[B-Greek] Translating Mark 5:7
J. Ted Blakley
jtedblakley at gmail.com
Mon Oct 31 10:03:12 EST 2005
Dan,
I think that your argument that Mark 1:21-28 faulters at a number of points.
First of all, there are different uses one can put grammatical number to. I
think you need to consider the possibility that this episode is functioning
in a programmatic role in the larger Markan narrative and so is
foreshadowing what is to come. That is, when the witnesses say "he commands
even the unclean spirits and they obey him," the plural is not in reference
to what just happened but what is going to happen and happen again
throughout much of the subsequent narrative. Coming at the end of this
episodie, this statement prepares the reader for what is to come (a common
rhetorical strategy in Mark, e.g., 4:41 and 8:21). That is, Jesus does a lot
of exorcising (EKBALLW and other related terms) in these opening chapters,
not only the ostensible exorcisms of unclean spirits as in 1:21-28 but the
exorcising of the fever of Simon's mother-in-law (1:29-31) which the
language of AFHKEN ("left her") evokes, the cleansing of the leper (1:40-45)
with its reference to EXEBALEN AUTON, the so-called stilling of the storm
(4:35-41), etc. So the use of the plural by the witnesses does not
automatically indicate that the man was possessed by multiple demons.
As for you second point regarding the convulsion of the man. I am not
convinced by your logic that the man's convulsing "(implies numerous
involuntary movements) as each spirit came out of him. First, I don't know
how one could ever defend such an assertion not least because the word in
question (SPARRASSW) is used also in Mark 9:26 in reference to the singular
unclean spirit coming out of the boy (notice the wealth of singulars both in
nouns and verbs in this passage). Also, cf. Luke 9:39 on this issue.
Finally, you use the demon's use of the plural in "have you come to destroy
us" as evidence. But such a statement does not automatically mean that all
of those unclean spirits are within the man, only that the unclean spirit is
asking about the fate of all unclean spirits, which fits quite nicely within
the interpretation of this episode as a programmatic anticipating of all
that is to come. Moreover, there is much evidence in this episode that the
man has and that Jesus exorcises one and only one unclean spirit from the
man.
1. The narrator in introducing the man says that there is a man with an
unclean spirit (EN PNEUMATI AKAQARTW) 1:24
2. The unclean spirit "says," third person singular (ANEKRAXEN) 1:23
3. "I know who you are," first person singular (OIDA) 1:24
4. Jesus commands "him" (AUTW) 1:25
5. saying "Be silent/muzzled (FIMWQHTI) and come out (EXELQE) of him," where
the imperatives are both second singular (1:25)
6. Then "the unclean spirit (TO PNEUMA TO AKAQARTON) convulses him and cries
out in a great voice (FWNHSAN FWNH MEGALH) and comes out (EXHLQEN) of him,"
where the subject and verbs are all singular. (1:26)
Yes, there are connections between this episode and that of the Gerasene
demoniac but it is not on the number of unclean spirits involved. What makes
this story so intriquing is the dramatic way in which Mark has chosen to
narrate the story. The narrator begins much as he does the Mark 1 episode
with reference to a single unclean spirit and this continues until 1:9 when
Jesus asks the unclean spirit's name. At this point, the unclean spirit says
"My name is Legion; for we are many," which makes a whole lot of sense of
what the narrator had just been telling us about this man, namely, that no
one could restrain him even with chains and shackles. This must be one
powerful spirit the reader may well wonder. But when we get to the demon's
name, the reader discovers that we have an instance of multiple infestation
which explains the state of the man who lived among the tombs. But notice,
how the story continues, namely, that from here on out (except for the first
verb in 5:10) the nouns and verbs are plural.
1. He (the one exception) begged him earnestly that he not send them (AUTA)
out of the region. (5:10).
2. And they begged him (PARAKALESAN) him saying (LEGONTES), all plural
verbs, (5:12)
3. Send us (HMAS) into the pigs that we might enter (EISELQWMEN) them (5:12)
4. And he commanded them (AUTOIS) (5:13)
5. And going out (EXELQONTA) the unclean spirits (TA PNEUMATA TA AKAQARTA)
entered (EISHLQON), all plural (5:14)
Well, this post is getting to long but I have made some of my initial
points. I would say that it is worth looking at what Matt and Luke do with
this story, because they tell basically the same story, Luke moreso than
Matt, but in much different ways with a much different rhetorical effect.
Basically, both Matthew and Luke, each in their own way, remove any of this
singular and plural ambiguity with respect to the number of demons. Matthew
has two demoniacs and Luke describes the man as having "demons" (plural)
from the beginning. (Mark, however, is a more interesting, a more dramatic
read in my opinion; not just here but with other stories as well.) Moreover,
Luke has made no significant changes in his telling of Mark 1:21-28, which
suggests that Luke reads Mark 1 as referring to a single unclean spirit and
reads Mark 5 as referring to multiple demons. That's all for now.
Sincerely,
Ted
--
========================================================================
J. Ted Blakley
Ph.D. Candidate
University of St Andrews, Scotland, UK
Thesis: Contributions of the Episodic Sea Crossings to the Purpose of Mark's
Gospel:
A Narrative-Critical Study of Mark 4:1–8:26"
Email 1: jtb1 at st-andrews.ac.uk
Email 2: jtedblakley at gmail.com
Online CV: www.blakleycreative.com/jtb <http://www.blakleycreative.com/jtb>
Hebrew 2 Hub: www.blakleycreative.com/jtb/Hebrew.htm<http://www.blakleycreative.com/jtb/Hebrew.htm>
========================================================================
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list