Date: Fri Jul 14 2000 - 21:50:53 EDT
In a message dated 7/14/00 2:17:19 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
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 think what would be clear is that the transition began in v. 9 and was
amplified in v. 10.
<< 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.>>
But one can say equally that v. 9 also looks backward and forward--it refers
back to the transfiguration and forward: let's assume your Notable Dead
White European Male reading of LOGOS as meaning Jesus' saying in v. 9 for the
sake of argument. Then v. 9 would supply the content of TON LOGON,
definitely looking forward.
<< 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.>>
Yes, the link to the preceding section would be in v. 9, so v. 9 would have
the function of initiating the transition to the new section, either way.
You see, both verses look backward and forward, no matter how you read it.
If TON LOGON is only local, that would place the transition even more clearly
at v. 9. Hey, you know some linguists say that all coherent speech within
discourse is forward and backward looking.
But also, it is important to view cohesion and cohesion shifts as more
multi-faceted and complex than just the logical structure--not that we
override the logical structure, but that we can make a case for so many
plausible alternatives. Temporal & spatial deixis, logical structure, topic,
prominence, etc., ought to work together. The spatial shift in v. 9. Is
even thematic (the point of departure) and that shift provides the spatial
context for everything until the group join the apostles in v. 14.
<<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.
Right--that was something like my working definition. And as such, I too
would see the closest semantic links as being between vv. 9-10 and vv. 11-13,
but that 'seeking' and 'asking' this close in context would be linked, in my
Obscure Animated Pale Confused in American-European Orientation Female
opinion (that is what you were getting at, right? :)
Nice to talk it over as always, even when you bring your NDWEM friends along.
Neither one of us ever lacks a strong opinion.
PhD Student, Roehampton
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