Mark 3:1

Mark 3.1 Moon-Ryul Jung moon at saint.soongsil.ac.kr
Tue May 11 09:16:30 EDT 1999

Acts 1:10 journal article Dear B-greekers, I am puzzled by Mark 3.1:HN EKEI ANQRWPOS EXHRAMMENHN ECWN THN CEIRA.Most translations render it as There was a man who had a withered hand. (a)It indicates that the participle EXHRAMMENHN is taken to beattributive, and the article THN is taken to refer to a particularkind of hand, "THE withered hand". I sort of remember that someone on the list said Greek article does not necessarily refer to a definite object, but it can refer to a particular kind (which isnot so common in English, I guess). Is rendering (a) good enough interms of Greek grammar?What about the literal rendering as follows?Was there a man having the (ie., his) hand withered. (b)I would have no problem with this rendering, especially becauseCarl taught me to consider participles without article "predicative"without clear evidence to the contrary. The above rendering reminds me of a sentence I memorized when I learnedEnglish grammar:I had my hair cut (c). This implies that I let SOMEONE cut my hair, and "have" in thiscontext has meaning similar to "cause". I guess that we might havesentences like (c) even when the agent that caused the stateis not clearly in view. Does ECW have such a causativemeaning? If not, the literal rendering would mean"There was a man possessing the (his) hand withered" (d).(d) does not make sense to me. Any comments?Moon-ryul JungAssistant ProfessorDept of Computer ScienceSoongsil University,Seoul, Korea

Acts 1:10journal article

Mark 3.1 Moon-Ryul Jung moon at saint.soongsil.ac.kr
Tue May 11 09:16:30 EDT 1999

Acts 1:10 journal article Dear B-greekers, I am puzzled by Mark 3.1:HN EKEI ANQRWPOS EXHRAMMENHN ECWN THN CEIRA.Most translations render it as There was a man who had a withered hand. (a)It indicates that the participle EXHRAMMENHN is taken to beattributive, and the article THN is taken to refer to a particularkind of hand, "THE withered hand". I sort of remember that someone on the list said Greek article does not necessarily refer to a definite object, but it can refer to a particular kind (which isnot so common in English, I guess). Is rendering (a) good enough interms of Greek grammar?What about the literal rendering as follows?Was there a man having the (ie., his) hand withered. (b)I would have no problem with this rendering, especially becauseCarl taught me to consider participles without article "predicative"without clear evidence to the contrary. The above rendering reminds me of a sentence I memorized when I learnedEnglish grammar:I had my hair cut (c). This implies that I let SOMEONE cut my hair, and "have" in thiscontext has meaning similar to "cause". I guess that we might havesentences like (c) even when the agent that caused the stateis not clearly in view. Does ECW have such a causativemeaning? If not, the literal rendering would mean"There was a man possessing the (his) hand withered" (d).(d) does not make sense to me. Any comments?Moon-ryul JungAssistant ProfessorDept of Computer ScienceSoongsil University,Seoul, Korea

Acts 1:10journal article

Mark 3.1 George Blaisdell maqhth at hotmail.com
Tue May 11 13:03:25 EDT 1999

Acts 1:10 Acts 1:10 >From: "Moon-Ryul Jung">I am puzzled by Mark 3.1:> >HN EKEI ANQRWPOS EXHRAMMENHN ECWN THN CEIRA.> >Most translations render it as> >There was a man who had a withered hand. (a)Moon ~I am always amazed at the importance of word order in the Greek. The center of this sentence is EXHRAMMENHN, which would seem to be its focus ~ Not the hand, or the man, or the having of his hand, or the place of the man with the hand, but the fact that withering had occurred is what the sentence turns on...If the context indicated a lot of folks who had various body parts withered, but they finally came across one with his HAND withered, then I would expect to find CEIRA in the center.Literally [and woodenly!]"There was * in that place * a man * having beenwithered * possessing * the * hand."English would put the word order differently:HN EKEI ANQRWPOS ECWN THN EXHRAMMENHN CEIRAResulting in:"There was in that place a man possessing the withered hand."[Sounds like the opening line of a night-time camp fire ghost story!!]More freely:"There was a man with a withered hand."Hence a] seems pretty good, yes?>It indicates that the participle EXHRAMMENHN is taken to be>attributive, and the article THN is taken to refer to a particular>kind of hand, "THE withered hand".I don't think so ~ Carl would be much better on this point ~ I would think that the article makes ostensive *which* hand ~ e.g. the hand belonging to the man already indicated. So I would take it as possesive in English, though demonstrative in Greek.On the other hand [no pun intended!], the article can also be seen as generic of hands that are withered, as hO KALOS, an article plus adjective, is translated as 'beauty', rather than 'the beautiful', though I prefer the latter. So your idea that it is a 'kind' of hand makes sense as well. Maybe a lot of sense!The participle is attributive, as you say ~ Clearly so, I believe.>I sort of remember that someone>on the list said Greek article does not necessarily refer to a>definite object, but it can refer to a particular kind (which is>not so common in English, I guess). Is rendering (a) good enough in>terms of Greek grammar?> >What about the literal rendering as follows?> >Was there a man having the (ie., his) hand withered. (b)The English word order 'Was there' normally indicates a question...>I would have no problem with this rendering, especially because>Carl taught me to consider participles without article "predicative">without clear evidence to the contrary.>"There was a man possessing the (his) hand withered" (d).> >(d) does not make sense to me. Any comments?Well, that IS a nuance of the Greek ~ For the 'possessing' that we have of a withered hand is an item that needs healing, and our 'having' it would seem to be as important to heal as is its withered condition. It is the hand, after all, that symbolizes our reaching out to others, which is so uselessly withered, yes? And our possessiveness of our withered hand might then be seen as what needs healing... But I am just speculating here.The Greek clearly does indicate that the man possesses a withered hand!! :-)GeorgeGeorge BlaisdellRoslyn, WA_______________________________________________________________Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com

Acts 1:10Acts 1:10

Mark 3.1 George Blaisdell maqhth at hotmail.com
Tue May 11 13:03:25 EDT 1999

Acts 1:10 Acts 1:10 >From: "Moon-Ryul Jung">I am puzzled by Mark 3.1:> >HN EKEI ANQRWPOS EXHRAMMENHN ECWN THN CEIRA.> >Most translations render it as> >There was a man who had a withered hand. (a)Moon ~I am always amazed at the importance of word order in the Greek. The center of this sentence is EXHRAMMENHN, which would seem to be its focus ~ Not the hand, or the man, or the having of his hand, or the place of the man with the hand, but the fact that withering had occurred is what the sentence turns on...If the context indicated a lot of folks who had various body parts withered, but they finally came across one with his HAND withered, then I would expect to find CEIRA in the center.Literally [and woodenly!]"There was * in that place * a man * having beenwithered * possessing * the * hand."English would put the word order differently:HN EKEI ANQRWPOS ECWN THN EXHRAMMENHN CEIRAResulting in:"There was in that place a man possessing the withered hand."[Sounds like the opening line of a night-time camp fire ghost story!!]More freely:"There was a man with a withered hand."Hence a] seems pretty good, yes?>It indicates that the participle EXHRAMMENHN is taken to be>attributive, and the article THN is taken to refer to a particular>kind of hand, "THE withered hand".I don't think so ~ Carl would be much better on this point ~ I would think that the article makes ostensive *which* hand ~ e.g. the hand belonging to the man already indicated. So I would take it as possesive in English, though demonstrative in Greek.On the other hand [no pun intended!], the article can also be seen as generic of hands that are withered, as hO KALOS, an article plus adjective, is translated as 'beauty', rather than 'the beautiful', though I prefer the latter. So your idea that it is a 'kind' of hand makes sense as well. Maybe a lot of sense!The participle is attributive, as you say ~ Clearly so, I believe.>I sort of remember that someone>on the list said Greek article does not necessarily refer to a>definite object, but it can refer to a particular kind (which is>not so common in English, I guess). Is rendering (a) good enough in>terms of Greek grammar?> >What about the literal rendering as follows?> >Was there a man having the (ie., his) hand withered. (b)The English word order 'Was there' normally indicates a question...>I would have no problem with this rendering, especially because>Carl taught me to consider participles without article "predicative">without clear evidence to the contrary.>"There was a man possessing the (his) hand withered" (d).> >(d) does not make sense to me. Any comments?Well, that IS a nuance of the Greek ~ For the 'possessing' that we have of a withered hand is an item that needs healing, and our 'having' it would seem to be as important to heal as is its withered condition. It is the hand, after all, that symbolizes our reaching out to others, which is so uselessly withered, yes? And our possessiveness of our withered hand might then be seen as what needs healing... But I am just speculating here.The Greek clearly does indicate that the man possesses a withered hand!! :-)GeorgeGeorge BlaisdellRoslyn, WA_______________________________________________________________Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com

Acts 1:10Acts 1:10

Mark 3.1 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue May 11 13:41:12 EDT 1999

Acts 1:10 Adonis At 9:16 AM -0400 5/11/99, Moon-Ryul Jung wrote:>Dear B-greekers,>I am puzzled by Mark 3.1:> >HN EKEI ANQRWPOS EXHRAMMENHN ECWN THN CEIRA.> >Most translations render it as> >There was a man who had a withered hand. (a)> >It indicates that the participle EXHRAMMENHN is taken to be>attributive, and the article THN is taken to refer to a particular>kind of hand, "THE withered hand". I sort of remember that someone>on the list said Greek article does not necessarily refer to a>definite object, but it can refer to a particular kind (which is>not so common in English, I guess). Is rendering (a) good enough in>terms of Greek grammar?Yes, I think so. I think THN here is not so much a definite article as suchbut rather the common usage of the article with something belonging to thesubject, so that THN = 'his.'>What about the literal rendering as follows?> >Was there a man having the (ie., his) hand withered. (b)The only problem with this is that, if you start a sentence with 'was' inEnglish, it looks like it's interrogative. Generally when forms of EINAIare existential in Greek, however, they do come first in the clause. InEnglish however we have to supply an "expletive" (the kind that MUSTN'T bedeleted!) to satisfy the English-speaking mind's requirement for somethingin the place of a subject ahead of the verb in a declarative sentence.Therefore we must say, "There was there a man having his hand withered" --in which instance the first "there" is an expletive with nothingcorresponding to it in the Greek other than the fact that HN isexistential, while the second "there" is for EKEI, the demonstrative adverb.>I would have no problem with this rendering, especially because>Carl taught me to consider participles without article "predicative">without clear evidence to the contrary.Yes, at any rate, I wouldn't assume it's attribute, although I wouldn'twant to say that you can't have an attribute adjective with an anarthrousnoun; I just think that the THN in this instance is idiomatic for thepronoun AUTOU.>The above rendering reminds me of a sentence I memorized when I learned>English grammar:> >I had my hair cut (c).> >This implies that I let SOMEONE cut my hair, and "have" in this>context has meaning similar to "cause".Properly speaking, I think one might say that "cut" here is a shortenedform of the passive infinitive "to be cut" where "cut" is actually theparticiple of a periphrastic infinitive.>I guess that we might have>sentences like (c) even when the agent that caused the state>is not clearly in view. Does ECW have such a causative>meaning? If not, the literal rendering would mean> >"There was a man possessing the (his) hand withered" (d).> >(d) does not make sense to me. Any comments?No; actually I think a different Greek colloquial idiom is in play here,one that I've observed frequently but that I don't recall ever seeingdiscussed in a grammar: the participle of ECW is frequently used in Greekto express the notion of accompaniment or association with the subject of averb. That is why the most common idiomatic translation of Mark 3:1 is "Andthere was a man there WITH a withered hand." The instance of this thatcomes most readily to my mind is a sentence in a speech frompseudo-Demosthenes (KATA NEAIRAS) appearing in _Reading Greek_, thetextbook I use to teach Beginning Attic. It is as follows:... ALL' AFIKOMENOS AQHNAZE ASELGWS ECRHTO AUTHi KAI EPI TA DEIPNA ECWNAUTHN PANTACOI EPOREUETO ... " ... but upon arriving in Athens, he kepttreating her abusively and would go anywhere to dinner parties withher." ECWN AUTHN is the expression I'm referring to.Here's another:... SUNESKEUASATO PANTA TA FRUNIWNOS EK THS OIKIAS ... ECOUSA DE TAUTAPANTA ... APODIDRASKEI EIS MEGARA. " ... she gathered up everything ofPhrynion from his house and ran away with them to Megara." In thisinstance the relevant expression is ECOUSA TAUTA PANTA.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington UniversitySummer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

Acts 1:10Adonis

Mark 3.1 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue May 11 13:41:12 EDT 1999

Acts 1:10 Adonis At 9:16 AM -0400 5/11/99, Moon-Ryul Jung wrote:>Dear B-greekers,>I am puzzled by Mark 3.1:> >HN EKEI ANQRWPOS EXHRAMMENHN ECWN THN CEIRA.> >Most translations render it as> >There was a man who had a withered hand. (a)> >It indicates that the participle EXHRAMMENHN is taken to be>attributive, and the article THN is taken to refer to a particular>kind of hand, "THE withered hand". I sort of remember that someone>on the list said Greek article does not necessarily refer to a>definite object, but it can refer to a particular kind (which is>not so common in English, I guess). Is rendering (a) good enough in>terms of Greek grammar?Yes, I think so. I think THN here is not so much a definite article as suchbut rather the common usage of the article with something belonging to thesubject, so that THN = 'his.'>What about the literal rendering as follows?> >Was there a man having the (ie., his) hand withered. (b)The only problem with this is that, if you start a sentence with 'was' inEnglish, it looks like it's interrogative. Generally when forms of EINAIare existential in Greek, however, they do come first in the clause. InEnglish however we have to supply an "expletive" (the kind that MUSTN'T bedeleted!) to satisfy the English-speaking mind's requirement for somethingin the place of a subject ahead of the verb in a declarative sentence.Therefore we must say, "There was there a man having his hand withered" --in which instance the first "there" is an expletive with nothingcorresponding to it in the Greek other than the fact that HN isexistential, while the second "there" is for EKEI, the demonstrative adverb.>I would have no problem with this rendering, especially because>Carl taught me to consider participles without article "predicative">without clear evidence to the contrary.Yes, at any rate, I wouldn't assume it's attribute, although I wouldn'twant to say that you can't have an attribute adjective with an anarthrousnoun; I just think that the THN in this instance is idiomatic for thepronoun AUTOU.>The above rendering reminds me of a sentence I memorized when I learned>English grammar:> >I had my hair cut (c).> >This implies that I let SOMEONE cut my hair, and "have" in this>context has meaning similar to "cause".Properly speaking, I think one might say that "cut" here is a shortenedform of the passive infinitive "to be cut" where "cut" is actually theparticiple of a periphrastic infinitive.>I guess that we might have>sentences like (c) even when the agent that caused the state>is not clearly in view. Does ECW have such a causative>meaning? If not, the literal rendering would mean> >"There was a man possessing the (his) hand withered" (d).> >(d) does not make sense to me. Any comments?No; actually I think a different Greek colloquial idiom is in play here,one that I've observed frequently but that I don't recall ever seeingdiscussed in a grammar: the participle of ECW is frequently used in Greekto express the notion of accompaniment or association with the subject of averb. That is why the most common idiomatic translation of Mark 3:1 is "Andthere was a man there WITH a withered hand." The instance of this thatcomes most readily to my mind is a sentence in a speech frompseudo-Demosthenes (KATA NEAIRAS) appearing in _Reading Greek_, thetextbook I use to teach Beginning Attic. It is as follows:... ALL' AFIKOMENOS AQHNAZE ASELGWS ECRHTO AUTHi KAI EPI TA DEIPNA ECWNAUTHN PANTACOI EPOREUETO ... " ... but upon arriving in Athens, he kepttreating her abusively and would go anywhere to dinner parties withher." ECWN AUTHN is the expression I'm referring to.Here's another:... SUNESKEUASATO PANTA TA FRUNIWNOS EK THS OIKIAS ... ECOUSA DE TAUTAPANTA ... APODIDRASKEI EIS MEGARA. " ... she gathered up everything ofPhrynion from his house and ran away with them to Megara." In thisinstance the relevant expression is ECOUSA TAUTA PANTA.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington UniversitySummer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

Acts 1:10Adonis

Mark 3.1 Moon-Ryul Jung moon at saint.soongsil.ac.kr
Wed May 12 11:19:58 EDT 1999

Greek fonts Greek fonts > >HN EKEI ANQRWPOS EXHRAMMENHN ECWN THN CEIRA.> >Carl wrote:> > Actually I think a different Greek colloquial idiom is in play here,> one that I've observed frequently but that I don't recall ever seeing> discussed in a grammar: the participle of ECW is frequently used in Greek> to express the notion of accompaniment or association with the subject of a> verb. That is why the most common idiomatic translation of Mark 3:1 is "And> there was a man there WITH a withered hand." The instance of this that> comes most readily to my mind is a sentence in a speech from> pseudo-Demosthenes (KATA NEAIRAS) appearing in _Reading Greek_, the> textbook I use to teach Beginning Attic. It is as follows:> > ... ALL' AFIKOMENOS AQHNAZE ASELGWS ECRHTO AUTHi KAI EPI TA DEIPNA ECWN> AUTHN PANTACOI EPOREUETO ... " ... but upon arriving in Athens, he kept> treating her abusively and would go anywhere to dinner parties with> her." ECWN AUTHN is the expression I'm referring to.> > Here's another:> > ... SUNESKEUASATO PANTA TA FRUNIWNOS EK THS OIKIAS ... ECOUSA DE TAUTA> PANTA ... APODIDRASKEI EIS MEGARA. " ... she gathered up everything of> Phrynion from his house and ran away with them to Megara." In this> instance the relevant expression is ECOUSA TAUTA PANTA.> > Thanks, Carl. Finally, Mark 3.1 makes sense to me. HN EKEI ANQRWPOS EXHRAMMENHN ECWN THN CEIRA.Based on the data you provided, I would render it as "There was there a man with his hand withered". (a)My first attempt was to EXHRAMMENHN as attributive, and render it as"There was there a man having the withered hand". (b)But then the definite expression "THE withered hand" bothered me. So,I thought "the withered hand" might refer to a particular kind of hand,which would be expressed as "a withered hand" in English. If THN allowsthis interpretation, then taking EXHRAMMENHN as attributive seems feasible.What do you think?Moon-ryul JungAssistant ProfessorDept of Computer ScienceSoongsil UniversitySeoul, Korea

Greek fontsGreek fonts

Mark 3.1 Moon-Ryul Jung moon at saint.soongsil.ac.kr
Wed May 12 11:19:58 EDT 1999

Greek fonts Greek fonts > >HN EKEI ANQRWPOS EXHRAMMENHN ECWN THN CEIRA.> >Carl wrote:> > Actually I think a different Greek colloquial idiom is in play here,> one that I've observed frequently but that I don't recall ever seeing> discussed in a grammar: the participle of ECW is frequently used in Greek> to express the notion of accompaniment or association with the subject of a> verb. That is why the most common idiomatic translation of Mark 3:1 is "And> there was a man there WITH a withered hand." The instance of this that> comes most readily to my mind is a sentence in a speech from> pseudo-Demosthenes (KATA NEAIRAS) appearing in _Reading Greek_, the> textbook I use to teach Beginning Attic. It is as follows:> > ... ALL' AFIKOMENOS AQHNAZE ASELGWS ECRHTO AUTHi KAI EPI TA DEIPNA ECWN> AUTHN PANTACOI EPOREUETO ... " ... but upon arriving in Athens, he kept> treating her abusively and would go anywhere to dinner parties with> her." ECWN AUTHN is the expression I'm referring to.> > Here's another:> > ... SUNESKEUASATO PANTA TA FRUNIWNOS EK THS OIKIAS ... ECOUSA DE TAUTA> PANTA ... APODIDRASKEI EIS MEGARA. " ... she gathered up everything of> Phrynion from his house and ran away with them to Megara." In this> instance the relevant expression is ECOUSA TAUTA PANTA.> > Thanks, Carl. Finally, Mark 3.1 makes sense to me. HN EKEI ANQRWPOS EXHRAMMENHN ECWN THN CEIRA.Based on the data you provided, I would render it as "There was there a man with his hand withered". (a)My first attempt was to EXHRAMMENHN as attributive, and render it as"There was there a man having the withered hand". (b)But then the definite expression "THE withered hand" bothered me. So,I thought "the withered hand" might refer to a particular kind of hand,which would be expressed as "a withered hand" in English. If THN allowsthis interpretation, then taking EXHRAMMENHN as attributive seems feasible.What do you think?Moon-ryul JungAssistant ProfessorDept of Computer ScienceSoongsil UniversitySeoul, Korea

Greek fontsGreek fonts

Mark 3.1 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Wed May 12 12:05:10 EDT 1999

Greek fonts Mark 3.1 At 11:19 AM -0400 5/12/99, Moon-Ryul Jung wrote:>> >HN EKEI ANQRWPOS EXHRAMMENHN ECWN THN CEIRA.>> >> >Carl wrote:>> >> Actually I think a different Greek colloquial idiom is in play here,>> one that I've observed frequently but that I don't recall ever seeing>> discussed in a grammar: the participle of ECW is frequently used in Greek>> to express the notion of accompaniment or association with the subject of a>> verb. That is why the most common idiomatic translation of Mark 3:1 is "And>> there was a man there WITH a withered hand." The instance of this that>> comes most readily to my mind is a sentence in a speech from>> pseudo-Demosthenes (KATA NEAIRAS) appearing in _Reading Greek_, the>> textbook I use to teach Beginning Attic. It is as follows:>> >> ... ALL' AFIKOMENOS AQHNAZE ASELGWS ECRHTO AUTHi KAI EPI TA DEIPNA ECWN>> AUTHN PANTACOI EPOREUETO ... " ... but upon arriving in Athens, he kept>> treating her abusively and would go anywhere to dinner parties with>> her." ECWN AUTHN is the expression I'm referring to.>> >> Here's another:>> >> ... SUNESKEUASATO PANTA TA FRUNIWNOS EK THS OIKIAS ... ECOUSA DE TAUTA>> PANTA ... APODIDRASKEI EIS MEGARA. " ... she gathered up everything of>> Phrynion from his house and ran away with them to Megara." In this>> instance the relevant expression is ECOUSA TAUTA PANTA.>> >> >Thanks, Carl. Finally, Mark 3.1 makes sense to me.> HN EKEI ANQRWPOS EXHRAMMENHN ECWN THN CEIRA.>Based on the data you provided, I would render it as> "There was there a man with his hand withered". (a)> >My first attempt was to EXHRAMMENHN as attributive, and render it as>"There was there a man having the withered hand". (b)> >But then the definite expression "THE withered hand" bothered me. So,>I thought "the withered hand" might refer to a particular kind of hand,>which would be expressed as "a withered hand" in English. If THN allows>this interpretation, then taking EXHRAMMENHN as attributive seems>feasible.>What do you think?No, I don't really think there's any particular kind of hand indicated bythe article, but rather (as I thought I'd said in the previous post, and asI note George Blaisdell also noted independently) I think this is theregular idiomatic use of the article in place of a reflexive pronoun orreflexive pronominal adjective: THN CEIRA = THN hEAUTOU CEIRA--or, thegenitive AUTOU which is already common enough in Koine and is regular inModern Greek = THN CEIRA AUTOU (yet I think the article is used even herewhere the hand (or whatever) belongs to the subject.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington UniversitySummer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

Greek fontsMark 3.1

Mark 3:1 Limerick MISS DIANA N SHAW BLFR64A at prodigy.com
Sun May 23 19:42:40 EDT 1999

Christian Christian Regarding "appropriacy" issue,Golly, I hope so! Gave me a welcome laugh, anyway. Rarely get to lurk right now, as mother/roomy developed a medical condition last November that makes time now short. However, happened onto this one while doing a quick e-mail check, 2 weeks late. Never can resist the list entirely, darn it, and was glad enough I didn't resist this one! Tnx to composers Mann & Conrad! Next week, Gilbert & Sullivan?P.S. Hope Mrs. Mann is still doing well.____Diana N. ShawBLFR64A at prodigy.comhttp://pages.prodigy.com/BLFR64A

ChristianChristian

Mark 3:1 Limerick MISS DIANA N SHAW BLFR64A at prodigy.com
Sun May 23 19:42:40 EDT 1999

Christian Christian Regarding "appropriacy" issue,Golly, I hope so! Gave me a welcome laugh, anyway. Rarely get to lurk right now, as mother/roomy developed a medical condition last November that makes time now short. However, happened onto this one while doing a quick e-mail check, 2 weeks late. Never can resist the list entirely, darn it, and was glad enough I didn't resist this one! Tnx to composers Mann & Conrad! Next week, Gilbert & Sullivan?P.S. Hope Mrs. Mann is still doing well.____Diana N. ShawBLFR64A at prodigy.comhttp://pages.prodigy.com/BLFR64A

ChristianChristian

Mark 3.1 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Wed May 12 12:05:10 EDT 1999

Greek fonts Mark 3.1 At 11:19 AM -0400 5/12/99, Moon-Ryul Jung wrote:>> >HN EKEI ANQRWPOS EXHRAMMENHN ECWN THN CEIRA.>> >> >Carl wrote:>> >> Actually I think a different Greek colloquial idiom is in play here,>> one that I've observed frequently but that I don't recall ever seeing>> discussed in a grammar: the participle of ECW is frequently used in Greek>> to express the notion of accompaniment or association with the subject of a>> verb. That is why the most common idiomatic translation of Mark 3:1 is "And>> there was a man there WITH a withered hand." The instance of this that>> comes most readily to my mind is a sentence in a speech from>> pseudo-Demosthenes (KATA NEAIRAS) appearing in _Reading Greek_, the>> textbook I use to teach Beginning Attic. It is as follows:>> >> ... ALL' AFIKOMENOS AQHNAZE ASELGWS ECRHTO AUTHi KAI EPI TA DEIPNA ECWN>> AUTHN PANTACOI EPOREUETO ... " ... but upon arriving in Athens, he kept>> treating her abusively and would go anywhere to dinner parties with>> her." ECWN AUTHN is the expression I'm referring to.>> >> Here's another:>> >> ... SUNESKEUASATO PANTA TA FRUNIWNOS EK THS OIKIAS ... ECOUSA DE TAUTA>> PANTA ... APODIDRASKEI EIS MEGARA. " ... she gathered up everything of>> Phrynion from his house and ran away with them to Megara." In this>> instance the relevant expression is ECOUSA TAUTA PANTA.>> >> >Thanks, Carl. Finally, Mark 3.1 makes sense to me.> HN EKEI ANQRWPOS EXHRAMMENHN ECWN THN CEIRA.>Based on the data you provided, I would render it as> "There was there a man with his hand withered". (a)> >My first attempt was to EXHRAMMENHN as attributive, and render it as>"There was there a man having the withered hand". (b)> >But then the definite expression "THE withered hand" bothered me. So,>I thought "the withered hand" might refer to a particular kind of hand,>which would be expressed as "a withered hand" in English. If THN allows>this interpretation, then taking EXHRAMMENHN as attributive seems>feasible.>What do you think?No, I don't really think there's any particular kind of hand indicated bythe article, but rather (as I thought I'd said in the previous post, and asI note George Blaisdell also noted independently) I think this is theregular idiomatic use of the article in place of a reflexive pronoun orreflexive pronominal adjective: THN CEIRA = THN hEAUTOU CEIRA--or, thegenitive AUTOU which is already common enough in Koine and is regular inModern Greek = THN CEIRA AUTOU (yet I think the article is used even herewhere the hand (or whatever) belongs to the subject.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington UniversitySummer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

Greek fontsMark 3.1

Mark 3.1 Moon-Ryul Jung moon at saint.soongsil.ac.kr
Wed May 12 12:45:10 EDT 1999

Mark 3.1 Mark 3.1 [Moon]> >Thanks, Carl. Finally, Mark 3.1 makes sense to me.> > HN EKEI ANQRWPOS EXHRAMMENHN ECWN THN CEIRA.> >Based on the data you provided, I would render it as> > "There was there a man with his hand withered". (a)> [Carl]> No, I don't really think there's any particular kind of hand indicated by> the article, but rather (as I thought I'd said in the previous post, and as> I note George Blaisdell also noted independently) I think this is the> regular idiomatic use of the article in place of a reflexive pronoun or> reflexive pronominal adjective: THN CEIRA = THN hEAUTOU CEIRA--or, the> genitive AUTOU which is already common enough in Koine and is regular in> Modern Greek = THN CEIRA AUTOU (yet I think the article is used even here> where the hand (or whatever) belongs to the subject.> [Moon]Ok. I got it. But George Blaisdell thinks EXHRAMMENHN is clearly attributive.His decisions would force him to render Mk 3.1 as " There was there a man having his withered hand."But this sounds akward. As long as we take THN CEIRA as THN hEAUTOU CEIRA,I think there is NO WAY to take the participle EXHRAMMENHN as attributive.Thanks for your clarification.Moon-Ryul JungAssistant ProfessorDept of Computer ScienceSoongsil UniversitySeoul, Korea > Carl W. Conrad> Department of Classics, Washington University> Summer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243> cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu> WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

Mark 3.1Mark 3.1

Mark 3.1 Moon-Ryul Jung moon at saint.soongsil.ac.kr
Wed May 12 12:45:10 EDT 1999

Mark 3.1 Mark 3.1 [Moon]> >Thanks, Carl. Finally, Mark 3.1 makes sense to me.> > HN EKEI ANQRWPOS EXHRAMMENHN ECWN THN CEIRA.> >Based on the data you provided, I would render it as> > "There was there a man with his hand withered". (a)> [Carl]> No, I don't really think there's any particular kind of hand indicated by> the article, but rather (as I thought I'd said in the previous post, and as> I note George Blaisdell also noted independently) I think this is the> regular idiomatic use of the article in place of a reflexive pronoun or> reflexive pronominal adjective: THN CEIRA = THN hEAUTOU CEIRA--or, the> genitive AUTOU which is already common enough in Koine and is regular in> Modern Greek = THN CEIRA AUTOU (yet I think the article is used even here> where the hand (or whatever) belongs to the subject.> [Moon]Ok. I got it. But George Blaisdell thinks EXHRAMMENHN is clearly attributive.His decisions would force him to render Mk 3.1 as " There was there a man having his withered hand."But this sounds akward. As long as we take THN CEIRA as THN hEAUTOU CEIRA,I think there is NO WAY to take the participle EXHRAMMENHN as attributive.Thanks for your clarification.Moon-Ryul JungAssistant ProfessorDept of Computer ScienceSoongsil UniversitySeoul, Korea > Carl W. Conrad> Department of Classics, Washington University> Summer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243> cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu> WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

Mark 3.1Mark 3.1

Mark 3.1 George Blaisdell maqhth at hotmail.com
Wed May 12 14:02:01 EDT 1999

Mark 3.1 Mt 19:9 >From: "Moon-Ryul Jung"> > >Thanks, Carl. Finally, Mark 3.1 makes sense to me.> > > HN EKEI ANQRWPOS EXHRAMMENHN ECWN THN CEIRA.> > >Based on the data you provided, I would render it as> > > "There was there a man with his hand withered". (a)>But George Blaisdell thinks EXHRAMMENHN is clearly>attributive.>His decisions would force him to render Mk 3.1 as> >" There was there a man having his withered hand."> >But this sounds akward. As long as we take THN CEIRA as THN hEAUTOU CEIRA,>I think there is NO WAY to take the participle EXHRAMMENHN as attributive.Moon ~The key phrase is EXHRAMMENHN ECWN THN CEIRA, where ECWN ties together EXHRHMMENHN and THN CEIRA. [Just as EXHRAMMENHN ties together what preceeds and follows it.]So that 'being withered the hand' or better, 'the hand being withered' would seem to slide easily into what might be called idiomatic attribution of possession, because of ECWN, a participle that clearly 'has' [possession], yes?The possesive ECWN idiomatically 'distributes' its force to what it ties together, giving us in English "Having his hand withered", rather than 'having his withered hand.'The hand clearly has a very distinctive attribute, does it not? It is withered!! Hence EXHRAMMENHN is attributive of CIERA.Am I making any sense of this for you??George BlaisdellRoslyn, WA_______________________________________________________________Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com

Mark 3.1Mt 19:9

Mark 3.1 George Blaisdell maqhth at hotmail.com
Wed May 12 14:02:01 EDT 1999

Mark 3.1 Mt 19:9 >From: "Moon-Ryul Jung"> > >Thanks, Carl. Finally, Mark 3.1 makes sense to me.> > > HN EKEI ANQRWPOS EXHRAMMENHN ECWN THN CEIRA.> > >Based on the data you provided, I would render it as> > > "There was there a man with his hand withered". (a)>But George Blaisdell thinks EXHRAMMENHN is clearly>attributive.>His decisions would force him to render Mk 3.1 as> >" There was there a man having his withered hand."> >But this sounds akward. As long as we take THN CEIRA as THN hEAUTOU CEIRA,>I think there is NO WAY to take the participle EXHRAMMENHN as attributive.Moon ~The key phrase is EXHRAMMENHN ECWN THN CEIRA, where ECWN ties together EXHRHMMENHN and THN CEIRA. [Just as EXHRAMMENHN ties together what preceeds and follows it.]So that 'being withered the hand' or better, 'the hand being withered' would seem to slide easily into what might be called idiomatic attribution of possession, because of ECWN, a participle that clearly 'has' [possession], yes?The possesive ECWN idiomatically 'distributes' its force to what it ties together, giving us in English "Having his hand withered", rather than 'having his withered hand.'The hand clearly has a very distinctive attribute, does it not? It is withered!! Hence EXHRAMMENHN is attributive of CIERA.Am I making any sense of this for you??George BlaisdellRoslyn, WA_______________________________________________________________Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com

Mark 3.1Mt 19:9

Mark 3.1 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Wed May 12 16:32:42 EDT 1999

Mt 19:9 Mt 19:9 At 11:02 AM -0700 5/12/99, George Blaisdell wrote:>>From: "Moon-Ryul Jung"> >> > >Thanks, Carl. Finally, Mark 3.1 makes sense to me.> >> > > HN EKEI ANQRWPOS EXHRAMMENHN ECWN THN CEIRA.> >> > >Based on the data you provided, I would render it as>> > > "There was there a man with his hand withered". (a)> >>But George Blaisdell thinks EXHRAMMENHN is clearly>>attributive.>>His decisions would force him to render Mk 3.1 as>> >>" There was there a man having his withered hand.">> >>But this sounds akward. As long as we take THN CEIRA as THN hEAUTOU CEIRA,>>I think there is NO WAY to take the participle EXHRAMMENHN as attributive.> >Moon ~> >The key phrase is EXHRAMMENHN ECWN THN CEIRA, where ECWN ties together>EXHRHMMENHN and THN CEIRA. [Just as EXHRAMMENHN ties together what preceeds>and follows it.]> >So that 'being withered the hand' or better, 'the hand being withered' would>seem to slide easily into what might be called idiomatic attribution of>possession, because of ECWN, a participle that clearly 'has' [possession],>yes?> >The possesive ECWN idiomatically 'distributes' its force to what it ties>together, giving us in English "Having his hand withered", rather than>'having his withered hand.'> >The hand clearly has a very distinctive attribute, does it not? It is>withered!! Hence EXHRAMMENHN is attributive of CIERA.> >Am I making any sense of this for you??I will make my usual protest against the notion of "centrality of position"as here applied--that any word automatically "ties together" what is oneither side of it. ECWN doesn't make EXHRAMMENHN attributive. When the nounhas an article, the attribute must also have an article to be attributive.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington UniversitySummer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

Mt 19:9Mt 19:9

Mark 3.1 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Wed May 12 16:32:42 EDT 1999

Mt 19:9 Mt 19:9 At 11:02 AM -0700 5/12/99, George Blaisdell wrote:>>From: "Moon-Ryul Jung"> >> > >Thanks, Carl. Finally, Mark 3.1 makes sense to me.> >> > > HN EKEI ANQRWPOS EXHRAMMENHN ECWN THN CEIRA.> >> > >Based on the data you provided, I would render it as>> > > "There was there a man with his hand withered". (a)> >>But George Blaisdell thinks EXHRAMMENHN is clearly>>attributive.>>His decisions would force him to render Mk 3.1 as>> >>" There was there a man having his withered hand.">> >>But this sounds akward. As long as we take THN CEIRA as THN hEAUTOU CEIRA,>>I think there is NO WAY to take the participle EXHRAMMENHN as attributive.> >Moon ~> >The key phrase is EXHRAMMENHN ECWN THN CEIRA, where ECWN ties together>EXHRHMMENHN and THN CEIRA. [Just as EXHRAMMENHN ties together what preceeds>and follows it.]> >So that 'being withered the hand' or better, 'the hand being withered' would>seem to slide easily into what might be called idiomatic attribution of>possession, because of ECWN, a participle that clearly 'has' [possession],>yes?> >The possesive ECWN idiomatically 'distributes' its force to what it ties>together, giving us in English "Having his hand withered", rather than>'having his withered hand.'> >The hand clearly has a very distinctive attribute, does it not? It is>withered!! Hence EXHRAMMENHN is attributive of CIERA.> >Am I making any sense of this for you??I will make my usual protest against the notion of "centrality of position"as here applied--that any word automatically "ties together" what is oneither side of it. ECWN doesn't make EXHRAMMENHN attributive. When the nounhas an article, the attribute must also have an article to be attributive.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington UniversitySummer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

Mt 19:9Mt 19:9

Mark 3.1 Moon-Ryul Jung moon at saint.soongsil.ac.kr
Wed May 12 22:07:26 EDT 1999

Mt 19:9 Mt 19:9 Mark 3.1:HN EKEI ANQRWPOS EXHRAMMENHN ECWN THN CEIRA.[George]> >The hand clearly has a very distinctive attribute, does it not? It is> >withered!! Hence EXHRAMMENHN is attributive of CIERA.> >Objectively speaking, "withered" is an attribute of the hand in question.Whether the participle is attributive or predicative depends on how thewriter views the situation. (1) The participle is predicative if the writer firstidentifies the hand and then adds description or predication to it.(2) The participle is attributive if the participle is used to identify the hand in question.If we take THN CEIRA as "his hand", then it is already identified and the participle is "free" to be used to describe it, hence predicative. I think I would like to firmly engrave the following rule into my mind.[Carl] When the noun has an article, the attribute must also have an article to be attributive.Yes, Carl, I think this is what I wanted to know. Moon-Ryul JungAssistant ProfessorDept of Computer ScienceSoongsil UniversitySeoul, Korea

Mt 19:9Mt 19:9

Mark 3.1 Moon-Ryul Jung moon at saint.soongsil.ac.kr
Wed May 12 22:07:26 EDT 1999

Mt 19:9 Mt 19:9 Mark 3.1:HN EKEI ANQRWPOS EXHRAMMENHN ECWN THN CEIRA.[George]> >The hand clearly has a very distinctive attribute, does it not? It is> >withered!! Hence EXHRAMMENHN is attributive of CIERA.> >Objectively speaking, "withered" is an attribute of the hand in question.Whether the participle is attributive or predicative depends on how thewriter views the situation. (1) The participle is predicative if the writer firstidentifies the hand and then adds description or predication to it.(2) The participle is attributive if the participle is used to identify the hand in question.If we take THN CEIRA as "his hand", then it is already identified and the participle is "free" to be used to describe it, hence predicative. I think I would like to firmly engrave the following rule into my mind.[Carl] When the noun has an article, the attribute must also have an article to be attributive.Yes, Carl, I think this is what I wanted to know. Moon-Ryul JungAssistant ProfessorDept of Computer ScienceSoongsil UniversitySeoul, Korea

Mt 19:9Mt 19:9

Word Order: Mark 3.1 George Blaisdell maqhth at hotmail.com
Thu May 13 11:40:07 EDT 1999

Acts 1:10 Funny Greek Word Dear List-members ~I did a little exercise with these 7 words that I hope might prove of value. It has to do with the sequencing of ideas as they appear in the sentence, slowing them way down, so as to get the dramatic flavor and meaning of Greek language thinking as it exemplifies here.HN EKEI ANQRWPOS EXHRAMMENHN ECWN THN CEIRA. [Mark 3:1]HN ~ 'Was' ~ Opens the thought sequence with a verb that already engenders in the listener the question: 'Was what?' ~ 'What was?' [The tension is set.]EKEI ~ 'there' [in that place] ~ So something was 'there' ~ and the question remains: 'What??' 'What was there??' [The tension builds.]ANQRWPOS ~ Finally!! 'A man' was there. [The tension releases.]So the sequence, unlike English, requires questioning on the part of its hearer, an active participation in the thinking process. English relies on sequence, saying 'A man was there'. Greek, saying the same thing, poses it in a series of two implied questions, [EN and EKEI], answering them with the third word. [ANQRWPOS]Tnen comes EXHRAMMENHN ~ Just when you have figured out that a man was there, you are told 'being withered'... Another question! WHAT being withered?? And you are again actively engaged in the question of 'what?' being withered. [The tension re-sets, now with a little more context]So you get ECWN ~ 'Having'?? That's not 'what' is being withered!! That obviously is ANQRWPOS having ~ not being withered ~ So at this point you know that a man was there having something being withered, but you don't know what it is yet, and you are by this point very ready to receive the glad news: [The tension has escalated, including, as it now does, the previous context of this very sentence.]TON CEIRA ~ Which finally lets you know what it is that the man there is having that is withered ~ The Hand'!!!So it appears from this little straightforward and uncomplicated sentence, one that would be said without a second thought by a Koine speaker, that the sequencing of words engages the listener's active participation in the thought process of the speaker in a way that English does not do, because its word order builds in questions that are then answered, creating a tension of unanswered questions until the end, when it finally all comes together.I would further submit that every word that begs such a question is emphasized precisely because of the question it engenders. The answers to the questions are climatic, and thus have different emphasis, being cathartic of the tension of the building sequence of unanswered questions presented by the word order.What better communicative mnemonics??Our English is dull in comparison:"A man was there who had a withered hand."Yargghh!! :-)George BlaisdellRoslyn, WA_______________________________________________________________Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com

Acts 1:10Funny Greek Word

Word Order: Mark 3.1 George Blaisdell maqhth at hotmail.com
Thu May 13 11:40:07 EDT 1999

Acts 1:10 Funny Greek Word Dear List-members ~I did a little exercise with these 7 words that I hope might prove of value. It has to do with the sequencing of ideas as they appear in the sentence, slowing them way down, so as to get the dramatic flavor and meaning of Greek language thinking as it exemplifies here.HN EKEI ANQRWPOS EXHRAMMENHN ECWN THN CEIRA. [Mark 3:1]HN ~ 'Was' ~ Opens the thought sequence with a verb that already engenders in the listener the question: 'Was what?' ~ 'What was?' [The tension is set.]EKEI ~ 'there' [in that place] ~ So something was 'there' ~ and the question remains: 'What??' 'What was there??' [The tension builds.]ANQRWPOS ~ Finally!! 'A man' was there. [The tension releases.]So the sequence, unlike English, requires questioning on the part of its hearer, an active participation in the thinking process. English relies on sequence, saying 'A man was there'. Greek, saying the same thing, poses it in a series of two implied questions, [EN and EKEI], answering them with the third word. [ANQRWPOS]Tnen comes EXHRAMMENHN ~ Just when you have figured out that a man was there, you are told 'being withered'... Another question! WHAT being withered?? And you are again actively engaged in the question of 'what?' being withered. [The tension re-sets, now with a little more context]So you get ECWN ~ 'Having'?? That's not 'what' is being withered!! That obviously is ANQRWPOS having ~ not being withered ~ So at this point you know that a man was there having something being withered, but you don't know what it is yet, and you are by this point very ready to receive the glad news: [The tension has escalated, including, as it now does, the previous context of this very sentence.]TON CEIRA ~ Which finally lets you know what it is that the man there is having that is withered ~ The Hand'!!!So it appears from this little straightforward and uncomplicated sentence, one that would be said without a second thought by a Koine speaker, that the sequencing of words engages the listener's active participation in the thought process of the speaker in a way that English does not do, because its word order builds in questions that are then answered, creating a tension of unanswered questions until the end, when it finally all comes together.I would further submit that every word that begs such a question is emphasized precisely because of the question it engenders. The answers to the questions are climatic, and thus have different emphasis, being cathartic of the tension of the building sequence of unanswered questions presented by the word order.What better communicative mnemonics??Our English is dull in comparison:"A man was there who had a withered hand."Yargghh!! :-)George BlaisdellRoslyn, WA_______________________________________________________________Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com

Acts 1:10Funny Greek Word

Word Order: Mark 3.1 George Blaisdell maqhth at hotmail.com
Thu May 13 16:51:21 EDT 1999

Acts 1:10 Word Order: Mark 3.1 >From: "George Blaisdell" <maqhth at hotmail.com>>I did a little exercise with these 7 words that I hope might prove of >value.>It has to do with the sequencing of ideas as they appear in the sentence, >slowing them way down, so as to get the dramatic flavor and meaning of>Greek language thinking as it exemplifies here.> >HN EKEI ANQRWPOS EXHRAMMENHN ECWN THN CEIRA. [Mark 3:1]>HN ~ 'Was' ~ Opens the thought sequence with a verb that already engenders >in the listener the question: 'Was what?' ~ 'What was?' [The tension is >set.]>EKEI ~ 'there' [in that place] ~ So something was 'there' ~ and the>question remains: 'What??' 'What was there??' [The tension builds.]>ANQRWPOS ~ Finally!! 'A man' was there. [The tension releases.]>So the sequence, unlike English, requires questioning on the part of its >hearer, an active participation in the thinking process. English relies on >sequence, saying 'A man was there'. Greek, saying the same thing, poses it>in a series of two implied questions, [EN and EKEI], answering them with >the third word. [ANQRWPOS]>Then comes EXHRAMMENHN ~ Just when you have figured out that a man was >there, you are told 'being withered'... Another question! WHAT being >withered?? And you are again actively engaged in the question of 'what?' >being withered. [The tension re-sets, now with a little more context]>So you get ECWN ~ 'Having'?? That's not 'what' is being withered!! >That >obviously is ANQRWPOS having ~ not being withered ~ So at this point you >know that a man was there having something being >withered, but you don't >know what it is yet, and you are by this >point very ready to receive the >glad news: [The tension has >escalated, including, as it now does, the >previous context of this >very sentence.]>TON CEIRA ~ Which finally lets you know what it is that the man there is >having that is withered ~ The Hand'!!!>So it appears from this little straightforward and uncomplicated >sentence, >one that would be said without a second thought by a Koine speaker, that >the sequencing of words engages the listener's >active participation in the >thought process of the speaker in a way >that English does not do, because >its word order builds in questions that are then answered, creating a >tension of unanswered >questions until the end, when it finally all comes >together.>I would further submit that every word that begs such a question is >emphasized precisely because of the question it >engenders. The answers to >the questions are climatic, and thus have different emphasis, being >cathartic of the tension of the >building sequence of unanswered questions >presented by the word >order.I received an e-mail from an astute list-member who noted that when this sentence is approached this way, the possessive translation of the article is utterly contraindicated, because by the time we get to it, we already know WHOSE hand it is. By that point in the sentence, the only thing we are gasping for is the WHAT??? that this sentence is about! And the answer is THN CEIRA. A possessive here would be utterly redundant.Another interesting aside to this approach is the English we would employ to achieve the same effect:Something was existing. [HN]What?There. [EKEI]What was existing there?A man. [ANQRWPOS]So what that a man was existing there?Something withered. [EXHRAMMENHN]What something withered and what does that have to do with the man who was there?Something he is having. [ECWN]So what something withered is the man there having?The hand. [THN CEIRA]Oh...People who do this in English drive me crackers... Yet it is built into ordinary Greek usage through their word order... Where illiteracy makes remembering what is said so very important, and through word order the very active art of listening is inculcated. You simply cannot listen idly and understand Greek.George BlaisdellRoslyn, WA_______________________________________________________________Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com

Acts 1:10Word Order: Mark 3.1

Word Order: Mark 3.1 George Blaisdell maqhth at hotmail.com
Thu May 13 16:51:21 EDT 1999

Acts 1:10 Word Order: Mark 3.1 >From: "George Blaisdell" <maqhth at hotmail.com>>I did a little exercise with these 7 words that I hope might prove of >value.>It has to do with the sequencing of ideas as they appear in the sentence, >slowing them way down, so as to get the dramatic flavor and meaning of>Greek language thinking as it exemplifies here.> >HN EKEI ANQRWPOS EXHRAMMENHN ECWN THN CEIRA. [Mark 3:1]>HN ~ 'Was' ~ Opens the thought sequence with a verb that already engenders >in the listener the question: 'Was what?' ~ 'What was?' [The tension is >set.]>EKEI ~ 'there' [in that place] ~ So something was 'there' ~ and the>question remains: 'What??' 'What was there??' [The tension builds.]>ANQRWPOS ~ Finally!! 'A man' was there. [The tension releases.]>So the sequence, unlike English, requires questioning on the part of its >hearer, an active participation in the thinking process. English relies on >sequence, saying 'A man was there'. Greek, saying the same thing, poses it>in a series of two implied questions, [EN and EKEI], answering them with >the third word. [ANQRWPOS]>Then comes EXHRAMMENHN ~ Just when you have figured out that a man was >there, you are told 'being withered'... Another question! WHAT being >withered?? And you are again actively engaged in the question of 'what?' >being withered. [The tension re-sets, now with a little more context]>So you get ECWN ~ 'Having'?? That's not 'what' is being withered!! >That >obviously is ANQRWPOS having ~ not being withered ~ So at this point you >know that a man was there having something being >withered, but you don't >know what it is yet, and you are by this >point very ready to receive the >glad news: [The tension has >escalated, including, as it now does, the >previous context of this >very sentence.]>TON CEIRA ~ Which finally lets you know what it is that the man there is >having that is withered ~ The Hand'!!!>So it appears from this little straightforward and uncomplicated >sentence, >one that would be said without a second thought by a Koine speaker, that >the sequencing of words engages the listener's >active participation in the >thought process of the speaker in a way >that English does not do, because >its word order builds in questions that are then answered, creating a >tension of unanswered >questions until the end, when it finally all comes >together.>I would further submit that every word that begs such a question is >emphasized precisely because of the question it >engenders. The answers to >the questions are climatic, and thus have different emphasis, being >cathartic of the tension of the >building sequence of unanswered questions >presented by the word >order.I received an e-mail from an astute list-member who noted that when this sentence is approached this way, the possessive translation of the article is utterly contraindicated, because by the time we get to it, we already know WHOSE hand it is. By that point in the sentence, the only thing we are gasping for is the WHAT??? that this sentence is about! And the answer is THN CEIRA. A possessive here would be utterly redundant.Another interesting aside to this approach is the English we would employ to achieve the same effect:Something was existing. [HN]What?There. [EKEI]What was existing there?A man. [ANQRWPOS]So what that a man was existing there?Something withered. [EXHRAMMENHN]What something withered and what does that have to do with the man who was there?Something he is having. [ECWN]So what something withered is the man there having?The hand. [THN CEIRA]Oh...People who do this in English drive me crackers... Yet it is built into ordinary Greek usage through their word order... Where illiteracy makes remembering what is said so very important, and through word order the very active art of listening is inculcated. You simply cannot listen idly and understand Greek.George BlaisdellRoslyn, WA_______________________________________________________________Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com

Acts 1:10Word Order: Mark 3.1

Word Order: Mark 3.1 Moon-Ryul Jung moon at saint.soongsil.ac.kr
Thu May 13 17:37:46 EDT 1999

Word Order: Mark 3.1 Acceptable Pseudonymity? Dear George, I would agree that your "question-answer" approach to interpret sentences is reasonable because of the linear left-to-right orderof words. But it does not necessarily support your claim that the center words of a sentence are emphasized. Moon-Ryul JungAssistant ProfessorDept of Computer ScienceSoongsil UniversitySeoul, Korea

Word Order: Mark 3.1Acceptable Pseudonymity?

Word Order: Mark 3.1 Moon-Ryul Jung moon at saint.soongsil.ac.kr
Thu May 13 17:37:46 EDT 1999

Word Order: Mark 3.1 Acceptable Pseudonymity? Dear George, I would agree that your "question-answer" approach to interpret sentences is reasonable because of the linear left-to-right orderof words. But it does not necessarily support your claim that the center words of a sentence are emphasized. Moon-Ryul JungAssistant ProfessorDept of Computer ScienceSoongsil UniversitySeoul, Korea

Word Order: Mark 3.1Acceptable Pseudonymity?

Word Order: Mark 3.1 George Blaisdell maqhth at hotmail.com
Thu May 13 18:17:59 EDT 1999

Acceptable Pseudonymity? Newbie >From: "Moon-Ryul Jung">Dear George,>I would agree that your "question-answer" approach to interpret>sentences is reasonable because of the linear left-to-right order>of words.Cool!! Does that mean that the non-possesive article now makes sense as well? I did not quite have a handle on that until this little exercise came to me to do. THEN, of course, its presence is perfectly and obviously correct.>But it does not necessarily support your claim that>the center words of a sentence are emphasized.It does, but that is another topic. I am just glad that I have gotten as far as this for now!! The key to centers seems to be the tension produced by the unidentified descriptive words, and you much they integrate, and how the thought process moves from center to center. There is much yet to look at in this regard.George BlaisdellRoslyn, WA_______________________________________________________________Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com

Acceptable Pseudonymity?Newbie

Word Order: Mark 3.1 George Blaisdell maqhth at hotmail.com
Thu May 13 18:17:59 EDT 1999

Acceptable Pseudonymity? Newbie >From: "Moon-Ryul Jung">Dear George,>I would agree that your "question-answer" approach to interpret>sentences is reasonable because of the linear left-to-right order>of words.Cool!! Does that mean that the non-possesive article now makes sense as well? I did not quite have a handle on that until this little exercise came to me to do. THEN, of course, its presence is perfectly and obviously correct.>But it does not necessarily support your claim that>the center words of a sentence are emphasized.It does, but that is another topic. I am just glad that I have gotten as far as this for now!! The key to centers seems to be the tension produced by the unidentified descriptive words, and you much they integrate, and how the thought process moves from center to center. There is much yet to look at in this regard.George BlaisdellRoslyn, WA_______________________________________________________________Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com

Acceptable Pseudonymity?Newbie

Word Order: Mark 3.1 and beyond Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Fri May 14 11:00:09 EDT 1999

I Peter 1:7: Whose Praise, Glory and Honor? syntax and semantics At 3:17 PM -0700 5/13/99, George Blaisdell wrote:>>From: "Moon-Ryul Jung"> >>Dear George,> >>I would agree that your "question-answer" approach to interpret>>sentences is reasonable because of the linear left-to-right order>>of words.> >Cool!! Does that mean that the non-possesive article now makes sense as>well? I did not quite have a handle on that until this little exercise came>to me to do. THEN, of course, its presence is perfectly and obviously>correct.> >>But it does not necessarily support your claim that>>the center words of a sentence are emphasized.> >It does, but that is another topic. I am just glad that I have gotten as>far as this for now!! The key to centers seems to be the tension produced>by the unidentified descriptive words, and you much they integrate, and how>the thought process moves from center to center. There is much yet to look>at in this regard.In an off-list message to George I said much the same thing as Moon, withwhom I so heartily agree. But as I did not add to George and should have,there is indeed something very right about reading the words as they comeand linking them to each other BOTH syntactically AND morphologically AND(here come Clay Bartholomew's point in his message on Acts 1:10, I think)with idiomatic "Kennenschaft" (I don't know if that word exists in German,but what I mean to emphasize is that this is a matter of experientialrecognition rather than systematized principles or "Wissenschaft")--some ofthis idiomatic "Kennenschaft" is a matter of facts, as that a form ofESTI/HN, when it comes first in a sentence, tends to be existential, orthat a predicate adjective construed with a noun in a copulative clausetends to precede the verb ESTI, or that (pace George) the strongest pointsof emphasis in a clause are the beginning and end rather than the center).Clay is quite right that morphology and syntax by themselves are notsufficient to add up to ability to make sense of a Greek sentence (thatrequires the work of the Holy Spirit!--in one way or another--but I revealmy own bias thereby). I have observed to my consternation the failure ofsome older kinds of textbooks in Greek and Latin that emphasize morphology,rules of syntax, and vocabulary, and then offer for practice made-upsentences in the target language composed by a writer who is clearly not anative-thinker in the target language. I've seen bright students who'velearned the morphology, syntax, and vocabulary still stumble over makingsense of the sentences and fall flat on their figurative faces whenattempting to tackle a connected passage in the target language. There issomething intuitive, something that I think is implicit in the Greekperfect tense OIDA, which must, I think, originally derive from the waywhat one has SEEN repeatedly and not overlooked (e.g., Odysseus POLLWNANQRWPWN IDEN ASTEA KAI NOON EGNW) contributes to an aggregate of what thegreatest of the British empiricists (?), Hume, called "the custom and habitof confident expectation"--the principle being: "If you've seen it twiceand three times, expect to see it a fourth." I think this is the way welearn our native languages and I think that only when it comes into play inthe learning of a foreign language can we know we are making progress inthat language. But there are lots and lots of these idiomatic elements, andthey involve a variety of things, including word-order, idiomaticexpressions linking two or more words in a pattern which users recognize.But to get back to George's point: I've often thought that it would be aworthwhile exercise--something very easy to create with a computerprogram--to display sentences of Greek (or Latin or whatever language) on ascreen one word at a time beginning with the first word and then insuccessive screens cumulatively adding words or phrases--this as a deviceto facilitate learning to think in the alien word-order. Eventually themore appropriate thing, once one is able to do it, is to listen to thesentence (or paragraph) sounded/spoken word-by-word, phrase-by-phrase, sothat one hears and puts together the sentence as does the native speakerand hearer of that language.There's one fact of particular importance in this that is missed by modernlearners of an ancient language who are responding primarily to a printedtext of Greek or Latin (or Hebrew) as a visual stimulus rather than anaural one: language is primarily a spoken instrument and only aftercenturies or millennia has it become a written instrument, howeverfundamentally important we may deem the written language. But IF Greek--andany other language ever spoken--is/was primarily a spoken language, thenthe order in which words are HEARD is far more important than the order inwhich words are SEEN/ENVISIONED on a printed page. This is why centralityof position can't really be a very important element in prose (although itcertainly may be in stichic verse, as Latin hexameters reveal marvelously).When one is listening to another speak, the place of greatest emphasis isreally going to be the beginning and the end of the sequence of words.And a word about chiasmus here; when we use it we're sometimes talkingabout a poetic or rhetorical device of arranging word groups in an ABB'A'pattern, but I think (but can't be dogmatic about this) that it originatesas a mnemonic device for ticking off details in an account (LOGOS in itsoriginal sense of making a tally of items): first this, next that, thirdthe other thing: I do X with the other thing, I do Y with that, and I do Zwith this. This is really something very primitive--as primitive asBOUSTROFHDON, writing one line from left to right and the next line fromright to left and so forth, as an ox plows rows (i.e. BOUSTROFHDON). It's amatter of starting at one end and going to the other end, starting a newfrom the far end and coming back to the original starting point. Centralityhas nothing to do with this verbal/aural device as such; centrality is anaesthetic visual matter--and that's why I think it is wrong to make so muchof centrality of position in the word-order of a Greek sentence--which isnot to say, of course, that the sandwiching of an attributive word betweenarticle and noun is not an important point--but the point ther is enclosurerather than centrality.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington UniversitySummer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

I Peter 1:7: Whose Praise, Glory and Honor?syntax and semantics

Word Order: Mark 3.1 and beyond Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Fri May 14 11:00:09 EDT 1999

I Peter 1:7: Whose Praise, Glory and Honor? syntax and semantics At 3:17 PM -0700 5/13/99, George Blaisdell wrote:>>From: "Moon-Ryul Jung"> >>Dear George,> >>I would agree that your "question-answer" approach to interpret>>sentences is reasonable because of the linear left-to-right order>>of words.> >Cool!! Does that mean that the non-possesive article now makes sense as>well? I did not quite have a handle on that until this little exercise came>to me to do. THEN, of course, its presence is perfectly and obviously>correct.> >>But it does not necessarily support your claim that>>the center words of a sentence are emphasized.> >It does, but that is another topic. I am just glad that I have gotten as>far as this for now!! The key to centers seems to be the tension produced>by the unidentified descriptive words, and you much they integrate, and how>the thought process moves from center to center. There is much yet to look>at in this regard.In an off-list message to George I said much the same thing as Moon, withwhom I so heartily agree. But as I did not add to George and should have,there is indeed something very right about reading the words as they comeand linking them to each other BOTH syntactically AND morphologically AND(here come Clay Bartholomew's point in his message on Acts 1:10, I think)with idiomatic "Kennenschaft" (I don't know if that word exists in German,but what I mean to emphasize is that this is a matter of experientialrecognition rather than systematized principles or "Wissenschaft")--some ofthis idiomatic "Kennenschaft" is a matter of facts, as that a form ofESTI/HN, when it comes first in a sentence, tends to be existential, orthat a predicate adjective construed with a noun in a copulative clausetends to precede the verb ESTI, or that (pace George) the strongest pointsof emphasis in a clause are the beginning and end rather than the center).Clay is quite right that morphology and syntax by themselves are notsufficient to add up to ability to make sense of a Greek sentence (thatrequires the work of the Holy Spirit!--in one way or another--but I revealmy own bias thereby). I have observed to my consternation the failure ofsome older kinds of textbooks in Greek and Latin that emphasize morphology,rules of syntax, and vocabulary, and then offer for practice made-upsentences in the target language composed by a writer who is clearly not anative-thinker in the target language. I've seen bright students who'velearned the morphology, syntax, and vocabulary still stumble over makingsense of the sentences and fall flat on their figurative faces whenattempting to tackle a connected passage in the target language. There issomething intuitive, something that I think is implicit in the Greekperfect tense OIDA, which must, I think, originally derive from the waywhat one has SEEN repeatedly and not overlooked (e.g., Odysseus POLLWNANQRWPWN IDEN ASTEA KAI NOON EGNW) contributes to an aggregate of what thegreatest of the British empiricists (?), Hume, called "the custom and habitof confident expectation"--the principle being: "If you've seen it twiceand three times, expect to see it a fourth." I think this is the way welearn our native languages and I think that only when it comes into play inthe learning of a foreign language can we know we are making progress inthat language. But there are lots and lots of these idiomatic elements, andthey involve a variety of things, including word-order, idiomaticexpressions linking two or more words in a pattern which users recognize.But to get back to George's point: I've often thought that it would be aworthwhile exercise--something very easy to create with a computerprogram--to display sentences of Greek (or Latin or whatever language) on ascreen one word at a time beginning with the first word and then insuccessive screens cumulatively adding words or phrases--this as a deviceto facilitate learning to think in the alien word-order. Eventually themore appropriate thing, once one is able to do it, is to listen to thesentence (or paragraph) sounded/spoken word-by-word, phrase-by-phrase, sothat one hears and puts together the sentence as does the native speakerand hearer of that language.There's one fact of particular importance in this that is missed by modernlearners of an ancient language who are responding primarily to a printedtext of Greek or Latin (or Hebrew) as a visual stimulus rather than anaural one: language is primarily a spoken instrument and only aftercenturies or millennia has it become a written instrument, howeverfundamentally important we may deem the written language. But IF Greek--andany other language ever spoken--is/was primarily a spoken language, thenthe order in which words are HEARD is far more important than the order inwhich words are SEEN/ENVISIONED on a printed page. This is why centralityof position can't really be a very important element in prose (although itcertainly may be in stichic verse, as Latin hexameters reveal marvelously).When one is listening to another speak, the place of greatest emphasis isreally going to be the beginning and the end of the sequence of words.And a word about chiasmus here; when we use it we're sometimes talkingabout a poetic or rhetorical device of arranging word groups in an ABB'A'pattern, but I think (but can't be dogmatic about this) that it originatesas a mnemonic device for ticking off details in an account (LOGOS in itsoriginal sense of making a tally of items): first this, next that, thirdthe other thing: I do X with the other thing, I do Y with that, and I do Zwith this. This is really something very primitive--as primitive asBOUSTROFHDON, writing one line from left to right and the next line fromright to left and so forth, as an ox plows rows (i.e. BOUSTROFHDON). It's amatter of starting at one end and going to the other end, starting a newfrom the far end and coming back to the original starting point. Centralityhas nothing to do with this verbal/aural device as such; centrality is anaesthetic visual matter--and that's why I think it is wrong to make so muchof centrality of position in the word-order of a Greek sentence--which isnot to say, of course, that the sandwiching of an attributive word betweenarticle and noun is not an important point--but the point ther is enclosurerather than centrality.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington UniversitySummer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

I Peter 1:7: Whose Praise, Glory and Honor?syntax and semantics

Word Order: Mark 3.1 and beyond TonyProst at aol.com TonyProst at aol.com
Fri May 14 12:14:34 EDT 1999

syntax and semantics I Peter 1:7: Whose Praise, Glory and Honor? Carl said: This is why centralityof position can't really be a very important element in prose (although itcertainly may be in stichic verse, as Latin hexameters reveal marvelously).When one is listening to another speak, the place of greatest emphasis isreally going to be the beginning and the end of the sequence of words.********Please briefly expand on this first sentence, particularly the parenthesis! I have been reading with great interest this set of correspondences, but as I deal chiefly with verse, it has served to distinguish my text from the ur-text. Nonnos certainly uses lines as structural units, rarely extending a predicate or adjective into the next line from its object. He also frequently constructs symmetrical lines, in which the subject or the verb will be the central word, and its attributes symmetrically divided around it, often with a dative adjective and its associated participle at one end of the line and the other, with another pair of predicates nested between them, surrounding the main word.Is there any recognizable or even arguable GREEK metrical verse in any of the Koine NT?Regards,Tony ProstAll Nonnos All Dayhttp://members.aol.com/tonyprost/index.html

syntax and semanticsI Peter 1:7: Whose Praise, Glory and Honor?

Word Order: Mark 3.1 and beyond TonyProst at aol.com TonyProst at aol.com
Fri May 14 12:14:34 EDT 1999

syntax and semantics I Peter 1:7: Whose Praise, Glory and Honor? Carl said: This is why centralityof position can't really be a very important element in prose (although itcertainly may be in stichic verse, as Latin hexameters reveal marvelously).When one is listening to another speak, the place of greatest emphasis isreally going to be the beginning and the end of the sequence of words.********Please briefly expand on this first sentence, particularly the parenthesis! I have been reading with great interest this set of correspondences, but as I deal chiefly with verse, it has served to distinguish my text from the ur-text. Nonnos certainly uses lines as structural units, rarely extending a predicate or adjective into the next line from its object. He also frequently constructs symmetrical lines, in which the subject or the verb will be the central word, and its attributes symmetrically divided around it, often with a dative adjective and its associated participle at one end of the line and the other, with another pair of predicates nested between them, surrounding the main word.Is there any recognizable or even arguable GREEK metrical verse in any of the Koine NT?Regards,Tony ProstAll Nonnos All Dayhttp://members.aol.com/tonyprost/index.html

syntax and semanticsI Peter 1:7: Whose Praise, Glory and Honor?

Word Order: Mark 3.1 and beyond George Blaisdell maqhth at hotmail.com
Fri May 14 15:25:24 EDT 1999

web page searching Word Order: Mark 3.1 and beyond >From: "Carl W. Conrad">But as I did not add to George and should have,>there is indeed something very right about reading the words as they come>and linking them to each other BOTH syntactically AND morphologicallyThank-you, Carl ~I was fearing for the baby in the bathwater!>AND...this is a matter of experiential>recognition rather than systematized principles... a matter of facts, as that a form of>ESTI/HN, when it comes first in a sentence, tends to be existential, or>that a predicate adjective construed with a noun in a copulative clause tends to precede the verb ESTI,Yes>or that (pace George) the strongest points>of emphasis in a clause are the beginning and end rather than the center).And perhaps we might refocus a bit here, for I have doubtless overstated the relative importance of the center ~ Better might be the focus that simply seeks to assign the functions of the various words as they appear in the sentence vis-a-vis their position, rather than inflame them, as I have been doing, with terms like "most important" etc. A pattern of positional functioning of words will either emerge, or it won't, on this more neutralized, [less rhetorical - Sorry for being so pushy!], approach.Blessed are the peacemakers ~ "pace"makers?? :-)>Clay is quite right that morphology and syntax by themselves are not>sufficient to add up to ability to make sense of a Greek sentence (that>requires the work of the Holy Spirit!--in one way or another-->but I reveal my own bias thereby).Not an unshared bias... :-)>I've often thought that it would be a>worthwhile exercise--something very easy to create with a computer>program--to display sentences of Greek (or Latin or whatever >language) on a>screen one word at a time beginning with the first word and then in successive screens cumulatively adding words or phrases-->this as a device to facilitate learning to think in the alien >word-order.The simplicity of this approach, and its utter groundedness in what actually occurs through the appearance of the words as they occur indeed has much to offer. I am a little abashed that it didn't occur to me previously.>IF Greek--and>any other language ever spoken--is/was primarily a spoken language, then>the order in which words are HEARD is far more important than the order in>which words are SEEN/ENVISIONED on a printed page.AMHN to that! Let's see where it leads...But later for me!!George BlaisdellRoslyn, WA_______________________________________________________________Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com

web page searchingWord Order: Mark 3.1 and beyond

Word Order: Mark 3.1 and beyond George Blaisdell maqhth at hotmail.com
Fri May 14 15:25:24 EDT 1999

web page searching Word Order: Mark 3.1 and beyond >From: "Carl W. Conrad">But as I did not add to George and should have,>there is indeed something very right about reading the words as they come>and linking them to each other BOTH syntactically AND morphologicallyThank-you, Carl ~I was fearing for the baby in the bathwater!>AND...this is a matter of experiential>recognition rather than systematized principles... a matter of facts, as that a form of>ESTI/HN, when it comes first in a sentence, tends to be existential, or>that a predicate adjective construed with a noun in a copulative clause tends to precede the verb ESTI,Yes>or that (pace George) the strongest points>of emphasis in a clause are the beginning and end rather than the center).And perhaps we might refocus a bit here, for I have doubtless overstated the relative importance of the center ~ Better might be the focus that simply seeks to assign the functions of the various words as they appear in the sentence vis-a-vis their position, rather than inflame them, as I have been doing, with terms like "most important" etc. A pattern of positional functioning of words will either emerge, or it won't, on this more neutralized, [less rhetorical - Sorry for being so pushy!], approach.Blessed are the peacemakers ~ "pace"makers?? :-)>Clay is quite right that morphology and syntax by themselves are not>sufficient to add up to ability to make sense of a Greek sentence (that>requires the work of the Holy Spirit!--in one way or another-->but I reveal my own bias thereby).Not an unshared bias... :-)>I've often thought that it would be a>worthwhile exercise--something very easy to create with a computer>program--to display sentences of Greek (or Latin or whatever >language) on a>screen one word at a time beginning with the first word and then in successive screens cumulatively adding words or phrases-->this as a device to facilitate learning to think in the alien >word-order.The simplicity of this approach, and its utter groundedness in what actually occurs through the appearance of the words as they occur indeed has much to offer. I am a little abashed that it didn't occur to me previously.>IF Greek--and>any other language ever spoken--is/was primarily a spoken language, then>the order in which words are HEARD is far more important than the order in>which words are SEEN/ENVISIONED on a printed page.AMHN to that! Let's see where it leads...But later for me!!George BlaisdellRoslyn, WA_______________________________________________________________Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com

web page searchingWord Order: Mark 3.1 and beyond

Word Order: Mark 3.1 and beyond Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Fri May 14 15:43:28 EDT 1999

Word Order: Mark 3.1 and beyond Acts 3:16 At 12:14 PM -0400 5/14/99, TonyProst at aol.com wrote:>Carl said:> > This is why centrality>of position can't really be a very important element in prose (although it>certainly may be in stichic verse, as Latin hexameters reveal marvelously).>When one is listening to another speak, the place of greatest emphasis is>really going to be the beginning and the end of the sequence of words.> >********> >Please briefly expand on this first sentence, particularly the parenthesis! I>have been reading with great interest this set of correspondences, but as I>deal chiefly with verse, it has served to distinguish my text from the>ur-text. Nonnos certainly uses lines as structural units, rarely extending a>predicate or adjective into the next line from its object. He also frequently>constructs symmetrical lines, in which the subject or the verb will be the>central word, and its attributes symmetrically divided around it, often with>a dative adjective and its associated participle at one end of the line and>the other, with another pair of predicates nested between them, surrounding>the main word.> >Is there any recognizable or even arguable GREEK metrical verse in>any of the Koine NT?Here's the opening of Aratus' Phaenomena, the beginning of the fifth verseof which Paul is made by Luke to cite in Acts 17:28:EK DIOS ARCWMESQA, TON OUDEPOT' ANDRES EWMENARRHTON; MESTAI DE DIOS PASAI MEN AGUIAI,PASAI D' ANQRWPWN AGORAI, MESTH DE QALASSAKAI LIMENES; PANTH DE DIOS KECRHMEQA PANTES.TOU GAR KAI GENOS ESMEN."From Zeus let us begin, whom never we men should leaveunspoken (of); filled with Zeus are all the streets,all men's gathering-places, filled too the seaand harbors; absolutely of Zeus do we all have need.Of him, after all, even kindred are we.In one sense, one can see that DIOS is central to lines 2 and 4; althoughit might be a bit more accurate to say that it falls immediately before thefourth-foot caesura in these lines; of course there is threefold repetitionof DIOS as there is repetition with case-change ('polyptoton') ofMESTAI/MESTH and PASAI/PASAI/PANTH. In general one would have to say,however, that line-beginning and ends and colon-beginnings and ends,particularly as marked off by the rhythmic structure of the hexameter line,are more inmportant in the Greek hexameter than is centrality. Centralityis more significant in the so-called interlocked "Golden Lines" whichDryden described as "a pair of adjectives and a pair of nouns with a verbin the middle to keep the peace." e.g., Vergil, Eclogues 1.34(aesthetically this line is a unit, but syntactically it is part of alarger structure): pinguis et ingratae premeretur caseus urbi ...Here the adjective 'pinguis' construes with the noun 'caseus' to constitutethe subject of 'premeretur' while ingratae construes with urbi as a dativeindirect object of 'premeretur': "... and rich cheese was pressed for thethankless town ..." Here too one would have to say that although the verbis central, the heavy stress in this sort of Latin verse structure is onthe adjectives that lead off the parade.The only other hexameter cited in the GNT is in letter to Titus (1:12): aline from Epimenides' De Oraculis evidently modeled on a line in Hesiod'saccount of the epiphany of the Muses to himself in the Theogony:KRHTES AEI YEUSTAI, KAKA QHRIA, GASTERES ARGAI"Cretans are always liars, foul beasts, lazy bellies."Of the word-order here there's not an awful lot to say. Like Hesiod's original,POIMENES AGRAULOI, KAK' ELEGCEA, GASTERES OION"Herdsmen rustic, foul reproaches, bellies only ..."the three vocatives fall into metrical cola marked by the caesura of thethird foot and the bucolic diaeresis at the end of the fourth. As foremphasis in the line of Epimenides, I'd say it falls upon YEUSTAI mostheavily because of the pause created by the central caesura there, thenthere's the chiastic phrase with the emphatic adjectives KAKA and ARGAI atthe beginning and end of the entire group.The only reason I can readily talk about this is that this was the topic ofmy doctoral dissertation several decades ago. If you want to see it, it'spublished by Garland Press in a revised edition as "From Epic to Lyric:Traditional Patterns of Word-Order in Greek and Latin Poetry" in the series"Harvard Dissertations in the Classics." I warn you, however, it's boringand statistical.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington UniversitySummer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

Word Order: Mark 3.1 and beyondActs 3:16

Word Order: Mark 3.1 and beyond George Blaisdell maqhth at hotmail.com
Fri May 14 15:28:48 EDT 1999

Word Order: Mark 3.1 and beyond Word Order: Mark 3.1 and beyond >From: "Carl W. Conrad">But as I did not add to George and should have,>there is indeed something very right about reading the words as they come>and linking them to each other BOTH syntactically AND morphologicallyThank-you, Carl ~I was fearing for the baby in the bathwater!>AND...this is a matter of experiential>recognition rather than systematized principles... a matter of facts, as that a form of>ESTI/HN, when it comes first in a sentence, tends to be existential, or>that a predicate adjective construed with a noun in a copulative clause tends to precede the verb ESTI,Yes>or that (pace George) the strongest points>of emphasis in a clause are the beginning and end rather than the center).And perhaps we might refocus a bit here, for I have doubtless overstated the relative importance of the center ~ Better might be the focus that simply seeks to assign the functions of the various words as they appear in the sentence vis-a-vis their position, rather than inflame them, as I have been doing, with terms like "most important" etc. A pattern of positional functioning of words will either emerge, or it won't, on this more neutralized, [less rhetorical - Sorry for being so pushy!], approach.Blessed are the peacemakers ~ "pace"makers?? :-)>Clay is quite right that morphology and syntax by themselves are not>sufficient to add up to ability to make sense of a Greek sentence (that>requires the work of the Holy Spirit!--in one way or another-->but I reveal my own bias thereby).Not an unshared bias... :-)>I've often thought that it would be a>worthwhile exercise--something very easy to create with a computer>program--to display sentences of Greek (or Latin or whatever >language) on a>screen one word at a time beginning with the first word and then in successive screens cumulatively adding words or phrases-->this as a device to facilitate learning to think in the alien >word-order.The simplicity of this approach, and its utter groundedness in what actually occurs through the appearance of the words as they occur indeed has much to offer. I am a little abashed that it didn't occur to me previously.>IF Greek--and>any other language ever spoken--is/was primarily a spoken language, then>the order in which words are HEARD is far more important than the order in>which words are SEEN/ENVISIONED on a printed page.AMHN to that! Let's see where it leads...But later for me!!George BlaisdellRoslyn, WA_______________________________________________________________Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com

Word Order: Mark 3.1 and beyondWord Order: Mark 3.1 and beyond

Word Order: Mark 3.1 and beyond Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Fri May 14 15:43:28 EDT 1999

Word Order: Mark 3.1 and beyond Acts 3:16 At 12:14 PM -0400 5/14/99, TonyProst at aol.com wrote:>Carl said:> > This is why centrality>of position can't really be a very important element in prose (although it>certainly may be in stichic verse, as Latin hexameters reveal marvelously).>When one is listening to another speak, the place of greatest emphasis is>really going to be the beginning and the end of the sequence of words.> >********> >Please briefly expand on this first sentence, particularly the parenthesis! I>have been reading with great interest this set of correspondences, but as I>deal chiefly with verse, it has served to distinguish my text from the>ur-text. Nonnos certainly uses lines as structural units, rarely extending a>predicate or adjective into the next line from its object. He also frequently>constructs symmetrical lines, in which the subject or the verb will be the>central word, and its attributes symmetrically divided around it, often with>a dative adjective and its associated participle at one end of the line and>the other, with another pair of predicates nested between them, surrounding>the main word.> >Is there any recognizable or even arguable GREEK metrical verse in>any of the Koine NT?Here's the opening of Aratus' Phaenomena, the beginning of the fifth verseof which Paul is made by Luke to cite in Acts 17:28:EK DIOS ARCWMESQA, TON OUDEPOT' ANDRES EWMENARRHTON; MESTAI DE DIOS PASAI MEN AGUIAI,PASAI D' ANQRWPWN AGORAI, MESTH DE QALASSAKAI LIMENES; PANTH DE DIOS KECRHMEQA PANTES.TOU GAR KAI GENOS ESMEN."From Zeus let us begin, whom never we men should leaveunspoken (of); filled with Zeus are all the streets,all men's gathering-places, filled too the seaand harbors; absolutely of Zeus do we all have need.Of him, after all, even kindred are we.In one sense, one can see that DIOS is central to lines 2 and 4; althoughit might be a bit more accurate to say that it falls immediately before thefourth-foot caesura in these lines; of course there is threefold repetitionof DIOS as there is repetition with case-change ('polyptoton') ofMESTAI/MESTH and PASAI/PASAI/PANTH. In general one would have to say,however, that line-beginning and ends and colon-beginnings and ends,particularly as marked off by the rhythmic structure of the hexameter line,are more inmportant in the Greek hexameter than is centrality. Centralityis more significant in the so-called interlocked "Golden Lines" whichDryden described as "a pair of adjectives and a pair of nouns with a verbin the middle to keep the peace." e.g., Vergil, Eclogues 1.34(aesthetically this line is a unit, but syntactically it is part of alarger structure): pinguis et ingratae premeretur caseus urbi ...Here the adjective 'pinguis' construes with the noun 'caseus' to constitutethe subject of 'premeretur' while ingratae construes with urbi as a dativeindirect object of 'premeretur': "... and rich cheese was pressed for thethankless town ..." Here too one would have to say that although the verbis central, the heavy stress in this sort of Latin verse structure is onthe adjectives that lead off the parade.The only other hexameter cited in the GNT is in letter to Titus (1:12): aline from Epimenides' De Oraculis evidently modeled on a line in Hesiod'saccount of the epiphany of the Muses to himself in the Theogony:KRHTES AEI YEUSTAI, KAKA QHRIA, GASTERES ARGAI"Cretans are always liars, foul beasts, lazy bellies."Of the word-order here there's not an awful lot to say. Like Hesiod's original,POIMENES AGRAULOI, KAK' ELEGCEA, GASTERES OION"Herdsmen rustic, foul reproaches, bellies only ..."the three vocatives fall into metrical cola marked by the caesura of thethird foot and the bucolic diaeresis at the end of the fourth. As foremphasis in the line of Epimenides, I'd say it falls upon YEUSTAI mostheavily because of the pause created by the central caesura there, thenthere's the chiastic phrase with the emphatic adjectives KAKA and ARGAI atthe beginning and end of the entire group.The only reason I can readily talk about this is that this was the topic ofmy doctoral dissertation several decades ago. If you want to see it, it'spublished by Garland Press in a revised edition as "From Epic to Lyric:Traditional Patterns of Word-Order in Greek and Latin Poetry" in the series"Harvard Dissertations in the Classics." I warn you, however, it's boringand statistical.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington UniversitySummer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

Word Order: Mark 3.1 and beyondActs 3:16

Word Order: Mark 3.1 and beyond George Blaisdell maqhth at hotmail.com
Fri May 14 15:28:48 EDT 1999

Word Order: Mark 3.1 and beyond Word Order: Mark 3.1 and beyond >From: "Carl W. Conrad">But as I did not add to George and should have,>there is indeed something very right about reading the words as they come>and linking them to each other BOTH syntactically AND morphologicallyThank-you, Carl ~I was fearing for the baby in the bathwater!>AND...this is a matter of experiential>recognition rather than systematized principles... a matter of facts, as that a form of>ESTI/HN, when it comes first in a sentence, tends to be existential, or>that a predicate adjective construed with a noun in a copulative clause tends to precede the verb ESTI,Yes>or that (pace George) the strongest points>of emphasis in a clause are the beginning and end rather than the center).And perhaps we might refocus a bit here, for I have doubtless overstated the relative importance of the center ~ Better might be the focus that simply seeks to assign the functions of the various words as they appear in the sentence vis-a-vis their position, rather than inflame them, as I have been doing, with terms like "most important" etc. A pattern of positional functioning of words will either emerge, or it won't, on this more neutralized, [less rhetorical - Sorry for being so pushy!], approach.Blessed are the peacemakers ~ "pace"makers?? :-)>Clay is quite right that morphology and syntax by themselves are not>sufficient to add up to ability to make sense of a Greek sentence (that>requires the work of the Holy Spirit!--in one way or another-->but I reveal my own bias thereby).Not an unshared bias... :-)>I've often thought that it would be a>worthwhile exercise--something very easy to create with a computer>program--to display sentences of Greek (or Latin or whatever >language) on a>screen one word at a time beginning with the first word and then in successive screens cumulatively adding words or phrases-->this as a device to facilitate learning to think in the alien >word-order.The simplicity of this approach, and its utter groundedness in what actually occurs through the appearance of the words as they occur indeed has much to offer. I am a little abashed that it didn't occur to me previously.>IF Greek--and>any other language ever spoken--is/was primarily a spoken language, then>the order in which words are HEARD is far more important than the order in>which words are SEEN/ENVISIONED on a printed page.AMHN to that! Let's see where it leads...But later for me!!George BlaisdellRoslyn, WA_______________________________________________________________Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com

Word Order: Mark 3.1 and beyondWord Order: Mark 3.1 and beyond

Word Order Signifigance: Mark 3.1 George Blaisdell maqhth at hotmail.com
Sun May 16 00:40:42 EDT 1999

God's glory and human glory Greek Resources on CD HN EKEI ANQRWPOS EXHRAMMENHN ECWN THN CEIRA. [Mark 3:1]A fun thing about a literal rending of this sentence is that it sounds like the beginning of a limmerick:Was existing in that place a manBeing withered is having the handAny takers??? :-)The first three words form a sub-unit of this sentence, because they could stand alone without the rest.1} The first word announces something existing, and alerts us that whatever this existent might be, its existence is the main focus of this sentence. It is the beginning of the first sub-unit of thought of this sentence, as well as the first word of the whole sentence. It remains in focus throughout the entire sentence with every word it.2} The second word, the middle of this sub-unit, connects the sentence to the sentence previous to it ~ Thus it locates this existent [to be disclosed] in its spatial relationship to the previously indicated 'place'. English often would place this word first in the sentence, establishing the chain of linkage of narration from tail to head, so to speak. Not the Greek here. The linkage is in the center of the 'head', and not at its beginning. It is mildly stressed by not anwsering the implied question of HN with an existent, or a DE, but with a 'where'...3} The third word answers the question posed by HN, finishing the sub-unit's thought. The existent indicated by HN is a man. Its stress is the catharsis it provides by naming the existent announced by HN.4} The fourth word has two positions ~ it is the beginning of the second half of the sentence, and as well is the middle of the sentence as a whole. And it is an adjectival participle, that does NOT modify ANQRWPOS, setting another [huge] question in the attentiveness of the listener, for he must assume that it is something, and has to wonder what it might be, since the context is only a man esisting in a place. It could be anything!5} The fifth word gives the listener the next clue as to what is withered. [The first being that it has to do with the man 'there' in some way not indicated.] It tells the listener that whatever is 'being withered' is something that the man 'there' is 'having'. It is the middle word of the second half of the sentence, and like the middle word of the first half of the sentence, it does NOT answer the issue raised by 'being withered', and instead ADDS TO the tension of the whole sentence by NOT answering it. And by now, having given us all these 'lead ins', that would make a good comedy routine in English, the final term's road has been made straight! :-)6-7] THN CEIRA ~ The hand ~ Emphasized greatly by its great cathartic service to the building tension of the narrative flow. I have wondered if the article is there because of this function ~ A kind of "And what do you think that might BE??? Hhmmm?? Why, my friend, it is THE HAND!!" [I gotta watch these stray thoughts! :-) ]Contra-Carl, at least in this common little narrative sentence, the importance of the center can be seen in the following way:1 ~ There is nothing unusual about there being a man in that place.2 ~ Nor is there anything unusual about him having hands.3 ~ What is unusual is that this hand of his is withered.4 ~ And it is precisely this witheredness that is the point of this sentence, right there in the middle.5 ~ And it is the witheredness of this hand that will be the focus of the sentence[s] that follow, thus lending support to the idea that Greek thought moves from center to center, with respect to its word order.6 ~ The three 'center' words in this sentence all seem to confirm this approach, even the last ECWN, which links the man to the hand, and is found in the center of the second half of the sentence, just as ECEI, found in the center of the first half of the sentence. links up to what preceded IT...7 ~ All three are stressed not by their 'position' only, but as well by the fact that none answer the natural questions forced by the sequence of the words themselves.Now lemme hear some limmericks!! :-)GeorgeGeorge BlaisdellRoslyn, WA_______________________________________________________________Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com

God's glory and human gloryGreek Resources on CD

Word Order Signifigance: Mark 3.1 George Blaisdell maqhth at hotmail.com
Sun May 16 00:40:42 EDT 1999

God's glory and human glory Greek Resources on CD HN EKEI ANQRWPOS EXHRAMMENHN ECWN THN CEIRA. [Mark 3:1]A fun thing about a literal rending of this sentence is that it sounds like the beginning of a limmerick:Was existing in that place a manBeing withered is having the handAny takers??? :-)The first three words form a sub-unit of this sentence, because they could stand alone without the rest.1} The first word announces something existing, and alerts us that whatever this existent might be, its existence is the main focus of this sentence. It is the beginning of the first sub-unit of thought of this sentence, as well as the first word of the whole sentence. It remains in focus throughout the entire sentence with every word it.2} The second word, the middle of this sub-unit, connects the sentence to the sentence previous to it ~ Thus it locates this existent [to be disclosed] in its spatial relationship to the previously indicated 'place'. English often would place this word first in the sentence, establishing the chain of linkage of narration from tail to head, so to speak. Not the Greek here. The linkage is in the center of the 'head', and not at its beginning. It is mildly stressed by not anwsering the implied question of HN with an existent, or a DE, but with a 'where'...3} The third word answers the question posed by HN, finishing the sub-unit's thought. The existent indicated by HN is a man. Its stress is the catharsis it provides by naming the existent announced by HN.4} The fourth word has two positions ~ it is the beginning of the second half of the sentence, and as well is the middle of the sentence as a whole. And it is an adjectival participle, that does NOT modify ANQRWPOS, setting another [huge] question in the attentiveness of the listener, for he must assume that it is something, and has to wonder what it might be, since the context is only a man esisting in a place. It could be anything!5} The fifth word gives the listener the next clue as to what is withered. [The first being that it has to do with the man 'there' in some way not indicated.] It tells the listener that whatever is 'being withered' is something that the man 'there' is 'having'. It is the middle word of the second half of the sentence, and like the middle word of the first half of the sentence, it does NOT answer the issue raised by 'being withered', and instead ADDS TO the tension of the whole sentence by NOT answering it. And by now, having given us all these 'lead ins', that would make a good comedy routine in English, the final term's road has been made straight! :-)6-7] THN CEIRA ~ The hand ~ Emphasized greatly by its great cathartic service to the building tension of the narrative flow. I have wondered if the article is there because of this function ~ A kind of "And what do you think that might BE??? Hhmmm?? Why, my friend, it is THE HAND!!" [I gotta watch these stray thoughts! :-) ]Contra-Carl, at least in this common little narrative sentence, the importance of the center can be seen in the following way:1 ~ There is nothing unusual about there being a man in that place.2 ~ Nor is there anything unusual about him having hands.3 ~ What is unusual is that this hand of his is withered.4 ~ And it is precisely this witheredness that is the point of this sentence, right there in the middle.5 ~ And it is the witheredness of this hand that will be the focus of the sentence[s] that follow, thus lending support to the idea that Greek thought moves from center to center, with respect to its word order.6 ~ The three 'center' words in this sentence all seem to confirm this approach, even the last ECWN, which links the man to the hand, and is found in the center of the second half of the sentence, just as ECEI, found in the center of the first half of the sentence. links up to what preceded IT...7 ~ All three are stressed not by their 'position' only, but as well by the fact that none answer the natural questions forced by the sequence of the words themselves.Now lemme hear some limmericks!! :-)GeorgeGeorge BlaisdellRoslyn, WA_______________________________________________________________Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com

God's glory and human gloryGreek Resources on CD

Limerick: Mark 3.1 George Blaisdell maqhth at hotmail.com
Sun May 16 14:21:59 EDT 1999

Dative Participle Luke 8:27 Dative Participle Luke 8:27 After great wresting and gnatsching of teeth...Was existing in that place a man,Being withered is having the hand.No hope did he haveFor his hand's healing salve,'Til the AnnointedHis ointmentDid stand.I know the drill ~Yaargh!! Delete!! Quick!! :+)George BlaisdellRoslyn, WA_______________________________________________________________Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com

Dative Participle Luke 8:27Dative Participle Luke 8:27

Limerick: Mark 3.1 George Blaisdell maqhth at hotmail.com
Sun May 16 14:21:59 EDT 1999

Dative Participle Luke 8:27 Dative Participle Luke 8:27 After great wresting and gnatsching of teeth...Was existing in that place a man,Being withered is having the hand.No hope did he haveFor his hand's healing salve,'Til the AnnointedHis ointmentDid stand.I know the drill ~Yaargh!! Delete!! Quick!! :+)George BlaisdellRoslyn, WA_______________________________________________________________Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com

Dative Participle Luke 8:27Dative Participle Luke 8:27

Limerick: Mark 3.1 Theodore H Mann thmann at juno.com
Sun May 16 15:50:50 EDT 1999

Grammatical errors in Revelation? Grammatical errors in Revelation? A Limb-erickWas existing in that place a man,Being withered is having the hand.(Would the) Savior offendby attempting to mend(On the) Sabbath? And break the command?(Yes), there in that place was a man,Being withered in soul as in hand.(And I) sure wish I knew (who the) "they" in verse tworepresents. Can a Conrad expand?Rejoice in your hearts for that man !!Restored both in soul and in hand !!(Was the) (1) whole congrega-tion, or (2) FARISAIOI, pa-tiently waiting to bring reprimand? Or both?____________________ I hope no one tells me this is an inappropriate posting !! :-)Dr. Theodore "Ted" MannOrchard Lake, Michiganthmann at juno.comOn Sun, 16 May 1999 11:21:59 PDT "George Blaisdell" <maqhth at hotmail.com>writes:>After great wresting and gnatsching of teeth...> >Was existing in that place a man,>Being withered is having the hand.>No hope did he have>For his hand's healing salve,>'Til the Annointed>His ointment>Did stand.> >I know the drill ~> >Yaargh!! Delete!! Quick!! :+)> >George Blaisdell>Roslyn, WA> > >_______________________________________________________________>Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com> >---> home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/>You are currently subscribed to as: thmann at juno.com>To unsubscribe, forward this message to >$subst('Email.Unsub')>To subscribe, send a message to >subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu> > >

Grammatical errors in Revelation?Grammatical errors in Revelation?

Limerick: Mark 3.1 Theodore H Mann thmann at juno.com
Sun May 16 15:50:50 EDT 1999

Grammatical errors in Revelation? Grammatical errors in Revelation? A Limb-erickWas existing in that place a man,Being withered is having the hand.(Would the) Savior offendby attempting to mend(On the) Sabbath? And break the command?(Yes), there in that place was a man,Being withered in soul as in hand.(And I) sure wish I knew (who the) "they" in verse tworepresents. Can a Conrad expand?Rejoice in your hearts for that man !!Restored both in soul and in hand !!(Was the) (1) whole congrega-tion, or (2) FARISAIOI, pa-tiently waiting to bring reprimand? Or both?____________________ I hope no one tells me this is an inappropriate posting !! :-)Dr. Theodore "Ted" MannOrchard Lake, Michiganthmann at juno.comOn Sun, 16 May 1999 11:21:59 PDT "George Blaisdell" <maqhth at hotmail.com>writes:>After great wresting and gnatsching of teeth...> >Was existing in that place a man,>Being withered is having the hand.>No hope did he have>For his hand's healing salve,>'Til the Annointed>His ointment>Did stand.> >I know the drill ~> >Yaargh!! Delete!! Quick!! :+)> >George Blaisdell>Roslyn, WA> > >_______________________________________________________________>Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com> >---> home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/>You are currently subscribed to as: thmann at juno.com>To unsubscribe, forward this message to >$subst('Email.Unsub')>To subscribe, send a message to >subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu> > >

Grammatical errors in Revelation?Grammatical errors in Revelation?

Limerick: Mark 3.1 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sun May 16 16:50:02 EDT 1999

Grammatical errors in Revelation? Grammatical errors in Revelation? At 3:50 PM -0400 5/16/99, Theodore H Mann wrote:> A Limb-erick> >Was existing in that place a man,>Being withered is having the hand.>(Would the) Savior offend>by attempting to mend>(On the) Sabbath? And break the command?> >(Yes), there in that place was a man,>Being withered in soul as in hand.>(And I) sure wish I knew>(who the) "they" in verse two>represents. Can a Conrad expand?Don't wrinkle your brow in a frownat an unreferential pronoun!POLLOI means "a lot"were there at that spotand saw the poor cripple come down.>Rejoice in your hearts for that man !!>Restored both in soul and in hand !!>(Was the) (1) whole congrega->tion, or (2) FARISAIOI, pa->tiently waiting to bring reprimand?> >Or both?When Jesus was "speaking the word,"Be sure there were many who heard--SUNACQENTES hOMOU,yes, Pharisees too,though they thought what he said was absurd.>I hope no one tells me this is an inappropriate posting !! :-)If the query concerns what is Greek,whether novice or high "aspect geek,"one MAY have enthusementfor weekend amusementat Biblical Hide and Go Seek.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington UniversitySummer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

Grammatical errors in Revelation?Grammatical errors in Revelation?

Limerick: Mark 3.1 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sun May 16 16:50:02 EDT 1999

Grammatical errors in Revelation? Grammatical errors in Revelation? At 3:50 PM -0400 5/16/99, Theodore H Mann wrote:> A Limb-erick> >Was existing in that place a man,>Being withered is having the hand.>(Would the) Savior offend>by attempting to mend>(On the) Sabbath? And break the command?> >(Yes), there in that place was a man,>Being withered in soul as in hand.>(And I) sure wish I knew>(who the) "they" in verse two>represents. Can a Conrad expand?Don't wrinkle your brow in a frownat an unreferential pronoun!POLLOI means "a lot"were there at that spotand saw the poor cripple come down.>Rejoice in your hearts for that man !!>Restored both in soul and in hand !!>(Was the) (1) whole congrega->tion, or (2) FARISAIOI, pa->tiently waiting to bring reprimand?> >Or both?When Jesus was "speaking the word,"Be sure there were many who heard--SUNACQENTES hOMOU,yes, Pharisees too,though they thought what he said was absurd.>I hope no one tells me this is an inappropriate posting !! :-)If the query concerns what is Greek,whether novice or high "aspect geek,"one MAY have enthusementfor weekend amusementat Biblical Hide and Go Seek.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington UniversitySummer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

Grammatical errors in Revelation?Grammatical errors in Revelation?

Word Order Signifigance: Mark 3.1 Jeffrey B. Gibson jgibson000 at mailhost.chi.ameritech.net
Sun May 16 10:13:51 EDT 1999

Greek Resources on CD Word Order Signifigance: Mark 3.1 George Blaisdell wrote:[snip]> 1) The first word announces something existing, and alerts us that whatever this existent might be, its existence is the main focus of this sentence. It is the beginning of the first sub-unit of thought of this sentence, as well as the first word of the whole sentence. It remains in focus throughout the entire sentence with every word it.[snip]> > Contra-Carl, at least in this common little narrative sentence, the importance of the center can be seen in the following way:> George,Two questions about your continued efforts in what appears to be a good example of someone straining out a gnat to swallow a camel.First, if the sentence's structure is as important as you say it is in creating the particular effect upon the reader that it is necessary for it to have if the significance of what is being said is ever to be grasped, why then do both Matthew and Luke abandon this structure and change not only the word order of the sentence but its wording? Matt has KAI IDOU ANQRWPOS CHEIRA ECHWN ZHRAN (12:10). Luke has KAI HN ANQRWPOS EKEI KAI hH CHEIR AUTOU hH DEXIA HN ZHRA (6:6). Obviously -- and especially, but not necessarily, if Matt and Luke are using GMark here -- they saw nothing of what *you* see in this sentence. And surely this is curious since these authors, as(native?) Greek speakers and writers, would have been familiar with what you claim are the esoterica of the language *had it actually worked the way you think it does*. But the fact that they do what they do with Mk 3:1 shows that what you claim lies within and behind the text of Mark is not there.Second, does the *context* of the sentence you strain at so forcefully justify your claim of this sentence's importance? In other words, within the pericope in which it appears, does the sentence really have the importance and central position you say it does? Form criticism would say no, for the "center" of this pericope is not the statement about the man, but the action of Jesus in healing the man, actions which stand as a proof that Jesus' way of doing things vis a vis the Law is God's way. So the meaning and significance of Mk 3:1 is derived not from how it is phrased, but from what surrounds it.I think your studies of what the Mk 3:1 means would profit much more if you would focus not on the reputed significance the verse's word order, let alone what word is "central" within it, but of the function the entire verse has as part of the set up for the main point within the pericope of which it is a part.Yours,Jeffrey Gibson--Jeffrey B. Gibson7423 N. Sheridan Road #2AChicago, Illinois 60626e-mail jgibson000 at ameritech.net

Greek Resources on CDWord Order Signifigance: Mark 3.1

Word Order Signifigance: Mark 3.1 Jeffrey B. Gibson jgibson000 at mailhost.chi.ameritech.net
Sun May 16 10:13:51 EDT 1999

Greek Resources on CD Word Order Signifigance: Mark 3.1 George Blaisdell wrote:[snip]> 1) The first word announces something existing, and alerts us that whatever this existent might be, its existence is the main focus of this sentence. It is the beginning of the first sub-unit of thought of this sentence, as well as the first word of the whole sentence. It remains in focus throughout the entire sentence with every word it.[snip]> > Contra-Carl, at least in this common little narrative sentence, the importance of the center can be seen in the following way:> George,Two questions about your continued efforts in what appears to be a good example of someone straining out a gnat to swallow a camel.First, if the sentence's structure is as important as you say it is in creating the particular effect upon the reader that it is necessary for it to have if the significance of what is being said is ever to be grasped, why then do both Matthew and Luke abandon this structure and change not only the word order of the sentence but its wording? Matt has KAI IDOU ANQRWPOS CHEIRA ECHWN ZHRAN (12:10). Luke has KAI HN ANQRWPOS EKEI KAI hH CHEIR AUTOU hH DEXIA HN ZHRA (6:6). Obviously -- and especially, but not necessarily, if Matt and Luke are using GMark here -- they saw nothing of what *you* see in this sentence. And surely this is curious since these authors, as(native?) Greek speakers and writers, would have been familiar with what you claim are the esoterica of the language *had it actually worked the way you think it does*. But the fact that they do what they do with Mk 3:1 shows that what you claim lies within and behind the text of Mark is not there.Second, does the *context* of the sentence you strain at so forcefully justify your claim of this sentence's importance? In other words, within the pericope in which it appears, does the sentence really have the importance and central position you say it does? Form criticism would say no, for the "center" of this pericope is not the statement about the man, but the action of Jesus in healing the man, actions which stand as a proof that Jesus' way of doing things vis a vis the Law is God's way. So the meaning and significance of Mk 3:1 is derived not from how it is phrased, but from what surrounds it.I think your studies of what the Mk 3:1 means would profit much more if you would focus not on the reputed significance the verse's word order, let alone what word is "central" within it, but of the function the entire verse has as part of the set up for the main point within the pericope of which it is a part.Yours,Jeffrey Gibson--Jeffrey B. Gibson7423 N. Sheridan Road #2AChicago, Illinois 60626e-mail jgibson000 at ameritech.net

Greek Resources on CDWord Order Signifigance: Mark 3.1

Word Order Signifigance: Mark 3.1 Moon-Ryul Jung moon at saint.soongsil.ac.kr
Sun May 16 13:06:53 EDT 1999

Word Order Signifigance: Mark 3.1 Word Order Signifigance: Mark 3.1 On 05/16/99, ""George Blaisdell" <maqhth at hotmail.com>" wrote:> HN EKEI ANQRWPOS EXHRAMMENHN ECWN THN CEIRA. [Mark 3:1]> > A fun thing about a literal rending of this sentence is that it sounds like the beginning of a limmerick:> > Was existing in that place a man> Being withered is having the hand> > Any takers??? :-)> George, I have read Jeffrey's post and basically would like toagree with him. But I also think that the mental pictures ofdifferent authors about the same situation could be different,and the difference can be reflected by the word order and other things. The transposed elements from their normal placescarry some emphasis. In the case ofHN EKEI ANQRWPOS EXHRAMMENHN ECWN THN CEIRA,the "normal" order would beHN EKEI ANQRWPOS ECWN THN CEIRA EXHRAMMENHN. [ Then the only element that is considered "transposed" is EXHRAMMENHN. Then EXHRAMMENHN is at the "beginning" of a phrase, andits position at the "center" of the sentence can be considered accidental. Being transposed to the beginning of a phrase, EXHRAMMENHNreceives some emphasis. But it seems that that's all there is. Cheers!Moon-Ryul JungAssistant ProfessorDept of Computer ScienceSoongsil UniversitySeoul, Korea

Word Order Signifigance: Mark 3.1Word Order Signifigance: Mark 3.1

Word Order Signifigance: Mark 3.1 George Blaisdell maqhth at hotmail.com
Sun May 16 13:52:18 EDT 1999

Word Order Signifigance: Mark 3.1 Dative Participle Luke 8:27 >From: "Jeffrey B. Gibson">George Blaisdell wrote:> > 1) The first word announces something existing, and alerts us that >whatever this existent might be, its existence is the main focus of this >sentence. It is the beginning of the first sub-unit of thought of this >sentence, as well as the first word of the whole sentence. It remains in >focus throughout the entire sentence with every word in it.>George,> >Two questions about your continued efforts in what appears to be a good >example of someone straining out a gnat to swallow a camel.Jeff ~ I am forever indebted to you for this image... :-)And I very well may be trying to squeeze more into this gnat of centers than it can hold. However the existence of inverse parallel structures IS common in the GNT, so perhaps I am just trying to strain out the gnat to swallow a mouse!It HAS been central to my thinking for a long time now, and where better to test its mettle than here, where we are graced by the presence of the best gnat nutritionists anywhere? You guys know what a gnat can swallow and what it can't!>First, if the sentence's structure is as important as you say it is >in >creating the particular effect upon the reader that it is for it >to have >if the significance of what is being said is ever to be >grasped,Well, I am looking differently now, and seeing word order as fundamental to structure, and reflective of stylistic manner of expression, and possible difference of emphasis.>why then do both Matthew and Luke abandon this structure and change >not >only the word order of the sentence but its wording?Differing narrative styles, each describing the same event, seem to be reflected ~Mark seems the better Greek, having more balanced compaction in his sentence.Matthew the better Jew, being very brief and dramatic with his KAI IDOU!And Luke gives a more pedantic Romanesque account, a listing, including a detail omitted by the others.>Matt has KAI IDOU ANQRWPOS CHEIRA ECHWN ZHRAN (12:10). Luke has KAI >HN >ANQRWPOS EKEI KAI hH CHEIR AUTOU hH DEXIA HN ZHRA (6:6). Obviously >... >they saw nothing of what *you* see in this sentence.Well, first blush has me simply seeing them as less competent with their Greek compositional skills, addressing perhaps different audiences? Mark seems to have the better Greek.Both of them agree with the idea of the importance of the first word: HN as a positing of an existent. Matthew uses the aorist imperative: "And LOOK!", while Luke uses HN twice. [Thus affirming Carl's understanding.]And both END in ZHRA[N] ~ Further affirming Carl's notion that importance is at the beginning and at the end.All of which leave me holding the bag that then would criticize their Greek! Yikes!! This is WAY beyond my competence.>And surely this is curious since these authors, as>(native?) Greek speakers and writers, would have been familiar with >what >you claim are the esoterica of the language *had it actually >worked the >way you think it does*."Esoterica" seems a little strong ~ Like 'camel'...What I would like to see is a way for 'little greeks' to approach the text and understand it without having to rely on a long and difficult process of memorization of syntactical terms that require them to consult the 'experts' in order to tell what goes with what, and why, and how. [To me, THAT is arcane and esoteric!!] The terminology of Greek grammar is daunting enough to put many off from it. I admire Carlton's approach to terms that seeks to make them simple and descriptive so they are less hard for his students to acquire. Yet even with his approach, for a neophyte, the list is long and daunting, and does not provide a basic logic for a student to figure out the meaning as it appears on the page. Instead it uses examples whose translation is given, as illustrations of the categories that are named.I am concerned with an even more basic approach than that, for the self-teachers who want to figure out, rather than be told, the meaning. Perhaps I am unrealistic, and tilting at windmills. I hope not.I would hope that you might see my efforts here in that light, as well as in the light of MY assertion of a theory, as you now seem to do. I confess the latter and apologise ~ This has been 'in me' for some time now, and I do want to see it tested ~ But I also care a great deal about those who go to the Greek text with only rudimentary skills and an interlinear and a lexicon and prayer...Word order seems better than 'centers' as the most useful focus in this regard. Both may have a place...But the fact that they do what they do with Mk 3:1 shows that what you claim lies within and behind the text of Mark is not there.I can easily be wrong...>Second, does the *context* of the sentence you strain at so >forcefully >justify your claim of this sentence's importance?I hope I did not make such a claim! This is but a simple little sentence in a sequence of sentences comprising the narrative. I think that what it does is to focus attention on the 'being withered', which carries into the next sentence as its context.>In other words, within the pericope in which it appears, does the >sentence >really have the importance and central position you say it >does?Goodness no! I was looking only at the sentence itself, as a linkage in a sequence of sentences, and did not have the entire pericope in view at all.Form criticism would say no, for the "center" of this pericope is not the statement about the man, but the action of Jesus in healing the man, actions which stand as a proof that Jesus' way of doing things vis a vis the Law is God's way. So the meaning and significance of Mk 3:1 is derived not from how it is phrased, but from what surrounds it.Yes. I was just looking at the sentence structure of these 7 words.>I think your studies of what the Mk 3:1 means would profit much more >if >you would focus not on the reputed significance the verse's word >order, >let alone what word is "central" within it, but of the >function the entire >verse has as part of the set up for the main >point within the pericope of >which it is a part.No question about that!Thanks Jeff ~GeorgeGeorge BlaisdellRoslyn, WA_______________________________________________________________Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com

Word Order Signifigance: Mark 3.1Dative Participle Luke 8:27

Word Order Signifigance: Mark 3.1 Moon-Ryul Jung moon at saint.soongsil.ac.kr
Sun May 16 13:06:53 EDT 1999

Word Order Signifigance: Mark 3.1 Word Order Signifigance: Mark 3.1 On 05/16/99, ""George Blaisdell" <maqhth at hotmail.com>" wrote:> HN EKEI ANQRWPOS EXHRAMMENHN ECWN THN CEIRA. [Mark 3:1]> > A fun thing about a literal rending of this sentence is that it sounds like the beginning of a limmerick:> > Was existing in that place a man> Being withered is having the hand> > Any takers??? :-)> George, I have read Jeffrey's post and basically would like toagree with him. But I also think that the mental pictures ofdifferent authors about the same situation could be different,and the difference can be reflected by the word order and other things. The transposed elements from their normal placescarry some emphasis. In the case ofHN EKEI ANQRWPOS EXHRAMMENHN ECWN THN CEIRA,the "normal" order would beHN EKEI ANQRWPOS ECWN THN CEIRA EXHRAMMENHN. [ Then the only element that is considered "transposed" is EXHRAMMENHN. Then EXHRAMMENHN is at the "beginning" of a phrase, andits position at the "center" of the sentence can be considered accidental. Being transposed to the beginning of a phrase, EXHRAMMENHNreceives some emphasis. But it seems that that's all there is. Cheers!Moon-Ryul JungAssistant ProfessorDept of Computer ScienceSoongsil UniversitySeoul, Korea

Word Order Signifigance: Mark 3.1Word Order Signifigance: Mark 3.1

Word Order Signifigance: Mark 3.1 George Blaisdell maqhth at hotmail.com
Sun May 16 13:52:18 EDT 1999

Word Order Signifigance: Mark 3.1 Dative Participle Luke 8:27 >From: "Jeffrey B. Gibson">George Blaisdell wrote:> > 1) The first word announces something existing, and alerts us that >whatever this existent might be, its existence is the main focus of this >sentence. It is the beginning of the first sub-unit of thought of this >sentence, as well as the first word of the whole sentence. It remains in >focus throughout the entire sentence with every word in it.>George,> >Two questions about your continued efforts in what appears to be a good >example of someone straining out a gnat to swallow a camel.Jeff ~ I am forever indebted to you for this image... :-)And I very well may be trying to squeeze more into this gnat of centers than it can hold. However the existence of inverse parallel structures IS common in the GNT, so perhaps I am just trying to strain out the gnat to swallow a mouse!It HAS been central to my thinking for a long time now, and where better to test its mettle than here, where we are graced by the presence of the best gnat nutritionists anywhere? You guys know what a gnat can swallow and what it can't!>First, if the sentence's structure is as important as you say it is >in >creating the particular effect upon the reader that it is for it >to have >if the significance of what is being said is ever to be >grasped,Well, I am looking differently now, and seeing word order as fundamental to structure, and reflective of stylistic manner of expression, and possible difference of emphasis.>why then do both Matthew and Luke abandon this structure and change >not >only the word order of the sentence but its wording?Differing narrative styles, each describing the same event, seem to be reflected ~Mark seems the better Greek, having more balanced compaction in his sentence.Matthew the better Jew, being very brief and dramatic with his KAI IDOU!And Luke gives a more pedantic Romanesque account, a listing, including a detail omitted by the others.>Matt has KAI IDOU ANQRWPOS CHEIRA ECHWN ZHRAN (12:10). Luke has KAI >HN >ANQRWPOS EKEI KAI hH CHEIR AUTOU hH DEXIA HN ZHRA (6:6). Obviously >... >they saw nothing of what *you* see in this sentence.Well, first blush has me simply seeing them as less competent with their Greek compositional skills, addressing perhaps different audiences? Mark seems to have the better Greek.Both of them agree with the idea of the importance of the first word: HN as a positing of an existent. Matthew uses the aorist imperative: "And LOOK!", while Luke uses HN twice. [Thus affirming Carl's understanding.]And both END in ZHRA[N] ~ Further affirming Carl's notion that importance is at the beginning and at the end.All of which leave me holding the bag that then would criticize their Greek! Yikes!! This is WAY beyond my competence.>And surely this is curious since these authors, as>(native?) Greek speakers and writers, would have been familiar with >what >you claim are the esoterica of the language *had it actually >worked the >way you think it does*."Esoterica" seems a little strong ~ Like 'camel'...What I would like to see is a way for 'little greeks' to approach the text and understand it without having to rely on a long and difficult process of memorization of syntactical terms that require them to consult the 'experts' in order to tell what goes with what, and why, and how. [To me, THAT is arcane and esoteric!!] The terminology of Greek grammar is daunting enough to put many off from it. I admire Carlton's approach to terms that seeks to make them simple and descriptive so they are less hard for his students to acquire. Yet even with his approach, for a neophyte, the list is long and daunting, and does not provide a basic logic for a student to figure out the meaning as it appears on the page. Instead it uses examples whose translation is given, as illustrations of the categories that are named.I am concerned with an even more basic approach than that, for the self-teachers who want to figure out, rather than be told, the meaning. Perhaps I am unrealistic, and tilting at windmills. I hope not.I would hope that you might see my efforts here in that light, as well as in the light of MY assertion of a theory, as you now seem to do. I confess the latter and apologise ~ This has been 'in me' for some time now, and I do want to see it tested ~ But I also care a great deal about those who go to the Greek text with only rudimentary skills and an interlinear and a lexicon and prayer...Word order seems better than 'centers' as the most useful focus in this regard. Both may have a place...But the fact that they do what they do with Mk 3:1 shows that what you claim lies within and behind the text of Mark is not there.I can easily be wrong...>Second, does the *context* of the sentence you strain at so >forcefully >justify your claim of this sentence's importance?I hope I did not make such a claim! This is but a simple little sentence in a sequence of sentences comprising the narrative. I think that what it does is to focus attention on the 'being withered', which carries into the next sentence as its context.>In other words, within the pericope in which it appears, does the >sentence >really have the importance and central position you say it >does?Goodness no! I was looking only at the sentence itself, as a linkage in a sequence of sentences, and did not have the entire pericope in view at all.Form criticism would say no, for the "center" of this pericope is not the statement about the man, but the action of Jesus in healing the man, actions which stand as a proof that Jesus' way of doing things vis a vis the Law is God's way. So the meaning and significance of Mk 3:1 is derived not from how it is phrased, but from what surrounds it.Yes. I was just looking at the sentence structure of these 7 words.>I think your studies of what the Mk 3:1 means would profit much more >if >you would focus not on the reputed significance the verse's word >order, >let alone what word is "central" within it, but of the >function the entire >verse has as part of the set up for the main >point within the pericope of >which it is a part.No question about that!Thanks Jeff ~GeorgeGeorge BlaisdellRoslyn, WA_______________________________________________________________Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com

Word Order Signifigance: Mark 3.1Dative Participle Luke 8:27

Wes Wood wrote: Thanks for the responses the indirect question makes perfect sense. And the second part I don't have a problem with either. I am meaning authorial foreshadowing inside the pericope, however. Nothing more than the author tipping his hand to what is going to happen in the narrative.

It's a completely ordinary phrase as Timothy pointed out. It is easy to find its usage as simply "arise" in places like Mat 2:13, 9:19 26:46, Mark 10:49 14:42,. It clearly implies rising from a settled position, but nothing more. In fact, Luke 6:8 makes very clear what "εγειρε"/"εγειραι" in Mark 3:3 means. Statistics: Posted by David Lim — June 17th, 2014, 7:18 am

---

Thanks for the responses the indirect question makes perfect sense. And the second part I don't have a problem with either. I am meaning authorial foreshadowing inside the pericope, however. Nothing more than the author tipping his hand to what is going to happen in the narrative. Statistics: Posted by Wes Wood — June 8th, 2014, 3:44 pm

---

Specifically, it's an indirect question. Greek likes to keep the same tense and mood as if the question were still direct. The original question would be "Will he heal on the sabbath?" so the future tense is retained in the indirect question. Classical Greek sometimes uses the optative in secondary sequence (i.e., if the main verb is a past tense) in indirect statements (if the indirect question is part of the reported speech), but even that is optional, and use of the indicative not would have been wrong. I think I see what you are getting at in the second part of the question, is ἐγείρω used to foreshadow the resurrection? Certainly healings in general in the gospels may be viewed as anticipating the resurrection (the ultimate healing, so to speak), and speak of the presence of the King-redeemer among God's people. But is the word specifically so chosen as to foreshadow the resurrection in a deliberate, literary sense? This would have to be argued on how the word is used elsewhere in Mark, and I think would be one of those things that is subject to debate even when all the evidence is collected and discussed. Statistics: Posted by Barry Hofstetter — June 8th, 2014, 6:26 am

---

I'm thinking the use of the future is due to indirect discourse. I'm not sure what you're thinking might be foreshadowed in Ἔγειρε εἰς τὸ μέσον. It sounds unremarkable to me. Statistics: Posted by timothy_p_mcmahon — June 8th, 2014, 3:41 am

---

First the text, 1Καὶ εἰσῆλθεν πάλιν εἰς τὴν συναγωγήν. καὶ ἦν ἐκεῖ ἄνθρωπος ἐξηραμμένην ἔχων τὴν χεῖρα: 2καὶ παρετήρουν αὐτὸν εἰ τοῖς σάββασιν θεραπεύσει αὐτόν, ἵνα κατηγορήσωσιν αὐτοῦ. 3καὶ λέγει τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ τῷ τὴν ξηρὰν χεῖρα ἔχοντι, Ἔγειρε εἰς τὸ μέσον. Then my questions. 1) Is there a particular reason why the future "he will heal" is used in verse to after the conditional? 2) Is there an ever so slight bit of foreshadowing in Jesus's initial address to the man or (here I am trying to ask this question in a slightly different way) is this a slightly unusual way of phrasing this command? Statistics: Posted by Wes Wood — June 7th, 2014, 8:40 pm

---

 

Wes Wood wrote: I was considering the possibility of raised foreshadowing the restoration of the withered hand. Perhaps simar to it usage in James 5:15 or john 2:19-20, with rebuild or restore in the periphery of the meaning of the word. I'm not comfortable enough with greek overall to say this phrase is atypical, but it isn't the phrase I would expect to see. I hadn't thought of the allusion you mention. Like you I wouldn't feel comfortable throwing that one out there without serious consideration.

The theological consideration gets us well beyond this forum's mandate, I should think. However, Timothy's observation is also pertinent, in that the idea of "get up" is an expected meaning of the word in a context such as this. Now, ἐγείρω has quite a range of usage, but here is meaning 4 listed in BDAG: ④ to move to a standing position, rise, get up, pass. intr. of those who have awakened Mt 2:13f, 20f; 8:26; Lk 11:8; who were sitting down (EpArist 94) Mt 9:19; Lk 13:25; J 11:29; Hv 1, 4, 1; AcPl Ox 6; kneeling Hv 2, 1, 3; of the sick Mt 8:15; 9:6f; Mk 2:12; of those called back to life (cp. 4 Km 4:31) Mt 9:25; Lk 7:14. ἐκ τοῦ δείπνου rise from the table J 13:4; of one who has fallen Mt 17:7; Ac 9:8 (on ἀπὸ τ. γῆς cp. 2 Km 12:17; Ps 112:7). Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., & Bauer, W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Statistics: Posted by Barry Hofstetter — June 8th, 2014, 3:28 pm

---

I was considering the possibility of raised foreshadowing the restoration of the withered hand. Perhaps simar to it usage in James 5:15 or john 2:19-20, with rebuild or restore in the periphery of the meaning of the word. I'm not comfortable enough with greek overall to say this phrase is atypical, but it isn't the phrase I would expect to see. I hadn't thought of the allusion you mention. Like you I wouldn't feel comfortable throwing that one out there without serious consideration. Statistics: Posted by Wes Wood — June 8th, 2014, 9:42 am

---