[B-Greek] Translating Mark 5:7 re pronoun number

Dan Gleason dan-bgreek at hotmail.com
Mon Oct 31 13:06:12 EST 2005


Dear (soon to be) Dr. Blakey

Thank you for your take (see below) on Mk 1:21-28 and Mk 5:1-20 for 
assertaining the number of unclean spirits that can possess a man based on 
where and how the text uses singular and plural pronouns.

My position is the way Mark uses pronouns you can really never be sure.
(kind of like arguing how many unclean spirits can fit on the head of a pin)
Many times the text is not only ambiguous but perhaps even purposely 
misleading.

In the Mk 1 pericope it seems the man might be possessed by only one.
But it's possible he might be possessed by more. I think Mark is purposely 
vague.

In the Mk 5 pericope we know for sure it is many. But how many?
We are told the spirits go into a herd of pigs but the text doesn't give a 
beginning number for how many pigs were in the herd.
Is it the same number as the number of men in a roman legion (over 5,000)?
We later read that about 2,000 pigs were drowned.
Does this mean the entire herd drowned?
The text doesn't say that.
Perhaps 1,999 were drowned and over 3,000 were not.
I could also argue that the number of spirits in the demoniac was only six 
or seven and that there is no one to one correspondence to the number of 
drowned pigs.
Read the text carefully and you will see what I mean.

I will soon post another Markan example of where the number referred to in a 
plural pronoun at first seems completely obvious but on closer examination 
is ambiguous.

Dan Gleason





>From: "J. Ted Blakley" <jtedblakley at gmail.com>
>To: Dan Gleason <dan-bgreek at hotmail.com>
>CC: b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
>Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Translating Mark 5:7
>Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 15:03:12 +0000
>
>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>
>========================================================================

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! 
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/




More information about the B-Greek mailing list