[B-Greek] Mark 7:18-19

John Sanders john.franklin.sanders at gmail.com
Tue Nov 3 08:00:08 EST 2009


I believe one should be somewhat cautious in using Mark 10.2 as a
syntactical comparison for Mark 7.19.  Not so much because of the syntax
involved but because of the rhetorical structure involve.



Mark 10.2 is a simple sentence with a participle construed to the subject
followed by a verb asking a question with a participial phrase construed
back to the subject.  This latter participle, as you suggests functions
similarly to the situation in Mark 7.18 and 19, but I would caution this
comparison because of rhetorical reasons.



Mark 7.18 begins with a subject making a statement with two hOTI clauses,
the second such clause beginning verse 19, then followed by the participial
clause.  If the word is with o-mega, then it is easy to construe it with the
subject through the verb at verse 18, no different than with the Mark 10
sample, but the problem I see with this comparison is the rhetorical effect,
they are different.



The Mark 10 passage is pretty straight forward; the participial clause is
directly related to the theme of the passage (to the Pharisees).  If we
consider KAQARIZWN, with an o-mega, then it intrudes on the theme (and
rather rudely, I would say).  I would actually have expected some form of a
discourse marker to help in the change in theme presented, but none is
present.  (This is the first disagreement I have with Steve Runge.  Well,
actually not a disagreement over a technical item, but from the general
tenor of his letter on this subject where I understand his meaning to be
that this phrase builds on the rhetorical discourse in some manner.  It does
not, at least in my view.  It just intrudes and changes the subject in the
middle of the discourse).



Normally I am just reading the Greek now without referencing a translation
or a grammar, and it probably shows.  But from the responses on this thread,
I decided to look at two translations.  First the KJV translates this phrase
is as “purging all meats?” Except for the question mark it appears similar
to a suggestion of mine earlier.  So let me bring that up one more time but
with the reasoning behind my thinking.  In Greek BRWMATA and other words for
foods are generally in the plural, seldom if ever in the singular.  Some
languages made special arrangements with how words are construed with such
plural only words.  My knowledge of Greek is insufficient for me to know how
it handles this category of nouns.  And since PANTA TA BRWMATA is not a
plural in the sense of a collection of items, such as five loaves of bread,
two wheels of cheese, and a bowl of figs, I suggested that the subject,
PANTA TA BRWMATA has as its predicate the singular KAQARIZWN.  If that would
be the case, then food is just the food we eat, and for those at that time
it would not consist of poisons, tree bark, or pig meat.  But Dr. Conrad
says that cannot occur, and I have no doubt he is correct.



Now, the second translation is the NET.  It translates this as “(This means
all foods are clean).”  There is a footnote stating “This is a parenthetical
note by the author….”  ‘s George’s translation is alright, but I would
render the phrase KAI LEGEI AUTOIS…KAQARIZWN PANTA TA BRWMATA so as to
emphasize the impact it has on me as “And he said to them…(while making all
foods kosher).  The translations using the o-mega handle this intrusion as
if it was a trivial matter of no impact upon the discourse that it sits in
the middle of.  If I was a disciple at that time and heard that at that
time, I think that this would be the focus of all the conversation that
would take place, rather than the discourse which is at hand and continues.
 In other words, this is a discourse breaker, interrupter-it would I think
tend to lead the discourse away from the theme set.



Just some concluding thoughts I have.



John Sanders

Suzhou, China


On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 10:09 AM, George F Somsel <gfsomsel at yahoo.com> wrote:

> An editorial comment is ANY statement not a part of quoted speech which the
> writer introduces into the narrative.  Yes, PEORAZONTES AUTON would be such
> an editorial comment though it doesn't continue with more speech by the
> Pharisees.  I prefer "declaring all foods clean" rather than "making all
> foods clean."
>  george
> gfsomsel
>
>
> … search for truth, hear truth,
> learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
> defend the truth till death.
>
>
> - Jan Hus
> _________
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Leonard Jayawardena <leonardj at live.com>
> To: gfsomsel at yahoo.com
> Cc: b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
> Sent: Mon, November 2, 2009 6:46:48 PM
> Subject: Mark 7:18-19
>
>
>
>
> George F. Somsel wrote:
>
> Quote
>
> If you understand KAQARIZWN ... as referring back to the implicit subject
> in LEGEI as you appear to do, then KAQARIZWN PANTA TA BRWMATA must be the
> writer's comment rather than being contained in the quoted speech since
> LEGEI is itself a speech introduction formula.
>
> Unquote
>
>
> LJ: I didn't say that KAQARIZWN PANTA TA BRWMATA was contained in the
> quoted speech. Note that I simplified the passage into the following form:
>
> KAI LEGEI AUTOIS, "...?", KAQARIZWN PANTA TA BRWMATA.
>
> What I meant was that the sentence flows smoothly into KAQARIZWN PANTA TA
> BRWMATA if you ignore the length of the quoted speech.
>
>
> Don't we have a similar structure in Mark 10:2?
>
> KAI PROSELQONTES FARISAIOI EPHRWTWN AUTON EI EXESTIN ANDRI GUNAIKA
> APOLUSAI, PEIRAZONTES AUTON.
>
>
> Isn't PEIRAZONTES AUTON syntactically performing the same function in the
> above passage as KAQARIZWN ... does in Mark 7:19? So if KAQARIZWN ... is an
> "editorial comment" then, by the same token, PEIRAZONTES AUTON, too, is an
> editorial comment. If not, why not?
>
>
> What "Mark" meant by "purifying all foods" is that by what Jesus said he
> declared all foods, whether eaten with washed or unwashed hands, to be clean
> as they cannot transmit any impurity to man in the higher spiritual sense.
> And that is exactly the purpose or consequence of Jesus' quoted speech. So
> how is it an editorial comment? I think an editorial comment is properly
> something like Matthew 24:15, "let the reader understand."
>
>
> Leonard Jayawardena
> _________________________________________________________________
> Windows Live Hotmail: Your friends can get your Facebook updates, right
> from Hotmail®.
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/middleeast/windows/windowslive/see-it-in-action/social-network-basics.aspx?ocid=PID23461::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-xm:SI_SB_4:092009
>
>
>
> ---
> B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek
> B-Greek mailing list
> B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
>



-- 
John Sanders
Suzhou, China



More information about the B-Greek mailing list