[] Mk 6:8b ει μη … μη … μη … Oun Kwon kwonbbl at gmail.com
Sat May 27 18:04:26 εδτ 2006
[] Matt. 27:53 – μετα θν εγερσιν [] Mk 6:8b ει μη … μη … μη … Hi there,On journey the disciples are told not to take things (in Mt 10:10 andin Lk 9:3). Here is the pertinent clause in Mk.Mk 6:8bEI μη hRABDON μονον μη αρτον μη φραν μη εισ θν ζωνην CALKONNow, the problem is that all the translations read this as ‘except astaff’ taking parenthetically. This makes the Markan textcontradictory to the rest of the synoptics. What is the grammaticalbasis of this rendering (unacceptable to me)? What ι can see issimply ‘ει‘ before the μη hRABDON. If ει has to mean ‘except’, why itshould govern hRABDON only, not the whole items listed?Since all the items are listed in a manner of μη ~ μη ~ …., as forme, ι am tempted to read this as’not a single staff, nor pouch, no loaf of bread, no coins in theirmoney-belt’;ι am not sure how ι should understand the conjunction ει.Thanks for your help.Oun Kwon.
[] Matt. 27:53 – μετα θν εγερσιν[] Mk 6:8b ει μη … μη … μη …
[] Mk 6:8b ει μη … μη … μη … Carl ω. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sat May 27 19:03:57 εδτ 2006
[] Mk 6:8b ει μη … μη … μη … [] Mk 6:8b ει μη … μη … μη … On May 27, 2006, at 6:04 πμ, Oun Kwon wrote:> Hi there,> > On journey the disciples are told not to take things (in Mt 10:10 and> in Lk 9:3). Here is the pertinent clause in Mk.> > Mk 6:8b> > ει μη hRABDON μονον μη αρτον μη φραν μη εισ θν ζωνην ξαλκον> > > > Now, the problem is that all the translations read this as ‘except a> staff’ taking parenthetically. This makes the Markan text> contradictory to the rest of the synoptics.Oun, you ought to realize that we don’t do synoptic criticism on β– Greek; if you want to discuss possible conflicts between the gospels, you’ll have to take it to some other forum.> What is the grammatical> basis of this rendering (unacceptable to me)? What ι can see is> simply ‘ει‘ before the μη hRABDON. If ει has to mean ‘except’, why it> should govern hRABDON only, not the whole items listed?> > Since all the items are listed in a manner of μη ~ μη ~ …., as for> me, ι am tempted to read this as> > ‘not a single staff, nor pouch, no loaf of bread, no coins in their> money-belt’;> > ι am not sure how ι should understand the conjunction ει.ει μη functions together as an adverbial conjunction; it does mean “except” or “excepting.”Carl ω. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, νξ 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad2 at mac.comWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/
[] Mk 6:8b ει μη … μη … μη …[] Mk 6:8b ει μη … μη … μη …
[] Mk 6:8b ει μη … μη … μη … George Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Sat May 27 19:09:20 εδτ 2006
[] Mk 6:8b ει μη … μη … μη … [] Mk 6:8b ει μη … μη … μη … See Blass, Debrunner, Funk _A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature_ § 376. 376. (εκτοσ) ει [εαν] μη (τι) unless, except (that) and ει δε μη otherwise. ει μη (classical) usually without a finite verb following. ει μη (τι) with a verb e.g. γ 1:7 ει μη τινεσ εισιν = πλην hOTI (α 20:23) τ. ε. except that, 2 ξ 13:5 ει μη τι αδοκιμοι εστε unless it were so, Mk 6:5. εκτοσ ει μη (Hellenistic, νägeli 33; mixture of ει μη and εκτοσ ει) with aorist indicative 1 ξ 15:2, with subjunctive 14:5 εκτοσ ει μη DIEERMHNEUHi (-νευων δ*), cf. §372(3), Homil Clem 11.6.6, 17.16.4; without verb 1 τ 5:19, Homil Clem 17.8.6 (ibid. with the optative; 18.6.4, 14.2 with present indicative, 10.9.3 εκτοσ ει μη τισ ου βλεπει unless not). εκτοσ ει μη: ψ. Vendryes, Bull. Soc. Ling. 46 (1950) 16f. Just as ει has driven out εαν for the most part in these constructions, ει often appears for the εαν of the sentence in its full form in the elliptical formula ει δε μη(γε) otherwise (§439(1)), while εαν δε μη does not appear at all. The situation is comparable in Attic (§480(6)); MGr ειδεμη(σ) otherwise. Blass, φ., Debrunner, α., & Funk, ρ. ω. (1961). α Greek grammar of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (191). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Note that immediately preceding this verse in 6.5 we find και ουκ εδυνατο εκει ποιησαι ουδεμιαν δυναμιν, ** ει μη ** ολιγοισ αρρωστοισ επιθεισ τασ χειρασ εθερεπευσεν george gfsomsel _________ Oun Kwon <kwonbbl at gmail.com> wrote: Hi there,On journey the disciples are told not to take things (in Mt 10:10 andin Lk 9:3). Here is the pertinent clause in Mk.Mk 6:8bEI μη hRABDON μονον μη αρτον μη φραν μη εισ θν ζωνην CALKONNow, the problem is that all the translations read this as ‘except astaff’ taking parenthetically. This makes the Markan textcontradictory to the rest of the synoptics. What is the grammaticalbasis of this rendering (unacceptable to me)? What ι can see issimply ‘ει‘ before the μη hRABDON. If ει has to mean ‘except’, why itshould govern hRABDON only, not the whole items listed?Since all the items are listed in a manner of μη ~ μη ~ …., as forme, ι am tempted to read this as’not a single staff, nor pouch, no loaf of bread, no coins in theirmoney-belt’;ι am not sure how ι should understand the conjunction ει.Thanks for your help.Oun Kwon.georgegfsomsel_________———————————Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make πξ-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1¢/min.
[] Mk 6:8b ει μη … μη … μη … Iver Larsen iver at larsen.dk
Sun May 28 03:20:41 εδτ 2006
[] Mk 6:8b ει μη … μη … μη … [] Mk 6:8b ει μη … μη … μη … Oun Kwon wrote:> On journey the disciples are told not to take things (in Mt 10:10 and> in Lk 9:3). Here is the pertinent clause in Mk.> > Mk 6:8b> > ει μη hRABDON μονον μη αρτον μη φραν μη εισ θν ζωνην ξαλκον> > Now, the problem is that all the translations read this as ‘except a> staff’ taking parenthetically. This makes the Markan text> contradictory to the rest of the synoptics. What is the grammatical> basis of this rendering (unacceptable to me)? What ι can see is> simply ‘ει‘ before the μη hRABDON. If ει has to mean ‘except’, why it> should govern hRABDON only, not the whole items listed?> > Since all the items are listed in a manner of μη ~ μη ~ …., as for> me, ι am tempted to read this as> > ‘not a single staff, nor pouch, no loaf of bread, no coins in their> money-belt’;> > ι am not sure how ι should understand the conjunction ει.You have pinpointed your own grammatical problem. With your translation you cannot account for the ει, so grammatically, it has to mean “except just a staff”. And you cannot make the “except” span all the remaining items in the list.However, there is more to meaning and exegesis than grammar. Although we are reading Greek, the gospels are based in varying degrees on a Semitic thought pattern which is circular and holistic rather than linear and dichotomistic. Very often you have a general summary statement to start off with followed by other statements that fill in the details. In this case, ι think the first statement “Don’t take anything except just a staff” is meant to be a general statement of the big picture. This is then explained in more details in the following. Well, you should not take a supply of food along (expect to be fed by those you visit). Do not take a bag (possibly with extra luggage to make them independent of accepting help and hospitality. Some suggest that a beggar’s bag is meant). Do not take a supply of money (so you could buy your own food rather than be fed by others). Then in v 9: δο wear sandals on your feet, because that is essential for a wanderer in rugged terrain, just as a walking staff is. But do not take extra tunics (take off in the one you are wearing).So, it appears that the instruction is: Only take along what is essential for walking along the roads, i.e. sandals on your feet, your normal clothing without extras and a walking stick.In Matt 10:9-10 the instructions are: No gold, no silver, no copper, no bag, not two tunics, no (extra) sandals, no (extra) staff.This last one is based on the alternative reading ραβδουσ, and the interpretation that the plurals indicate something in addition to what is essential. ι won’t argue here for this preferred reading since it is a τξ issue.In Luk 9:3 the instructions are: Take nothing. No staff, no bag, no food, no money, not two tunics. Again, it is an interpretation to take these words to mean “extras”. The “two tunics” probably does not men two extra tunics, but two in the sense of the one you are wearing and one extra.You might find it interesting to study the νετ for these verses:Luk 9:3: “Take nothing for your journey-no staff, (Mark 6.8 allows one staff. It might be that Luke’s summary (cf. Matt 10.9-10) means not taking an extra staff or that the expression is merely rhetorical for “traveling light” which has been rendered in two slightly different ways) no bag, no bread, no money, and do not take an extra tunic. (Grk “have two tunics.”)”ι think the most debatable issue is the staff, but Greek grammar does not solve the problem.Iver Larsen
Sun May 28 08:43:30 εδτ 2006
[] Mk 6:8b ει μη … μη … μη … [] Mk 6:8b ει μη … μη … μη … ι agree with Iver that Oun’s problems here derive — in part, at least — from attempting to understand the ει as “except” apart from the immediately following μη, and then understanding this μη as of one kind with the μη‘s that follow. But: (1) It lies outside the scope of this forum to deal with the question why Matthew and Luke have formulated this instruction differently from Mark: that question must be dealt with in terms of a methodology involving one’s hermeneutical assumptions, something we deliberately avoid discussing on ; (2) Iver says that the grammar doesn’t resolve Oun’s question: that may be so, if Oun’s question is primarily concerned with harmonizing the different Synoptic formulations of Jesus’ “missionary instructions,” but the question actually raised by Oun was understanding the construction of Mark 6:8 — and, for my part, ι am convinced that the question concerning Mark 6:8 can readily be understood and resolved in terms of Greek grammar without any need to resort to Semitic thought patterns. There’s a good deal of ellipsis here, but ι think Oun’s chief problem here was in dissociating the μη of ει μη from the ει, trying to take the ει by itself as “except,” and viewing this μη as one of the series of μη‘s that follow.Let’s look at the whole text again, supplying an elliptical [αιρωσιν] where ι think it is essential to understanding the grammatical construction:Mark 6:8 και παῥγγειλεν αυτοισ hINA μηδεν αιρωσιν εισ hODON ει μη hRABDON μονον [αιρωσιν], μη αρτον [αιρωσιν], μη φραν [αιρωσιν], μη εισ θν ζωνην ξαλκον [αιρωσιν], …This can be Englished almost literally with insertion of the equivalent of the elliptical [αιρωσιν] in the appropriate places without altering the fundamental structure of the Greek phrasing:”And he told them not to carry anything for the trip if they don’t carry just a staff, not to carry a loaf of bread, not to carry a knapsack, not to carry loose coin in their belt, …”But it makes perfectly good sense if one uses in English the same ellipsis as does the Greek:”And he told them not to take anything for the trip except just a staff, no loaf of bread, no knapsack, no loose change in their belt, …”On May 28, 2006, at 3:20 αμ, Iver Larsen wrote:> Oun Kwon wrote:> >> On journey the disciples are told not to take things (in Mt 10:10 and>> in Lk 9:3). Here is the pertinent clause in Mk.>> >> Mk 6:8b>> >> ει μη hRABDON μονον μη αρτον μη φραν μη εισ θν ζωνην ξαλκον>> >> Now, the problem is that all the translations read this as ‘except a>> staff’ taking parenthetically. This makes the Markan text>> contradictory to the rest of the synoptics. What is the grammatical>> basis of this rendering (unacceptable to me)? What ι can see is>> simply ‘ει‘ before the μη hRABDON. If ει has to mean ‘except’, >> why it>> should govern hRABDON only, not the whole items listed?>> >> Since all the items are listed in a manner of μη ~ μη ~ …., as for>> me, ι am tempted to read this as>> >> ‘not a single staff, nor pouch, no loaf of bread, no coins in their>> money-belt’;>> >> ι am not sure how ι should understand the conjunction ει.> > You have pinpointed your own grammatical problem. With your > translation you cannot account for the ει, so grammatically,> it has to mean “except just a staff”. And you cannot make the > “except” span all the remaining items in the list.> > However, there is more to meaning and exegesis than grammar. > Although we are reading Greek, the gospels are based in> varying degrees on a Semitic thought pattern which is circular and > holistic rather than linear and dichotomistic. Very> often you have a general summary statement to start off with > followed by other statements that fill in the details. In> this case, ι think the first statement “Don’t take anything except > just a staff” is meant to be a general statement of> the big picture. This is then explained in more details in the > following. Well, you should not take a supply of food> along (expect to be fed by those you visit). Do not take a bag > (possibly with extra luggage to make them independent of> accepting help and hospitality. Some suggest that a beggar’s bag is > meant). Do not take a supply of money (so you could> buy your own food rather than be fed by others). Then in v 9: δο > wear sandals on your feet, because that is essential> for a wanderer in rugged terrain, just as a walking staff is. But > do not take extra tunics (take off in the one you are> wearing).> So, it appears that the instruction is: Only take along what is > essential for walking along the roads, i.e. sandals on> your feet, your normal clothing without extras and a walking stick.> > In Matt 10:9-10 the instructions are: No gold, no silver, no > copper, no bag, not two tunics, no (extra) sandals, no> (extra) staff.> This last one is based on the alternative reading ραβδουσ, and the > interpretation that the plurals indicate something in> addition to what is essential. ι won’t argue here for this > preferred reading since it is a τξ issue.> > In Luk 9:3 the instructions are: Take nothing. No staff, no bag, no > food, no money, not two tunics. Again, it is an> interpretation to take these words to mean “extras”. The “two > tunics” probably does not men two extra tunics, but two in> the sense of the one you are wearing and one extra.> > You might find it interesting to study the νετ for these verses:> Luk 9:3: “Take nothing for your journey-no staff, (Mark 6.8 allows > one staff. It might be that Luke’s summary (cf. Matt> 10.9-10) means not taking an extra staff or that the expression is > merely rhetorical for “traveling light” which has> been rendered in two slightly different ways) no bag, no bread, no > money, and do not take an extra tunic. (Grk “have two> tunics.”)”> > ι think the most debatable issue is the staff, but Greek grammar > does not solve the problem.> > Iver Larsen> > > > > —> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/Carl ω. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, νξ 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad2 at mac.comWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/
Sun May 28 11:28:53 εδτ 2006
[] Mk 6:8b ει μη … μη … μη … [] Mk 6:8b ει μη … μη … μη … On 5/28/06, Carl ω. Conrad <cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu> wrote:<clipped>> (2) Iver says that the grammar doesn’t resolve Oun’s> question: that may be so, if Oun’s question is primarily concerned> with harmonizing the different Synoptic formulations of Jesus’> “missionary instructions,”οψκ:Harmonizing itself is not my concern here. [Of course, in reading theBible, it has to be dealt with. ι just cannot simply bypassing it bysaying ‘well, this text is different from the other and one is just inerror and so be it.’ Before ι can accept any explanation in thecommentaries, ι have to see the Gk text itself and understand fromit.] So, it was just a starting point to let me look at the Gk text.And then ι saw …> but the question actually raised by Oun> was understanding the construction of Mark 6:8 — and, for my part, ι> am convinced that the question concerning Mark 6:8 can readily be> understood and resolved in terms of Greek grammar without any need to> resort to Semitic thought patterns. There’s a good deal of ellipsis> here, but ι think Oun’s chief problem here was in dissociating the μη> of ει μη from the ει, trying to take the ει by itself as “except,”> and viewing this μη as one of the series of μη‘s that follow.> οψκ: Yes, it is where ι have got stuck and ι pulled out my surgicalknife and cut through between ει and μη 😉 and then ι knew ι needhelp to stitch it up by getting a better grip on this Gk sentence.> Let’s look at the whole text again, supplying an elliptical [αιρωσιν]> where ι think it is essential to understanding the grammatical> construction:> > Mark 6:8 και παῥγγειλεν αυτοισ hINA μηδεν αιρωσιν εισ hODON ει μη> hRABDON μονον [αιρωσιν], μη αρτον [αιρωσιν], μη φραν [αιρωσιν], μη> εισ θν ζωνην ξαλκον [αιρωσιν], …> > This can be Englished almost literally with insertion of the> equivalent of the elliptical [αιρωσιν] in the appropriate places> without altering the fundamental structure of the Greek phrasing:> > “And he told them not to carry anything for the trip if they don’t> carry just a staff, not to carry a loaf of bread, not to carry a> knapsack, not to carry loose coin in their belt, …”> > But it makes perfectly good sense if one uses in English the same> ellipsis as does the Greek:> > “And he told them not to take anything for the trip except just a> staff, no loaf of bread, no knapsack, no loose change in their> belt, …”> Thanks. to all. ι will keep ει and μη together. Thanks George for agood example of ει μη in the preceding paragraph in the text. [As tounderstanding the actual scene of the narrative, as Iver pointed out’two’ tunics in Lk is followed by sandals and staff in the list in Mt,which (if taken as ‘extra’) seems helpful.]Oun Kwon.
[] Mk 6:8b ει μη … μη … μη … Harold Holmyard hholmyard at ont.com
Wed May 31 16:29:53 εδτ 2006
[] Mk 6:8b ει μη … μη … μη … [] The Interlinear St. John has moved. Dear Oun and Iver,>Oun Kwon wrote:> > > >>On journey the disciples are told not to take things (in Mt 10:10 and>>in Lk 9:3). Here is the pertinent clause in Mk.>> >>Mk 6:8b>> >>ει μη hRABDON μονον μη αρτον μη φραν μη εισ θν ζωνην ξαλκον>> >> >> >> >Then in v 9: δο wear sandals on your feet, because that is essential >for a wanderer in rugged terrain, just as a walking staff is. But do not take extra tunics (take off in the one you are >wearing).>So, it appears that the instruction is: Only take along what is essential for walking along the roads, i.e. sandals on >your feet, your normal clothing without extras and a walking stick.> >In Matt 10:9-10 the instructions are: No gold, no silver, no copper, no bag, not two tunics, no (extra) sandals, no >(extra) staff.>This last one is based on the alternative reading ραβδουσ, and the interpretation that the plurals indicate something in >addition to what is essential. ι won’t argue here for this preferred reading since it is a τξ issue.> > ηη: ι don’t think you even need to use the alternate reading because Mt 10:9 says not to take sandals, but Mk 6:9 says to wear sandals. There would be no spiritual meaning (in terms of receiving the hospitality of strangers, which is what Jesus is talking about) to walking barefoot, would there? People would not normally do that whether they had hosts awaiting them or not. So Mt 10:9 must mean extra sandals and why shouldn’t the idea of “extra” carry over to the next item, the staff. The idea of extra is introduced, as Iver said, by the “two tunics.” Luke 9:3 and 10:4 use the verbs αιρω and βασταζω, giving the idea of carrying something as baggage. If someone always walked with a walking stick it would not be baggage, but again as Iver said, what was essential, like the first pair of sandals.Yours,Harold Holmyard>In Luk 9:3 the instructions are: Take nothing. No staff, no bag, no food, no money, not two tunics. Again, it is an >interpretation to take these words to mean “extras”. The “two tunics” probably does not men two extra tunics, but two in >the sense of the one you are wearing and one extra.> >You might find it interesting to study the νετ for these verses:>Luk 9:3: “Take nothing for your journey-no staff, (Mark 6.8 allows one staff. It might be that Luke’s summary (cf. Matt >10.9-10) means not taking an extra staff or that the expression is merely rhetorical for “traveling light” which has >been rendered in two slightly different ways) no bag, no bread, no money, and do not take an extra tunic. (Grk “have two >tunics.”)”> >ι think the most debatable issue is the staff, but Greek grammar does not solve the problem.> >Iver Larsen> > > > >—> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org>http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> >.> > >
[] Mk 6:8b ει μη … μη … μη …[] The Interlinear St. John has moved.