From: Trevor & Julie Peterson (speederson@erols.com)
Date: Tue Jun 05 2001 - 17:55:46 EDT
This is a more or less gut reaction, but it seems like there is some sort of
distinction between the two examples. For one thing, Mark 2:10 seems to
indicate in some way that the scribes' conclusion was not altogether
fallacious. For another, the assertion that the paralytic's sins are
forgiven seems to be more than a simple observation of fact. I suppose one
could say that the act in both contexts is that Jesus takes upon Himself the
authority to declare something that seems beyond normal ability to declare,
which would leave the agent ambiguous; but I'm still not sure how you'd get
around Jesus's follow-up about forgiving sin. I'm not disagreeing--just
trying to understand.
Trevor Peterson
CUA/Semitics
> -----Original Message-----
> From: c stirling bartholomew [mailto:cc.constantine@worldnet.att.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2001 5:27 PM
> To: Biblical Greek
> Subject: [b-greek] Agency&Passive, Mk 14:57-59 False testimony
>
>
> Marius Reiser* in an extended discussion of the so called "divine passive"
> points out that when the agent of a true passive constituent is left
> unspecified, it is not exegeitically sound parctice to make assumptions or
> draw conclusions about the agent, since the intention of the author was to
> downplay the issue of agency.
>
> Reiser points out that in Mk 2:5 we see Jesus use the passive:
>
> AFIENTAI SOU hAI hAMARTIAI
>
> and even though the agent is not specified the scribes concluded
> that Jesus
> was claiming to be the agent. Hold that thought.
>
> Now if we take at the false testimony in Mk 14:57-59 and test
> that testimony
> against Jesus statement in Mk 13:2:
>
> . . . OU MH AFEQi hWDE LIQS EPI LIQON hOS OU MH KATALUQHi
>
> We can begin to see how this false testimony might have been based on a
> misunderstanding (either intentional or not) of what Jesus had said. Jesus
> leaves the question of agency open in MK 13:2, which is in fact fairly
> standard practice in prophetic and apocalyptic texts when destruction is
> the topic. The false wittnesses at his trial take advantage of
> this and fill
> in the agency slot with Jesus just like the scribes did in Mk 2:6.
>
> Anyway, this illustrates Marius Reiser's point that agentless passive
> constituents are left agentless on purpose and that attemts to fill the
> agent slot, even when it is more or less obvious who should fill it, will
> lead to exegitical results which are at cross purposes with the authors
> intent.
>
>
> --
> Clayton Stirling Bartholomew
> Three Tree Point
> P.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062
>
> *Mariuse Reiser, Jesus & Judgment, Fortress 1997, pages 266-73
>
>
> ---
> B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
> You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [speederson@erols.com]
> To unsubscribe, forward this message to
> leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
> To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu
>
>
>
---
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [jwrobie@mindspring.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:36:59 EDT