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:

Re: Mark 7:10-13 Anacoluthon?

Post by Jordan Day » May 6th, 2012, 10:13 am

Alex Hopkins wrote: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.
Hmmm, that is a good point...
Can we be certain that ουκετι and μηκετι always follow the same rules and patterns of ου and μη?

Mark 14:25
ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι οὐκέτι οὐ μὴ πίω ἐκ τοῦ γενήματος τῆς ἀμπέλου ἕως τῆς ἡμέρας ἐκείνης ὅταν αὐτὸ πίνω καινὸν ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ.

I understand that this comes immediately before an "ου μη + aor.subjunctive" construction, but doesn't it show that ουκετι is sometimes used outside of the indicative? I am limited on resources. I do not have TLG or Logos or anything. But it would be interesting to see if ουκετι is ever used with the imperative. Thank you Alex.
0 x


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

Scott Lawson
Posts: 363
Joined: June 9th, 2011, 6:36 pm

Re: Mark 7:10-13 Anacoluthon?

Post by Scott Lawson » May 6th, 2012, 2:57 pm

Jordan,
Robertson observes that historically the imperative is a late development which began encroaching on the use of the subjunctive and other forms used as imperatives. The development of the imperative did not supplant the first/original use of the subjunctive in prohibitions which held its place as the imperative advanced in use. The distinction beween the two negatives, objective οὐ and subjective μή, is in part fairly complicated in classical Greek. On the other hand, essentially everything can be subsumed uner one rule for the Koine of the NT: οὐ negates the indicative, μή the remaining moods including the infinitive and the participle. Note, however, the use of οὐ with the future of prohibition at Mt. 5:21: οὐ φονεύσεις.
0 x
Scott Lawson

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

Re: Mark 7:10-13 Anacoluthon?

Post by David Lim » May 6th, 2012, 9:03 pm

Alex Hopkins wrote:[...]

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
Okay I forgot about "ουκετι" because it is like an adverb to me, but what is the explanation for "ουκετι ου μη ..."? Anyway if "μηκετι" must be used for the imperative, is it a valid possibility to take "ουκετι" as modifying "ουδεν"? I feel that a missing apodosis is impossible because Jesus is stating what those Pharisees and scribes say.

So I think that your analysis is not possible, because of the additional "υμεις δε λεγετε" before the whole thing. It does not make sense for Jesus to say, "You say, "If a man says ...", you no longer allow him ...", because "If a man says ..." is not complete, thus who said it has no bearing on anything. It is only if they also said something like "no longer allow him to do anything..." or "allow him to do nothing anymore ..." (if "ουκετι" goes with "ουδεν") that Jesus can claim that they teach the wrong teachings. Otherwise, why would Jesus say "You say ..." if they did not actually say?
0 x
δαυιδ λιμ

Scott Lawson
Posts: 363
Joined: June 9th, 2011, 6:36 pm

Re: Mark 7:10-13 Anacoluthon?

Post by Scott Lawson » May 6th, 2012, 10:23 pm

Alex Hopkins wrote: So, in summary, I don't see this instance as being one of an ἐάν without an apodosis...
David Lim wrote:I feel that a missing apodosis is impossible...
David,
Aren't you two, in fact, in agreement? Or am I missing something again?

Scott Lawson
0 x
Scott Lawson

George F Somsel
Posts: 172
Joined: May 9th, 2011, 10:11 am

Re: Mark 7:10-13 Anacoluthon?

Post by George F Somsel » May 6th, 2012, 11:36 pm

ἐὰν εἴπῃ ἄνθρωπος τῷ πατρὶ ἢ τῇ μητρί· κορβᾶν, ὅ ἐστιν δῶρον, ὃ ἐὰν ἐξ ἐμοῦ ὠφεληθῇς, 12 οὐκέτι ἀφίετε αὐτὸν οὐδὲν ποιῆσαι τῷ πατρὶ ἢ τῇ μητρί

This appears to be a relatively straightforward 3rd class condition (future more probable) which does have an apodosis. The intervening clauses seem to be causing some confusion.

[protasis] ἐάν + subjunctive — [apodosis] verb in any tense or mood.

It is therefore not an anacoluthon.
0 x
george
gfsomsel



… search for truth, hear truth,
learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
defend the truth till death.



- Jan Hus

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

Re: Mark 7:10-13 Anacoluthon?

Post by David Lim » May 7th, 2012, 1:11 am

George F Somsel wrote:ἐὰν εἴπῃ ἄνθρωπος τῷ πατρὶ ἢ τῇ μητρί· κορβᾶν, ὅ ἐστιν δῶρον, ὃ ἐὰν ἐξ ἐμοῦ ὠφεληθῇς, 12 οὐκέτι ἀφίετε αὐτὸν οὐδὲν ποιῆσαι τῷ πατρὶ ἢ τῇ μητρί

This appears to be a relatively straightforward 3rd class condition (future more probable) which does have an apodosis. The intervening clauses seem to be causing some confusion.

[protasis] ἐάν + subjunctive — [apodosis] verb in any tense or mood.

It is therefore not an anacoluthon.
It is not the intervening clauses, it is the "υμεις δε λεγετε" before the whole thing that makes no sense to me if "αφιετε" is not imperative.
0 x
δαυιδ λιμ

George F Somsel
Posts: 172
Joined: May 9th, 2011, 10:11 am

Re: Mark 7:10-13 Anacoluthon?

Post by George F Somsel » May 8th, 2012, 1:21 am

David Lim wrote: "It is not the intervening clauses, it is the "υμεις δε λεγετε" before the whole thing that makes no sense to me if "αφιετε" is not imperative."

It is not an imperative. While it has the same form as an imperative, it is a common everyday indicative. This is indicated by the fact that you have on the one hand Μωϋσῆς γὰρ εἶπεν followed by ὑμεῖς δὲ λέγετε. Context is king. Here the context indicates that you have one person (Moses) saying one thing with a subsequent (you) saying another. What we have in the remainder of the sentence following ὑμεῖς δὲ λέγετε is to be understood as an indirect statement without ὅτι. "but you say [that] …" You might even go so far as to call it a direct quotation though I hesitate to call it such since there is no indication that Jesus' interlocutors have at this time stated any such thing though it might be imagined that they have said such on other occasions.
0 x
george
gfsomsel



… search for truth, hear truth,
learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
defend the truth till death.



- Jan Hus

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

Re: Mark 7:10-13 Anacoluthon?

Post by David Lim » May 8th, 2012, 3:05 am

George F Somsel wrote:David Lim wrote: "It is not the intervening clauses, it is the "υμεις δε λεγετε" before the whole thing that makes no sense to me if "αφιετε" is not imperative."

It is not an imperative. While it has the same form as an imperative, it is a common everyday indicative. This is indicated by the fact that you have on the one hand Μωϋσῆς γὰρ εἶπεν followed by ὑμεῖς δὲ λέγετε. Context is king. Here the context indicates that you have one person (Moses) saying one thing with a subsequent (you) saying another. What we have in the remainder of the sentence following ὑμεῖς δὲ λέγετε is to be understood as an indirect statement without ὅτι. "but you say [that] …" You might even go so far as to call it a direct quotation though I hesitate to call it such since there is no indication that Jesus' interlocutors have at this time stated any such thing though it might be imagined that they have said such on other occasions.
I think you do not understand what I am getting at. If "αφιετε" is not imperative, then as I see it the only way to read the whole thing is as follows:
but you say:
if [a] man says to the father or the mother:
whatever you might have benefited from me is korban (that is, [a] gift)
...
you [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!
Clearly the apodosis for "εαν ειπη ανθρωπος ..." is missing, because if "αφιετε" is taken as a 2nd plural indicative verb, then "[και] ουκετι αφιετε ..." cannot be part of what Jesus claimed that the scribes and Pharisees said. If however you take "αφιετε" to be imperative, then the whole thing becomes:
but you say:
if [a] man says to the father or the mother:
whatever you might have benefited 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!
In this case, Jesus is saying that the scribes and Pharisees teach the people that if someone tells his parents that what they might have received from him is now a gift (to the temple), then the people are to no longer allow him to do anything for his parents.

Also, can anyone explain "ουκετι ου μη" in Mark 14:25? I searched in Smyth and online but found nothing. Probably it is because I do not know where to look.
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 8th, 2012, 8:33 am

David Lim wrote:I think you do not understand what I am getting at. If "αφιετε" is not imperative, then as I see it the only way to read the whole thing is as follows:
but you say:
if [a] man says to the father or the mother:
whatever you might have benefited from me is korban (that is, [a] gift)
...
you [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!
David Lim wrote:Clearly the apodosis for "εαν ειπη ανθρωπος ..." is missing, because if "αφιετε" is taken as a 2nd plural indicative verb, then "[και] ουκετι αφιετε ..." cannot be part of what Jesus claimed that the scribes and Pharisees said.

I don't know that anyone holds that οὐκέτι ἀφίετε is part of what Jesus claimed they said. There's no requirement in grammar or in sense that it should be. I'll take just one of the translations to indicate the structure; here I use the NIV:
For Moses said,
--'Honor your father and your mother,'
--and, 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.'
But you say that
--if a man says to his father or mother: 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is Corban' (that is, a gift devoted to God),
--then you no longer let him do anything for his father or mother.
Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that (Mar 7:10 NIV)
It is apparent that the if clause is answered by the then clause (protasis and apodosis).

The sense you suggest for the apodosis, "no longer allow him to do anything for [his] father or [his] mother!" is a prohibition. As such, it requires the use of μή - on this see eg, BDF 426, 427/4; Wallace p723-4, esp 724C, or, if you prefer, Smyth 1800 (end); 1835, 1840-1841, 1919.

Earlier in the thread, David wrote,
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...
How do you account for the fact that the translations - unanimously, from your own checking - take the words in a sense other than yours? That sense is, in itself, inadequate; it does not enhance the force of Jesus' words but detracts from it. The rebuke Jesus is giving is to the Pharisees and teachers of the law. It is not a question of their telling unspecified others "No longer not let him ..." - introducing some proxy element by which they acted, as if they would give up their 'authority' in such a way! The force of the rebuke lies in that they who took upon themselves the position of custodians of the law were themselves the ones who prevented a person from truly honouring his parents: "You do not allow ...".

I don't think there's any disagreement that the οὐκέτι οὐ μή in Mark 14:25 has no bearing on the understanding of these verses, and so I'll post some information on that under a separate thread.

Regards,

Alex Hopkins
Melbourne, Australia
0 x

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

Re: Mark 7:10-13 Anacoluthon?

Post by David Lim » May 8th, 2012, 12:09 pm

Thanks Alex. I now understand the alternative reading. However I have one remaining question. According to that reading, the scribes and Pharisees say concerning such a situation that they do not allow ... Why would Jesus say that they say about themselves? Why would Jesus not instead simply say that they do not allow ... rather than say that they say so?
0 x
δαυιδ λιμ

Post Reply

Return to “New Testament”