From: clayton stirling bartholomew (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri Jul 14 2000 - 16:14:26 EDT
on 07/13/00 9:15 PM, CWestf5155@aol.com wrote:
> I agree that the problem of the referent of TON LOGON (accusative, right?)
> needs to be solved. As you know, LOGOS has a broad semantic domain (see Louw
> & Nida vol 2 p. 153). I suggest that the closest referent is hA EIDON in v.
> 9, and what they saw refers back to the episode on the mountain, vv. 2-8 (so
> that the meaning of LOGOS in this context is event). So this is a direct
> response to Jesus' command. The participial phrase SUZHTOUNTES TI ESTIN TO
> EK NEKRWN ANASTHNAI is linked to Jesus' provocative contingency in v. 9b, the
> phrase EK NEKRWN ANASTH being repeated nearly verbatim.
There are several Notable Dead White European Males which disagree with you
on the referent of TON LOGON, (e.g., H. Alford, H.A.W. Meyer and H.B.
Swete). They suggest that TON LOGON points to the saying of Jesus and
particularly to the last part of it hO hUIOS TOU ANQRWPOIU EK NEKRWN
ANASTHi. This may be the best way to make sense out SUZHTOUNTES . . .
ANASTHNAI. The point being that the disciples didn't understand what Jesus
was telling them and EKRATHSAN means that they did not ask Jesus questions
about it but discussed it among themselves. This is one way of reading TON
LOGON, but I am not convinced.
> Everything points to an extremely high level of cohesion between v. 9 and v.
> 10. There is a command with a two-fold response that has all kinds of
> semantic links. I also suggest that vv. 11-13 belong to the same unit, with
> EPHRWTWN expanding on how they were seeking (SUZHTOUNTES). The whole thing
> kind of follows the pattern of given-new, with TON LOGON being the given in
> v. 10, but also prominent as the point of departure for that sentence, but
> not for the paragraph.
> The unit evidences spatial cohesion as well (the descent down the mountain
> which terminates in v. 14 when the come to the other disciples), and finally,
> there is cohesion among the actors--starting with v. 2. The formal
> boundaries between vv. 1-8 and 9-13 are spatial.
If we accept reading that sees the referent of TON LOGON as the event
recorded in 9:2-9:8 with hA EIDON in 9:9 as an anaphoric constituent
pointing back to the transfiguration., then I would look at verses 9:9-9:10
as a transition between the transfiguration event and the discussion
between Jesus and the disciples in 9:11-13 with TON LOGON as the hinge of
this transition, the point around which the story turns like a sign post at
a crossing on a road.
I would agree that there is a high level of cohesion between 9:9 and 9:10
but I also think that there is a "seam" in the story in 9:10. TON LOGON
looks both backward and forward. It ties together 9:2-8 with the discussion
in 9:11-13. It is TON LOGO which the disciples EKRATHSAN and in it is also
an aspect of TON LOGON which the disciples question Jesus about in 9:11-13.
If however we accept the reading of several Notable Dead White European
Males then TON LOGON only has very local significance. It only points to the
saying of Jesus in the immediately preceding verse and does not serve to
unify the story at the middle and high level constituents.
BTW, the notion of "paragraph" that I am using is recursive, meaning that
paragraphs can be nested within paragraphs. So I might find a "seam" in Mk
9:10 which is at a medium level constituent, between the clause and the kind
of paragraphs which show up in printed texts.
Thanks for your comments,
Clayton Stirling Bartholomew
Three Tree Point
P.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [email@example.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:36:31 EDT