From: clayton stirling bartholomew (email@example.com)
Date: Thu Aug 10 2000 - 17:05:19 EDT
on 08/10/00 9:00 AM, CWestf5155@aol.com wrote:
> Let me make a few more observations:
> I see the interpersonal structure and the roles of agent/subject and
> object/goal/recipient as being very significant.
> hOS (AN) as subject/agent in vv. 37, 40, 41 & 42 create a unifying pattern,
> even though the referents switch back and forth.
> SE as object/goal links vv. 43-48 (and perhaps through v. 50, if you want to
> see vv. 49-50 as and expansion of PUR in v. 48).
> Summarizing the interpersonal structure:
> v. 37 hOS AN hEN TWN TOIOUTWN PAIDIWN DEXHTAI
> Whoever (of the disciples?) welcomes such children...
> v. 40 hOS GAR OUK ESTIN KAQ hUMWN
> For whoever (of the outsiders) is for us...
> v. 41 hOS GAR AN POTISH hUMAS POTHRION
>For whoever (of the outsiders) gives you a cup of [water]
> v. 42 KAI hOS AN SKANVDALISH hENA TWN MIKRWN TOUTWN
> And whoever (of the disciples?) 'stumbles' one of these little ones
> Hey, this looks a bit chiastic, doesn't it?
> I'd say that SKANDALIZW in v. 42 creates cohesion across the interpersonal
> shift at v. 43, and does not determine a boundary. This is very common. A.
> Vanhoye, in his description of the structure of Hebrews calls these 'hook
> words', which George Guthrie catagorizes in an extremely complex way in his
> dissertation on Hebrews. Dik calls it 'forward harmony' in Theory of FG, vol
> 1, p. 321.
Nice work! It is a pleasure to get responses which have this much thought
put into them. Your analysis of the interpersonal structure looks very
intriguing and I will ponder it for a while.
Meanwhile, I am still a little befuddled about Mk 9:43-50. It looks to me
like Mark is using words like SKANDALIZW, PUR and ALS to tie together
otherwise unrelated material. There seem to be real thematic/semantic breaks
at 9:42/43 and 9:48/49 and 9:49/50. Mark appears to be using word play to
tie these segments into a chain. Here are the breaks and the words used to
span the breaks:
The segment 9:48-50 is particularly tricky where the thematic/semantic
transitions are very rapid. This may be a similar idea to 'hook words." Not
sure since I have not read A. Vanhoye. I would agree that SKANDALIZW does
not "determine" a boundary, that is it is not a boundary marker. However in
9:42/43 I think there is a boundary of some sort and SKANDALIZW is being
used to provide some level of apparent thematic cohesion.
Thanks again for your thoughts on this.
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: [firstname.lastname@example.org]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to email@example.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:36:33 EDT