Mark 6:52 - επι τοις αρτοις

Forum rules
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. This is not a beginner's forum, competence in Greek is assumed.
David Lim
Posts: 901
Joined: June 6th, 2011, 6:55 am

Mark 6:52 - επι τοις αρτοις

Post by David Lim »

I just came across Mark 6:52, but could not really understand the import of the preposition "επι" there:
[Mark 6:52] ου γαρ συνηκαν επι τοις αρτοις ην γαρ αυτων η καρδια πεπωρωμενη

LSJ on Perseus has nothing on "συνιημι + επι". Thayer's lexicon says:
Thayer wrote:ἐπί τοῖς ἄρτοις, 'on the loaves' as the basis of their reasoning (see ἐπί, B. 2 a. α.)
But it does not make any sense to me.

I found four instances in the LXX, but all with the accusative rather than the dative:
[Psa 41:1] εις το τελος ψαλμος τω δαυιδ μακαριος ο συνιων επι πτωχον και πενητα εν ημερα πονηρα ρυσεται αυτον ο κυριος
[Job 31:1] διαθηκην εθεμην τοις οφθαλμοις μου και ου συνησω επι παρθενον
[Dan 11:30] και εισελευσονται εν αυτω οι εκπορευομενοι κιτιοι και ταπεινωθησεται και επιστρεψει και θυμωθησεται επι διαθηκην αγιαν και ποιησει και επιστρεψει και συνησει επι τους καταλιποντας διαθηκην αγιαν
[Dan 11:37] και επι παντας θεους των πατερων αυτου ου συνησει και επι επιθυμιαν γυναικων και επι παν θεον ου συνησει οτι επι παντας μεγαλυνθησεται
These show that "συνιεναι + επι X (acc.)" means "set one's mind on X".

At the same time, Matt 15:32 and Matt 14:14 show that there is no discernible difference between:
"επι X (acc. object of thought)" / "επι X (dat. object of thought)"

Thus I infer that Mark 6:52 means:
ου γαρ συνηκαν επι τοις αρτοις ην γαρ αυτων η καρδια πεπωρωμενη
for they did not set [their] mind on the bread [loaves], for their heart had been hardened.

Thoughts, anyone?
δαυιδ λιμ
cwconrad
Posts: 2112
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714
Contact:

Re: Mark 6:52 - επι τοις αρτοις

Post by cwconrad »

I know that David prefers the woodenly-literal version, but I think the sense here is that "they missed the point about the loaves" or "they failed to understand the particular item of the loaves." I think that ἐπὶ with a locative dative here pinpoints the specific locus of the failure to understand (ἄρτος has figured in a whole slew of episodes in the preceding sequence).

I'm going to make a suggestion here that may violate the forum rules about steering clear of hermeneutical questions, but this is not really a matter that has to do with theological assumptions so much as it has to do with literary assumptions. Yesterday I responded to a question about σινδών and νεανίσκος in the arrest scene in Mark by pointing to the empty-tomb narrative in Mark as being probably relevant to the questions raised. My hermeneutical principle is a simple one and it is one that seems obvious to me but only as a consequence of a close study of Mark's gospel: We are too often tempted to raise questions about a Biblical text with reference to what the author has not stated explicitly and we too often tend to pay no heed to items which the Biblical text has stated explicitly, presumably for some narratological reason. So in these two Marcan stories I think we need to pay close attention to items that the author explicitly mentioned -- items which he could perfectly well have omitted from his story. Thus: why describe the escape of this νεανίσκος at the arrest scene? Why is it the ἄρτοι in particular that the disciples are too thick-headed to have noticed?
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3351
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Mark 6:52 - επι τοις αρτοις

Post by Stephen Carlson »

BDAG s.v. ἐπί (6), p. 364, classes this use of ἐπί as a "marker of basis for a state of being, action, or result" and generally glosses the preposition as "on" or "on the basis of." For Mark 6:52 in particular, it suggests "they did not arrive at an understanding (of it) (by reflecting) on (the miracle of) the loaves," an interpretation which sees some metonymy between the loaves and their associated miracle.

Though Thayer's gives the same sort of understanding, it is too old and too bereft of examples to be as helpful as BDAG. Although BDAG isn't always right (errare humanum est), it is the best reference on the market and I would even recommend mortgaging one's home or selling one's own blood plasma to purchase a copy.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
David Lim
Posts: 901
Joined: June 6th, 2011, 6:55 am

Re: Mark 6:52 - επι τοις αρτοις

Post by David Lim »

cwconrad wrote:I know that David prefers the woodenly-literal version, but I think the sense here is that "they missed the point about the loaves" or "they failed to understand the particular item of the loaves." I think that ἐπὶ with a locative dative here pinpoints the specific locus of the failure to understand (ἄρτος has figured in a whole slew of episodes in the preceding sequence).
Carl, I understand what you are saying, which is (1), however I am asking if perhaps the original meaning of the text is (2):
(1) they did not understand (comprehend) what the bread loaves meant
(2) they did not set their mind on (consider) what the bread loaves meant
I note that the few modern translations I looked at all took it as (1), but the ancient KJV took it as (2), so I suppose that its translators might have thought the same as I did.
Stephen Carlson wrote:BDAG s.v. ἐπί (6), p. 364, classes this use of ἐπί as a "marker of basis for a state of being, action, or result" and generally glosses the preposition as "on" or "on the basis of." For Mark 6:52 in particular, it suggests "they did not arrive at an understanding (of it) (by reflecting) on (the miracle of) the loaves," an interpretation which sees some metonymy between the loaves and their associated miracle.
Stephen, if I interpret what you said rightly, it is either (1) or (3):
(3) They did not understand what they just saw because they did not realize what the bread loaves meant
I suppose I can't see anything wrong with taking it this way, which I did think of as a possibility, except that it seems very unusual, quite unlike the normal use of "επι" for "{ on / upon } (on the basis of / in reliance on)".

In any case, whether (1) or (2) or (3), I agree that "the bread [loaves]" represent not just the loaves but the miracle as well.
δαυιδ λιμ
Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3351
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Mark 6:52 - επι τοις αρτοις

Post by Stephen Carlson »

I can't really speak to what "seems very unusual" to you, but BDAG gives what seems to me to be what is the usual scholarly understanding of the preposition in Mark 6:52.

I have no idea what the KJV is supposed to mean with "consider"; perhaps there's some archaic usage of this verb I'm not familiar with (maybe "think highly of" = "appreciate"). This verb basically means "understand," not "set one's mind upon." Thus, I don't feel it's necessary to conflate it with an accusative usage for the preposition.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
David Lim
Posts: 901
Joined: June 6th, 2011, 6:55 am

Re: Mark 6:52 - επι τοις αρτοις

Post by David Lim »

Stephen Carlson wrote:I can't really speak to what "seems very unusual" to you, but BDAG gives what seems to me to be what is the usual scholarly understanding of the preposition in Mark 6:52.

I have no idea what the KJV is supposed to mean with "consider"; perhaps there's some archaic usage of this verb I'm not familiar with (maybe "think highly of" = "appreciate"). This verb basically means "understand," not "set one's mind upon." Thus, I don't feel it's necessary to conflate it with an accusative usage for the preposition.
Does BDAG actually give examples of the usage of "συνιημι + επι X (dat.)"?

I don't really get what you mean by conflating it, since I provided examples from the LXX where "συνιεναι + επι" means "set [one's] mind on". The case of the noun in the prepositional phrase is dependent on only the grammatical semantic domain intended with the preposition, not anything beyond. I have many more examples to prove what I claimed in my post about equivalent grammatical semantic domains of a preposition with different cases, but I thought I should post again only after completing my search of the NT. This does imply that "συνιεναι + επι X (acc.)" is equivalent to "συνιεναι + επι X (dat.)" for this particular semantic domain of "set [one's] mind on".

I also did a search in Perseus and here is what I found:
[App.Syr.2.6] ... οἱ δὲ τῆς πρεσβείας συνιέντες ἐπὶ διαπείρᾳ σφῶν ἀφιγμένης, διὰ βραχέος ἀπεκρίναντο αὐτοῖς, ἐὰν Ἀντίοχος αὐτονόμους τοὺς Ἕλληνας ἐᾷ τοὺς ἐν Ἀσίᾳ καὶ τῆς Εὐρώπης ἀπέχηται, Ῥωμαίοις αὐτὸν ἔσεσθαι φίλον, ἂν ἐθέλῃ.
(http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... :section=6)
[Luc.Prom.6] ... καί μοι δοκεῖς, ὦ βέλτιστε, μὴ συνιέναι ἐπὶ τοῖς τηλικούτοις πάνυ φιλανθρώπου τοῦ Διὸς πεπειραμένος. ...
(http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... :section=6)
[Luc.Salt.83] ... οἱ ἀστειότεροι δὲ συνιέντες μὲν καὶ αἰδούμενοι ἐπὶ τοῖς γινομένοις, οὐκ ἐλέγχοντες δὲ σιωπῇ τὸ πρᾶγμα, τοῖς δὲ ἐπαίνοις καὶ αὐτοὶ τὴν ἄνοιαν τῆς ὀρχήσεως ἐπικαλύπτοντες, καὶ ἀκριβῶς ὁρῶντες ὅτι οὐκ Αἴαντος ἀλλὰ ὀρχηστοῦ μανίας τὰ γιγνόμενα ἦν. ...
(http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... section=83)

"συνιεναι + επι X (dat.)" here definitely cannot mean "understand on the basis of", but means "set [their] mind on" implying "take notice of". Likewise Mark 6:52 also implies "they did not take notice of what the bread loaves meant".
δαυιδ λιμ
Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3351
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Mark 6:52 - επι τοις αρτοις

Post by Stephen Carlson »

David Lim wrote:Does BDAG actually give examples of the usage of "συνιημι + επι X (dat.)"?
Yes, it also cites Hermas, Sim. 2:7.
David Lim wrote:I don't really get what you mean by conflating it, since I provided examples from the LXX where "συνιεναι + επι" means "set [one's] mind on".
If you're going to propose a new sense for συνίημι that's not found in the lexica, you need to show that none of the established senses work. I haven't seen that effort. I have only seen assertion (e.g. "definitely cannot mean") without the argumentation why. For example, since you don't supply your own translation of the Appian example, there is nothing that indicates that you have considered whether ἐπὶ διαπείρᾳ construes with ἀφιγμένης instead of συνιέντες.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
David Lim
Posts: 901
Joined: June 6th, 2011, 6:55 am

Re: Mark 6:52 - επι τοις αρτοις

Post by David Lim »

Stephen Carlson wrote:
David Lim wrote:Does BDAG actually give examples of the usage of "συνιημι + επι X (dat.)"?
Yes, it also cites Hermas, Sim. 2:7.
Thanks! This example from Hermas (Similitudes) supports my claim instead! :)
[Hermas.Sim.2.7] ἀμφότεροι οὖν τὸ ἔργον τελοῦσιν· ὁ μὲν πένης ἐργάζεται τῇ ἐντεύξει, ἐν ᾗ πλουτεῖ, ἣν ἔλαβεν παρὰ τοῦ κυρίου· ταύτην ἀποδίδωσι τῷ κυρίῳ τῷ ἐπιχορηγοῦντι αὐτῷ· καὶ ὁ πλούσιος ὡσαύτως το πλοῦτος, ὃ́ͅὃ ἔλαβεν παρὰ τοῦ κυρίου, ἀδιστάκτως παρέχεται τῷ πένητι. καὶ τοῦτο ἔργον μέγα ἐστὶ καὶ δεκτὸν παρὰ τῷ θεῷ, ὅτι συνῆκεν ἐπὶ πλούτῳ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰργάσατο εἰς τὸν´πένητα ἐκ τῶν δωρημάτων τοῦ κυρίου καὶ ἐτέλεσε τὴν διακονίαν ὀρθῶς.
(http://www.ccel.org/l/lake/fathers/shepherd_d.htm)
"συνηκεν επι πλουτω αυτου" does not mean "[he] understood [by reflecting] on his riches", but "[he] set [his] mind on his riches" / "[he] took notice of his riches". It is probably based on Psa 41:1, which I quoted in my very first post. Psa 41:1 certainly does not mean "the [one] who understands [by reflecting] on [the] poor and [the] labourer", but instead "the [one] who sets [his] mind on [the] poor and [the] labourer" / "the [one] who takes notice of [the] poor and [the] labourer". This is also another evidence that the accusative and dative cases are interchangeable for this particular semantic domain.
Stephen Carlson wrote:
David Lim wrote:I don't really get what you mean by conflating it, since I provided examples from the LXX where "συνιεναι + επι" means "set [one's] mind on".
If you're going to propose a new sense for συνίημι that's not found in the lexica, you need to show that none of the established senses work. I haven't seen that effort. I have only seen assertion (e.g. "definitely cannot mean") without the argumentation why. For example, since you don't supply your own translation of the Appian example, there is nothing that indicates that you have considered whether ἐπὶ διαπείρᾳ construes with ἀφιγμένης instead of συνιέντες.
I have already shown my claim for the meaning of "συνιεναι + επι X (acc.)" in the LXX, thus it cannot be maintained that "understand" is the only meaning of "συνιεναι", even as the other common uses of the word in the other ancient Greek texts show.

Secondly, I have just shown that the example cited by BDAG does not support the "established sense found in the lexica". Certainly BDAG is not infallible! But BDAG gave a fourth example. (I could only find three in the entire Perseus database). Wonderful!

Thirdly, I have shown examples from the ancient Greek texts where "συνιεναι + επι X (dat.)" means "set [one's] mind on". Since you ask for a translation of those examples, I give them here, but I did not earlier because I am talking about the Greek text and not translations!

[App.Syr.2.6] ... οἱ δὲ τῆς πρεσβείας συνιέντες ἐπὶ διαπείρᾳ σφῶν ἀφιγμένης, διὰ βραχέος ἀπεκρίναντο αὐτοῖς, ...
(http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... :section=6)
[a direct translation] ... but the [ones] of the seniority, taking notice of [a] trial of them who have arrived, answered through [a] short [word] to them, ...
[a paraphrase] ... but the elders, being aware that they who have arrived intended to test them, answered curtly to them, ...
[Horace White's] ... The Senate, perceiving that the embassy had come to make a test of their disposition, replied curtly, ...
I see no reason to take "επι διαπειρα" as modifying "αφιγμενης", but if you insist so, let us pass by this example.

[Luc.Prom.6] ... καί μοι δοκεῖς, ὦ βέλτιστε, μὴ συνιέναι ἐπὶ τοῖς τηλικούτοις πάνυ φιλανθρώπου τοῦ Διὸς πεπειραμένος. ...
(http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... :section=6)
[a direct translation] ... and to me you seem, o excellent friend, not to set your mind on the [things] altogether so great of [the] benevolence of Zeus, from [my] experience. ...
[a paraphrase] ... and you seem to me, my dear friend, not to take notice of such great blessings of Zeus, from what I know. ...
[Fowler's] ... You seem not to realize, my friend, that, all things considered, Zeus has dealt very handsomely by you. ...

[Luc.Salt.83] ... οἱ ἀστειότεροι δὲ συνιέντες μὲν καὶ αἰδούμενοι ἐπὶ τοῖς γινομένοις, οὐκ ἐλέγχοντες δὲ σιωπῇ τὸ πρᾶγμα, ...
(http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... section=83)
[a direct translation] ... but the more intelligent [ones], indeed taking notice of and being ashamed of the [things] coming to be, but [in] silence not reproving the matter, ...
[a paraphrase] ... but the more intelligent ones, indeed noticing and being ashamed of what was happening now, but keeping silent and not reproving it, ...
[Fowler's] ... and the more intelligent part of the audience, realizing how things stood, concealed their disgust, ...

Lastly, please don't say "I haven't seen that effort", as I have spent more than 20 hours on this to search the entire Perseus database, because I don't have the tools unlike some. I reported all instances of the construction in question, omitting those which fall under a different sense of "συνιεναι + επι X" (usually "consort against X (acc.)" or "consort together on X (gen.)"; none of the instances I found meant "understand"). As the search function on Perseus did not seem to work perfectly, I could possibly have missed some instances, so please point them out if you come across any.
δαυιδ λιμ
Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3351
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Mark 6:52 - επι τοις αρτοις

Post by Stephen Carlson »

David Lim wrote:
Stephen Carlson wrote:
David Lim wrote:Does BDAG actually give examples of the usage of "συνιημι + επι X (dat.)"?
Yes, it also cites Hermas, Sim. 2:7.
Thanks! This example from Hermas (Similitudes) supports my claim instead! :)
[Hermas.Sim.2.7] ἀμφότεροι οὖν τὸ ἔργον τελοῦσιν· ὁ μὲν πένης ἐργάζεται τῇ ἐντεύξει, ἐν ᾗ πλουτεῖ, ἣν ἔλαβεν παρὰ τοῦ κυρίου· ταύτην ἀποδίδωσι τῷ κυρίῳ τῷ ἐπιχορηγοῦντι αὐτῷ· καὶ ὁ πλούσιος ὡσαύτως το πλοῦτος, ὃ́ͅὃ ἔλαβεν παρὰ τοῦ κυρίου, ἀδιστάκτως παρέχεται τῷ πένητι. καὶ τοῦτο ἔργον μέγα ἐστὶ καὶ δεκτὸν παρὰ τῷ θεῷ, ὅτι συνῆκεν ἐπὶ πλούτῳ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰργάσατο εἰς τὸν´πένητα ἐκ τῶν δωρημάτων τοῦ κυρίου καὶ ἐτέλεσε τὴν διακονίαν ὀρθῶς.
(http://www.ccel.org/l/lake/fathers/shepherd_d.htm)
"συνηκεν επι πλουτω αυτου" does not mean "[he] understood [by reflecting] on his riches", but "[he] set [his] mind on his riches" / "[he] took notice of his riches".
Your position is clear, but not your reasoning. Danker glosses it as "(the rich man) shows understanding in connection with his wealth (what the Christian's duty is)." The context indicates that what the rich man understood was work acceptable to the Lord (ἔργον ... δεκτὸν παρὰ τῷ θεῷ). The rich man in this context is not setting his mind on his wealth but, if anything, upon the great work acceptable to the Lord. Thus, there is no need here to appeal a sense for συνιήμι not documented in the lexica.
David Lim wrote:It is probably based on Psa 41:1, which I quoted in my very first post. Psa 41:1 certainly does not mean "the [one] who understands [by reflecting] on [the] poor and [the] labourer", but instead "the [one] who sets [his] mind on [the] poor and [the] labourer" / "the [one] who takes notice of [the] poor and [the] labourer".
"Probably"? I don't see it.
David Lim wrote:This is also another evidence that the accusative and dative cases are interchangeable for this particular semantic domain.
I am extremely skeptical of claims of absolute synonymy without extensive evidence.
David Lim wrote:I have already shown my claim for the meaning of "συνιεναι + επι X (acc.)" in the LXX, thus it cannot be maintained that "understand" is the only meaning of "συνιεναι", even as the other common uses of the word in the other ancient Greek texts show.
I've read your assertions above, but they were not accompanied by an argument. A proper treatment would take into account the underlying Hebrew, which I haven't had time for.
David Lim wrote:Secondly, I have just shown that the example cited by BDAG does not support the "established sense found in the lexica". Certainly BDAG is not infallible! But BDAG gave a fourth example. (I could only find three in the entire Perseus database). Wonderful!
Well, you've claimed that, but not "shown" that. See above.
David Lim wrote:Thirdly, I have shown examples from the ancient Greek texts where "συνιεναι + επι X (dat.)" means "set [one's] mind on". Since you ask for a translation of those examples, I give them here, but I did not earlier because I am talking about the Greek text and not translations!
I asked for your translations because it was not clear to me how you understood the Greek. All I got was a bunch of quotations followed by a conclusion with no argument. Your conclusion was not self-evident from the quoted examples.
David Lim wrote:[App.Syr.2.6] ... οἱ δὲ τῆς πρεσβείας συνιέντες ἐπὶ διαπείρᾳ σφῶν ἀφιγμένης, διὰ βραχέος ἀπεκρίναντο αὐτοῖς, ...
(http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... :section=6)
[a direct translation] ... but the [ones] of the seniority, taking notice of [a] trial of them who have arrived, answered through [a] short [word] to them, ...
[a paraphrase] ... but the elders, being aware that they who have arrived intended to test them, answered curtly to them, ...
[Horace White's] ... The Senate, perceiving that the embassy had come to make a test of their disposition, replied curtly, ...
I see no reason to take "επι διαπειρα" as modifying "αφιγμενης", but if you insist so, let us pass by this example.
OK, thanks for your translation. ἀφιγμένης is feminine singular, so it does not mean "of them who have arrived." Rather it construes with the noun πρεσβείας, and it is a complementary participle governed by συνιέντες, taking the genitive: "but they (οἱ δέ), understanding (συνιέντες) that the embassy (τῆς πρεσβείας) had arrived (ἀφιγμέηνς) for their trial (ἐπὶ διαπείρᾳ σφῶν), ..."

The sense of "understanding" works fine here.
David Lim wrote:[Luc.Prom.6] ... καί μοι δοκεῖς, ὦ βέλτιστε, μὴ συνιέναι ἐπὶ τοῖς τηλικούτοις πάνυ φιλανθρώπου τοῦ Διὸς πεπειραμένος. ...
(http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... :section=6)
[a direct translation] ... and to me you seem, o excellent friend, not to set your mind on the [things] altogether so great of [the] benevolence of Zeus, from [my] experience. ...
[a paraphrase] ... and you seem to me, my dear friend, not to take notice of such great blessings of Zeus, from what I know. ...
[Fowler's] ... You seem not to realize, my friend, that, all things considered, Zeus has dealt very handsomely by you. ...
Thanks again for your interpretation. Again here, there is a difficulty with the perfect participle. Your translation and paraphrase indicates that the nominative πεπεραμένος construes with the dative μοι, which lacks concord. Rather, it construes with the implicit σύ of δοκεῖς. The genitives are object and complement of πεπειραμένος.

So I would understand this as: "And you seem to me (καί μοι δοκεῖς), my dear friend (ὦ βέλτιστε), to not understand (μὴ συνιέναι) on the basis of so many things (ἐπὶ τοῖς τηλικούτοις) that you have found by experience (πεπειραμένος) that Zeus (τοῦ Διὸς) is very benevolent (πάνυ φιλανθρώπου)."

Compare this with Harmon's translation for the Loeb series: "You do not seem to realize, my excellent friend, you have found Zeus very human in view of such actions." Fowler renders συνιέναι with "realize," which I take to be in the vein of "understand."

Here again, the sense of "understanding" also works here. (For the sake of argument I've construed ἐπὶ τοῖς τηλικούτοις with συνιέναι, but I suppose it could go with πεπειραμένος as Harmon took it.)
David Lim wrote:[Luc.Salt.83] ... οἱ ἀστειότεροι δὲ συνιέντες μὲν καὶ αἰδούμενοι ἐπὶ τοῖς γινομένοις, οὐκ ἐλέγχοντες δὲ σιωπῇ τὸ πρᾶγμα, ...
(http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... section=83)
[a direct translation] ... but the more intelligent [ones], indeed taking notice of and being ashamed of the [things] coming to be, but [in] silence not reproving the matter, ...
[a paraphrase] ... but the more intelligent ones, indeed noticing and being ashamed of what was happening now, but keeping silent and not reproving it, ...
[Fowler's] ... and the more intelligent part of the audience, realizing how things stood, concealed their disgust, ...
OK, here ἐπὶ τοῖς γινομένοις construes with αἰδούμενοι: "ashamed of what was happening." συνιέντες is used absolutely, so this is not an example of the construction. Unlike the vulgar people (οἱ μὲν συρφετώδεις) ... who could not see what was the worst or best (οὐδὲ τὸ χεῖρον ἢ τὸ κρεῖττον ὁρῶντες), the more polite people (οἱ ἀστειότεροι δέ) understood (συνιέντες) this and became ashamed at what was happening (καὶ αἰδούμενοι ἐπὶ τοῖς γινομένοις).

Again, Fowler renders συνιέναι with "realize," which I take to be in the vein of "understand." And again Harmon of the Loeb uses "understood."
David Lim wrote:Lastly, please don't say "I haven't seen that effort", as I have spent more than 20 hours on this to search the entire Perseus database, because I don't have the tools unlike some. I reported all instances of the construction in question, omitting those which fall under a different sense of "συνιεναι + επι X" (usually "consort against X (acc.)" or "consort together on X (gen.)"; none of the instances I found meant "understand"). As the search function on Perseus did not seem to work perfectly, I could possibly have missed some instances, so please point them out if you come across any.
I didn't say that you didn't do the effort, so apologies if it sounded otherwise. I appreciate your posting these references, and then your interpretations of them when I asked for them. I am satisfied that all of them support the sense of "understand," but I could not understand earlier why you did not think so, so I asked for your interpretation, which you graciously supplied.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
David Lim
Posts: 901
Joined: June 6th, 2011, 6:55 am

Re: Mark 6:52 - επι τοις αρτοις

Post by David Lim »

Stephen Carlson wrote:Your position is clear, but not your reasoning. Danker glosses it as "(the rich man) shows understanding in connection with his wealth (what the Christian's duty is)." The context indicates that what the rich man understood was work acceptable to the Lord (ἔργον ... δεκτὸν παρὰ τῷ θεῷ). The rich man in this context is not setting his mind on his wealth but, if anything, upon the great work acceptable to the Lord. Thus, there is no need here to appeal a sense for συνιήμι not documented in the lexica.
David Lim wrote:It is probably based on Psa 41:1, which I quoted in my very first post. Psa 41:1 certainly does not mean "the [one] who understands [by reflecting] on [the] poor and [the] labourer", but instead "the [one] who sets [his] mind on [the] poor and [the] labourer" / "the [one] who takes notice of [the] poor and [the] labourer".
"Probably"? I don't see it.
I meant that the citation you quote means "he set his mind on what his wealth was to be for", just as Psa 41:1 says "who sets his mind on the poor". The almost identical vocabulary suggests that Psa 41:1 is a basis of the citation.
Stephen Carlson wrote:[...]

ἀφιγμένης is feminine singular, so it does not mean "of them who have arrived." Rather it construes with the noun πρεσβείας, and it is a complementary participle governed by συνιέντες, taking the genitive: "but they (οἱ δέ), understanding (συνιέντες) that the embassy (τῆς πρεσβείας) had arrived (ἀφιγμέηνς) for their trial (ἐπὶ διαπείρᾳ σφῶν), ..."

The sense of "understanding" works fine here.
Okay, my mistake. Likewise for the other "examples" I gave. Sorry. And thanks for helping clarify them!
Stephen Carlson wrote:I am satisfied that all of them support the sense of "understand," but I could not understand earlier why you did not think so, so I asked for your interpretation, which you graciously supplied.
I am satisfied with your explanations, but can you please clarify Mark 6:52 again? Am I right to say that it means:
"they did not have understanding in light of the bread loaves?"

However, do you agree that in the LXX examples (which are with the accusative) it really does mean "set [one's] mind on"?
δαυιδ λιμ
Post Reply

Return to “New Testament”