Re: More on Constituent Order

David L. Moore (
Sun, 26 Jan 1997 23:51:53 -0500

At 06:53 PM 1/26/97 -0500, David L. Moore wrote:
>At 02:59 PM 1/26/97 -0800, Micheal Palmer wrote:
>>There is significant manuscript variation regarding the constituent order
>>of a certain section of Mark 1:4. I would like to ask for the judgments of
>>the more experience readers of Greek on this list regarding the difference
>>of implication between the reading printed in UBS4 and the one found in D,
>>Theta, 28. 700 the Latin (at least the Latin texts consulted for the
>>production of UBS4 and Nestle Aland 27), and SyriacP.
>>The reading in UBS4/Nestle Aland 27 is supported by Sinaiticus, L, Delta
>>and a few others:
>>In the variant which concerns me here, we find the following order:
>>In these manuscripts EN THi ERHMWi is placed before the participle
>>BAPTIZWN. What impact would this change of order have on your reading of
>>the text?
>>Of course, this question is directly related to the Greek Word Order
>>thread, so those who respond may want to change the subject line so readers
>>will be able to categorize your responses appropriately.
> The most significant difference between the two has to do with the
>inclusion of the article (present in Aleph, B, 33, L, Delta and some
>others), the inclusion of which the editors of N27 considered questionable.
>With it, the printed text of the N27/UBS4 is calling John "the baptizer" or
>"the Baptist." It appears to me that it would not fit to put the article
>before BAPTIZWN in the variant, but I would need to do a search to be
>certain of that. As the variant stands, it is using the participle BAPTIZWN
>in a verbal, rather than substantive sense. It says something like, "John
>appeared in the wilderness baptizing and preaching..." Even *without* the
>article in the N27 text, as the word order there stands, we could interpret,
>"John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness preaching...;" but the
>participle would be ambivalent and open to different interpretations
>depending on whether one unerstood it as verbal or substantival. With the
>article, there is no question that it should be interpreted as substantival.
On reading Micheal's recent post, I looked again at the passage in
question, and realized that what I wrote as quoted above didn't take into
account the KAI before KHRUSSWN which does call for a verbal understanding
of BAPTIZWN - probably so even with the article before BAPTIZWN.

My apologies for having muddied the waters.

David L. Moore Director
Miami, Florida, USA Department of Education Southeastern Spanish District of the Assemblies of God