[B-Greek] Mk 5:8 voc or nom?

Steven Lo Vullo themelios at charter.net
Sun Dec 5 15:16:54 EST 2004


On Dec 5, 2004, at 5:14 AM, gfsomsel at juno.com wrote:

>> On Dec 1, 2004, at 1:26 PM, gfsomsel at juno.com wrote:
>>
>>> Functionally this is a vocative though its form is nominative.  It
>> is
>>> not
>>> uncommon for the nominative to be used for the vocative.
>>
>> But George, the neuter nominative and vocative have the same form,
>> so
>> why consider it nominative when it is clearly a case of address?


> Agreed, the form is the same.  Consider, however, several facts:
>
> 1.  A.T. Robertson notes "but in reality it is not a case at all."

Agreed. This is why I told Scott that the vocative is not grammatically 
related to the rest of the sentence and so should not be considered to 
be in apposition to the implied subject of the sentence. When I said 
above, "it is clearly a case of address," I did not mean grammatical 
case, but case in the sense of "instance," i.e., this is an instance of 
direct address.

> 2. Robertson also cites Farrer who conjectured that there was 
> originally
> no difference in form but that the difference was due to rapid
> pronunciation.
> 3. Even in the time of Homer the nominative began to displace the
> vocative.
> 4. In GoMk there are a number of clear vocatives, but these tend to
> cluster around the words DIDASKALOS / DIDASKALE and KURIOS / KURIE.
> 5. There are clear instances of the use of the nominative form rather
> than a vocative to function as a vocative in the GoMk such as Mk 14.36
> ABBA, hO PATHR and 15.34 hO QEOS MOU, hO QEOS MOU.
>
> I would therefore tend to prefer to call this a nominative form with a
> vocative function.

After thinking about this a little more, I think you may be right. The 
problem is that we are dealing with the neuter gender, and so things 
get a little ambiguous. But Carl's comment about the article reminded 
me of something I had read before about nominatives used in direct 
address. Wallace has this to say:

"The articular use ... involves two nuances: address to an inferior and 
simple substitute for a Semitic noun of address, regardless of whether 
the addressee is inferior or superior. The key for determining which 
use is being followed has to do with whether the text in question can 
be attributed to a Semitic source (such as quotation from the LXX)."

He uses Mark 5.8 as an example of an articular nominative used in the 
address of an inferior. This would fit in well with the theme of Jesus' 
authority over unclean spirits. Does this make sense to you?
============

Steven Lo Vullo
Madison, WI




More information about the B-Greek mailing list