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

Re: Mark 1:27

Post by David Lim » July 11th, 2011, 11:38 am

Barry Hofstetter wrote:
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?
I called them "indirect statements" because I cannot see any difference between their structure and that of indirect discourse. Is there any?

In Matt 8:24, I would find it odd if the author meant to convey an imperfective sense of "the waves were covering the boat". Mark 4:37 has a parallel passage in which "ηδη" implies the covering/filling was completed, at least to the point where the boat was sinking.

In Matt 13:54, I would likewise be surprised if the author did not simply mean that those whom Jesus taught in the synagogue were astonished and literally said the things in verses 54-56. It seems that this being astonished and saying was at that point of time after having heard Jesus.

In Mark 9:26, I read it to mean that they said "that he died" on seeing that "he became as if he were dead", this being a natural response.

In 1 Cor 5:1, the incident that gave rise to the whole issue was that "someone had the father's wife", a completed action that was heard of.

But well it could be my assumptions...
0 x


δαυιδ λιμ

Barry Hofstetter
Posts: 1628
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 1:48 pm

Re: Mark 1:27

Post by Barry Hofstetter » July 11th, 2011, 2:13 pm

David Lim wrote:
I called them "indirect statements" because I cannot see any difference between their structure and that of indirect discourse. Is there any?

In Matt 8:24, I would find it odd if the author meant to convey an imperfective sense of "the waves were covering the boat". Mark 4:37 has a parallel passage in which "ηδη" implies the covering/filling was completed, at least to the point where the boat was sinking.

In Matt 13:54, I would likewise be surprised if the author did not simply mean that those whom Jesus taught in the synagogue were astonished and literally said the things in verses 54-56. It seems that this being astonished and saying was at that point of time after having heard Jesus.

In Mark 9:26, I read it to mean that they said "that he died" on seeing that "he became as if he were dead", this being a natural response.

In 1 Cor 5:1, the incident that gave rise to the whole issue was that "someone had the father's wife", a completed action that was heard of.

But well it could be my assumptions...
Well, yes, there's a huge difference. Indirect statement/discourse is reported speech, and follows verbs of saying, thinking, perceiving, and the like. Result clauses are used to show the intended or actual result of the action of the main clause. That's why sequence of tenses is important in indirect statement, but aspect important in result clauses.

With your examples here, I think you are confusing how they are best rendered into English with how properly to understand the Greek. Perhaps it would be better to say that the present infinitives are viewing the action as a process, rather than saying it is "indefinite" (which you are right sounds like some sort of imperfect). The distinction is subtle and sometimes impossible to render into English. The emphasis is really on the verbal idea of the action more than anything else. Even with your examples here, I think you could justify rendering καλύπτεσθαι as "was being covered," and 1 Cor 5:1 ὤστε γυναῖκά τινα τοῦ πατρὸς ἔχειν, "that someone has his father's wife..."
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 11th, 2011, 8:38 pm

Barry Hofstetter wrote:That's why sequence of tenses is important in indirect statement, but aspect important in result clauses.
Hmm.. Do you have examples of sequences of tense in an indirect statement where the distinction in tense is important?
Barry Hofstetter wrote:Perhaps it would be better to say that the present infinitives are viewing the action as a process, rather than saying it is "indefinite" (which you are right sounds like some sort of imperfect). The distinction is subtle and sometimes impossible to render into English. The emphasis is really on the verbal idea of the action more than anything else. Even with your examples here, I think you could justify rendering καλύπτεσθαι as "was being covered," and 1 Cor 5:1 ὤστε γυναῖκά τινα τοῦ πατρὸς ἔχειν, "that someone has his father's wife..."
I see, thanks!
0 x
δαυιδ λιμ

Barry Hofstetter
Posts: 1628
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 1:48 pm

Re: Mark 1:27

Post by Barry Hofstetter » July 12th, 2011, 7:57 am

David Lim wrote:
Barry Hofstetter wrote:That's why sequence of tenses is important in indirect statement, but aspect important in result clauses.
Hmm.. Do you have examples of sequences of tense in an indirect statement where the distinction in tense is important?[
Simply do a concordance search on ὄτι and look for examples of indirect statement. A good example would be Matt 2:23, where English sequence of tenses demands that we render κληθήσεται as "would be called" since it shows action future to an action which is past to us.

As I said earlier, the accusative infinitive construction in indirect statement in the NT is relatively rare. According to Wallace and Burton, the majority of usages with the aorist infinitive represent not the indicative in the direct speech, but the imperative, and so would be aspectual rather than temporal. Wallace finds one possible exception in Eph 4:21-22, s.v. I'm not going to take the time to verify these claims... :roll:
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 12th, 2011, 11:37 am

Barry Hofstetter wrote:
David Lim wrote:
Barry Hofstetter wrote:That's why sequence of tenses is important in indirect statement, but aspect important in result clauses.
Hmm.. Do you have examples of sequences of tense in an indirect statement where the distinction in tense is important?[
Simply do a concordance search on ὄτι and look for examples of indirect statement. A good example would be Matt 2:23, where English sequence of tenses demands that we render κληθήσεται as "would be called" since it shows action future to an action which is past to us.
No, I meant a sequence of different Greek "tenses" in an indirect statement with the accusative and the infinitive, for example a "present" infinitive and an "aorist" infinitive, where the difference in grammatical "tense" is really intended to show a difference in actual tense. And I am not looking for places where English grammar requires an "atypical" rendering of tense, but I want to see evidence for whether the Greek infinitive in indirect discourse really has tense just as the corresponding finite verb would have in directly reported speech. Maybe Jonathan can help us to generate a list of verses with one accusative and two infinitives having different grammatical tense? ;)
0 x
δαυιδ λιμ

Post Reply

Return to “What does this text mean?”