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

gfsomsel at juno.com gfsomsel at juno.com
Sun Dec 5 23:54:49 EST 2004


On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 14:16:54 -0600 Steven Lo Vullo <themelios at charter.net>
writes:
> 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
________________

It makes sense, but I'm wondering about where he gets the remark about an
address to an inferior to begin with.  I think this bears some
investigation rather than simple acceptance.  Are you aware of any
support for such a conclusion?  I should think simple address would be
sufficient.  I thought Carl's REmark on the article most interesting (I
guess he's gotten beyond "Carl's Mark" -- I know, bad pun).  While I knew
that there was a tendency to use the article when there was a vocative
function, I hadn't given much thought to whether there really is a
vocative case for the article.  This is something else which bears
investigation. 

george
gfsomsel



More information about the B-Greek mailing list