Re: More on Participles . . .

Rod Decker (rdecker@bbc.edu)
Sat, 1 Nov 1997 15:01:51 -0500

>I keep wondering as I read this thread if we're missing a contextual element
>in the Mark 6:27 situation where the aorist participle APOSTEILAS preceded
>the aorist indicative verb EPETAXEN. If memory serves, all the
>explanations assume that the executioner is present at Herod's banquet.
> However, I doubt that the executioner would make the guest list described in
>6:21 (MEGISTASIN - lords/great people, CILIARCOIS - high-ranking military
>officers, and PRWTOIS THS GALILAIAS - leading people of Galilee).
>
>The question is, would the executioner have the kind of social status that
>would make his presence at the banquet appropriate?
>
>If not, is it possible that Herod sent for the executioner (therefore there
>would be an ellipsis of the accusative messenger and an ellipsis of
>SPEKOULATI [dative of indirect object})? This may seem like a long shot
>unless the readers knew without explanation that the executioner would be
>absent, and Mark was using characteristic economy of words.

I considered that option but decided that the parallel of APOSTEILAS and
APELQWN argued against it. I would sooner think that the narrator would
assume that the reader would either not worry about when/where the
executioner came from, or would assume that such a person would be sent FOR
rather than present.

Rod

_________________________________________________________________
Rodney J. Decker Baptist Bible Seminary
Asst. Prof./NT P O Box 800
rdecker@bbc.edu Clarks Summit PA 18411
http://www.bbc.edu/courses/BBS/RDecker/Index.htm USA
_________________________________________________________________