Re: Mark 1:19 kai *autous*

Date: Sat Feb 08 1997 - 15:20:00 EST

Carl W Conrad wrote:

No, not really--this is repetition of the immediately preceding objects of EIDEN
(IAKWBON ... KAI IWANNHN) followed by an emphatic AUTOUS emphasized further by
an adverbial KAI: " ... saw James ... & John, them also in the boat ..." I would
undestand this KAI AUTOUS as clarifying that Jesus encountered James and John on
the coastline and on a boat just as he had previously encountered Simon and
Andrew. By this accounting, AUTOUS is in apposition to the proper noun objects.

An alternative way of reading it is to take AUTOUS as the subject of the
participle KATARTIZONTAS; since a verb o perception takes indirect discourse
with a participle rather than with an infinitive you can
understand this as " ... saw James ... & John and that they were mending ... "

---------- end of Conrad.

The classical grammars refer to supplementary participle in indirect discourse,
eg. Smyth, sec. 2106-2122, and indroductory texts (classical) make clear
statements about the participle in indirect discourse, eg. Mastronarde, pp.
208-210; Hansen & Quinn, pp 465-467.

There is another way to understand the use of supplementary participles. Using
Ockham's razor, the Greek sentence can be understood under seven different
types: Subject-Verb-Object; S-V; S-(V)-Subject_Complement;
S-V-Indirect_Object-Object; S-V-O-Object_Complement; S-V-O-O; and their
appropriate passive transformations. The O-OC itself functions as an equative
similar to the S-V-SC, rather than an appositive.

By slotting the words by part of speech and case we get the following picture:
the sentence is an S-V-O-OC, with S-V = EIDEN, O = IAKWBON ... IWANNHN ktl, OC =
AUTOUS. (I think I have cases and agreement sorted out correctly.) The
KATARTIZONTAS TA DIKTUA is left simply as a durative supplementary participle,
functioning adjectivally, with an object, cf. Mt 24:30. According to this theory
AUTOUS is a personal pronoun, in the Acc. because it is an OC in agreement with
the O, and KATARTIZONTAS modifies the pronoun, so is in agreement with it.
(This is different from the Infinitive with Acc. subject used in indirect

To have KAI as "also" does make connection with the situation of Andrew and
Simon, as well as breaking the monotony of "and", but it need not. Andrew and
Simon may well have been standing in the water casting their nets, just as
Gabonese fishermen in Libreville do today. KAI as "and" may introduce a
parenthesis, setting us up of the disclosure which follows. Andrew and Simon
gave up their nets; James and John gave up nets, boat, father and hired help.

The theory eliminates the need for special rules for participles in indirect
discourse, treating them simply as supplementary participles, and allowing the
normal rules of agreement to hold.

The sentence would be understood much as in #1: "... he saw James ..., and them
in the boat are mending ...." How this gets expressed in well crafted English
prose is another matter.

My understanding of an appositonal construction would produce examples such as
"King George" or "President Lincoln", or in Greek, "O ANQRWPOS O KALOS".
AUTOUS, in this case, is a 3rd pl. personal pronoun referring to the two fellows
who were seen.

Carl W Conrad wrote:

There's little difference in the meaning resultant from these two different
analyses, but the constructions are different. In #1 above
AUTOUS is appositional to the proper nouns, while in #2 it is the accusative
subject of the participle functioning as the predicate in an
indirect discourse construction with a verb of perception.
---------- end of Conrad.

Ture, there is little difference, but, if the theory is correct then the
alternative #2 does not hold. Goetchius, sect. 226, (New Testment grammar text)
gives a list of the verbs associated with supplementary participles which in the
classical grammars are associated with indirect discourse.

One thing must be clearly understood, I will not die for this theory! I merely
want to try it on for size, away from my professor. But, helpful comments will
be accepted gladly.

Peter E Scott

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:05 EDT