Mark 1:27

How do I work out the meaning of a Greek text? How can I best understand the forms and vocabulary in this particular text?
Forum rules
This is a beginner's forum - see the Koine Greek forum for more advanced discussion of Greek texts. Please quote the Greek text you are discussing directly in your post if it is reasonably short - do not ask people to look it up.

When answering questions in this forum, keep it simple, and aim your responses to the level of the person asking the question.
Chris Engelsma
Posts: 18
Joined: July 7th, 2011, 12:23 pm
Location: Michigan
Contact:

Mark 1:27

Post by Chris Engelsma » July 8th, 2011, 2:52 pm

Mark 1:27 καὶ ἐθαμβήθησαν ἅπαντες ὥστε συζητεῖν πρὸς ἑαυτοὺς λέγοντας· τί ἐστιν τοῦτο; διδαχὴ καινὴ κατ᾽ ἐξουσίαν· καὶ τοῖς πνεύμασι τοῖς ἀκαθάρτοις ἐπιτάσσει, καὶ ὑπακούουσιν αὐτῷ.

My question is about συζητεῖν. Is it permitted to label this an ingressive present? Wallace doesn't have this category, but it seems such a natural fit here. :?:
  • and all were amazed and began to argue...
0 x



cwconrad
Posts: 2110
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714
Contact:

Re: Mark 1:27

Post by cwconrad » July 8th, 2011, 5:29 pm

cornopean wrote:Mark 1:27 καὶ ἐθαμβήθησαν ἅπαντες ὥστε συζητεῖν πρὸς ἑαυτοὺς λέγοντας· τί ἐστιν τοῦτο; διδαχὴ καινὴ κατ᾽ ἐξουσίαν· καὶ τοῖς πνεύμασι τοῖς ἀκαθάρτοις ἐπιτάσσει, καὶ ὑπακούουσιν αὐτῷ.

My question is about συζητεῖν. Is it permitted to label this an ingressive present? Wallace doesn't have this category, but it seems such a natural fit here. :?:
  • and all were amazed and began to argue...
I might be willing to respond to this question if it came from an identifiable source, i.e., someone who complies with the Forum rule that does not allow pseudonyms.
0 x
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)

Chris Engelsma
Posts: 18
Joined: July 7th, 2011, 12:23 pm
Location: Michigan
Contact:

Re: Mark 1:27

Post by Chris Engelsma » July 8th, 2011, 7:49 pm

ok call me crazy but I got to change my name and I can't find where to do it. can someone either delete my profile or tell me how to change it? sorry for the trouble
0 x

Barry Hofstetter
Posts: 1621
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 1:48 pm

Re: Mark 1:27

Post by Barry Hofstetter » July 9th, 2011, 8:20 am

cornopean wrote:ok call me crazy but I got to change my name and I can't find where to do it. can someone either delete my profile or tell me how to change it? sorry for the trouble
It has to be done by an administrator. If you send me the info, either email or private message through the forum, I can do it. It will change how your screen name appears, but not your password. Your log in will use the new screen name.
0 x
N.E. Barry Hofstetter
Instructor of Latin
Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
Χαίρετε ἐν κυρίῳ πάντοτε· πάλιν ἐρῶ, χαίρετε

Barry Hofstetter
Posts: 1621
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 1:48 pm

Re: Mark 1:27

Post by Barry Hofstetter » July 10th, 2011, 12:28 am

Chris Engelsma wrote:Mark 1:27 καὶ ἐθαμβήθησαν ἅπαντες ὥστε συζητεῖν πρὸς ἑαυτοὺς λέγοντας· τί ἐστιν τοῦτο; διδαχὴ καινὴ κατ᾽ ἐξουσίαν· καὶ τοῖς πνεύμασι τοῖς ἀκαθάρτοις ἐπιτάσσει, καὶ ὑπακούουσιν αὐτῷ.

My question is about συζητεῖν. Is it permitted to label this an ingressive present? Wallace doesn't have this category, but it seems such a natural fit here. :?:
  • and all were amazed and began to argue...
Ok, I would not use such a category here. Notice that συζητεῖν is part of a result clause with ὥστε, which often takes the infinitive. Here, the present infinitive is relative to the main verb, the present tense showing that the action is contemporaneous with that of the main verb. Now, the way you've expressed it above might be an idiomatic and natural way to express it in English, but that doesn't mean the category is fairly applied to the Greek.
0 x
N.E. Barry Hofstetter
Instructor of Latin
Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
Χαίρετε ἐν κυρίῳ πάντοτε· πάλιν ἐρῶ, χαίρετε

timothy_p_mcmahon
Posts: 251
Joined: June 3rd, 2011, 10:47 pm

Re: Mark 1:27

Post by timothy_p_mcmahon » July 10th, 2011, 1:55 am

Barry Hofstetter wrote: Here, the present infinitive is relative to the main verb, the present tense showing that the action is contemporaneous with that of the main verb.
Tense in the infinitive is relative to the main verb? I know that's true of participles, but infinitives? I've always been led to believe that 'tense' in the infinitive expresses aspect rather than relative time.
0 x

cwconrad
Posts: 2110
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714
Contact:

Re: Mark 1:27

Post by cwconrad » July 10th, 2011, 7:48 am

Barry Hofstetter wrote:
Chris Engelsma wrote:Mark 1:27 καὶ ἐθαμβήθησαν ἅπαντες ὥστε συζητεῖν πρὸς ἑαυτοὺς λέγοντας· τί ἐστιν τοῦτο; διδαχὴ καινὴ κατ᾽ ἐξουσίαν· καὶ τοῖς πνεύμασι τοῖς ἀκαθάρτοις ἐπιτάσσει, καὶ ὑπακούουσιν αὐτῷ.

My question is about συζητεῖν. Is it permitted to label this an ingressive present? Wallace doesn't have this category, but it seems such a natural fit here. :?:
  • and all were amazed and began to argue...
Ok, I would not use such a category here. Notice that συζητεῖν is part of a result clause with ὥστε, which often takes the infinitive. Here, the present infinitive is relative to the main verb, the present tense showing that the action is contemporaneous with that of the main verb. Now, the way you've expressed it above might be an idiomatic and natural way to express it in English, but that doesn't mean the category is fairly applied to the Greek.
timothy_p_mcmahon wrote:
Barry Hofstetter wrote: Here, the present infinitive is relative to the main verb, the present tense showing that the action is contemporaneous with that of the main verb.
Tense in the infinitive is relative to the main verb? I know that's true of participles, but infinitives? I've always been led to believe that 'tense' in the infinitive expresses aspect rather than relative time.
I would take a slightly different approach to the question.

First of all, I agree with Barry that the term "ingressive present" is not very useful here: like most of Wallace's categories and subcategories, this seems to designate a "translation strategy" rather than a distinct infinitive usage or a distinct usage of the imperfective aspect here (and I would speak of aspect rather than tense here with regard to the infinitive). What the imperfective aspect indicates is that the dispute designated by συζητεῖν isn't envisioned as an event recorded but rather as an ongoing process of indefinite length. How to translate it? Choose your option: "they started questioning ... " or "they went on wrangling about ... "

Secondly, with regard to the temporal relationship of the present infinitive συζητεῖν to the aorist indicative ἐθαμβήθησαν, it seems to me that this is indicated by the fact that συζητεῖν is in the ὥστε construction and for that reason is a consequence of the astonishment indicated by ἑθαμβήθησαν: the quest for an explanation begins when the observers discern the unusual/unnatural character of what has just occurred. As Aristotle puts it, philosophy arises from the experience of wonderment: ἀπορία triggers the endeavor to explain what is not understood.
0 x
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)

Barry Hofstetter
Posts: 1621
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 1:48 pm

Re: Mark 1:27

Post by Barry Hofstetter » July 10th, 2011, 8:59 am

cwconrad wrote:
Barry Hofstetter wrote:
Chris Engelsma wrote:Mark 1:27 καὶ ἐθαμβήθησαν ἅπαντες ὥστε συζητεῖν πρὸς ἑαυτοὺς λέγοντας· τί ἐστιν τοῦτο; διδαχὴ καινὴ κατ᾽ ἐξουσίαν· καὶ τοῖς πνεύμασι τοῖς ἀκαθάρτοις ἐπιτάσσει, καὶ ὑπακούουσιν αὐτῷ.

My question is about συζητεῖν. Is it permitted to label this an ingressive present? Wallace doesn't have this category, but it seems such a natural fit here. :?:
  • and all were amazed and began to argue...
Ok, I would not use such a category here. Notice that συζητεῖν is part of a result clause with ὥστε, which often takes the infinitive. Here, the present infinitive is relative to the main verb, the present tense showing that the action is contemporaneous with that of the main verb. Now, the way you've expressed it above might be an idiomatic and natural way to express it in English, but that doesn't mean the category is fairly applied to the Greek.
timothy_p_mcmahon wrote:
Barry Hofstetter wrote: Here, the present infinitive is relative to the main verb, the present tense showing that the action is contemporaneous with that of the main verb.
Tense in the infinitive is relative to the main verb? I know that's true of participles, but infinitives? I've always been led to believe that 'tense' in the infinitive expresses aspect rather than relative time.
Secondly, with regard to the temporal relationship of the present infinitive συζητεῖν to the aorist indicative ἐθαμβήθησαν, it seems to me that this is indicated by the fact that συζητεῖν is in the ὥστε construction and for that reason is a consequence of the astonishment indicated by ἑθαμβήθησαν: the quest for an explanation begins when the observers discern the unusual/unnatural character of what has just occurred. As Aristotle puts it, philosophy arises from the experience of wonderment: ἀπορία triggers the endeavor to explain what is not understood.
Absolutely correct, of course, on both counts, gentlemen. I wrote my response late at night, and must have been thinking either about the participle or the infinitive in indirect statement, not as part of a result clause. If you examine the usages of ὥστε + inf it is used in the NT either with present or aorist infinitives, regardless of the tense of the main verb, so that :lol: it is the type of action in view, not relative to the main verb. A good example is Matt 13:32:
ὃ μικρότερον μέν ἐστιν πάντων τῶν σπερμάτων, ὅταν δὲ αὐξηθῇ μεῖζον τῶν λαχάνων ἐστὶν καὶ γίνεται δένδρον, ὥστε ἐλθεῖν τὰ πετεινὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ κατασκηνοῦν ἐν τοῖς κλάδοις αὐτοῦ.
Here we have both an aorist and a present infinitive used in the result clause. To me, the aorist ἐλθεῖν describes an action which has a terminus point, and the present κατασκηνοῦν indicates an action that could continue for an indefinite period of time, which I think is parallel to to Mk 1:27.
0 x
N.E. Barry Hofstetter
Instructor of Latin
Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
Χαίρετε ἐν κυρίῳ πάντοτε· πάλιν ἐρῶ, χαίρετε

David Lim
Posts: 901
Joined: June 6th, 2011, 6:55 am

Re: Mark 1:27

Post by David Lim » July 10th, 2011, 9:02 pm

Chris Engelsma wrote:Mark 1:27 καὶ ἐθαμβήθησαν ἅπαντες ὥστε συζητεῖν πρὸς ἑαυτοὺς λέγοντας· τί ἐστιν τοῦτο; διδαχὴ καινὴ κατ᾽ ἐξουσίαν· καὶ τοῖς πνεύμασι τοῖς ἀκαθάρτοις ἐπιτάσσει, καὶ ὑπακούουσιν αὐτῷ.

My question is about συζητεῖν. Is it permitted to label this an ingressive present? Wallace doesn't have this category, but it seems such a natural fit here. :?:
  • and all were amazed and began to argue...
Barry Hofstetter wrote:
cwconrad wrote:Secondly, with regard to the temporal relationship of the present infinitive συζητεῖν to the aorist indicative ἐθαμβήθησαν, it seems to me that this is indicated by the fact that συζητεῖν is in the ὥστε construction and for that reason is a consequence of the astonishment indicated by ἑθαμβήθησαν: the quest for an explanation begins when the observers discern the unusual/unnatural character of what has just occurred. As Aristotle puts it, philosophy arises from the experience of wonderment: ἀπορία triggers the endeavor to explain what is not understood.
Absolutely correct, of course, on both counts, gentlemen. I wrote my response late at night, and must have been thinking either about the participle or the infinitive in indirect statement, not as part of a result clause. If you examine the usages of ὥστε + inf it is used in the NT either with present or aorist infinitives, regardless of the tense of the main verb, so that :lol: it is the type of action in view, not relative to the main verb. A good example is Matt 13:32:
ὃ μικρότερον μέν ἐστιν πάντων τῶν σπερμάτων, ὅταν δὲ αὐξηθῇ μεῖζον τῶν λαχάνων ἐστὶν καὶ γίνεται δένδρον, ὥστε ἐλθεῖν τὰ πετεινὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ κατασκηνοῦν ἐν τοῖς κλάδοις αὐτοῦ.
Here we have both an aorist and a present infinitive used in the result clause. To me, the aorist ἐλθεῖν describes an action which has a terminus point, and the present κατασκηνοῦν indicates an action that could continue for an indefinite period of time, which I think is parallel to to Mk 1:27.
Aren't "συζητειν προς εαυτους λεγοντας ..." and "ελθειν τα πετεινα του ουρανου ..." indirect statements, not only consequent to that which is before "ωστε"? I have always considered infinitives in indirect statements to be like aorists, thus I did not see any difference in aspect. For example, Matt 8:24, 13:54, Mark 9:26 and 1 Cor 5:1, have the "present" infinitive but it seems to have a clearly perfective aspect. Therefore I thought temporal relationships were dependent only on the context rather than the "tense" of the infinitive. Is it wrong?
0 x
δαυιδ λιμ

Barry Hofstetter
Posts: 1621
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 1:48 pm

Re: Mark 1:27

Post by Barry Hofstetter » July 11th, 2011, 12:28 am

David Lim wrote:
Aren't "συζητειν προς εαυτους λεγοντας ..." and "ελθειν τα πετεινα του ουρανου ..." indirect statements, not only consequent to that which is before "ωστε"? I have always considered infinitives in indirect statements to be like aorists, thus I did not see any difference in aspect. For example, Matt 8:24, 13:54, Mark 9:26 and 1 Cor 5:1, have the "present" infinitive but it seems to have a clearly perfective aspect. Therefore I thought temporal relationships were dependent only on the context rather than the "tense" of the infinitive. Is it wrong?
Not sure precisely what you are getting at, David. ὥστε + the infinitive is a standard way of showing result. It is not indirect statement. Indirect statement using the accusative and infinitive is rare in biblical Greek, which mostly uses ὅτι, but should the construction be used, then the "tense" of the infinitive becomes important.

Having had a quick look at your verses, I don't necessarily see a perfective aspect in any of them. Perhaps you could expand on why you think they do?
0 x
N.E. Barry Hofstetter
Instructor of Latin
Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
Χαίρετε ἐν κυρίῳ πάντοτε· πάλιν ἐρῶ, χαίρετε

Post Reply

Return to “What does this text mean?”