[] Mark 6:20 Pastor Mark Eddy markeddy at adams.net
Thu Jul 10 15:07:00 EDT 2003
[] Re: Digest, Vol 7, Issue 7 [] Mark 6:20 Mark 6:20 ends with 3 clauses describing Herod’s reaction to John the Baptizer:KAI AKOUSAS OUTOU POLLA HPOREI KAI HDEWS AUTOU HKOUEN.My question is: with which clause does POLLA belong?The Majority text takes it as the object of the following verb: POLLA EPOIEIMost translations of the N-A text seem to take POLLA as an adverb, modifying the following verb HPOREI.But R.C.H. Lenski in his commentary takes POLLA as the object of the participle AKOUSAS.This last options makes most sense to me, but why don’t any of the translations take it that way?Mark Eddy
[] Re: Digest, Vol 7, Issue 7[] Mark 6:20
[] Mark 6:20 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Thu Jul 10 19:27:19 EDT 2003
[] Mark 6:20 [] Mark 6:20 At 2:07 PM -0500 7/10/03, Pastor Mark Eddy wrote:>Mark 6:20 ends with 3 clauses describing Herod’s reaction to John the>Baptizer:>KAI AKOUSAS AUTOU POLLA HPOREI KAI HDEWS AUTOU HKOUEN.>My question is: with which clause does POLLA belong?>The Majority text takes it as the object of the following verb: POLLA EPOIEI>Most translations of the N-A text seem to take POLLA as an adverb,>modifying the following verb HPOREI.>But R.C.H. Lenski in his commentary takes POLLA as the object of the>participle AKOUSAS.>This last options makes most sense to me, but why don’t any of the>translations take it that way?I think the reading of POLLA as adverbial with HPOREI is the only naturalway to read the text as you’ve given it, which is to say, as the NA27 textprints it: AKOUW normally takes a genitive of the person, so that AUTOU isthe object of AKOUSAS AUTOU and also the second AUTOU is the ojbect ofhHDEWS AUTOU HKOUEN. You ought also to take into account the fact thatAKOUSAS is aorist ptc and in its position surely carries the sense ofantecedent circumstance, while the verbs that follow are in the imperfect:”After hearing him, he continued to be very much (POLLA) puzzled (aboutwhat to do) and he continued to hear him with pleasure. Even if that firstPOLLA were to be taken with AKOUSAS, it’s not an object but an adverbialusage: “after hearing him a lot.” I wouldn’t say that’s out of the questionbut I think the word-order favors taking that POLLA with HPOREI.– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/
[] Mark 6:20[] Mark 6:20
[] Mark 6:20 philip pilkington appilkington at hotmail.com
Fri Jul 11 06:41:49 EDT 2003
[] (no subject) [] Autoreply: Digest, Vol 7, Issue 8
[] (no subject)[] Autoreply: Digest, Vol 7, Issue 8
[] Mark 6:20 Pastor Mark Eddy markeddy at adams.net
Fri Jul 11 20:03:36 EDT 2003
[] Mark 6:20 [] Mark 6:20 Thank you for your quick response. I guess my real question is this: can AKOUW take both a genitive objectof the person and an accusative object in the same sentence? I have found plenty of examples of one or theother, but I haven’t been able to find both kinds of object for AKOUW in the same verse. Perhaps this isbecause of what you suggest.By the way, I was not quite correct in my original message. R.C.H. Lenski does seem to treat POLLAadverbially (modifying AKOUSAS). It is the Expositor’s Greek Testament that seems to treat POLLA as anobject for this participle.Before I heard from Dr. Conrad I tentatively translated this sections as: “And after hearing him atlength, he was perplexed, and gladly kept hearing him.”Mark Eddy—– Original Message —– From: “Carl W. Conrad” <cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu>> At 2:07 PM -0500 7/10/03, Pastor Mark Eddy wrote:> >Mark 6:20 ends with 3 clauses describing Herod’s reaction to John the Baptizer:> >KAI AKOUSAS AUTOU POLLA HPOREI KAI HDEWS AUTOU HKOUEN.> >My question is: with which clause does POLLA belong?> >The Majority text takes it as the object of the following verb: POLLA EPOIEI> >Most translations of the N-A text seem to take POLLA as an adverb,> >modifying the following verb HPOREI.> >But R.C.H. Lenski in his commentary takes POLLA as the object of the> >participle AKOUSAS.> >This last options makes most sense to me, but why don’t any of the> >translations take it that way?> > I think the reading of POLLA as adverbial with HPOREI is the only natural> way to read the text as you’ve given it, which is to say, as the NA27 text> prints it: AKOUW normally takes a genitive of the person, so that AUTOU is> the object of AKOUSAS AUTOU and also the second AUTOU is the ojbect of> hHDEWS AUTOU HKOUEN. You ought also to take into account the fact that> AKOUSAS is aorist ptc and in its position surely carries the sense of> antecedent circumstance, while the verbs that follow are in the imperfect:> “After hearing him, he continued to be very much (POLLA) puzzled (about> what to do) and he continued to hear him with pleasure. Even if that first> POLLA were to be taken with AKOUSAS, it’s not an object but an adverbial> usage: “after hearing him a lot.” I wouldn’t say that’s out of the question> but I think the word-order favors taking that POLLA with HPOREI.> — > > Carl W. Conrad> Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)> 1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243> cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu> WWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/>
[] Mark 6:20[] Mark 6:20
[] Mark 6:20 Ann Nyland accuratebibles at ozemail.com.au
Fri Jul 11 21:30:49 EDT 2003
[] Lk. 9:57 [] Lk. 9:57 AKOUW generally takes a genitive of person and accusative of things heard.ThusHKOUSA THN TOU hRHTOROS FWNHNI heard the orator’s voice HKOUSA SOU ADONOTOSI heard you singingSee Heb. 3:7, Rev.19:1 and so on.Ann Nyland—– Original Message —– From: “Pastor Mark Eddy” <markeddy at adams.net>To: “Carl W. Conrad” <cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu>Cc: “” < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2003 10:03 AMSubject: Re: [] Mark 6:20> Thank you for your quick response. I guess my real question is this: can AKOUW take both a genitive object> of the person and an accusative object in the same sentence? I have found plenty of examples of one or the> other, but I haven’t been able to find both kinds of object for AKOUW in the same verse. Perhaps this is> because of what you suggest.> By the way, I was not quite correct in my original message. R.C.H. Lenski does seem to treat POLLA> adverbially (modifying AKOUSAS). It is the Expositor’s Greek Testament that seems to treat POLLA as an> object for this participle.> Before I heard from Dr. Conrad I tentatively translated this sections as: “And after hearing him at> length, he was perplexed, and gladly kept hearing him.”> Mark Eddy> —– Original Message —– > From: “Carl W. Conrad” <cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu>> > > > At 2:07 PM -0500 7/10/03, Pastor Mark Eddy wrote:> > >Mark 6:20 ends with 3 clauses describing Herod’s reaction to John the Baptizer:> > >KAI AKOUSAS AUTOU POLLA HPOREI KAI HDEWS AUTOU HKOUEN.> > >My question is: with which clause does POLLA belong?> > >The Majority text takes it as the object of the following verb: POLLA EPOIEI> > >Most translations of the N-A text seem to take POLLA as an adverb,> > >modifying the following verb HPOREI.> > >But R.C.H. Lenski in his commentary takes POLLA as the object of the> > >participle AKOUSAS.> > >This last options makes most sense to me, but why don’t any of the> > >translations take it that way?> >> > I think the reading of POLLA as adverbial with HPOREI is the only natural> > way to read the text as you’ve given it, which is to say, as the NA27 text> > prints it: AKOUW normally takes a genitive of the person, so that AUTOU is> > the object of AKOUSAS AUTOU and also the second AUTOU is the ojbect of> > hHDEWS AUTOU HKOUEN. You ought also to take into account the fact that> > AKOUSAS is aorist ptc and in its position surely carries the sense of> > antecedent circumstance, while the verbs that follow are in the imperfect:> > “After hearing him, he continued to be very much (POLLA) puzzled (about> > what to do) and he continued to hear him with pleasure. Even if that first> > POLLA were to be taken with AKOUSAS, it’s not an object but an adverbial> > usage: “after hearing him a lot.” I wouldn’t say that’s out of the question> > but I think the word-order favors taking that POLLA with HPOREI.> > — > >> > Carl W. Conrad> > Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)> > 1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243> > cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu> > WWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/
[] Lk. 9:57[] Lk. 9:57
[] Mark 6:20 Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Sat Jul 12 03:44:54 EDT 2003
[] Mark 6:20 [] Heb 2:11 > >Most translations of the N-A text seem to take POLLA as an adverb,> >modifying the following verb HPOREI.> >But R.C.H. Lenski in his commentary takes POLLA as the object of the> >participle AKOUSAS.> >This last options makes most sense to me, but why don’t any of the> >translations take it that way?> > I think the reading of POLLA as adverbial with HPOREI is the only natural> way to read the text as you’ve given it, which is to say, as the NA27 text> prints it.<snip>> Even if that first POLLA were to be taken with AKOUSAS,> it’s not an object but an adverbial usage: “after hearing him a lot.”> I wouldn’t say that’s out of the question> but I think the word-order favors taking that POLLA with HPOREI.In addition to agreeing with Carl against Lenski on this, let me add thatthis somewhat idiomatic adverbial usage of POLLA with the sense “much,greatly, a lot” seems particularly common in Mark’s gospel. Compare forinstance:Mrk 3:12 KAI POLLA EPETIMA AUTOISMrk 5:10 KAI PAREKALEI POLLAMrk 5:23 KAI PARAKALEI AUTON POLLAMrk 5:26 KAI POLLA PAQOUSAMrk 5:38 KAI KLAIONTAS KAI ALALAZONTAS POLLAMrk 5:43 KAI DIESTEILATO AUTOIS POLLAMrk 9:26 KAI POLLA SPARAXAS EXHLQENWhether POLLA precedes or follows the verb is in my opinion a matter ofrelative prominence between the two words. The further to the left itoccurs, the more prominent it is.Iver Larsen
[] Mark 6:20[] Heb 2:11