must have been the casedespite contrary historical and manuscript evidences.Finally, if one is a Greek scholar, then list for usmortals not ονλυ what you believe the text (whatevertext you use or invent) says, but what are viableoptions, primarily in regard to grammatical choices.ι think Moo was trying to do some of this in hiscommentary on Romans. He actually gives alternategrammatical options and theological positions. Then hegives his view.=====Waldo SlusherCalgary, AB__________________________________________________Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! Tax Center – forms, calculators, tips, morehttp://taxes.yahoo.com/
Fri Feb 21 11:12:51 εστ 2003
[] εκβαλλει: simple word in strange context (Mk 1:12)? [] εκβαλλει: simple word in strange context (Mk 1:12)? > Undoubtedly opinions will differ on this, but ι can see no suggestion that> Jesus participates in the process of his “shunting off” into the> desert. He> is removed powerfully, whether one wants to call this the unthinking> obedience of the good soldier or, what seems to me more appropriate, the> conveyance by a πνευμα which is as much a ωινδ as a divine emanation;Are you suggesting that a strong wind blew him out in the desert? 🙂ι am happy to accept the “obedience” part of it, but not the “unthinking”.> ι have to say that ι think Mark’s focus and perspective in his telling of> the story of Jesus in the wilderness, for all that it does share features> with the telling by Matthew and Luke, is unique and that Mark’s selection> of εκβαλλει, however we are to understand it, is quite deliberate.Yes, ι am quite sure it was deliberate. But it is certainly within thesemantic range of εκβαλλω to indicate a command to go. This was listed inBAGD among other places in:Luke 10:2 hOPWS εργατασ EKBALHi εισ τον θερισμον αυτου “that he may sendworkers out into his harvesting.”There are many cases where εκβαλλω does not refer to removal by physicalforce, but an authoritative command. This applies to “casting out” demons,too. Here it is not a physical or forceful removal, but a command to leave.In John 10:3-4 it appears that εχαγω and εκβαλλω are used as synonyms forthe same event:και τα ιδια προβατα φωνει κατ‘ ονομα και εχαγει αυτα. hOTAN τα ιδια PANTAEKBALHi, εμπροσθεν αυτων πορευεται, και τα προβατα AUTWi ακολουθει.So, ι don’t see a problem in Mark 1:12 saying that Jesus received anauthoritative directive from the Holy Spirit to go out in the wilderness,and he did so. In English, we can express this by “send” as νιβ and ξεβ door “made him go” as γνβ has or “compelled him to go” as νλτ has or “drivehim out” as ρσβ and ρεβ have.ι would prefer “send”, because “drive” or “compel” imply a reluctance orresistance which is not implied in the context. All English translations use”send” in Luke 10:4, so why not here?Iver Larsen
Fri Feb 21 11:11:06 εστ 2003
[] εκβαλλει: simple word in strange context (Mk 1:12)? [] εκβαλλει: simple word in strange context (Mk 1:12)? ι earnestly hope that Waldo’s message will νοτ start a thread on what acommentary should be; if it does, ι shall probably have to halt it becausethis is all outside the legitimate scope of discussion. ι mentionedthat ι was starting work on a commentary on Mark, but ι asked a specificquestion about a specific Greek word in a specific passage, and ι neverintended to launch into any discussion of source critical theories, nor didI, in mentioning the Lucan and Matthaean differences from Mark with regardto Mark’s εκβαλλει, suggest any reason for the differences; ι did, in mylast message on the thread, say something that ι think is consistent withmost of what you’re saying here, that Mark’s gospel text needs to be lookedat for its own sake; if ι implied anything by that, it was that whether ornot we view the Matthaean and Lucan versions as texts that Mark shortenedand altered or as texts that are expansions and corrections of what Markwrote, the Marcan text ought to be viewed in its own right as telling thestory in Mark’s own way; where the Matthaean and Lucanare useful for one doing this is to show αλτερνατιβε modes of telling thestory; that makes clearer what is distinctive about Mark’s story. But Ineither suggested any perspective on the Synoptic question nor do ι thinkthat discussion of that or of what a good commentary ουγητ to be isappropriate to this list.– Carl ω. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, νξ 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.mcsinternet.net/~cwconrad/