γάρ again in Mk 5:42

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.
moon jung
Posts: 71
Joined: June 7th, 2014, 12:38 am

Re: γαρ again in Mk 5:42

Post by moon jung »

Eeli Kaikkonen wrote:Giving background information only for the sake of giving background information doesn't sound very sound :)
. If it's background for something it's not logical to say it's "just for the sake of background" without any further explanation. It's like saying "she walked around, for some people had laughed at Jesus". The latter part is background just for the sake of background. But it's not logical. There must be a natural connection between the two parts. That's the idea of γαρ. If there's no logical connection the background information can be given in some other way, for example "there was a girl, twelve years old, who...".

I have another proposal for the logical connection: the girl was old enough to walk. Otherwise the reader could take her ability to walk as a miracle about which the people "were completely astonished".
Eeli and Barry, thanks for the involvement with this thread. When I said "background information for the sake of background information", the background information provided was supposed to be related to to some aspect of the event just described. But the nature of the background-foreground relatedness is inferred from the context. I guess that the usual notion of "explanation" is weaker than the notion of "reason/cause", but still too strong to cover all the usages of γαρ. Whenever I meet γαρ, I find myself trying to find some logical connection, even the one not expressed or not easily implied. Perhaps this is a wrong presupposition learned from the traditional grammar. In this particular case, the logical connection that she was old enough to walk
might have been in the mind of the author. But the author might have communicated her age simply as a further background detail about her, in order to picture the situation more concretely. Yes, there is another way to say this, for example "there was a girl, twelve years old, who...". But for Mark, who loves to use short sentences side by side, the GAR clause seems to be a good way to express an afterthought. But, surely my proposal needs a lot of testing, but I think it is interesting.

Moon Jung
Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3351
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: γαρ again in Mk 5:42

Post by Stephen Carlson »

moon wrote:Eeli and Barry, thanks for the involvement with this thread. When I said "background information for the sake of background information", the background information provided was supposed to be related to to some aspect of the event just described.
Well, that seems to be what Levinsohn is describing by "strengthening." Are you objecting to his choice of terminology or to his understanding of the function of γάρ?

There are lots of ways of providing relevant background information. Mark's choice is to use an immediately following clause signaled by γάρ. I'm not sure other authors would choose the same mechanism.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
moon jung
Posts: 71
Joined: June 7th, 2014, 12:38 am

Re: γαρ again in Mk 5:42

Post by moon jung »

Stephen Carlson wrote:
moon wrote:Eeli and Barry, thanks for the involvement with this thread. When I said "background information for the sake of background information", the background information provided was supposed to be related to to some aspect of the event just described.
Well, that seems to be what Levinsohn is describing by "strengthening." Are you objecting to his choice of terminology or to his understanding of the function of γάρ?

There are lots of ways of providing relevant background information. Mark's choice is to use an immediately following clause signaled by γάρ. I'm not sure other authors would choose the same mechanism.
Stephen,
Yes. I am objecting to the notion of "strengthening". Levinsohn said that discourse particle δε is
also used to state background information. The difference between γάρ and δε is that the background information introduced by γάρ is provided for the purpose of STRENGTHENING
some aspect of the previous statement, and the background information introduced by δε is provided for the purpose of DEVELOPING some aspect of the previous statement.

But I would like to experiment with the hypothesis that Mark uses γάρ simply to provide
relevant background information, not necessarily to "strengthen" some aspect of the prevous statement.

Moon Jung
Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3351
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: γαρ again in Mk 5:42

Post by Stephen Carlson »

moon wrote:
Stephen Carlson wrote:Well, that seems to be what Levinsohn is describing by "strengthening." Are you objecting to his choice of terminology or to his understanding of the function of γάρ?
Yes. I am objecting to the notion of "strengthening".
It is still not clear to me whether you are objecting to Levinsohn's notion or terminology of "strengthening."
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
moon jung
Posts: 71
Joined: June 7th, 2014, 12:38 am

Re: γαρ again in Mk 5:42

Post by moon jung »

Stephen Carlson wrote:
moon wrote:
Stephen Carlson wrote:Well, that seems to be what Levinsohn is describing by "strengthening." Are you objecting to his choice of terminology or to his understanding of the function of γάρ?
Yes. I am objecting to the notion of "strengthening".
It is still not clear to me whether you are objecting to Levinsohn's notion or terminology of "strengthening."
===
When Levinsohn says that γάρ clause provides background information that strengthens
some aspect of the previous statement, I think the notion and the terminology cannot be
separated. I guess he wanted to come up with a most general constraint that can cover
all usages of γάρ. That constraint is that of strengthening. But in Mk 5:42, γάρ, it seems, simply
provides a related background information, which makes the picture of the described situation more concrete, that is, not just a girl but a girl who is 12 years old. It seems I do not like this
notion and terminology because it forces me to find some strengthening connection where such
a connection is not clear.
Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3351
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: γαρ again in Mk 5:42

Post by Stephen Carlson »

Levinsohn is using strengthening as a technical term. It is a fallacy to assume that a technical term means what the non-technical meaning might suggest. One has to study his usage of the term to understand what it means. I haven't seen any disagreement yet on the actual substance, just unwarranted extrapolations from the particular name he gave to the function. Labels aren't definitions.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Post Reply

Return to “New Testament”