[B-Greek] Relative idiom hO ESTIN in Mk. 5:41 & 15:22
Blue Meeksbay
bluemeeksbay at yahoo.com
Sun Feb 21 10:05:55 EST 2010
Carl Conrad mentioned that the copula ESTIN is sometimes used in an "epexegetic" manner, similar to the idiom TOUT' ESTIN, (i.e. if I understood him correctly). This led me to the relative idiom hO ESTIN used many times in Mark.
KAI IAKWBON TON TOU ZEBEDAIOU KAI IWANNHN TON ADELFON TOU IAKWBOU KAI EPEQHKEN AUTOIS ONOMA BOANHRGES, hO ESTIN hUIOI BRONTHS· Mark 3:17
KAI ELQOUSA MIA CHRA PTWCH EBALEN LEPTA DUO, hO ESTIN KODRANTHS. Mark 12:42
hOI DE STRATIWTAI APHGAGON AUTON ESW THS hAULHS, hO ESTIN PRAITWRION, KAI SUGKALOUSIN hOLHN THN SPEIRAN Mark 15:16
This also led me to think of Mark 15:22 and Mark 5:41 –
KAI FEROUSIN AUTON EPI TON GOLGOQAN TOPON, hO ESTIN MEQERMHNEUOMENOS KRANIOU TOPOS Mark 15:22
KAI KRATHSAS THS CEIROS TOU PAIDIOU LEGEI hAUTHi· TALIQA KOUM, hO ESTIN MEQERMHNEUOMENON· TO KORASION SOI LEGW EGEIRE Mark 5:41
Based upon this idiom, is ESTIN being understood too narrowly in these passages? It seems some understand it more in a copula sense, and, thus, the relative idiom is used to make two phrases equivalent. This does not seem to be a problem in such a verse as Mark 12:42, but in Mark 15:22 and Mark 5:41 the two phrases are not equivalent.
KAI FEROUSIN AUTON EPI TON GOLGOQAN TOPON, hO ESTIN MEQERMHNEUOMENOS KRANIOU TOPOS Mark 15:22
In Mark 15:22, it seems he is interpreting the phrase he just said, not translating the word Golgotha only. He repeats the word TOPOS (place) with his interpretation which therefore cannot strictly be a literal translation, for you can’t translate Greek to Greek. It seems understanding hO ESTIN in an "epexegetic" manner” would help – “which is to say.”
If we take out MEQERMHNEUOMENOS, perhaps, I can explain better what I am trying to say. Without MEQERMHNEUOMENOS it would become –
KAI FEROUSIN AUTON EPI TON GOLGOQAN TOPON, hO ESTIN KRANIOU TOPOS.
Written in this way I do not think one would think TOPOS is part of the meaning of GOLGOQAN. Rather, one would understand he is just restating the phrase he said before, now with the translation of GOLGOQAN.
And bringing him to – the place, Golgotha – which is to say– the place of a skull.
In the same way, if we leave out MEQERMHNEUOMENON in Mark 5:41 we get the same sense.
KAI KRATHSAS THS CEIROS TOU PAIDIOU LEGEI hAUTHi· TALIQA KOUM, hO ESTIN TO KORASION SOI LEGW EGEIRE
And having taken the child by the hand – “ he says to her – Talitha Koum" – (which is to say), “I say to you – little girl arise.”
Or, perhaps
And having taken the child by the hand – “ he is saying to her – Talitha Koum" – (which is to say, [he was saying] ), “I say to you – little girl arise.”
In other words, "I say to you." should not be thought to be part of Mark’s translation of Talitha Koum. He is simply restating what he said in the phrase before, like he did with Mark 15:22. Mark says Jesus is speaking to her LEGEI hAUTHi (present tense), "implying" that other words may have been used with "Talitha Koum." I know sometimes the present can still be used in a punctiliar sense, but it seems if Mark was saying Jesus only said the words, “Talitha Koum,” it would have been more common to use the aorist tense.
If this is true, could not Mark be simply restating what he “implied” Jesus was saying in 41a, by “explicitly” stating the additional words he left out in 41a – SOI LEGW. In other words, he is giving further definition to his previous statement, not simply a translation. Robertson speaks of hO ESTIN as the explanatory idiom.
As far as the participle MEQERMHNEUOMENON, of course, it must be included, but it is simply telling us some translation was being done, not that TO KORASION SOI LEGW EGEIRE is a literal translation of TALIQA KOUM.
It seems the relative idiom hO ESTIN (which is to say) aids us in this distinction. Any thoughts?
Sincerely,
Blue Harris
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list