Verb Sequence in NT Greek

Joe A. Friberg JoeFriberg at email.msn.com
Wed Mar 29 00:03:58 EST 2000


Clay:
You raise and interesting question with some good data:
----- Original Message -----
From: "clayton stirling bartholomew" <c.s.bartholomew at worldnet.att.net>
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 1:56 PM


> This is a question for those who have read R.E. Longacre*  on media-final
> chaining structures and have some understanding of how this applies or
does
> not apply to NT Greek.
>
> In the Greek NT we find on occasion two fully inflected verbs in the same
> clause and at the same level of the clause structure. Longacre points out
> that in medial-final chaining languages this will not take place. The
> pattern in these languages is for all the pre-positive** verbs (medial
> verbs) to have reduced inflection (e.g., participles and infinitives) and
> full inflection is reserved for the final verb.
>
> NT Greek does not fit this pattern. So what is my question? When we see
two
> fully inflected verbs in the same clause how are we to understand the
> relationship between these verbs? Does one of the verbs function as if it
> had reduced inflection?  For example, can a fully inflected verb function
> adverbially to limit the scope of the main verb?
>
> Here are some examples found with imperatives:
>
> Mk 2:11 EGEIRE  ARON
> Mk 6:38 hUPAGETE IDETE
> Mk 16:7 hUPAGETE EIPATE
<snip>
> There is nothing difficult about any of these examples. They make
perfectly
> good sense. My question is about the function of the first fully inflected
> verb in each of these examples. Does it function like a "medial" verb as
> defined by Longacre?

Basically, the data you raise are two imparatives issued in stacatto fashion
= without a conjuction = anarthrous.  The Greek seems awkward, or at least
that seems to be the opinion of copyists, who had a habit of inserting KAI.
As you point out, the interpretation is pragmatically simple.  What it lacks
is grammatical finesse.

Let me note the parallel passages, which *usually* modify Mk's construction:
ll Mk 2.11:
Jn 5.8 = Mk
Lk 5.24 inserts KAI
Mt 9.6 EGERQEIS ARON

ll Mk 6.38 ?none?

ll Mk 16.7
Mt 28.7 POREUQEISAI EIPATE

Clearly, by the parallels in Mt esp., Mk's anarthrous construction is
semantically close to the pre-positive/final verb chaining constructions
(Aor. ptc.precedes main verb).  These constructions also support Longacre's
interpretation of the final verb chaining construction, namely, that the
pre-posed ptcs take the same time and mood as the main verb, but are of
slightly lower salience than the final/main verb.

Now, whether the anarthrous stacatto delivery of imperatives is a case of
chaining, I think not.  'Chaining' would refer to cases where there are two
distinct verb forms, yet when joined in a 'chain', they have much the same
*function* (with the exception of different salience levels).  Second,
whether the anarthrous stacatto delivery of imperatives in itself carries
the salience pattern found in final verb chaining constructions, perhaps,
but I suspect not.  I suspect the prominence in Mk's construction derives
solely from pragmatics, not syntax.  However, I suspect that the pragmatics
of exhortation (at least for Gk) provide a pattern in which the final
'punch' is saved till last!

It would be an interesting study to see if there are any examples which Mt
(or Lk) finessed the syntax by retaining the first verb as the main verb,
and 'chaining' the second verb (as a ptc).  Based on the distinction I have
argued for several times in the past, I would expect this not to be the
case, unless the pragmatics of the two imperatives (or indicatives as the
case could be) was such that the second verb served a supportive function,
such as expanding on an aspect of the first verb.  Well, there's an
hypothesis to test!

Now I have a question: what is the *source* of Mk's (and Jn's) syntax?  Is
it Aramaic, as Nigel Turner _Style_ p.12, and others have suggested?

God Bless!
Joe A. Friberg






More information about the B-Greek mailing list