[B-Greek] Mark 7:18-19

Carl Conrad cwconrad2 at mac.com
Sun Nov 1 08:56:20 EST 2009


On Nov 1, 2009, at 5:34 AM, Leonard Jayawardena wrote:

>>
>> Since the point I raised has not been answered, I will ask again.
>>
>> One list member thought that the phrase PAN TO EXWQEN  
>> EISPOREUOMENON was the subject for the neuter participle KAQARIZON.  
>> As I explained in a previous post, this results in a nonsensical  
>> interpretation. My question is whether the whole thought expressed  
>> in the words from PAN TO EXWQEN EISPOREUOMENON to EIS TON AFEDRWNA  
>> EKPOREUETAI can be considered (grammatically) as the antecedent (if  
>> that's the right word) for KAQARIZON. (Even then the resultant  
>> interpretation is still nonsensical, but I am trying figure out  
>> what the intended subject of the neuter participle might have been.)

If we read KAQARIZON, then I think that it must be simply PAN TO  
EXWQEN EISPOREUOMENON EIS TON ANQRWPON -- that is the subject of OU  
DUNATAI AUTON KOINWSAI  19 hOTI OUK EISPOREUETAI AUTOU EIS THN KARDIAN  
ALL' EIS THN KOILIAN, KAI EIS TON AFEDRWNA EKPOREUETAI, and as it is  
neuter, it is the only possible candidate for KAQARIZON to agree with.


>> This leads to the following general question: In Greek does the  
>> subject (or antecedent) of a participle always have to be a  
>> particular word or phrase in the sentence? Cannot it be the idea or  
>> thought described by a group of words in another part of the  
>> sentence, particularly if the participle if neuter?

Not that I know of; pronouns can do that, i.e. neuter pronouns can  
refer back to an entire clause as antecedent, but I would think that a  
participle must at least stand in agreement with such a backward  
referring pronoun. Some postulate a nominative absolute or nominative  
"pendens" (cf. Wallace, GGBB p. 664), but (a) the instances cited are  
substantive nominative participles; and (b) the instances cited seem  
to me better described as instances of anacoluthon. Oddly enough,  
Wallace categorizes KAQARIZWN -- the masculine form, not the neuter --  
as a nominataive "pendens" -- although it is nothing at all like the  
substantival participles constituting all other instances he cites.  
That really seems to me a counsel of despair, rather like the so- 
called "aporetic" subcategories: "If you don't know what it is and  
can't explain it, give it a name and have done with it."

Wallace, p. 664: "The nominative absolute participle is in reality  
simply a substantival participle that fits the case description of  
nominativus pendens. Although it is called “nominative absolute,”  
it is not to be confused with the case category of nominative  
absolute. (This label, which has been the cause of much confusion,  
probably is derived from the fact this participle has some affinity  
with the genitive absolute participle.) To refresh your memory, the  
nominativus pendens (pendent nominative) 'consists in the enunciation  
of the logical (not grammatical) subject at the beginning of the  
sentence, followed by a sentence in which that subject is taken up by  
a pronoun in the case required by the syntax.' (Zerwick)."

AT Robertson (big grammar) refers to our text four times:

p.413  (b) PARTICIPLES. They lend themselves readily to anacoluthon in  
case. Thus ἔδοξε τοῖς ἀποστόλοις καὶ  
τοῖς πρεσβυτέροις, γράψαντες [EDOXE TOIS  
APOSTOLOIS KAI TOIS PRESBUTEROIS, GRAYANTES] (Ac. 15:22f.). See Mk.  
7:19 καθαρίζων [KAQARIZWN].

p. 437 In Mk. 7:19 (καθαρίζων πάντα τὰ βρώματα  
[KAQARIZWN PANTA TA BRWMATA]) the participle can be connected in  
thought, as Mark probably did, with λέγει  in verse 18, but the  
intervening quotation makes Mark’s explanatory addendum a real  
anacoluthon.

p. 1130: ATR classifies καθαρίζων [KAQARIZWN] as a Nominative  
Absolute but says there is no difference between this and the  
“nominative pendens.”

p. 1203: "We need not follow minutely the various sorts of  
breviloquence or brachylogy that are possible. Thought moves more  
rapidly than expression and the words often crowd together in a  
compressed way that may be not only terse, but at first obscure. " He  
cites Mt. 9:6 and the parallel passages in Mk. 2:10; Lu. 5:24,  Mk.  
14:49,  Jo. 13:18; 15:25., Ac. 1:1,  Mt. 20:8, Lu. 23:5. A case like  
Lu. 24:47, ἀρξάμενοι [ARXAMENOI], amounts to anacoluthon or  
the use of the participle as a principal verb. Cf. also  
καθαρίζων [KAQARIZWN]  in Mk. 7:19.





Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)






More information about the B-Greek mailing list