[B-Greek] Mark 7:18-19
Iver Larsen
iver_larsen at sil.org
Sun Nov 1 09:25:08 EST 2009
----- Original Message -----
From: "Albert Pietersma" <albert.pietersma at sympatico.ca>
To: "Iver Larsen" <iver_larsen at sil.org>
Cc: "Wieland Willker" <wie at uni-bremen.de>; "B-Greek" <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: 1. november 2009 15:33
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Mark 7:18-19
Iver,
What strikes me as worthy of note, however, is that v. 20 reads ELEGEN
DE. While after the author's comment (KAQARIZWN PANTA TA BRWMATA) one
expects the verb of speaking to be restated, the use DE seems
surprising if KAQARIZWN refers to Jesus. For in that case the
grammatical subject in v.20 is the same as in v. 19, and the topic
continues, seemingly without a shift in focus. For comparison see
e.g., 7:9.
Al
----------------------
Yes, I agree that this is worthy of note. When you refer to 7:9 I assume you
wanted to suggest that as we have KAI ELEGEN in 7:9, you would have expected
another KAI ELEGEN in v. 20 rather than ELEGEN DE?
This is an interesting discourse question, because it deals with both the use of
KAI and DE as well as Mark's use of present and imperfect speech verbs. Verse 8
is on the story-line and the KAI in v. 9 indicates a continuation of that story
line.
A number of years ago I did some study of tenses used in speech introducers and
wrote it up for the SIL Notes on Translation (Vol 5.1, 1991). Others who have
studied this phenomenon may add to or correct me.
Let me quote from the article, first on the use of the historical present which
is particularly common in Mark and John:
"Traditionally, the historic present has been associated with added vividness to
the narrative (cf. Buth 1977:7, Levinsohn 1977:13, and Boos 1984:18). Buth,
Levinsohn, and Boos agree that the traditional description is inadequate and set
out to describe its function from a discourse perspective. Boos briefly
summarizes various theories and concludes that the primary function of the
historical present is to "highlight those episodes which build suspense towards
a climax in the plot structure and directly relate to the author's purpose"
(1984:20)...It may also be used in peak episodes and occasionally in post-peak
sentences when the tension is still high." "
In v. 18 we have: KAI LEGEI AUTOIS... the present tense IMO signals a comment or
statement that is particularly important to Mark's overall theme of a gospel for
the Gentiles that is not tied to the Jewish ritual laws. It was surprising to
the disciples and Jews in general, and difficult for them to understand (thus
the rebuke in v. 18). It is not unlike Peter's experience as described in Acts
10:11-16. It looks like the historical present tense moves the statement from
the story-line one notch higher to the peak level. This is unusual, since a
comment normally moves down below the story-line, but this comment is a peak
comment because it relates to the core theme of Mark's gospel. A comment below
the storyline is normally introduced by DE rather than KAI, and it would not use
the present tense, but could use the imperfect.
Then let me quote from the article's discussion of the imperfect tense in speech
verbs:
"The two verb forms ELEGEN 'he was saying' and ELEGON 'they were saying' occur
11 times in Matthew, 49 in Mark, 23 in Luke, and 44 in John. As with the
historic present, Mark and John are the prime exploiters of the imperfect tense
in narrative texts.
Looking at the uses of the imperfect tense in speech verbs occurring in the
Gospels, I see four related functions:
1. The basic repetitive or durative use. (This is the most frequent use in all
the Gospels.)
2. Introducing a long speech or a continued speech with several topics. (This is
especially common in Luke-see 6.20, 13.18, 14.7, 16.1, 18.1, 21.10, Mark 4.2,
John 5.19. In Luke it is equivalent to using the aorist with 'again'-compare
13.18 with 13.20. At times an author seems to imply that much more was said than
he has recorded, as in Mark 4.2, and this function correlates well with the
imperfect tense.)
3. Continuing a speech by the same person, usually adding further comments to
the same topic. (This is especially common in Mark, less so in Luke, but is not
found in John-see Mark 2.17, 4.9, 11, 21, 24, 26, 30, 6.10, 7.9, 14, 20, 9.1,
Luke 5.36, 6.5, 13.6, 14.12.)
4. Occurrence in background material. (It is not easy, and probably not
necessary, to separate this use from the first one above, but possible instances
are Mark 5.8, 28, 6.14-15, John 2.21-22, 6.6, 71, and 8.6.)"
As you can see, I had put Mark 7:20 under point 3., continuing a speech by the
same person. The DE indicates a shift, not necessarily a shift in subject or
topic, but it can be shift from the peak level back to the story-line level, as
I think it is here. Likewise, the GAR in v. 21 moves one notch down from
story-line to explanatory comment level. (I am indebted to Dr. Robert Longacre
for insights about the various levels of discourse. Longacre pioneered discourse
studies decades ago and has devoted much of his life to this topic.)
References in the article from SIL publications:
Boos, D. 1984. "The Historical Present in John's Gospel." Selected Technical
Articles Relating to Translation 11:17-24.
Buth, R. 1977. "Mark's Use of the Historical Present." Notes on Translation
65:7-13.
Callow, J. 1984. "The Function of the Historic Present in Mark 1.16-3.6; 4.1-41;
7.1-23; 12.13-34." Selected Technical Articles Relating to Translation 11:9-17.
Levinsohn, S. 1977. "Preliminary Observations on the Use of the Historic Present
in Mark." Notes on Translation 65:13-28.
Iver Larsen
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list