Mark 5:8

“`html

body { font-family: ‘Times New Roman’, serif; line-height: 1.6; margin: 20px; }
h1, h2, h3 { color: #333; }
blockquote { border-left: 5px solid #ccc; margin: 1.5em 10px; padding: 0.5em 10px; font-style: italic; }
b { font-weight: bold; }
i { font-style: italic; }
ul { list-style-type: disc; margin-left: 20px; }

An Exegetical Analysis of Mark 5:8: The Grammatical Function of το πνευμα το ακαθαρτον

This exegetical study of ‘Mk 5:8 voc or nom?’ is based on a b-greek discussion from December 1, 2004. An initial query posed by a participant concerned the grammatical case of the phrase το πνευμα το ακαθαρτον in Mark 5:8, specifically whether it should be understood as a vocative in apposition to an unexpressed subject, a nominative of address, or another grammatical construction.

The main exegetical issue revolves around the precise grammatical classification of το πνευμα το ακαθαρτον (the unclean spirit) within Jesus’ command. Given that neuter nouns in Greek possess identical forms for both the nominative and vocative cases, and considering the presence of the definite article, discerning whether the phrase functions morphologically as a nominative with a vocative function, or purely as a vocative, presents a nuanced challenge. This distinction carries implications for understanding the nature of Jesus’ address and the grammatical conventions of Koine Greek as influenced by Semitic linguistic patterns.

εξελθε το πνευμα το ακαθαρτον εκ του ανθρωπου (Mark 5:8, Nestle 1904 text, as cited in discussion)

Key differences with SBLGNT (2010):

• The textual form of this specific phrase, εξελθε το πνευμα το ακαθαρτον εκ του ανθρωπου, is identical between the Nestle-Aland 28th edition (NA28), which aligns closely with the implicitly cited Nestle 1904 in terms of this phrase’s reading, and the SBLGNT (2010). No significant textual variants affect the grammatical analysis of these words.

Textual Criticism (NA28) and Lexical Notes (KITTEL, BDAG)

The phrase εξελθε το πνευμα το ακαθαρτον εκ του ανθρωπου from Mark 5:8 presents no significant textual variants in the NA28 critical apparatus that would alter the grammatical question under consideration. The text is stable in this regard.

• εξελθε (exelthe): Second person singular aorist imperative active of εξερχομαι (exerchomai), meaning “to come out, go out.” This is a direct command from Jesus.
• το πνευμα (to pneuma): “The spirit.” πνευμα (pneuma) (BDAG, p. 832) here refers to a non-physical, malevolent spiritual being, often translated as “demon” or “evil spirit” in the New Testament when coupled with adjectives like ακαθαρτον. In this context, it is the entity being commanded by Jesus. KITTEL’s TDNT (Vol. VI, p. 375-451) details the semantic range of πνευμα, distinguishing its various uses from breath to the Holy Spirit, but notes its common use for evil spirits in demonology.
• το ακαθαρτον (to akatharton): “The unclean.” ακαθαρτος (akathartos) (BDAG, p. 39) signifies ritual or moral impurity, specifically “unclean” in the sense of being unfit for divine service or associated with evil. When applied to spirits, it denotes their malevolent and defiling nature.
• εκ του ανθρωπου (ek tou anthropou): “Out of the man/human being.” ανθρωπος (anthrōpos) (BDAG, p. 97) refers to a human being. The preposition εκ (ek) signifies separation or origin, indicating the spirit’s departure from the possessed individual.

Translation Variants with Grammatical & Rhetorical Analysis

The central debate concerning το πνευμα το ακαθαρτον in Mark 5:8 revolves around its grammatical case and function. Participants in the b-greek discussion initially questioned whether it was a vocative in apposition or a nominative of address. Given that neuter nouns in Greek have identical nominative and vocative forms, the morphological distinction is inherently ambiguous, leading to a functional rather than a formal determination.

One perspective, initially supported by a participant, suggested that functionally it is a vocative, even if its form is nominative, noting that the nominative is not uncommonly used for the vocative. This was supported by the observation that neuter nouns inherently share these forms. However, the discussion evolved to acknowledge the nuanced grammatical principles at play.

Steven Lo Vullo correctly noted that the vocative is not grammatically related to the rest of the sentence (citing A.T. Robertson implicitly), meaning it cannot be in apposition to an unexpressed subject. The key distinction then becomes whether the form is morphologically nominative but functioning as a vocative, or simply a vocative due to the identical neuter forms.

George Somsel, referencing A.T. Robertson and Farrer, highlighted that the vocative is “not a case at all” in the strict sense, and that the nominative began to displace the vocative even in Homeric times. He cited examples from the Gospel of Mark (e.g., Mk 14:36 Αββα, ο πατηρ; Mk 15:34 ο θεος μου, ο θεος μου) where a nominative form clearly serves a vocative function, particularly with the article. Thus, the preference shifted towards describing it as a “nominative form with a vocative function.”

Carl Conrad further probed the usage, especially regarding the definite article. While the nominative plural with the article could function as a vocative, he questioned the existence of an “indisputable singular vocative definite article.” He critically evaluated Wallace’s assertion, referencing BDF (§272.3), that the articular nominative for direct address implies addressing an inferior, especially in contexts influenced by Semitic syntax (e.g., LXX quotations). BDF cites Aristophanes’ Ranae 521, ω παις, ακολουθει (“Boy, follow me”), as an example of addressing inferiors in Attic Greek by effectively treating them in the third person. However, BDF also notes that the NT and LXX do not conform strictly to these Attic limitations, using ο θεος or ο πατηρ even for superiors, suggesting it reproduces an arthrous Semitic vocative.

Conrad’s subsequent research, citing Smyth (§1287) and Kühner-Gerth (§357), challenged the definitive claim that the articular nominative for address was exclusively for inferiors. Smyth merely states that the nominative with the article can stand in apposition to a vocative or the pronoun in the verb, providing the same Aristophanes example without the “inferior” caveat. Kühner-Gerth explicitly disproved the “address to inferiors” assertion, demonstrating that the usage, while often poetic (Homer, Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides), was not limited by social hierarchy.

The consensus ultimately converged on the understanding that το πνευμα το ακαθαρτον represents a nominative form that functions as a vocative. The presence of the article (το) with a substantive in direct address is characteristic of Koine Greek, often reflecting Semitic influence, and conveys a direct, authoritative command, irrespective of the “inferior” nuance. The tagging practices of modern Greek grammars (e.g., Accordance GNT-T) may often tag such forms functionally as vocative, blurring the morphological-syntactic distinction, as Carl Conrad pointed out, advocating for a clearer morphological description.

Conclusions and Translation Suggestions

The exegesis of Mark 5:8 confirms that το πνευμα το ακαθαρτον serves a vocative function, despite its morphological nominative form, a common feature in Koine Greek, especially for neuter nouns where the two cases are identical. The presence of the definite article further characterizes this direct address, signifying a forceful and authoritative command by Jesus over the unclean spirit. The debate regarding the “address to inferiors” is largely set aside, as broader linguistic evidence indicates this usage extends beyond strict social hierarchy, often reflecting Semitic rhetorical patterns in the New Testament.

Translation suggestions:

1. “Come out, you unclean spirit, from the man!”
   This translation emphasizes the direct address using the pronoun “you” to clarify the vocative function while maintaining the command’s urgency.
2. “Unclean spirit, come out of the man!”
   This rendering places the direct address at the beginning for emphasis, clearly demonstrating the command without adding an explicit pronoun, which is common in English commands.
3. “You unclean spirit, come out of this man!”
   Here, the inclusion of “you” and “this” strengthens the immediate and authoritative nature of Jesus’ command, highlighting the direct confrontation with the demonic entity and its expulsion from the specific individual.

“`