[B-Greek] Mk 5:8 voc or nom?
Steven Lo Vullo
themelios at charter.net
Sat Dec 11 21:24:50 EST 2004
On Dec 5, 2004, at 10:54 PM, gfsomsel at juno.com wrote:
>> 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?
> 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, Wallace doesn't do much explaining here. He quotes briefly from
BDF. Here is the full quote from BDF:
"(3) Attic used the nominative (with the article) with simple
substantives only in addressing inferiors, who were, so to speak,
thereby addressed in the 3rd person (Aristoph., Ra. 521 hO PAIS,
AKOLOUQEI). The NT (in passages translated from a Semitic language) and
the LXX do not conform to these limitations, but can even say hO QEOS,
hO PATHR etc., in which the arthrous Semitic vocative is being
reproduced by the Greek nominative with the article."
So you are right, this bears some investigation rather than hasty
acceptance. Perhaps Carl and others who are well familiar with both
Attic and the history of the development of the language can add more.
============
Steven Lo Vullo
Madison, WI
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list