Re: IATAI doch noch einmal wieder (was:Impv in Mk 5:34)

From: Carlton Winbery (winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net)
Date: Tue Jul 15 1997 - 12:58:30 EDT


Carl Conrad wrote;
>
>TO MEN PRWTON hUPODHMA, W QEOFILE, PROSHNEGKA FOBERWS DH, ALL' hOMWS G'
>ELPIZWN AUTO SWSEIN; IDOU DE TODE TO DEUTERON PALIN PROSFERW ETI MALLON
>FOBOUMENOS, hOU EAN LUSHiS TON hIMANTA, OU KEKTHMAI OUDEN ALLO!

hOS DE ESTIN hIKANOS LUSAI TON hIMANTA TOU hUPODHMATOS SOU;

>Everyone should understand that Carlton's other baptismal name, if known
>only to his parents and myself, is "Theophilus". Actually I am in a tiny
>minority of Luke-Acts interpreters that thinks "Theophilus" is not a
>distinct historical individual but rather a generic term of endearment
>addressed by the evangelist to every human reader. That idea may be very
>wrong, but it makes me feel good, makes me think that Luke wrote for me in
>particular, as well as for everyone else in particular.

I Like that idea also. Thanks.

>(b) yes, it conforms [to the rules of morphology]
>to the morphology of alpha contract verbs--BUT it is somewhat anomalous in
>TWO ways: (1) the lengthening of the Iota in the initial vowel is not
>signaled in the spelling of the Greek word, although it must be lengthened
>(augment in place of reduplication) if this is in fact a perfect passive
>(cf. ERWTATAI, HRWTHTAI);

I take it as lengthened like hIMATISMENOS from hIMATIZW

 (2) the Alpha of the stem IA should lengthen and
>the lengthened Alpha should become Eta, BUT that vocalic change from Alpha
>to Eta is INHIBITED (in Attic, at least, although not in older Ionic) when
>the Alpha is immediately preceded by Epsilon, Iota, or Rho (again, cf.
>ERWTATAI, HRWTHTAI, whereas, if IATAI in Mk 5:29 is in fact a perfect
>passive, then that pattern would be orthographically uncontrasting: present
>I)A=TAI, perfect I)/ATAI). Which is to say: Yes, "it's the correct form
>according to the morphology of alpha contract verbs," but in a curiously
>anomalous fashion.

Like TEQEAMAI from QEAOMAI. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "anomalous."

>>>I really think that we OUGHT to view this form (unless we can find other
>>>examples of an I)/AMAI perfect passive) as (a) a present passive (..."that
>>>she is (was) being healed"),
>>
>>But the imperfect form IATO is attested in other lit. and would have said
>>this so much better, granted there is not much difference between the
>>so-called "historic presents" usage and the use of the present for the
>>imperfect. It does not happen much in Mark as I recall.
>
>And HOW, pray tell, could I)A=TO as an imperfect, be distinguished
>orthographically in the Uncial MSS from I)/ATO as a pluperfect;

By context, the same like project/ and pro/ject in English.

>>If that is the case, I would see it as intensive, "She knew in her body
>>that he, himself, healed (historic) her from the malady."
>
>That could be, I guess, although I've always thought that the historical
>present was found primarily in independent narrative clauses rather than in
>a subordinate hOTI clause.

I need to check some of the 150 such uses of the present in Mark. I had
not noticed whether they were ever used in subordinate clauses.

>>But it is pervasive, even in the authorial comments and connecting
>>summaries (see esp. 8:14-21).
>
>I don't quite understand this. Do you mean that BAD GREEK is pervasive in
>Mark, even in his redaction? Frankly I think Mk 8:14-21 is pretty good
>Greek. Seriously, what would you fault in it?
>
Not just grammar but rough transitions. Vs. 15 comes out of the blue and
seems not to tie into 14 or 16.

[omit long list of witnesses}
>
>Of all of these I must say regretfully that error, like Adam's sin
>(according to St. Paul), once emergent, has a way of being hUPEREKPERISSWS
>prolific. It may, as you suspect, NOT be an error, but once accepted, it is
>certainly likely to have been adopted by subsequent editors of the NT,
>despite the fact that the earliest, i.e. the Uncial (I shall forever want
>to write "Unical" when I think of this word!) MSS, are unaccented. And
>although it has no value as proof that IATAI must be understood as a
>present-tense form, Edward's allusion to the fate of poor Junia (Rom 16:7),
>maligned in her gender through the ages, is a salutary parable pointing the
>moral that 20,000,000 Frenchmen and centuries of copyists and interpreters
>CAN BE WRONG. I will not say dogmatically that they ARE wrong in this
>instance, but as the hymnast wrote, "Time makes ancient good uncouth."

Don't misunderstand my recitation of the occasions when the perfect was
interpreted. When I am wrong, I love company (not that I have given up the
ship yet.)

>This is an interpretation, of course,
>not a literal translation.

Every translation is an interpretation.

>In sum, I find the unanimity of this tradition impressive and interesting,
>but I do not find in it compelling evidence that the form IATAI attested in
>the early Uncials really is a perfect passive. Maybe I'm obtuse.

Were it compelling, then we would not be having this dialogue. My
recitation here was a round about way of saying that divers people had read
the context as I do.

>>Perhaps the best
>>translation into a modern language I have seen is in Die Bibel, Die Gute
>>Nachricht in heutigem Deutsch, ". . . und sie spuerte, dass sie ihre
>>Plage los war." "and she sensed that she was free from her sickness."
>>Clearly the writer is thinking of an existing result.

>Yes, I like that version, but surely it is evident that this is a
>paraphrase ("dynamic equivalence"?) rather than a "literal" translation
>(and NO, I DON'T want to start another thread on how the Biblical text
>OUGHT to be translated). And I agree with you that this German version
>understands the Greek text to imply an existing result. Let me go one step
>further than that even: I think that the text of Mk 5:29 IATAI, even when
>interpreted as a PRESENT tense (a solecism?--that's a possibility I'm open
>to here as a form in Mk's source) could be understood in terms of
>instantaneous fruition (I might suggest a version: "She realized that a
>cure was at hand." THAT's how I would translate it as a present middle.
>
We are in agreement I think on translation methods.
>
>Et bien, voilˆ! This has been a fascinating (to me, at least) exercise in
>"pure" grammatical analysis.

Is there not a saying about Professors knowing more and more about less and
less. I lived with morphology for 13 years while trying to write something
helpful for students so I'll discuss it whether it makes much difference or
not. And it is Greek.

ERRWSQE,

Carlton Winbery
LA College



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:22 EDT