Mark 14:60 τί what or why?

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.

Re: Mark 14:60 τί what or why?

Postby Scott Lawson » October 23rd, 2012, 2:43 pm

David Lim wrote: If however "καταμαρτυρουσιν" did not have a direct object


Since καταμαρτυροῦσιν is transitive how could it not have a direct object?
Scott Lawson
Scott Lawson
 
Posts: 308
Joined: June 9th, 2011, 6:36 pm

Re: Mark 14:60 τί what or why?

Postby David Lim » October 23rd, 2012, 9:41 pm

Scott Lawson wrote:
David Lim wrote:Firstly, "μαρτυρειν" can be used transitively (see 1 John 5:10).


I presume you are pointing to μεμαρτύρηκεν which is perfect and stative and therefore unlikely to be transitive. Right?


Look carefully. There is an accusative "ην" which is its direct object. Likewise in 1 John 5:9 in the Byzantine text.

Scott Lawson wrote:
David Lim wrote:though I did notice that LSJ lists that particular instance as one where "τι" is the object of the verb "καταμαρτυρουσιν".


I'm not seeing what you evidently noticed in LSJ regarding "τι." Are you perhaps confusing the genitive τινός (of someone) with "τι?"

Here's hoping that you can clear up my confusion.

καταμαρτυ^ρέω ,
A. bear witness against, τινος Antipho 2.4.10, D.19.120, 29.9, Mitteis Chr.31v33 (ii B.C.), etc.; “κατά τινος” D.28.3, etc.: c. acc. rei, “ψευδῆ κ. τινός” Id.45.46 (Docum.), 29.2, Is.5.12, cf. Ev.Matt.26.62: abs., “αὐτὸ τὸ ψήφισμα τῆς βουλῆς—μαρτυρήσει” Lys.13.28:—Pass., have evidence given against one, “μὴ πιστῶς καταμαρτυρηθείς” Antipho2.4.7; κ. ὑπὸ τοῦ βίου τοῦ ἑαυτοῦ to be convicted, Aeschin. 1.90.
2. Pass., of evidence, to be given against one, “ἃ καταμαρτυρεῖται αὐτοῦ” Is.5.25, cf. 6.15: abs., D.29.55.
II. assert concerning, “οὐδὲν κ. τῶν οὐ παρόντων” Plot.5.5.13.
III. Astrol., exercise malign influence over, 'aspect', Vett.Val.104.2.


It says "c. acc. rei. [...] cf. Ev.Matt.26.62" which is exactly the same quotation as in Mark 14:60. However, as I said, I am very curious to know why "why" is not taken or stated as a possibility for "τι" by all the translations I looked at. Can anyone explain this?
δαυιδ λιμ
David Lim
 
Posts: 822
Joined: June 6th, 2011, 6:55 am

Re: Mark 14:60 τί what or why?

Postby MAubrey » October 23rd, 2012, 11:35 pm

David Lim wrote:It says "c. acc. rei. [...] cf. Ev.Matt.26.62" which is exactly the same quotation as in Mark 14:60. However, as I said, I am very curious to know why "why" is not taken or stated as a possibility for "τι" by all the translations I looked at. Can anyone explain this?

Because the translations the vast majority of translations are constrained by tradition. And of the translations that aren't, the vast majority of that don't translate τίς at all, but instead translate the second question as a subordinate clause to the previous question.

Translations are a useful tool for making these kinds of decisions, David, but their testimony needs to be weighed not counted.
Mike Aubrey
Canada Institute of Linguistics & Trinity Western University Graduate School
MAubrey
 
Posts: 602
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 8:52 pm
Location: British Columbia

Re: Mark 14:60 τί what or why?

Postby David Lim » October 23rd, 2012, 11:58 pm

MAubrey wrote:
David Lim wrote:It says "c. acc. rei. [...] cf. Ev.Matt.26.62" which is exactly the same quotation as in Mark 14:60. However, as I said, I am very curious to know why "why" is not taken or stated as a possibility for "τι" by all the translations I looked at. Can anyone explain this?

Because the translations the vast majority of translations are constrained by tradition. And of the translations that aren't, the vast majority of that don't translate τίς at all, but instead translate the second question as a subordinate clause to the previous question.

Translations are a useful tool for making these kinds of decisions, David, but their testimony needs to be weighed not counted.


Yes this is why I posed the question. So may I ask, which of the three possibilities do you think is the most natural way the audience would have taken it, and why? And do you have any reasons for excluding any of them? I personally find it impossible for the second clause to be subordinate to the first, because I don't see how "ουδεν τι ..." can be naturally taken that way. But I have no idea how to distinguish here between "τι" as "why" and "τι" as "what".
δαυιδ λιμ
David Lim
 
Posts: 822
Joined: June 6th, 2011, 6:55 am

Re: Mark 14:60 τί what or why?

Postby Scott Lawson » October 24th, 2012, 12:10 am

David Lim wrote: It says "c. acc. rei. [...] cf. Ev.Matt.26.62" which is exactly the same quotation as in Mark 14:60.


David,
Thanks so much for your patient fielding of my questions. Would you mind very much putting up with a little more unreasonableness on my part and help me understand how to decipher the abbreviations you point out? I wonder also if we might start a heading on understanding how to decode lexicons?
Scott Lawson
Scott Lawson
 
Posts: 308
Joined: June 9th, 2011, 6:36 pm

Re: Mark 14:60 τί what or why?

Postby David Lim » October 24th, 2012, 12:43 am

Scott Lawson wrote:
David Lim wrote: It says "c. acc. rei. [...] cf. Ev.Matt.26.62" which is exactly the same quotation as in Mark 14:60.


David,
Thanks so much for your patient fielding of my questions. Would you mind very much putting up with a little more unreasonableness on my part and help me understand how to decipher the abbreviations you point out? I wonder also if we might start a heading on understanding how to decode lexicons?


Well I found the following:
http://teaching.shc.ed.ac.uk/classics/g ... naries.pdf
http://www.stoa.org/abbreviations.html
Hope they help, since I can't; I don't know Latin. And I don't know why LSJ couldn't use English abbreviations...

Based on that "c. acc. rei." should mean "with the accusative of a thing".
δαυιδ λιμ
David Lim
 
Posts: 822
Joined: June 6th, 2011, 6:55 am

Re: Mark 14:60 τί what or why?

Postby MAubrey » October 24th, 2012, 1:01 am

David Lim wrote:Yes this is why I posed the question. So may I ask, which of the three possibilities do you think is the most natural way the audience would have taken it, and why? And do you have any reasons for excluding any of them?

Well, first let's distinguish the question of how I would translate it from what I think it means. Those two are different and shouldn't be confused...
David Lim wrote:I personally find it impossible for the second clause to be subordinate to the first, because I don't see how "ουδεν τι ..." can be naturally taken that way.

It can't be taken as subordinate. But that has nothing to do with how its translated. Translators don't just copy grammatical structure from one language to another. They translate meaning.
David Lim wrote:But I have no idea how to distinguish here between "τι" as "why" and "τι" as "what".

In this case, you mean between "why" and "what is it that" (or some variation on that theme). Technically neither of those are in the Greek text. Of the 42 translations that I've checked, the only credible translation that goes with a simple "what" is the New American Bible and I would say that was an incredibly poor choice on their part. It's incoherent English. I feel bad for those who participate in Mass with this text...

As for the meaning, it is simply a question of asking what is being questioned. In this case, I would say that it makes very, very little sense to think that the High Priest is asking what the accusations are when everyone has just heard what the accusations are. At the same time, it makes perfect sense for the High Priest to ask whether there's any basis for the accusations everyone has heard. And that would suggestion that "why" is a reasonably accurate gloss for this individual word. The situation is complicated that Greek regularly drops objects if they are recently mentioned in the text, so the fact that a given verb takes an object but one doesn't explicitly appear doesn't definitively decide the issue.

And that's precisely what all the translations that provide some variation of "what is it that" are attempting to do, though I think they do it poorly, since they do not sufficiently convey that the "it" in "what is it" should be interpreted as "the reason for the accusations." The NET get a little closer to it with their "What is this that..." But it's still not a particularly useful translation. The fact of the matter is that when you see these kinds of translations that add copulas and 3rd person pronouns like this as a translation of τίς, then you would if it's something more than a simple direct objects. In traditional translations that kind of English structure suggests that the translators were trying to be faithful to the Greek structure, but were struggling to also express the meaning at the same time.

It's important to remember that accusatives can function not only as objects, but also as adjuncts--even without prepositions. And BDAG lists two senses for adverbial τί (specifically that form) in its entry for τίς.

As for the last question of distinguishing between τί, "why," and τί, "what,"I don't really have an easy answer beyond read a lot of Greek and keep an eye on the context.
Mike Aubrey
Canada Institute of Linguistics & Trinity Western University Graduate School
MAubrey
 
Posts: 602
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 8:52 pm
Location: British Columbia

Re: Mark 14:60 τί what or why?

Postby Stephen Carlson » October 24th, 2012, 5:31 am

BDF § 298(4) has a fairly extensive discussion of the syntax of τί. Basically, it cites those who think it is one question and those who think it has two questions. Those who construe it as one question are Buttmann, Lohmeyer, and Katz, while those who favor two questions are Blass and Taylor. (The punctuation of the NA27 follows the one question interpretation, while most translations go for the two question view.) Unfortunately, the explanations are extremely abbreviated so one needs to follow up the proponents for more detail.

There is nothing in BDF I can find about why vs. what for Mark 14:60.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D. (Duke)
Post-Doctoral Fellow, Faculty of Theology, Uppsala
Stephen Carlson
 
Posts: 1681
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Uppsala University

Re: Mark 14:60 τί what or why?

Postby Scott Lawson » October 24th, 2012, 1:34 pm

David Lim wrote:Look carefully. There is an accusative "ην" which is its direct object. Likewise in 1 John 5:9 in the Byzantine text.


Ur mur Gurd! Lights are coming on for me! Thanks David!
Scott Lawson
Scott Lawson
 
Posts: 308
Joined: June 9th, 2011, 6:36 pm

Previous

Return to New Testament

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron