Re: Mark 14:60 τί what or why?
Posted: October 23rd, 2012, 2:43 pm
Since καταμαρτυροῦσιν is transitive how could it not have a direct object?David Lim wrote: If however "καταμαρτυρουσιν" did not have a direct object
ibiblio.org/bgreek/forum/
https://www.ibiblio.org:443/bgreek/forum/
https://www.ibiblio.org:443/bgreek/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1525
Since καταμαρτυροῦσιν is transitive how could it not have a direct object?David Lim wrote: If however "καταμαρτυρουσιν" did not have a direct object
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:I presume you are pointing to μεμαρτύρηκεν which is perfect and stative and therefore unlikely to be transitive. Right?David Lim wrote:Firstly, "μαρτυρειν" can be used transitively (see 1 John 5:10).
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?Scott Lawson wrote:I'm not seeing what you evidently noticed in LSJ regarding "τι." Are you perhaps confusing the genitive τινός (of someone) with "τι?"David Lim wrote:though I did notice that LSJ lists that particular instance as one where "τι" is the object of the verb "καταμαρτυρουσιν".
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.
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.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?
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".MAubrey wrote: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.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?
Translations are a useful tool for making these kinds of decisions, David, but their testimony needs to be weighed not counted.
David,David Lim wrote: It says "c. acc. rei. [...] cf. Ev.Matt.26.62" which is exactly the same quotation as in Mark 14:60.
Well I found the following:Scott Lawson wrote:David,David Lim wrote: It says "c. acc. rei. [...] cf. Ev.Matt.26.62" which is exactly the same quotation as in Mark 14:60.
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?
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?
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: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.
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...David Lim wrote:But I have no idea how to distinguish here between "τι" as "why" and "τι" as "what".
Ur mur Gurd! Lights are coming on for me! Thanks David!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.