Mark 7:10-13 Anacoluthon?

Forum rules
Please quote the Greek text you are discussing directly in your post if it is reasonably short - do not ask people to look it up. This is not a beginner's forum, competence in Greek is assumed.
Jordan Day
Posts: 38
Joined: April 1st, 2012, 1:26 pm
Location: Rydal, GA
Contact:

Mark 7:10-13 Anacoluthon?

Post by Jordan Day » May 4th, 2012, 10:47 pm

ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ 7:10-13
Μωϋσῆς γὰρ εἶπεν· τίμα τὸν πατέρα σου καὶ τὴν μητέρα σου, και· ὁ κακολογῶν πατέρα ἢ μητέρα θανάτῳ τελευτάτῳ. ὑμεῖς δὲ λέγετε· ἐὰν εἴπῃ ἄνθρωπος τῷ πατρὶ ἢ τῇ μητρί· κορβᾶν ὅ ἐστιν δῶρον, ὃ ἐὰν ἐξ ἐμοῦ ὠφεληθῇς, οὐκέτι ἀφίετε αὐτὸν οὐδὲν ποιῆσαι τῷ πατρὶ ἢ τῇ μητρί, ἀκυροῦντες τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ τῇ παραδόσει ὑμῶν ᾗ παρεδώκατε· καὶ παρόμοια τοιαῦτα πολλὰ ποιεῖτε.

ἐὰν εἴπῃ would appear to be introducing the protasis for a 3rd class conditional sentence (If somebody says X, then Y). But this verse seems to be lacking a coherent apodosis. There seems to be a type of apodosis, but the perspective has changed to 2nd person. I suppose that if ὑμεῖς δὲ λέγετε were removed it would make more sense. Jesus appears to be quoting one of their "oral law" traditions - "But you say, 'If a man says to his father...'". But before the "oral law" quote has ended he jumps back to speaking directly to the scribes and Pharisees "YOU do not permit him to do anything..."


James Boyer has mentioned the use of ει without an apodosis: http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_Hil ... ls-GTJ.pdf

But I have not been able to find other examples of εαν + subjunctive without an apodosis. Is this just an instance of Mark's anacoluthia? or am I missing something? I should also mention that Matthew seems to have corrected it by keeping a 3rd person apodosis...
ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΤΘΑΙΟΝ 15:4-6
ὁ γὰρ θεὸς εἶπεν· τίμα τὸν πατέρα καὶ τὴν μητέρα, καί· ὁ κακολογῶν πατέρα ἢ μητέρα θανάτῳ τελευτάτω. ὑμεῖς δὲ λέγετε ὃς ἂν εἴπῃ τῷ πατρὶ ἢ τῇ μητρί· δῶρον ὃ ἐὰν ἐξ ἐμοῦ ὠφεληθῇς οὐ μὴ τιμήσει τὸν πατέρα αὐτοῦ· καὶ ἠκυρώσατε τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ διὰ τὴν παράδοσιν ὑμῶν.
0 x


Jordan Day
Master Plumber (Non-Restricted) - CCSD
φάγωμεν καὶ πίωμεν, αὔριον γὰρ ἀποθνῄσκομεν.

Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3043
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Mark 7:10-13 Anacoluthon?

Post by Stephen Carlson » May 4th, 2012, 10:58 pm

Anacoluthon seems to be a good explanation. This one was probably due to the extended parenthesis on the meaning of the word Korban.
0 x
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia

Alex Hopkins
Posts: 53
Joined: June 10th, 2011, 7:15 am

Re: Mark 7:10-13 Anacoluthon?

Post by Alex Hopkins » May 5th, 2012, 9:14 am

Jordan cited
Mark 7:10-13,
Μωϋσῆς γὰρ εἶπεν· τίμα τὸν πατέρα σου καὶ τὴν μητέρα σου, και· ὁ κακολογῶν πατέρα ἢ μητέρα θανάτῳ τελευτάτῳ. ὑμεῖς δὲ λέγετε· ἐὰν εἴπῃ ἄνθρωπος τῷ πατρὶ ἢ τῇ μητρί· κορβᾶν ὅ ἐστιν δῶρον, ὃ ἐὰν ἐξ ἐμοῦ ὠφεληθῇς, οὐκέτι ἀφίετε αὐτὸν οὐδὲν ποιῆσαι τῷ πατρὶ ἢ τῇ μητρί, ἀκυροῦντες τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ τῇ παραδόσει ὑμῶν ᾗ παρεδώκατε· καὶ παρόμοια τοιαῦτα πολλὰ ποιεῖτε.
and wrote,
ἐὰν εἴπῃ would appear to be introducing the protasis for a 3rd class conditional sentence (If somebody says X, then Y). But this verse seems to be lacking a coherent apodosis. There seems to be a type of apodosis, but the perspective has changed to 2nd person. I suppose that if ὑμεῖς δὲ λέγετε were removed it would make more sense. Jesus appears to be quoting one of their "oral law" traditions - "But you say, 'If a man says to his father...'". But before the "oral law" quote has ended he jumps back to speaking directly to the scribes and Pharisees "YOU do not permit him to do anything..."
I'd like to offer a different perspective.

Conditionals can be quite complex. Sometimes, on our analysis, conditions are "mixed". Sometimes there's no apodosis at all. Sometimes the apodosis is expressed before the protasis. Sometimes where we might expect, from the appearance of a protasis, an apodosis of regular form, we get instead an imperative;
(Mat 27:40 BNT)
σῶσον σεαυτόν, εἰ υἱὸς εἶ τοῦ θεοῦ, [καὶ] κατάβηθι ἀπὸ τοῦ σταυροῦ.
In the instance you cite, another strand of complexity is that the protasis is a quotation. Perhaps that fact led you to the formulation of a third-class conditional as, "If somebody says X, then Y", rather than "If X, then Y."

In relation to the words you cite, I think there are two elements which it may be helpful to think through a little further.

What we have in this instance is, nested within a conditional, the word κορβᾶν (and an explanatory ὅ ἐστιν δῶρον), and a clause incorporating ἐάν:

ἐὰν εἴπῃ ἄνθρωπος τῷ πατρὶ ἢ τῇ μητρί·
-- κορβᾶν
-- ὃ ἐὰν ἐξ ἐμοῦ ὠφεληθῇς
οὐκέτι ἀφίετε αὐτὸν οὐδὲν ποιῆσαι τῷ πατρὶ ἢ τῇ μητρί

(I omit the explanatory ὅ ἐστιν δῶρον).

The outer loop, the conditional, is straight-forward enough: If a person says to his mother or father ..., then you do not allow him confer any benefit ...

The inner loop is more complex. It contains an ἐάν, but is it a conditional clause? Taken as a relative clause it might be Englished as, 'Whatever benefit you might (otherwise) get from me'; each of several translations I scanned renders according to this understanding. It is relevant at this point to note BDF p57 section 107, on the interchange of ἄν and ἐάν: "Ἐάν appears very frequently instead of ἄν after relatives in the NT, as in the LXX and pap. ([references snipped]), perhaps in order to underline the conditional aspect." And so the Zerwick / Grosvenor Analysis simply notes: "ὃ ἐάν (= ἄν) what-ever". (See also BDFp182, section 360, subsection 1.)

The following aims to indicate the structure:

If a person says to his father or mother,
-- "Whatever you might get from me,
-- is Corban," [understand ἐστίν]
you do not allow him ...

The second point I'd make in relation to the verse you cite is that there is no requirement for the subject of the protasis and the subject of the apodosis to be the same.
Jordan wrote,
There seems to be a type of apodosis, but the perspective has changed to 2nd person.


But just as in English I might say, "If my son enjoys performing at the Adelaide Music Festival, I will be pleased for him", it is quite possible for the Greek to say, to cite just a couple of instances,
Ταῦτά σοι πάντα δώσω, ἐὰν πεσὼν προσκυνήσῃς μοι. (Mat 4:9 GNT)
λέγω γὰρ ὑμῖν ὅτι ἐὰν μὴ περισσεύσῃ ὑμῶν ἡ δικαιοσύνη πλεῖον τῶν γραμματέων καὶ Φαρισαίων, οὐ μὴ εἰσέλθητε εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν. (Mat 5:20 GNT)
Jordan wrote,
James Boyer has mentioned the use of ει without an apodosis: http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_Hil ... ls-GTJ.pdf

But I have not been able to find other examples of εαν + subjunctive without an apodosis. Is this just an instance of Mark's anacoluthia? or am I missing something? I should also mention that Matthew seems to have corrected it by keeping a 3rd person apodosis...
You might also like to consult Robertson, p1023, where his discussion of elliptical conditions includes reference to this text and, for example, to John 6:62, an instance where the protasis with ἐάν is not followed by an apodosis.

So, in summary, I don't see this instance as being one of an ἐάν without an apodosis, nor would I agree that "Matthew seems to have corrected it (Mark's wording) by keeping a 3rd person apodosis...", but I do hope these remarks may be of some help to you in offering a different approach.


Alex Hopkins
Melbourne, Australia
0 x

Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3043
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Mark 7:10-13 Anacoluthon?

Post by Stephen Carlson » May 5th, 2012, 9:17 am

Stephen Carlson wrote:Anacoluthon seems to be a good explanation.
In light of Hopkins' explanation, I spoke too soon. There's no anacoluthon because the αὐτόν in v.12 picks up the ἄνθρωπος in v.11.
0 x
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia

Jordan Day
Posts: 38
Joined: April 1st, 2012, 1:26 pm
Location: Rydal, GA
Contact:

Re: Mark 7:10-13 Anacoluthon?

Post by Jordan Day » May 5th, 2012, 3:25 pm

Thank you very much for your informative reply Alex. Perhaps this isn't an anacoluthon per se, but am I wrong that this still doesn't look right? I understand that an apodosis wouldn't necessarily have to agree with the protasis in "person". As you mentioned, it is something we do all the time in English. But the fact that this occurs in a quotation seems to leave it open ended. The speaker reference has changed from the ones being quoted (Scribes and Pharisees) to the one quoting them (Jesus) with no grammatical transition. αφες με... ταχα τουτο υπερ την κεφαλην μου ῃ.
0 x
Jordan Day
Master Plumber (Non-Restricted) - CCSD
φάγωμεν καὶ πίωμεν, αὔριον γὰρ ἀποθνῄσκομεν.

David Lim
Posts: 901
Joined: June 6th, 2011, 6:55 am

Re: Mark 7:10-13 Anacoluthon?

Post by David Lim » May 5th, 2012, 10:29 pm

Jordan Day wrote:ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ 7:10-13
Μωϋσῆς γὰρ εἶπεν· τίμα τὸν πατέρα σου καὶ τὴν μητέρα σου, και· ὁ κακολογῶν πατέρα ἢ μητέρα θανάτῳ τελευτάτῳ. ὑμεῖς δὲ λέγετε· ἐὰν εἴπῃ ἄνθρωπος τῷ πατρὶ ἢ τῇ μητρί· κορβᾶν ὅ ἐστιν δῶρον, ὃ ἐὰν ἐξ ἐμοῦ ὠφεληθῇς, οὐκέτι ἀφίετε αὐτὸν οὐδὲν ποιῆσαι τῷ πατρὶ ἢ τῇ μητρί, ἀκυροῦντες τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ τῇ παραδόσει ὑμῶν ᾗ παρεδώκατε· καὶ παρόμοια τοιαῦτα πολλὰ ποιεῖτε.

ἐὰν εἴπῃ would appear to be introducing the protasis for a 3rd class conditional sentence (If somebody says X, then Y). But this verse seems to be lacking a coherent apodosis. There seems to be a type of apodosis, but the perspective has changed to 2nd person. I suppose that if ὑμεῖς δὲ λέγετε were removed it would make more sense. Jesus appears to be quoting one of their "oral law" traditions - "But you say, 'If a man says to his father...'". But before the "oral law" quote has ended he jumps back to speaking directly to the scribes and Pharisees "YOU do not permit him to do anything..."

[...]

But I have not been able to find other examples of εαν + subjunctive without an apodosis. Is this just an instance of Mark's anacoluthia? or am I missing something? I should also mention that Matthew seems to have corrected it by keeping a 3rd person apodosis...

[...]
Why is it that no translation of those I checked seems to have taken "αφιετε" as an imperative? It is most easily understood here as such, in which case the imperative clause is the apodosis.

[Mark 7] [11]
υμεις δε λεγετε εαν ειπη ανθρωπος τω πατρι η τη μητρι κορβαν ο εστιν δωρον ο εαν εξ εμου ωφεληθης [12] [και] ουκετι αφιετε αυτον ουδεν ποιησαι τω πατρι [αυτου] η τη μητρι [αυτου] [13] ακυρουντες τον λογον του θεου τη παραδοσει υμων η παρεδωκατε και παρομοια τοιαυτα πολλα ποιειτε
but you say, if [a] man says to the father or the mother, whatever you might have profited from me is korban (that is, [a] gift), [also] no longer allow him to do anything for [his] father or [his] mother! making void the word of God by your tradition which you delivered. and you do many such like things!
0 x
δαυιδ λιμ

Alex Hopkins
Posts: 53
Joined: June 10th, 2011, 7:15 am

Re: Mark 7:10-13 Anacoluthon?

Post by Alex Hopkins » May 5th, 2012, 10:37 pm

Jordan Day wrote:Thank you very much for your informative reply Alex. Perhaps this isn't an anacoluthon per se, but am I wrong that this still doesn't look right? I understand that an apodosis wouldn't necessarily have to agree with the protasis in "person". As you mentioned, it is something we do all the time in English. But the fact that this occurs in a quotation seems to leave it open ended. The speaker reference has changed from the ones being quoted (Scribes and Pharisees) to the one quoting them (Jesus) with no grammatical transition. αφες με... ταχα τουτο υπερ την κεφαλην μου ῃ.
Jordan had cited the text,
Mark 7:10-13,
Μωϋσῆς γὰρ εἶπεν· τίμα τὸν πατέρα σου καὶ τὴν μητέρα σου, και· ὁ κακολογῶν πατέρα ἢ μητέρα θανάτῳ τελευτάτῳ. ὑμεῖς δὲ λέγετε· ἐὰν εἴπῃ ἄνθρωπος τῷ πατρὶ ἢ τῇ μητρί· κορβᾶν ὅ ἐστιν δῶρον, ὃ ἐὰν ἐξ ἐμοῦ ὠφεληθῇς, οὐκέτι ἀφίετε αὐτὸν οὐδὲν ποιῆσαι τῷ πατρὶ ἢ τῇ μητρί, ἀκυροῦντες τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ τῇ παραδόσει ὑμῶν ᾗ παρεδώκατε· καὶ παρόμοια τοιαῦτα πολλὰ ποιεῖτε.
Thanks for your note, Jordan.

If I am understanding you correctly, then you're saying that it would sound more natural to you if it ran something like, "But you say, 'If someone says to his father or mother, it's Korban ..., then we do not allow the person to ... ' "

In using the second person, ἀφίετε, the reader/listener is being brought back to the overall structure of the passage you cited. Significant to that structure is the opposition Μωϋσῆς γὰρ εἶπεν / ὑμεῖς δὲ λέγετε, as I've indicated by changing from the colour coding you used in the post which headed this thread.

Loosely, the structure is,

Moses said, "Honour your father and mother ..."
But you say you won't allow someone to confer a benefit upon their father or mother if they say 'Korban'...
And in so doing you nullify the word of God.

Μωϋσῆς and τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ are virtually equivalent, so the structure gives a strong sense of completion and contrasts what the word of God requires with what the "you" of these verses demand. Against this understanding, I don't regard the use of the second person ἀφίετε as unusual, or the passage as one that somehow "doesn't look right".

Best regards,

Alex Hopkins
Melbourne, Australia
0 x

Jordan Day
Posts: 38
Joined: April 1st, 2012, 1:26 pm
Location: Rydal, GA
Contact:

Re: Mark 7:10-13 Anacoluthon?

Post by Jordan Day » May 5th, 2012, 11:20 pm

David Lim wrote:
Why is it that no translation of those I checked seems to have taken "αφιετε" as an imperative? It is most easily understood here as such, in which case the imperative clause is the apodosis.

[Mark 7] [11]
υμεις δε λεγετε εαν ειπη ανθρωπος τω πατρι η τη μητρι κορβαν ο εστιν δωρον ο εαν εξ εμου ωφεληθης [12] [και] ουκετι αφιετε αυτον ουδεν ποιησαι τω πατρι [αυτου] η τη μητρι [αυτου] [13] ακυρουντες τον λογον του θεου τη παραδοσει υμων η παρεδωκατε και παρομοια τοιαυτα πολλα ποιειτε
but you say, if [a] man says to the father or the mother, whatever you might have profited from me is korban (that is, [a] gift), [also] no longer allow him to do anything for [his] father or [his] mother! making void the word of God by your tradition which you delivered. and you do many such like things!
Now THAT makes sense! Thank you David. I would slap myself for not seeing that, but the fact that so many translators have overlooked it makes me feel a little better.
0 x
Jordan Day
Master Plumber (Non-Restricted) - CCSD
φάγωμεν καὶ πίωμεν, αὔριον γὰρ ἀποθνῄσκομεν.

David Lim
Posts: 901
Joined: June 6th, 2011, 6:55 am

Re: Mark 7:10-13 Anacoluthon?

Post by David Lim » May 5th, 2012, 11:38 pm

Jordan Day wrote:
David Lim wrote:
Why is it that no translation of those I checked seems to have taken "αφιετε" as an imperative? It is most easily understood here as such, in which case the imperative clause is the apodosis.

[Mark 7] [11]
υμεις δε λεγετε εαν ειπη ανθρωπος τω πατρι η τη μητρι κορβαν ο εστιν δωρον ο εαν εξ εμου ωφεληθης [12] [και] ουκετι αφιετε αυτον ουδεν ποιησαι τω πατρι [αυτου] η τη μητρι [αυτου] [13] ακυρουντες τον λογον του θεου τη παραδοσει υμων η παρεδωκατε και παρομοια τοιαυτα πολλα ποιειτε
but you say, if [a] man says to the father or the mother, whatever you might have profited from me is korban (that is, [a] gift), [also] no longer allow him to do anything for [his] father or [his] mother! making void the word of God by your tradition which you delivered. and you do many such like things!
Now THAT makes sense! Thank you David. I would slap myself for not seeing that, but the fact that so many translators have overlooked it makes me feel a little better.
I have now checked about 15 different translations and they all translate as an indicative but have to change the phrasing somewhat because there is then no apodosis. But it makes me very doubtful of my reading... :?
0 x
δαυιδ λιμ

Alex Hopkins
Posts: 53
Joined: June 10th, 2011, 7:15 am

Re: Mark 7:10-13 Anacoluthon?

Post by Alex Hopkins » May 6th, 2012, 6:17 am

In reference to the verses cited by Jordan,
ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ 7:10-13 wrote: Μωϋσῆς γὰρ εἶπεν· τίμα τὸν πατέρα σου καὶ τὴν μητέρα σου, και· ὁ κακολογῶν πατέρα ἢ μητέρα θανάτῳ τελευτάτῳ. ὑμεῖς δὲ λέγετε· ἐὰν εἴπῃ ἄνθρωπος τῷ πατρὶ ἢ τῇ μητρί· κορβᾶν ὅ ἐστιν δῶρον, ὃ ἐὰν ἐξ ἐμοῦ ὠφεληθῇς, οὐκέτι ἀφίετε αὐτὸν οὐδὲν ποιῆσαι τῷ πατρὶ ἢ τῇ μητρί, ἀκυροῦντες τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ τῇ παραδόσει ὑμῶν ᾗ παρεδώκατε· καὶ παρόμοια τοιαῦτα πολλὰ ποιεῖτε.
David Lim wrote
Why is it that no translation of those I checked seems to have taken "ἀφίετε" as an imperative? It is most easily understood here as such, in which case the imperative clause is the apodosis.
Mindful of Jordan's signature line, perhaps one way of suggesting why it's not taken as an imperative is
1 Timothy 5:23 wrote: Μηκέτι ὑδροπότει, ἀλλὰ οἴνῳ ὀλίγῳ χρῶ κτλ (1Ti 5:23 BGT)
That is, a prohibition "no longer allow" would require μηκέτι as its negative. That οὐκέτι is used here requires that ἀφίετε be understood as an indicative. See, eg, BDF 426, 427/4; Wallace p723-4, esp 724C.

Regards,

Alex Hopkins
Melbourne, Australia
0 x

Post Reply

Return to “New Testament”