[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